Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon Future SLR to have Movie Mode

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 26, 2005 4:21:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I read that Nikon hinted at a movie mode on fuure SLR's. Is this technically
possible as it is with P&S digicams? Does anyone have a link to where this
information might be written?

I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several cameras in
that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the more
serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their low-end
SLR.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:34:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

> I read that Nikon hinted at a movie mode on fuure SLR's. Is this
> technically possible as it is with P&S digicams? Does anyone have a
> link to where this information might be written?
>
> I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several
> cameras in that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared
> toward the more serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this
> feature for their low-end SLR.
>
>
>

Not possible. The only movie you'd get would be of the back side of the
mirror.
February 26, 2005 10:55:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <I3_Td.402$Uz.247@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, royphoty@iona-
guesthouse.co.uk says...
> > I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several cameras in
> > that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the more
> > serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their low-end
> > SLR.
> >
>
>


Nikon didn't "Fall Short".. The movie mode (even if it were possible in a
DSLR) has no business being in a serious camera.

Video cameras do a good job of capturing video, why re-invent the wheel???

None of my Film SLRs take movies either. Did they "Fall Short"??


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 10:55:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c8a3bc431ecaf7e989713@news.individual.NET>, Larry
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:

> None of my Film SLRs take movies either.

sure they do - just get a motor drive.

the only drawback is the longest movie is just a few seconds long and
there is no audio track. :) 
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

prat..........
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:18:07 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <MPG.1c8a3bc431ecaf7e989713@news.individual.NET>, Larry
><larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> None of my Film SLRs take movies either.
>
>sure they do - just get a motor drive.
>
>the only drawback is the longest movie is just a few seconds long and
>there is no audio track. :) 

Well, that and you'd need a 35mm projector.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:57:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still camera's
movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If you want a movie
mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching that my Ford Tempo
doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV doesn't handle like a sports
car.

LRH
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:13:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
[]
> Nikon didn't "Fall Short".. The movie mode (even if it were possible
> in a DSLR) has no business being in a serious camera.
>
> Video cameras do a good job of capturing video, why re-invent the
> wheel???

I use to think like that as well. On a couple of recent trips, though,
I've included a few short video bursts when appropriate. Just a few
seconds each. They allowed me to capture, for example, the essence of a
train journey through a snow-filled central Germany.

I'm not a movie enthusiast, nor do I have all the time for editing to make
a polished movie, and I'd never buy a movie camera. However, I do
appreciate the manufacturers who have had the foresight to think outside
the traditional camera constraints and include a movie mode.

Cheers,
David
February 26, 2005 4:14:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rC_Td.23927$8B3.6589@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk says...
> Larry wrote:
> []
> > Nikon didn't "Fall Short".. The movie mode (even if it were possible
> > in a DSLR) has no business being in a serious camera.
> >
> > Video cameras do a good job of capturing video, why re-invent the
> > wheel???
>
> I use to think like that as well. On a couple of recent trips, though,
> I've included a few short video bursts when appropriate. Just a few
> seconds each. They allowed me to capture, for example, the essence of a
> train journey through a snow-filled central Germany.
>
> I'm not a movie enthusiast, nor do I have all the time for editing to make
> a polished movie, and I'd never buy a movie camera. However, I do
> appreciate the manufacturers who have had the foresight to think outside
> the traditional camera constraints and include a movie mode.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>

Im sure the convienience is handy, and I have used the video mode on several
of my ZLR digitals, BUT, Im pretty sure including a video mode on a DSLR
would involve compromises that MOST DSLR buyers wouldn't like.

I'll stand by my opinion that if you want video mode, there are several "Top
Of The Line" digicams to choose from that can do video. A DSLR isnt built to
take video, and making it do so would be ... I dont really know the word Im
looking for, I guess it would just be dumb.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o 9adnXiH9aLGiL3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> I read that Nikon hinted at a movie mode on fuure SLR's. Is this
technically
> possible as it is with P&S digicams? Does anyone have a link to where this
> information might be written?
>
> I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several cameras in
> that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the more
> serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their low-end
> SLR.
>
>

Because:
There is a mirror in the way.
There is a shutter in the way.
You would need to open the shutter and keep it open, AND keep the mirror
locked up.
You would also need to control the aperture, which is almost constantly
adjusted in a movie camera.
With the shutter and the mirror and the aperture taken care of there goes
your battery life.
--
Hugh Jorgan
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:24:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
[]
> Im sure the convienience is handy, and I have used the video mode on
> several of my ZLR digitals, BUT, Im pretty sure including a video
> mode on a DSLR would involve compromises that MOST DSLR buyers
> wouldn't like.
>
> I'll stand by my opinion that if you want video mode, there are
> several "Top Of The Line" digicams to choose from that can do video.
> A DSLR isnt built to take video, and making it do so would be ... I
> dont really know the word Im looking for, I guess it would just be
> dumb.

Right now, you're right. But I suspect that at some time in the future,
one of the DSLR manufacturers will break out of the mould and either:

- start offering interchangable lenses on the top-end ZLRs

or

- start using the mirror lock-up mode on a DSLR to provide live preview,
swivel finders, and perhaps even video if they can get the sensor issues
sorted out.

Cheers,
David
February 26, 2005 7:24:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Zo1Ud.24034$8B3.3378@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk says...
> Larry wrote:
> []
> > Im sure the convienience is handy, and I have used the video mode on
> > several of my ZLR digitals, BUT, Im pretty sure including a video
> > mode on a DSLR would involve compromises that MOST DSLR buyers
> > wouldn't like.
> >
> > I'll stand by my opinion that if you want video mode, there are
> > several "Top Of The Line" digicams to choose from that can do video.
> > A DSLR isnt built to take video, and making it do so would be ... I
> > dont really know the word Im looking for, I guess it would just be
> > dumb.
>
> Right now, you're right. But I suspect that at some time in the future,
> one of the DSLR manufacturers will break out of the mould and either:
>
> - start offering interchangable lenses on the top-end ZLRs
>
> or
>
> - start using the mirror lock-up mode on a DSLR to provide live preview,
> swivel finders, and perhaps even video if they can get the sensor issues
> sorted out.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>

When that happens, I'll have no problem with it.. 'til then Its on my list of
"features we dont need"


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Billy wrote:
> I read that Nikon hinted at a movie mode on fuure SLR's. Is this technically
> possible as it is with P&S digicams? Does anyone have a link to where this
> information might be written?
>
> I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several cameras in
> that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the more
> serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their low-end
> SLR.
>
>
Hi,
If mirror is locked up, why not?
Tony
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are two ways to implement real-time preview.

1) An optical splitter in the pentaprism or at the location of the AF
control unit (mostly located below the mirror) redirects the image onto an
small CCD that projects the signal to a video screen output or small screen
in the back. This kind of preview feature would not show what the main CCD
will be measuring.

2) A semi-transparent mirror could already let some light fall onto the CCD
in the back that amplifies this signal to accommodate the small pixel screen
in the back. Of course, in such case, the mechanical shutter would have to
disappear and the electronic shutter is all that remains to control
exposure.

So, it is quite possible that future DSLRs will provide real-time preview.
BTW, this is a feature needed for many applications. For instance, try to
use a DSLR while wearing a protective helmet. Or use a DSLR on a scope and
try to focus.

Gregor


"Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o 9adnXiH9aLGiL3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>I read that Nikon hinted at a movie mode on fuure SLR's. Is this
>technically possible as it is with P&S digicams? Does anyone have a link to
>where this information might be written?
>
> I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several cameras in
> that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the more
> serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their low-end
> SLR.
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:27:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> writes:

>Because:
>There is a mirror in the way.
>There is a shutter in the way.
>You would need to open the shutter and keep it open, AND keep the mirror
>locked up.

Yes, but this isn't difficult. If the camera was designed to have a
movie mode, the mirror and shutter could be designed to be held open
indefinitely without using much power. (Some film SLRs already do this
so they can take long exposures without killing the batteries)

>You would also need to control the aperture, which is almost constantly
>adjusted in a movie camera.

Professional movie cameras do *not* usually change the aperture during a
shot, because that leads to visible brightness changing. The camera
operator sets the exposure before the shot and then leaves it alone.

>With the shutter and the mirror and the aperture taken care of there goes
>your battery life.

See above.

The *real* issue is that the sensors used in DSLRs are not designed to
produce movies, and making them do that would reduce quality in other
areas.

Dave
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 10:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:30:55 GMT, Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Billy wrote:
>> I read that Nikon hinted at a movie mode on fuure SLR's. Is this technically
>> possible as it is with P&S digicams? Does anyone have a link to where this
>> information might be written?
>>
>> I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several cameras in
>> that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the more
>> serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their low-end
>> SLR.
>>
>>
>Hi,
>If mirror is locked up, why not?

With the Canon 20Da (for the Japanese market) you can fokus for a
short time viewing the LCD-screen.

-espen

--
All generalisering er farlig
http://www.seland.org/
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 10:30:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1ff121lu8pokk8j76fgs556skap1kdf8f9@4ax.com>,
Espen Stranger Seland <ess@abn.hibu.no.spam> wrote:
>
>With the Canon 20Da (for the Japanese market)

Rather for the astrophotography market.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
> camera's movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If
> you want a movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching
> that my Ford Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV
> doesn't handle like a sports car.

Why carry two cameras if you can manage with one?
Some people will have different value judgements and aspirations.

David
February 26, 2005 11:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8a3bc431ecaf7e989713@news.individual.NET...
> In article <I3_Td.402$Uz.247@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, royphoty@iona-
> guesthouse.co.uk says...
> > > I have the Nikon D70 and as a previous Coolpix owner of several
cameras in
> > > that line, I miss the movie mode. I know the D70 is geared toward the
more
> > > serious enthusiast, but Nikon fell short on this feature for their
low-end
> > > SLR.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> Nikon didn't "Fall Short".. The movie mode (even if it were possible in a
> DSLR) has no business being in a serious camera.
>
> Video cameras do a good job of capturing video, why re-invent the wheel???
>
> None of my Film SLRs take movies either. Did they "Fall Short"??
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

But if you have a LG refrigerator, you can use it to browse the 'net. Of
course,
on the downside, the reason for its inclusion was so that the refrigerator
could
order more food for you (from who-knows-where and at who-knows-what
price).
February 27, 2005 2:38:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are plenty of electronic devices that have multiple device
functionality. Things aren't that Black & White. Have a beer and lighten up.

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
news:cE3Ud.22948$Tt.20105@fed1read05...
> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still camera's
> movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If you want a
> movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching that my Ford
> Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV doesn't handle like a
> sports car.
>
> LRH
>
February 27, 2005 2:39:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:tQ4Ud.24206$8B3.3299@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
>> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
>> camera's movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If
>> you want a movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching
>> that my Ford Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV
>> doesn't handle like a sports car.
>
> Why carry two cameras if you can manage with one?
> Some people will have different value judgements and aspirations.

AGREED!

>
> David
>
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 6:10:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:tQ4Ud.24206$8B3.3299@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> > Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
> > anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
> > camera's movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If
> > you want a movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching
> > that my Ford Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV
> > doesn't handle like a sports car.
>
> Why carry two cameras if you can manage with one?
> Some people will have different value judgements and aspirations.
>
> David
>
>
So go and buy one that does both and stop asking why does this one doesn't
do it.
February 27, 2005 6:10:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> wrote in message
news:uSaUd.177028$K7.90456@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
> wrote in message news:tQ4Ud.24206$8B3.3299@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> > Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
>> > anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
>> > camera's movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If
>> > you want a movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching
>> > that my Ford Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV
>> > doesn't handle like a sports car.
>>
>> Why carry two cameras if you can manage with one?
>> Some people will have different value judgements and aspirations.
>>
>> David
>>
>>


> So go and buy one that does both and stop asking why does this one doesn't
> do it.

Usenet is for the freedom of ideas and expression. I don't understand why
people have issues with legitimate discussions. Or is a legitimate topic
only one that you must agree with?
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 9:48:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
>news:cE3Ud.22948$Tt.20105@fed1read05...
>> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
>> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still camera's
>> movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If you want a
>> movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching that my Ford
>> Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV doesn't handle like a
>> sports car.
>>

We live in a world where not everyone can afford both a digital camera
*AND* a movie camera.
That one can do both is, believe it or not, a good thing for many
people.
Why are you unable to understand that you are not the arbiter of what
people should buy?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SY-dnRwpj6yvzbzfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> "Hugh Jorgan" <staring@the.moon> wrote in message
> news:uSaUd.177028$K7.90456@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "David J Taylor"
> > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
> > wrote in message news:tQ4Ud.24206$8B3.3299@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> >> > Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
> >> > anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
> >> > camera's movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If
> >> > you want a movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching
> >> > that my Ford Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV
> >> > doesn't handle like a sports car.
> >>
> >> Why carry two cameras if you can manage with one?
> >> Some people will have different value judgements and aspirations.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
>
>
> > So go and buy one that does both and stop asking why does this one
doesn't
> > do it.
>
> Usenet is for the freedom of ideas and expression. I don't understand why
> people have issues with legitimate discussions. Or is a legitimate topic
> only one that you must agree with?
>
>
The OP said Nikon fell short by not putting in a movie mode on the D70. It's
like complaining that you can't carry your family of 7 in your Porsche. It's
a pointless argument.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:59:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:18:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
>> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
>> camera's movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If
>> you want a movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching
>> that my Ford Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV
>> doesn't handle like a sports car.
>
>Why carry two cameras if you can manage with one?
>Some people will have different value judgements and aspirations.

Some value judgments have no value, is why.


******************************************************

"History is a vast early warning system"

Norman Cousins
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:12:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<mpj3215u2e6v2fffd3fcvtjvhsb517d1c2@4ax.com>...
> >"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
> >news:cE3Ud.22948$Tt.20105@fed1read05...
> >> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
> >> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still camera's
> >> movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If you want a
> >> movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching that my Ford
> >> Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV doesn't handle like a
> >> sports car.
> >>
>
> We live in a world where not everyone can afford both a digital camera
> *AND* a movie camera.
> That one can do both is, believe it or not, a good thing for many
> people.
> Why are you unable to understand that you are not the arbiter of what
> people should buy?

I'm sorry, but you've kind of lost me when you started personally
attacking each other.

The only 2 barriers to using a DSLR as a movie camera (apart from no
manufacture offering such a beast) is _1_ that while the sensor is
exposed, the viewfinder is blank (because the mirror is flipped out ot
the way) and _2_ that the sensors used in current DSLR cameras do not
allow streaming and must be in darkness to read-out the data.
How would you propose to get around these 2 fundamental problems?
Only number 1 can be solved without new technology by going to a Pelex
styled DSLR with a fixed semi-silvered reflex mirror.
Number 2 is more problematic, as a new sensor design would be needed.
February 27, 2005 10:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dj NME" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4959b3a4.0502271612.3d365e95@posting.google.com...
> Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<mpj3215u2e6v2fffd3fcvtjvhsb517d1c2@4ax.com>...
>> >"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
>> >news:cE3Ud.22948$Tt.20105@fed1read05...
>> >> Maybe this is a troll-message, I don't know. But regardless, I say it
>> >> anyway--I'm getting sick & tired of people bitching about a still
>> >> camera's
>> >> movie mode, or in the case of D-SLRs the absence of one. If you want a
>> >> movie mode, buy a movie camera! You don't hear me bitching that my
>> >> Ford
>> >> Tempo doesn't go off-road, or that my friend's SUV doesn't handle like
>> >> a
>> >> sports car.
>> >>
>>
>> We live in a world where not everyone can afford both a digital camera
>> *AND* a movie camera.
>> That one can do both is, believe it or not, a good thing for many
>> people.
>> Why are you unable to understand that you are not the arbiter of what
>> people should buy?
>
> I'm sorry, but you've kind of lost me when you started personally
> attacking each other.
>
> The only 2 barriers to using a DSLR as a movie camera (apart from no
> manufacture offering such a beast) is _1_ that while the sensor is
> exposed, the viewfinder is blank (because the mirror is flipped out ot
> the way) and _2_ that the sensors used in current DSLR cameras do not
> allow streaming and must be in darkness to read-out the data.


> How would you propose to get around these 2 fundamental problems?
Gotta ask Nikon or other manufacturers - this is why they stay in business -
innovation. If all questions like this were asked and never resolved, then
we would all still be using *film* SLR's.

> Only number 1 can be solved without new technology by going to a Pelex
> styled DSLR with a fixed semi-silvered reflex mirror.
> Number 2 is more problematic, as a new sensor design would be needed.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some things ARE that black & white, and this is one of them. If you
want to record moving pictures, get a moving-picture camera. If you
want to record still pictures, get a still recording camera.

It IS that black & white, that is why you don't see D-SLRs with a
movie-mode--because they know those who buy them (well, MOST who buy
them) realize they're buying a speciality tool and not a pocket knife
meant for cutting, screwing, sawing, wrenching, drilling, and mowing
the grass.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:04:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am not the arbritator of what people, but I recognize stupidity when
I see it--and this is stupidity.

You have to realize what a product is designed for and not expect it to
do something it is NOT supposed to do. There is a reason the Nikon D70
does not have a movie mode--because most who buy it aren't moronic
enough to expect it to be able to perform that service for them.

If you're so hell-bent on having both services performed by your
product, then ***don't buy a Nikon D70.*** Like I said, you don't see
me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
very well. That's not what its intended usage is for, and that goes
double for expecting a Nikon D70 to perform movie functions.

LRH
March 6, 2005 12:18:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Did any model chevy corvette every have off-road capability? No.

Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode? Yes

Don't tell me that it's because it's a DSLR vs a p&s that it shouldn't have
one, because that would be like saying the special edition vette should not
have off-road capability, yet a standard vette might.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Bad analogy.

<larrytucaz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109970242.703526.128470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am not the arbritator of what people, but I recognize stupidity when
> I see it--and this is stupidity.
>
> You have to realize what a product is designed for and not expect it to
> do something it is NOT supposed to do. There is a reason the Nikon D70
> does not have a movie mode--because most who buy it aren't moronic
> enough to expect it to be able to perform that service for them.
>
> If you're so hell-bent on having both services performed by your
> product, then ***don't buy a Nikon D70.*** Like I said, you don't see
> me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
> very well. That's not what its intended usage is for, and that goes
> double for expecting a Nikon D70 to perform movie functions.
>
> LRH
>
March 6, 2005 12:24:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sheeze, if the human who invented paper had your ingenuity we would all
still be writing on stones.

The reason why Nikon did not put a movie mode on the D70 is because of
increased pressure in production to quickly QA a DSLR to compete with the
Cannon DSLR. Hence, there was no time for additional ingenuity.

Watch, the Dxx or whatever it's called, will have one. Or should I say,
watch continuously - with audio!

<larrytucaz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109970069.343903.231220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Some things ARE that black & white, and this is one of them. If you
> want to record moving pictures, get a moving-picture camera. If you
> want to record still pictures, get a still recording camera.
>
> It IS that black & white, that is why you don't see D-SLRs with a
> movie-mode--because they know those who buy them (well, MOST who buy
> them) realize they're buying a speciality tool and not a pocket knife
> meant for cutting, screwing, sawing, wrenching, drilling, and mowing
> the grass.
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:40:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

larrytucaz@yahoo.com wrote:
> Some things ARE that black & white, and this is one of them. If you
> want to record moving pictures, get a moving-picture camera. If you
> want to record still pictures, get a still recording camera.
>
> It IS that black & white, that is why you don't see D-SLRs with a
> movie-mode--because they know those who buy them (well, MOST who buy
> them) realize they're buying a speciality tool and not a pocket knife
> meant for cutting, screwing, sawing, wrenching, drilling, and mowing
> the grass.
>

So, you wouldn't buy a quality knife just because one blade included a
bottle opener? Did it occur to you that carrying ONE DLSR sized camera
is sufficient burden for most people, and that a movie mode, extraneous
as it may be to you, is quite handy for others with different needs.
I can't imagine NOT buying a product just because it had a feature I
didn't need.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:42:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

larrytucaz@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am not the arbritator of what people, but I recognize stupidity when
> I see it--and this is stupidity.
>
> You have to realize what a product is designed for and not expect it to
> do something it is NOT supposed to do. There is a reason the Nikon D70
> does not have a movie mode--because most who buy it aren't moronic
> enough to expect it to be able to perform that service for them.
>
> If you're so hell-bent on having both services performed by your
> product, then ***don't buy a Nikon D70.*** Like I said, you don't see
> me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
> very well. That's not what its intended usage is for, and that goes
> double for expecting a Nikon D70 to perform movie functions.
>
> LRH
>

I would say that NOT buying that Corvette because they added off-road
capability, without compromising other features, would be 'stupid'. An
acceptable movie mode is a plus on ANY camera, even if YOU don't need
it. Some of us use such features now and then, and enjoy them. If you
don't, no one will twist your arm.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:04:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZJmdnW_J5fHk9bffRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> Did any model chevy corvette every have off-road capability? No.
>
> Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode? Yes
>
> Don't tell me that it's because it's a DSLR vs a p&s that it shouldn't
> have one, because that would be like saying the special edition vette
> should not have off-road capability, yet a standard vette might.
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges. Bad analogy.
>
> <larrytucaz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109970242.703526.128470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>I am not the arbritator of what people, but I recognize stupidity when
>> I see it--and this is stupidity.
>>
>> You have to realize what a product is designed for and not expect it to
>> do something it is NOT supposed to do. There is a reason the Nikon D70
>> does not have a movie mode--because most who buy it aren't moronic
>> enough to expect it to be able to perform that service for them.
>>
>> If you're so hell-bent on having both services performed by your
>> product, then ***don't buy a Nikon D70.*** Like I said, you don't see
>> me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
>> very well. That's not what its intended usage is for, and that goes
>> double for expecting a Nikon D70 to perform movie functions.
>>
>> LRH
>>
>
>
Bad analogy, "Did any model Corvette have off road capability" = "Does any
model Nikon D70 have off road capability."
"Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode?" = "Do many four
wheeled internal combustion powered vehicles have off road capability."
But even given that, you still have the analogy of getting a sport ute to
corner like a sports car. Horses for courses, as it were.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:17:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZJmdnW_J5fHk9bffRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>
>>Did any model chevy corvette every have off-road capability? No.
>>
>>Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode? Yes
>>
>>Don't tell me that it's because it's a DSLR vs a p&s that it shouldn't
>>have one, because that would be like saying the special edition vette
>>should not have off-road capability, yet a standard vette might.
>>
>>You're comparing apples to oranges. Bad analogy.
>>
>><larrytucaz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1109970242.703526.128470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I am not the arbritator of what people, but I recognize stupidity when
>>>I see it--and this is stupidity.
>>>
>>>You have to realize what a product is designed for and not expect it to
>>>do something it is NOT supposed to do. There is a reason the Nikon D70
>>>does not have a movie mode--because most who buy it aren't moronic
>>>enough to expect it to be able to perform that service for them.
>>>
>>>If you're so hell-bent on having both services performed by your
>>>product, then ***don't buy a Nikon D70.*** Like I said, you don't see
>>>me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
>>>very well. That's not what its intended usage is for, and that goes
>>>double for expecting a Nikon D70 to perform movie functions.
>>>
>>>LRH
>>>
>>
>>
> Bad analogy, "Did any model Corvette have off road capability" = "Does any
> model Nikon D70 have off road capability."
> "Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode?" = "Do many four
> wheeled internal combustion powered vehicles have off road capability."
> But even given that, you still have the analogy of getting a sport ute to
> corner like a sports car. Horses for courses, as it were.
>
Seems to me I recall reading about a couple of SUVs that DO corner like
sports cars. They have active suspensions, and special stability
controls. Of course, they COST a fortune.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:44:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mPIWd.37564$fq5.10991@fe06.lga...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Billy" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZJmdnW_J5fHk9bffRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Did any model chevy corvette every have off-road capability? No.
>>>
>>>Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode? Yes
>>>
>>>Don't tell me that it's because it's a DSLR vs a p&s that it shouldn't
>>>have one, because that would be like saying the special edition vette
>>>should not have off-road capability, yet a standard vette might.
>>>
>>>You're comparing apples to oranges. Bad analogy.
>>>
>>><larrytucaz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1109970242.703526.128470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>I am not the arbritator of what people, but I recognize stupidity when
>>>>I see it--and this is stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>You have to realize what a product is designed for and not expect it to
>>>>do something it is NOT supposed to do. There is a reason the Nikon D70
>>>>does not have a movie mode--because most who buy it aren't moronic
>>>>enough to expect it to be able to perform that service for them.
>>>>
>>>>If you're so hell-bent on having both services performed by your
>>>>product, then ***don't buy a Nikon D70.*** Like I said, you don't see
>>>>me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
>>>>very well. That's not what its intended usage is for, and that goes
>>>>double for expecting a Nikon D70 to perform movie functions.
>>>>
>>>>LRH
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Bad analogy, "Did any model Corvette have off road capability" = "Does
>> any model Nikon D70 have off road capability."
>> "Do many digital cameras have a movie function mode?" = "Do many four
>> wheeled internal combustion powered vehicles have off road capability."
>> But even given that, you still have the analogy of getting a sport ute to
>> corner like a sports car. Horses for courses, as it were.
>>
> Seems to me I recall reading about a couple of SUVs that DO corner like
> sports cars. They have active suspensions, and special stability
> controls. Of course, they COST a fortune.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

The mfrs. claim sports car like handling for the higher end sport utes like
the BMW X5, Infinity FX 35/45, Range Rover Sport, etc, but none of them
equal .9g on the skid pad, like the Corvette, Porsche 911 and Boxter or even
the new Mustang GT. And those aforementioned SUVs aren't as off road
capable as, say, a Jeep or Land Rover L3.
As someone's sig line points out, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:40:31 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>I can't imagine NOT buying a product just because it had a feature I
>didn't need.

I would think most people do not want to pay extra for things they
don't need.

-espen

--
http://www.seland.org/photo/
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:46:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter replies:
Seems to me I recall reading about a couple of SUVs that DO corner like

sports cars. They have active suspensions, and special stability
controls. Of course, they COST a fortune.

Which one? All those things cost a fortune. 45K and up for a 7' tall
kiddie cart. Have you ever ridden in a Hummer? 60K for no space.

Of course, a Vette at its base price of around 39K last year ain't
exactly an economy carrier.
March 7, 2005 9:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

(Any similarities to quoted authors is purely fictional.)

* The Zen of Product Development *

Ron in ENGINEERING:

I can't imagine NOT buying a product just
because it had a feature I didn't need.

Espen in SALES:

I would think most people do not want
to pay extra for things they don't need.

Confused in MARKETING:

I can make them need and want feature.

Jeff
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:06:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:44:56 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>The mfrs. claim sports car like handling for the higher end sport utes like
>the BMW X5, Infinity FX 35/45, Range Rover Sport, etc, but none of them
>equal .9g on the skid pad, like the Corvette, Porsche 911 and Boxter or even
>the new Mustang GT. And those aforementioned SUVs aren't as off road
>capable as, say, a Jeep or Land Rover L3.
>As someone's sig line points out, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

I remember (from the early 70s) a Chevy commercial showing a Chevy
half-ton PU behind a Corvette on a road course, with the two connected
by a string. The PU, being driven with *one finger* on the wheel was
keeping up with the Corvette, not breaking the string.
Very impressive, until you realize this was done on a course of
Chevy's choosing (probably specially built) with drivers picked by
Chevy.
Advertising is like a hypothetical situation: you get to control
everything to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:35:28 GMT, Confused
<somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

>(Any similarities to quoted authors is purely fictional.)
>
> * The Zen of Product Development *
>
>Ron in ENGINEERING:
>
> I can't imagine NOT buying a product just
> because it had a feature I didn't need.
>
>Espen in SALES:
>
> I would think most people do not want
> to pay extra for things they don't need.
>
>Confused in MARKETING:
>
> I can make them need and want feature.

But as a marketer you have to split the targets: People who like
toys/gadgets, and people who need a tool for a specific task.

Gadget freaks may be wanting the XXX DSLR, but you can't market it as
a toy[1] if you want to sell it to pros.

1. DSLR with a video function is a toy, IMHO. If you want a DV-cam,
buy a DV-cam.

-espen


--
All generalisering er farlig
http://www.seland.org/
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:09:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:09:41 +0100, Espen Stranger Seland
<ess@abn.hibu.no.spam> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:35:28 GMT, Confused
><somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
>
>>(Any similarities to quoted authors is purely fictional.)
>>
>> * The Zen of Product Development *
>>
>>Ron in ENGINEERING:
>>
>> I can't imagine NOT buying a product just
>> because it had a feature I didn't need.
>>
>>Espen in SALES:
>>
>> I would think most people do not want
>> to pay extra for things they don't need.
>>
>>Confused in MARKETING:
>>
>> I can make them need and want feature.
>
>But as a marketer you have to split the targets: People who like
>toys/gadgets, and people who need a tool for a specific task.
>
>Gadget freaks may be wanting the XXX DSLR, but you can't market it as
>a toy[1] if you want to sell it to pros.
>
>1. DSLR with a video function is a toy, IMHO. If you want a DV-cam,
>buy a DV-cam.
>
>-espen

So a 1Ds MkIII with a video function would be a toy?
I think you're letting your personal opinions run a little wild,
thinking they are more than they really are.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
March 7, 2005 8:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MarkH wrote:

> On the other discussions about SUV Vs Sports cars:
> If anyone thinks that a heavier vehicle with a higher centre of gravity can
> perform as well as a lighter vehicle with a lower centre of gravity then
> that person is woefully ignorant of the laws of physics. If anyone can
> name an SUV that they believe can match a sports car for performance,
> please name it.

Obviously that will depend on how you define performance ;-)

Like, if performance = towing capacity, then the car looses in most cases.

Bob

LOL
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:52:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:02:02 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:09:41 +0100, Espen Stranger Seland
><ess@abn.hibu.no.spam> wrote:

>>But as a marketer you have to split the targets: People who like
>>toys/gadgets, and people who need a tool for a specific task.
>>
>>Gadget freaks may be wanting the XXX DSLR, but you can't market it as
>>a toy[1] if you want to sell it to pros.
>>
>>1. DSLR with a video function is a toy, IMHO. If you want a DV-cam,
>>buy a DV-cam.
>>
>>-espen
>
>So a 1Ds MkIII with a video function would be a toy?

No, but it's totally hypothetical. There's a reason why there is no
1Ds with a video function.

>I think you're letting your personal opinions run a little wild,
>thinking they are more than they really are.

Are my opinions less worth than others? Please, keep it serious.
There's a lot of people here that really don't know what they're
talking about.

-espen
--
All generalisering er farlig
http://www.seland.org/
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:52:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:52:35 +0100, Espen Stranger Seland
<ess@abn.hibu.no.spam> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:02:02 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:09:41 +0100, Espen Stranger Seland
>><ess@abn.hibu.no.spam> wrote:
>
>>>But as a marketer you have to split the targets: People who like
>>>toys/gadgets, and people who need a tool for a specific task.
>>>
>>>Gadget freaks may be wanting the XXX DSLR, but you can't market it as
>>>a toy[1] if you want to sell it to pros.
>>>
>>>1. DSLR with a video function is a toy, IMHO. If you want a DV-cam,
>>>buy a DV-cam.
>>>
>>>-espen
>>
>>So a 1Ds MkIII with a video function would be a toy?
>
>No, but it's totally hypothetical. There's a reason why there is no
>1Ds with a video function.

Is that a yes or a no?
>
>>I think you're letting your personal opinions run a little wild,
>>thinking they are more than they really are.
>
>Are my opinions less worth than others? Please, keep it serious.
>There's a lot of people here that really don't know what they're
>talking about.

No more and no less than others. But you pronounce them as though ex
cathedra.
>
>-espen

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:59:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> MarkH wrote:
>
>> On the other discussions about SUV Vs Sports cars:
>> If anyone thinks that a heavier vehicle with a higher centre of
>> gravity can perform as well as a lighter vehicle with a lower centre
>> of gravity then that person is woefully ignorant of the laws of
>> physics. If anyone can name an SUV that they believe can match a
>> sports car for performance, please name it.
>
>
> Obviously that will depend on how you define performance ;-)
>
> Like, if performance = towing capacity, then the car looses in most cases.
>
> Bob
>
> LOL

Interior room? Seating capacity. Hiproom...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:38:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:994Xd.4449$c72.1419@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> MarkH wrote:
>
>> On the other discussions about SUV Vs Sports cars:
>> If anyone thinks that a heavier vehicle with a higher centre of gravity
>> can perform as well as a lighter vehicle with a lower centre of gravity
>> then that person is woefully ignorant of the laws of physics. If anyone
>> can name an SUV that they believe can match a sports car for performance,
>> please name it.
>
> Obviously that will depend on how you define performance ;-)
>
> Like, if performance = towing capacity, then the car looses in most cases.
>
> Bob
>
> LOL

That would not be "sports car performance" now, would it?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
March 8, 2005 1:10:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

larrytucaz@yahoo.com wrote:

> I recognize stupidity when
> I see it--and this is stupidity.
>
> you don't see
> me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
> very well.


I hope you recognize the Corvette analogy for the stupidty it represents as compared
to adding a movie mode to a dSLR. A better analogy might be a high end stereo
receiver or tuner with both FM and AM capability. Nobody who appreciates quality
audio expects it from AM, and most of us probably never listen to AM through a good
stereo.

There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but some are cheap enough to be
practically free. Once you build a decent tuner or receiver adding AM capabilty is
dirt cheap. People might occasionally listen to a ball game or <shudder> Rush, so for
the insignificnt cost increase manufacturers include a seldom used feature.

What would it cost to add movie mode to a dSLR? By cost I mean both money and any
decrease in function/quality/whatever to the resulting product. As a practical matter
I guess movie mode would require mirror lockup. YMMV, but I don't think that's a bad
thing. Other than that, what are the engineering requirements? Anything beyond some
minor changes to the firmware? Amortized over a decent product life, will it really
cost more than $1 per unit? I might not use it much, and I certainly wouldn't expect
quality approaching a decent video camera, but I'd have the option without having to
carry a video camera.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:10:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
>
>
> larrytucaz@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I recognize stupidity when
>> I see it--and this is stupidity.
>>
>> you don't see
>> me buying a Chevrolet Corvette and whining that it doesn't go off-road
>> very well.
>
>
>
> I hope you recognize the Corvette analogy for the stupidty it represents
> as compared to adding a movie mode to a dSLR. A better analogy might be
> a high end stereo receiver or tuner with both FM and AM capability.
> Nobody who appreciates quality audio expects it from AM, and most of us
> probably never listen to AM through a good stereo.

Take if from one who knows, AM through a good amp and speakers sounds
VASTLY better than it does from a tiny radio speaker...
They used to have AM stereo some years ago and I had a Chrysler that had
a radio that decoded all 4 of the competing transmission schemes. The
difference in sound was amazing. It sounded as good as most FM stations..

>
> There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but some are cheap enough to
> be practically free. Once you build a decent tuner or receiver adding AM
> capabilty is dirt cheap. People might occasionally listen to a ball game
> or <shudder> Rush, so for the insignificnt cost increase manufacturers
> include a seldom used feature.
>
> What would it cost to add movie mode to a dSLR? By cost I mean both
> money and any decrease in function/quality/whatever to the resulting
> product. As a practical matter I guess movie mode would require mirror
> lockup. YMMV, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Other than that,
> what are the engineering requirements? Anything beyond some minor
> changes to the firmware? Amortized over a decent product life, will it
> really cost more than $1 per unit? I might not use it much, and I
> certainly wouldn't expect quality approaching a decent video camera, but
> I'd have the option without having to carry a video camera.
>


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!