Is it an SLR or a video camera?

[Goldfinger]

Just opening this one up for general discussion really. No doubt most of you have heard about the new Canon EOS 5D MkII which comprises a massive 21 megapixel camera AND full HD video recording capability - price approx £2300.

Well, my question is this - a local (much wealthier than me) photographer has just informed me he is going to buy one to start offering video capability to his clients. An example would be; he does sports photography at the weekend for a local paper but now he is going to expand into taking short video clips of players to put on his own phootgraphy site with the possibility of people buying them.

What I want to know is, do people think this is blatant stepping on the local videographer's (mine) toes or is this quite acceptable competition and merging of mediums in the market place?

I'm having a meeting next week to discuss the photographer's proposals but fearful he may actually start stealing some of my market share, can anyone suggest any ammunition (not literal of course) I could take with me to the meeting to show him that his plan is unworkable and that a SLR camera can never compete with a 'proper' HD video camera?

[Zero]

His sound will be sh*t!

[Marc Peters]

I don't see how this offers a logical progression to videography. Typically speaking events require more than one camera. I would suggest that a 'bloke with a camera' used mainly for stills simply won't be able to cover an event adequately. It's rather like a chap cleaning windows also offering a car cleaning service. Just becase he's go a bucket of water, doesn't mean he could wash the cars and windows at the same time.

This is, of course, assuming he offers 'bundled' packages. If on the other hand he's offering videogpahy as a distinctly different service, then a similar logic applies. A racing car doesn't make you a racing driver - only experience and training permits that. He's clearly looking to 'dabble' (otherwise he'd invest in seperate equipment, fit for purpose).

[Goldfinger]

Yes, that is a good point - if he sees video as that marketable an option then why not pay for a fully fledged video camera?

Also, from a technical point of view his sound and lighting would be woefully inadequate.

[TimStannard]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger Yes, that is a good point - if he sees video as that marketable an option then why not pay for a fully fledged video camera?

Absolutely. He's no more stepping on your toes than he would be if he bought a video camera. And as mentioned, he'd actually be worse equipped for video than if he had bought a video camera.
I would have thought there might be some merit in his idea - short clips for websites or whatever. It might even open the door for work for bona fide videographers - punters who hadn't previously considered video see some clips and want more at which point your photographer buddy brings you in to do a proper job. OK He might try to do it himself, but if he makes a pigs ear of it he runs the risk of it harming his reputation as a still photographer.

[Marc Peters]

Originally Posted by TimStannard if he makes a pigs ear of it he runs the risk of it harming his reputation as a still photographer.

And the reputation of the industry.

[TimStannard]

Originally Posted by Marc Peters And the reputation of the industry.

Good point.

[Goldfinger]

I guess what it does show is the growing trend for video across the internet and all mediums. The BBC has just had to drop its own plans to start community video websites and print journalists are fast being trained in video techniques to accompany their newspapers' websites!! Video is becoming the latest buzz word on the internet and thanks to broadband everyone with a slight interest in net business is going to be trying to get in on it!!

Interesting times for the industry I guess and maybe the precursor to a segregation and niche filling, in business model terms, of the videography professional !!??

[Mark W]

Referring to above - every bugger will be making very poor video - thus lowering everyones expectations even furhter of what decent video is. Call it the you tube effect.

As to the basic technical quality of the video at the pixel level I am sure a stills camera can produce video as good or even better than video cameras under £5000. (but shakey like a phone cam and for about as long)

Yea -stop trying to lynch me - I have the evidence. But so what - that is totally irrleveant.

Stills and video are totally different beasts practically, creatively and in the way they are used commercially. Being good at one may make you a bit better than crap at the other, thats all.

Not that any of that will stop people trying. And then posting up questions asking for emergency help when they screw it all up. Be sure to pass on the fourm's URL to your photographer friend.

[Flickson]

I coached soccer in the Ontario Soccer League for six years. I watched as digital photography advanced and photographers invested in high end digital cameras and printers that enabled them to print out action photos on the spot and offer them for sale. I was impressed and so were the players that were buying them. You don't see them much anymore. Too many people have their own stuff. As far as video clips go, I don't see much of a market selling short video clips to athletes. if they want videos of themselves playing, they'll get a friend to tape them.

F