What is up with no HD video on those? When I was in the market I was attracted to the G10, but no HD, no dice. I don't know if there is technical reason that Canon doesn't include HD or it's just their marketing/product segmentation.

Cool.

I really like the flip out screen. Allows you to turn the LCD in so it's protected- I broke the LCD on one camera when it was in my pocket and I pressed up against the rock at a belay.

It allows you to hold the camera out over an edge to take pictures of the climber below (for those of us who aren't professionals and haven't anchored ourselves in the ideal shooting position) and not guess about the frame. Also good for taking pictures when you're in a crowd and have to hold the camera up above you.

Convenient when you're taking a timer photo and have the camera near a wall or on a shelf where you can't easily get behind it to frame the shot.

I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason

Check out the Olympus E-P1 too. It's a sweet little camera with HD video.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/...uct.asp?product=1461

d.

I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason

I'm personally just not a fan of video. I think of it as someones home movies that you'll look at once and then it just stays stored someplace never to be seen again. I get bored watching a movie of a bunch of my friends or something. Photographs are a little more traditional to me and meant to be displayed and looked at. Besides I have completely different interests when it comes to what I use a camera for. I shoot mainly landscape and scenic stuff so no one wants to watch a video of that, but I also shoot things like weddings and events and stuff occasionally and would never even consider using my DSLR to shoot video of the wedding in addition to the still photographs I was taking. I would get a dedicated video camera for that if I needed video.

I've got nothing against a camera having video on it, it's not a selling point or even consideration for me one way or another when buying a camera. I honestly think its more of a gimmick kinda thing to help manufacturers sell more cameras and appeal more to those people who would otherwise by a video camera for home movies instead of a still camera.

When it comes to my little point and shoot camera that I carry around at parties and fun things, sure it's nice to have little features like video for those moments when I want to capture my friend dancing naked around a campfire so I can embarrass them later with it but when it comes to like my work horse camera, I don't need or really even want things like video. I just want it to take a damn good photograph, period.

Jason

I'm personally just not a fan of video. I think of it as someones home movies that you'll look at once and then it just stays stored someplace never to be seen again. I get bored watching a movie of a bunch of my friends or something. Photographs are a little more traditional to me and meant to be displayed and looked at. Besides I have completely different interests when it comes to what I use a camera for. I shoot mainly landscape and scenic stuff so no one wants to watch a video of that, but I also shoot things like weddings and events and stuff occasionally and would never even consider using my DSLR to shoot video of the wedding in addition to the still photographs I was taking. I would get a dedicated video camera for that if I needed video.

I've got nothing against a camera having video on it, it's not a selling point or even consideration for me one way or another when buying a camera. I honestly think its more of a gimmick kinda thing to help manufacturers sell more cameras and appeal more to those people who would otherwise by a video camera for home movies instead of a still camera.

When it comes to my little point and shoot camera that I carry around at parties and fun things, sure it's nice to have little features like video for those moments when I want to capture my friend dancing naked around a campfire so I can embarrass them later with it but when it comes to like my work horse camera, I don't need or really even want things like video. I just want it to take a damn good photograph, period.

Jason

Video can tell a story in a way still can never do. And I will give you the differnt part, except that they are two tools that do the same thing - tell a story. I posted some links in another thread on the 5d - check some of the landscape work. And weddings? A great place for story telling. Yes, not the same as stills, but being able to use the high end glass and high ISO that go along with a dslr is something that prosumer camcorders can't touch. I shoot a little bit of dancing the other day at 1/30, 2.8, ISO 6400 with a 15mm fisheye. No way for most video cams to touch that, untill you get into the big bucks. New stuff = new opportunities, but only if you are open minded enough to think beyond what you *are* doing to what you *could* be doing. Seriously, I never, ever wanted to do video, until I started playing with the 5dII, and started seeing some fusion stuff, along with pure video that was coming out of it.

But, anyway, I was going to buy a G10, but the G11 looks much better at first look, so glad we waited!

I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason

Video can tell a story in a way still can never do.

Video can tell a story in a way still can never do. And I will give you the differnt part, except that they are two tools that do the same thing - tell a story. I posted some links in another thread on the 5d - check some of the landscape work. And weddings? A great place for story telling. Yes, not the same as stills, but being able to use the high end glass and high ISO that go along with a dslr is something that prosumer camcorders can't touch. I shoot a little bit of dancing the other day at 1/30, 2.8, ISO 6400 with a 15mm fisheye. No way for most video cams to touch that, untill you get into the big bucks. New stuff = new opportunities, but only if you are open minded enough to think beyond what you *are* doing to what you *could* be doing. Seriously, I never, ever wanted to do video, until I started playing with the 5dII, and started seeing some fusion stuff, along with pure video that was coming out of it.

Wrong, That is up to the person taking the picture.

Conversely the same is true for video, most of the videos taken today do not tell a story so much as they regurgitate a moment in time that is somewhere in between not-quite-important-enough-to-remember and too-uninteresting-to-be-worth-the-bytes. This is not telling a story, but playing with a toy. Unfortunately it is also true of most still photos...

I see. So pretty much, almost all stills and video are worthless because they don't meet your standards for story telling? Sucky video is sucky video, just like sucky stills are sucky stills. In the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, video can tell a story in a way the stills can't. You can't slag on video just because some people don't use it well. All are nothing but tools, but it is funny with the still people and their fear of video...

Another way of putting it, still images are like reading a book, video is...well it's like watching a video. If you are still having problems thinking about what I am trying to explain, everyone I assume has read at least one book before they saw a movie based on the book. Think about your shock when the characters and persona's were nothing like what you envisioned in your minds eye. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STILL AND MOTION IMAGERY!

I see. So pretty much, almost all stills and video are worthless because they don't meet your standards for story telling? Sucky video is sucky video, just like sucky stills are sucky stills. In the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, video can tell a story in a way the stills can't. You can't slag on video just because some people don't use it well. All are nothing but tools, but it is funny with the still people and their fear of video...

You and me both.

I don't really care about video, I'm reviewing a K7 right now and it's killing me that I HAVE to review and talk about the video feature.

That said, if it comes without reduction of still quality and features, I think it would and could be useful for even someone like myself (and you) who doesn't really care about it.

What has been missed (and I have not read every post) is the fact that Canon has joined the Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, club of not forcing MPs down our throats. I keep seeing on twitter "is the megapixel race done" with reference to the G11, and the reality is Nikon ended it with the D3, and Panason with the LX3, and to a lesser extent Pentax when it didn't increase pixel desnity of the K7 from the K20D (not the same sensor, totally redesigned, just same pixel count). And we can't leave out Fuji which while they claim to have 2X the pixels in the sensors actually don't, and are still producing lower MP cameras with higher DR.

Canon is a bit late to the party in that a few people on here know that I was complaining that the G10 was useless above base ISO, and that while it did match the 50D in resolution at base ISO and optimal lens setting it fell apart fast.

The bottom line is I think we were all waiting to see when Canon would join the party, and hopefully give credibility to the industry shifting focus (yes Wes, while I don't love Canon I do give them credit for their market share, and influence in the industry).

So what am I saying, well I always have felt the G series was pretty much the best compact camera dollar for dollar.Yeah I like the ricohs build, and the LX3 wide lens, but the G series has always been king till the G10 where it dropped a few pegs, NOW i might actually upgrade my G3 which I still (rarely) occassionally use when I want SLR features (hot shoe, manual control, IR port, etc) without SLR bulk.

Kudos to Canon and screw video (although if you are going to put it in a camera, make it HD for gods sake).

I see. So pretty much, almost all stills and video are worthless because they don't meet your standards for story telling? Sucky video is sucky video, just like sucky stills are sucky stills. In the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, video can tell a story in a way the stills can't. You can't slag on video just because some people don't use it well. All are nothing but tools, but it is funny with the still people and their fear of video...

Jason,

you get a few bonus points. Loved the finger, but the Saranac is awesome.

Probably my favorite non micro brewed beer (Saranac/FX Matt is small for a big brewery but not Magic Hat or Otter Creek small...)

On the topic of video versus pictures:

Check out this video. I know it is not professionally done. That is not the point. The point is that both stills and video are necessary to tell the complete story. For example the picture of my son with the bowl on his head evokes one emotion while the video it transitions to evokes a different feeling in my opinion.

Cool videos!

But I think you miss my point and maybe some of the other poster's points as well...

Home movies aren't "telling a story" so much as they are "capturing great memories" (from your youtube description). [image] In short you're not trying to express anything with these videos. With that said, I don't believe there is anything wrong with that at all.

If someone, however, wants to create some expressive or aesthetically driven work it will help them immensely to have the best tool for whatever media they desire to work with.

Still/video camera mash-ups are about as useful as a double neck mandolin/guitar combo. It's nice to have both at hand, but a mastery of one requires a dearth of the other.

For instance, go back and watch the video with the songs again at the link below. This time listen to the words of the songs and pay attention to what pictures are being displayed. The songs match with what is being displayed.

You are right. I re watched the video and you are the American Sergei Eisenstein, in color!

In climbing terms, you are at the 4th class approach to art's 5.15 potential.

If you think what is holding back your video is the technological abilities of your equipment then you have some grave misunderstandings. If technology had anything to do with art or even story telling then Michael Bay would be giving lectures. If you think your video had a subtle theme with nuanced interplay of sight and sound then you have spent way too much time being cued by the prime time laugh track.

There is nothing wrong with what you are doing, in fact, you have some superb home movies. But you can't claim anything more than that, and you shouldn't need to...

Again to put it in climbing terms, the 4th class peak bagger is not climbing as hard as the 5.14 sport gal, or the 5.7 trad man, but they are all climbing and having fun, they all have different motivations, and they all need different equipment.


edited too add: Just in case there are any film geeks in here. I know that Eisenstein would make occasional use of color...

No I think you took my comments all wrong. I wasn’t trying to say that my “Home Movies” were the next Reverie. I just took exception to your comment “In short you're not trying to express anything with these videos”. I actually was trying to portray a theme. I just didn’t do a very good job doing it.

And I don’t think that all my movies need is the right camera to be the next Reverie. The video was cute and it had some underlying themes but nothing more. However, a nice HD camera with some fast glass would definitely have made it more appealing visually.

I know that good resolution isn’t the only thing that makes a film or movie good. If that was the case then Vincent Laforet could have just shot Reverie with my ZS3 and everyone would have heralded it as the second coming.

However, I wonder at what point do you get diminishing returns? If Laforet had shot Reverie with a Panasonic GH1 would that camera have been respected just as much as the 5DMKII for video?

I guess the only thing that is certain is that if Laforet shot Reverie with the G11 no one would pay any attention to it because 640x480 just doesn’t impress anyone anymore.

Reverie: A real piece of artwork.

http://www.usa.canon.com/...t&articleID=2326

Naw it wasn’t offense that I was taking it was exception that I was taking. You said I wasn’t trying to express anything and that was incorrect because I was. No offense there just a difference of opinion.

What did you mean by “expressive and aesthetically driven” then? I still don’t get what you are saying about that.

I put home movies in quotes because you had lumped them all together as not “telling a story so much as they are capturing great memories”. A home movie most certainly can tell a story it is just that most don’t or don’t do it well.

Even Laforet said he had zero experience with video. I believe even he was amazed at how well the movie turned out. Sure his photography skills are what made that movie possible. However, there is no way Reverie would have had any impact with a $100 Walmart special.

Actually I don’t think it would have had the same impact if he was only allowed to use 1 lens with the 5DMKII. If you took away all of the tools that he has spent so many years learning how to use then it would still have a good story but the video would not be as impressive.

I just don’t agree with your last statement. I don’t think 640x480 and certainly not 320x200 are adequate for videos or movies. Go watch all of the videos on youtube that are more than a few years old. Some of them have excellent content but they are unbearable to watch because of the compression and resolution that was used back then.