Hasselblad vs Red Epic: Will Video Kill the Still Photography Star?

Video technology is advancing at an alarming rate, and the question that seems to be on many a photographer’s mind is: “will video ever render still photography obsolete?” In the future, will shooting a sunset simply involve going out and recording 30 minutes to an hour of video and then pulling your favorite frames into Photoshop or Lightroom? Well, that’s the question that this video from Fstoppers is trying to answer.

In it, well-known headshot photographer Peter Hurley shoots the same client with both his camera of choice — the Hasselblad H3D-22 — and a 5K, 24fps Red Epic video camera. Rather than taking one stance and sticking to it, Hurley then talks about both the pitfalls and the advantages of using video as opposed to still photography. Click, smack or otherwise depress that play button for all the details, and be sure to head over to the original post to see the final, high-res images.

  • Spider- Man

    spray and pray to the extreme. Pulling stills from a video will defiantly take the art and skill out of photography…

  • Ra Riegler

     I find such comments so absurdly stupid. You will just get a picture that you would have missed with a usual camera. So what’s the artistic difference between these two shots, except that you have a much higher chance of getting the shot that you really desired?

  • Zak Henry

    There are a few areas that photography cannot be replaced by video – lighting is a big one – though you can have constant lights you cannot achieve the same intensity of light possible with a flash (without roasting whatever you are shooting).

  • Rama

    A Trojan was detected by my Kaspersky on the link “Original Post”.

  • videostills

    One of the problems with this is that video & stills are generally shot at different shutter speeds, as video likes motion blur, while stills prefer sharpness.  Quoting from here: “A major bottleneck and limiting factor in the RED EPIC’s simultaneous capture of photographic stills and video is that stills and video oft must be shot with different shutter speeds for optimum quality.  For instance, in shooting atheletic events such as football, soccer, surfing, or tennis, or NASCAR, or artistic events such as ballet or figure-skating, shutter speeds are oft kept around 1/1000 s.  On the other hand, video usually utilizes shutter speeds closer to 1/60 s or 1/120 s–about a factor of ten difference, or, as we say in physics, an order of magnitude difference!  Although the RED EPIC is said to have shutter speeds as fast as 1/2000 s, does anyone use such fast shutter speeds to shoot high-quality video for film or TV?  Nobody that we’ve heard of!”

  • Deandome

     Ummm…dude, if you’re using flash, the RED can shoot as SLOW as the situation requires. And you can/could get 24 flash-per-second flashing if need be

  • m_v_s

    Usually I’m shooting flash at 1/125 at f/8. If it’s high key the background will need to be lit at f/11, just not practical with tv/film lighting and the original poster is correct, a moving camera wouldn’t be able to achieve what a stills camera can achieve in this respect.

  • Grive

    So the “art and skill” of photography is timing? That’s about it? I don’t know about you, but I’d like to think my photos are something else than the timing of my right finger.

    I guess to prove we’re real photographers, we all need to be shootin’ on a Canon T3. With only 2-3 photos in the buffer, you need to be a “real” photographer. 5Dmk3? 1Dx? pfft. Spray’-n-pray’n amateur.

    Why can’t photography be about graphing photons, rather than simply timing?