3 ms·

I don’t think it’s intentional that not all DSLRs don’t also make great video cameras. The requirements are very different for great stills cameras vs great vid

by jolux 6y ago

I don’t think it’s intentional that not all DSLRs don’t also make great video cameras. The requirements are very different for great stills cameras vs great video cameras. Size and heat dissipation are the most significant.

bserge 6y ago
It might not be intentional, but it sure doesn't hurt them. Buy a DSLR for photos, even if it can do great video, just get a separate camera for video. Probably the same reason laptop manufacturers design their cooling to be barely adequate. It would cost less than a dollar to make it dissipate the maximum TDP at full load (not just "normal" load). To make it easy, let's ignore ultrathin laptops - even mobile workstations have had the same terrible heat dissipation for over a decade, with very few exceptions.
- jolux 6y ago
  > It would cost less than a dollar to make it dissipate the maximum TDP at full load How do you figure? > It might not be intentional, but it sure doesn't hurt them. I just explained why video cameras have different requirements than DSLRs. Besides which, 4K30 or 1080p60 is plenty of unlimited video capability for most consumers. The camera can even do 8K30 and 4K60 for longer than most people take videos.
  - bserge 6y ago
    I don't have any skin in this game, I'm just sharing my thoughts. Besides, in Europe they're limited to 30 minutes of recording (otherwise they're classed and taxed differently iirc). The laptop thing - using a bigger heatsink, or more copper, or better thermal paste, or multiple heatpipes instead of one (that was actually HP's solution to their overheating ZBooks) would cost pennies and would actually keep the CPU/GPU under throttling limits. I've repasted and modified enough laptop heatsinks to know it's a very easy thing to do. But the manufacturers don't care. I get it, a dollar saved on one machine is a lot of money overall. I'd rather have it cost $10 more but have a decent heatsink.

by jolux 6y ago

bserge 6y ago

It might not be intentional, but it sure doesn't hurt them. Buy a DSLR for photos, even if it can do great video, just get a separate camera for video. Probably the same reason laptop manufacturers design their cooling to be barely adequate. It would cost less than a dollar to make it dissipate the maximum TDP at full load (not just "normal" load). To make it easy, let's ignore ultrathin laptops - even mobile workstations have had the same terrible heat dissipation for over a decade, with very few exceptions.

jolux 6y ago
> It would cost less than a dollar to make it dissipate the maximum TDP at full load How do you figure? > It might not be intentional, but it sure doesn't hurt them. I just explained why video cameras have different requirements than DSLRs. Besides which, 4K30 or 1080p60 is plenty of unlimited video capability for most consumers. The camera can even do 8K30 and 4K60 for longer than most people take videos.
- bserge 6y ago
  I don't have any skin in this game, I'm just sharing my thoughts. Besides, in Europe they're limited to 30 minutes of recording (otherwise they're classed and taxed differently iirc). The laptop thing - using a bigger heatsink, or more copper, or better thermal paste, or multiple heatpipes instead of one (that was actually HP's solution to their overheating ZBooks) would cost pennies and would actually keep the CPU/GPU under throttling limits. I've repasted and modified enough laptop heatsinks to know it's a very easy thing to do. But the manufacturers don't care. I get it, a dollar saved on one machine is a lot of money overall. I'd rather have it cost $10 more but have a decent heatsink.