IN THE BUNKER
Edited by Ben Staley, 22 October 2008 - 01:59 PM.
Jump to content
"In The Bunker"
9 replies to this topic
Posted 22 October 2008 - 05:22 PM
I own that camera. I hate the rolling shutter effect it shows on the footage. The wobbling. Really, I can't endorse the camera or the video images it produces. Sorry.
I already found someone who wants it for still image capture only. But boy, does it suck for motion picture!
Posted 22 October 2008 - 05:32 PM
Eh, the camera has its place in the food chain. But then again, I'm the kid who loves to shoot with toy cameras for the style they provide...
Posted 22 October 2008 - 06:08 PM
I'm with you Jim. It's a great SLR and as a video camera, it's a toy. And a damn fun toy. It's exciting to see where the technology is going....
Posted 22 October 2008 - 06:20 PM
Yeah, but it could have been a toy that produced images that didn't wobble. The low video resolution is unacceptable as well, at least for me.
I too like toys, but the kind that actually work properly.
I thought this was a professional forum, not a toy forum.
Edited by Saul Rodgar, 22 October 2008 - 06:21 PM.
Posted 23 October 2008 - 05:21 PM
Oh, it is, but the pros also know when a toy is the right tool.
I used to work with the wife of one of the top music producers in L.A., and at the time he was producing an entire project using toy musical instruments. Not because the sound they gave was good, but rather because it was right for what he was trying to do. In the hands of a lesser musician, this would be a horrible idea, but he was able to pull it off because he really, truly knew his stuff, as a professional should.
By knowing what effect the camera gives you, when you've got a situation that calls for it, it's one more weapon in your arsenal. Not one you're likely to use often, mind you, but one that's good to have filed away in your mind, just in case.
Posted 27 October 2008 - 02:24 PM
Hey Ben, thanks for posting. I liked your video. You have great intuition in your camera movements, and I loved how you made the audience follow your focus pulls. Personally, I liked the "hand-cranked" type of feel that the D90 pulled off. It definitely has it's place, and I think you made good use of it in this video. Very fun to see what the D90 can do in a real world situation.
Posted 28 October 2008 - 01:28 PM
Thanks for the lecture. Sure you can make toys produce interesting results. But the true professional knows that a toy is a toy and a professional tool is just that. One cannot show up for a feature film with a toy camera when the exec producer expected a professional camera.
I have used INEXPENSIVE pixel vision and Tyco cameras and plenty of toy musical instruments to create worthwhile work.
Yet a $1000 camera is not really a toy, except if referred to as one, like people refer to Porsche 911's as "toys" somewhat euphemistically.
The camera sucks in its video mode, because of its design flaws. One can fight it and live with its shortcomings to create something worthwhile IN SPITE of the camera itself.
To the people who wouldn't mind shelling out $1000 for a camera that under performs at one of the things it was prominently advertised for, I would say go ahead. Anyone else, who would like to get their money's worth, better look elsewhere.
Edited by Saul Rodgar, 28 October 2008 - 01:29 PM.
Posted 28 October 2008 - 04:55 PM
I think it boils down to semantics... I don't consider price in the definition of "toy" vs. "professional" because I've seen some very expensive gear that doesn't produce quality that I would find acceptable in a professional setting, and would therefore consider the gear useful only as a "toy"; and I've seen some inexpensive "consumer" gear that, when used correctly, gives results that clients and audiences find perfectly acceptable. Granted, a cheap toy is likely to sell better than an expensive one, and is therefore more likely to be used, but what I get out of the gear is how I decide which semantics are best applied.
The D90 is a unique situation simply because it's actually not a video camera. I consider it to be a worthwhile still camera (though I'd be more inclined to use a D300 myself, as I need the more rugged construction and bigger buffer), priced comparably to its competitors, that has a neat "bonus feature" that some may find useful in certain circumstances. Would I advise someone to buy it as their primary video camera? Absolutely not. That bonus feature is a "toy," as it's not up to professional standards. Would I tell someone looking for a still camera that they should consider the D90? Certainly. And if I need that hand-cranked look for a 720/24p video project, I may very well look around and see if anyone I know has a D90, because the effect it creates naturally due to its design flaws gives a very unique feel that would be difficult to produce any other way. Even though I wouldn't run out and buy the camera for its video capabilities, I'm happy to know what it can/can't do.
I'm certainly not saying Nikon couldn't/shouldn't do better, but I don't fault them for hyping its video function any more than I fault other companies for attempting to sell their less-than-stellar products. That's why, ultimately, I don't like to invest in a camera (or any other gear) until I've assessed how it performs for myself, or at least seen credible results from impartial tests. The sales pitches will always be hype, and I really appreciate the people who share their real-world experiences with products here.
Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:01 PM
I usually don't either. On this one I did because I needed a new DSLR and I went for the proverbial "I can kill two birds with one stone." No dice.
The stills acquired with the D90 are way better than the video images. Certainly worth the money for someone who primarily shoots stills and needs video now and again and is not too fussy about it. (Not ME).
Edited by Saul Rodgar, 28 October 2008 - 11:04 PM.