canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => EOS Bodies - For Stills => Topic started by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 01:37:50 PM

Title: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 01:37:50 PM
This is a purely hypothetical question but I'm guessing many of you have thought about it once or twice.

I'm curious if anyone else would consider a DSLR designed, dedicated and optimized solely for still photography  worthwhile / desirable?

Quite simply: If you could get better still images from a camera without video, would you buy it?

-  Would you buy it instead of a hybrid model with video features if it produced better still images?
-  Would you buy it if the images were the same but it was designed differently for still photography use?

Does anyone else think compromises might exist in hybrid DSLR designs in order to offer HD video on the same sensor?

-  Would a sensor designed for dedicated still photography perhaps offer better specs, IQ, sensitivity, speed, [insert other perceived benefit here]?
-  How much better would a dedicated still photography camera perform if it didn't have to produce video as well?
-  Would the CPU, processing and firmware possibly be less complex, more efficient and stable?
-  Would the control layout and ergonomics, menus, etc be easier to use and offer more versatility and/or control?
-  Is it possible that video features have delayed R&D while engineers work out new challenges due to the hybrid designs?
-  Do you think video increases the price of the camera?  Is it logical to think a dedicated still camera might cost slightly less while still offering better images?

Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on.  Might make an interesting discussion.  Thanks for your time.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on November 15, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
Whats the point?  You want to pay more to have someone disable video?
Very low sales volume, poor resale value, and higher price for the same camera with Video disabled in the software?
It is, of course, possible to develop a all new sensor that does not support video.  The cost to develop a new sensor and associated firmware is extremely high and must be amortized over the expected sales.
Assuming $10 million to develop one (Likely low estimate), and 5,000 sales, you would add at least $2000 to the manufacturers cost, and that will mean $4,000 or more retail.
That puts a camera in the $11,000 range with a 1 series body.
Maybe just better to buy a Hasselblad and digital back?
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Stephen Melvin on November 15, 2012, 03:28:38 PM
There would be no benefit to such a camera, whereas there are tremendous benefits to having a camera with video capability. One of the first ones, of course, is live view. That is, by far, the biggest innovation since the digital age began. Extremely useful capability, and once you have that, video is absolutely free.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: bchernicoff on November 15, 2012, 03:39:41 PM
This is a purely hypothetical question but I'm guessing many of you have thought about it once or twice.

I'm curious if anyone else would consider a DSLR designed, dedicated and optimized solely for still photography  worthwhile / desirable?

Quite simply: If you could get better still images from a camera without video, would you buy it?

-  Would you buy it instead of a hybrid model with video features if it produced better still images?
-  Would you buy it if the images were the same but it was designed differently for still photography use?

Does anyone else think compromises might exist in hybrid DSLR designs in order to offer HD video on the same sensor?

-  Would a sensor designed for dedicated still photography perhaps offer better specs, IQ, sensitivity, speed, [insert other perceived benefit here]?
-  How much better would a dedicated still photography camera perform if it didn't have to produce video as well?
-  Would the CPU, processing and firmware possibly be less complex, more efficient and stable?
-  Would the control layout and ergonomics, menus, etc be easier to use and offer more versatility and/or control?
-  Is it possible that video features have delayed R&D while engineers work out new challenges due to the hybrid designs?
-  Do you think video increases the price of the camera?  Is it logical to think a dedicated still camera might cost slightly less while still offering better images?

Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on.  Might make an interesting discussion.  Thanks for your time.

I'm sure that a hybrid camera like Sony makes takes a hit in sensor performance due to the translucent mirror technology. I don't believe they use that just for video though. I think it helps them reduce the number of moving parts (mirror box, etc.)

As far as the sensor in the new T4i which has embedded phase detect points built in goes... I don't know... maybe it has an impact. Those consumer cameras are a compromise anyway. No one buys them thinking they are getting the best IQ Canon can offer.

For a traditional DSLR like the 5D Mk III, there was discussion that Canon used a stronger anti-alias filter in front of the sensor to combat the aliasing problems of the Mk 2 when shooting video. A stronger anti-aliasing filter certainly would have an impact on still image quality. How much? A smidgen. DPreview compared the D800 with AA filter to its AA-less D800E brother and found that the D800E was slightly sharper between f/4 and f/5.6 under lab conditions. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22) So, did Canon's decision to use a stronger AA filter to help video users have a real impact on still IQ...probably not.

If you want the absolute in IQ, pay $43,000 for a Hasselblad. Don't have that kind of money? Buy the D800E and pick a lens that can deliver enough resolving power. Could that camera be manufactured cheaper if it didn't have the video features? For sure, but the price they charge for a body is not strictly tied to manufacturing cost. They have to consider development cost and expected sales as well. The 5D Mk 2 showed the world that adding video boosts sales in a major way. Building a body that lacked video means fewer sales, so the sale price goes up even though it might cost them less to manufacture each body. Everything is a trade off.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 03:42:30 PM
Well, I wasn't so much asking about Canon's development cost, process or feasibility, just how receptive folks would be to it if it existed and why.  Maybe suggest other benefits.

Have you never wondered if a still image DSLR would be better or cheaper?  Folks keep throwing around medium format and Hasselblad as an alternative.  Well, that's pretty good company to be in isn't it?  Just a little out of my price range but I would love to own one.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: bchernicoff on November 15, 2012, 03:47:07 PM
Have you never wondered if a still image DSLR would be better or cheaper?

I answered that question. It could be very slightly better, but it would not be cheaper as the market for such a camera would be much smaller.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
There would be no benefit to such a camera, whereas there are tremendous benefits to having a camera with video capability. One of the first ones, of course, is live view. That is, by far, the biggest innovation since the digital age began. Extremely useful capability, and once you have that, video is absolutely free.

I have found Live View to be a nice feature in theory but it just doesn't focus fast or accurately enough to make me want to use it much.  Plus, it tends to overheats the sensor fairly quickly.  Much like video, I've found Live View to be a more of a novelty although it has been steadily improving.  I've tried to use it with the articulating screen on my 60D but usually have to disable it because the focus won't lock consistently.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: TrumpetPower! on November 15, 2012, 03:55:33 PM
No video means no live view. Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats live view focussing for still life work. That includes landscapes. Not sure what the optimal aperture is for the depth of field you want? No worries; just press the DoF preview button while in live view and your eyes will tell you.

A DSLR without video is crippled, and it would take serious effort to do the crippling.

Thanks, but no thanks.

And, yes. I write this as somebody who has virtually no interest in videography whatsoever.

b&
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: PackLight on November 15, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
You guys have it wrong and you probably just put seeds of thought in Canon's marketings head. 
There would be no additional cost in doing this, or should I say very little.
Canon simply rewrites the firmware to take out the video function, they then release it as a camera optimized for photos only. We buy it thinking it is just bit better in reality we get the same components with less programing.

Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: bchernicoff on November 15, 2012, 03:56:07 PM
Sorry, that was rude of me. This needs to be an open place for people of all skill levels to ask questions.

Also, on your 60D, use the directional buttons inside the rear dial to move the live view rectangle around...that determines where it magnifies when you zoom in.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on November 15, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
No video means no live view. Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats live view focussing for still life work.

Ever heard of the 40D?  50D, 1D MK III, 1DS MK III?  All have live view but no video.
Live view came long before video.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: bchernicoff on November 15, 2012, 04:08:06 PM
I guess a mod deleted my previous post.

Use Live View for manual focus. Switch on Live View, press the Magnify Glass button once or twice to zoom in, use direction buttons to move area of zoomed view to your subject, and then manually focus.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: crasher8 on November 15, 2012, 04:32:02 PM
Live View for Macro is priceless.

However I see the OP's intent and understand the questions. Leica anyone?

This question gets asked every few months and the responses pour in from a marketing point of view, an engineering one and production points. I like the idea of less menus, singular purpose and optimal ergonomics, but the tooling is already there and with the growth and hipness of dslr video, I just don't see it being anything but a niche market and expensive, read: Not for Canon or Nikon.

If I had my druthers I'd like a Canon body that used both 35mm film and had a digital sensor. The 5D3F.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: dolina on November 15, 2012, 04:59:02 PM
Leica, a camera company that still sells manual focus range finders (albeit in digital form) has finally introduced video in their next M body.

With that in mind a dedicated still-only SLR will sell as much as a 1200mm f/5.6 :)

This question reminds me of other questions raised in the past like mobile phones without cameras, cars without power windows, computers with CRT displays, iPods with FM/AM radio, fully furnished homes without a refrigerator, tablets that weigh more than 2 pounds and unpasteurized milk.

BTW none of my statements are meant to ridicule anyone. It is just that modern conveniences have rolled things into one and unrolling them would be unthinkable to a lot of people.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: preppyak on November 15, 2012, 05:40:13 PM
Ever heard of the 40D?  50D, 1D MK III, 1DS MK III?  All have live view but no video.
Live view came long before video.
Yes, but what you are pointing out is that Canon missed the ability to implement video earlier. The 50D can record video when you hack the firmware with Magic Lantern (and I imagine you could on the others, if they put in the time).

To go into the OP's questions, I think its possible that they would make a few different design choices if video weren't involved, but, I don't think they would be significant enough for me to really notice a difference in my final images. And I don't think they would cause the camera to cost less, so, it's a moot point for me. I think people have imagined video on a DSLR to be this super complicated (and expensive) process that is ruining their DSLR, when the reality is that it is not impacting them at all, and its making their camera cheaper.
BTW none of my statements are meant to ridicule anyone. It is just that modern conveniences have rolled things into one and unrolling them would be unthinkable to a lot of people.
Well, and they were rolled together for a reason in the first place. The 5d2 was so popular because videographers didn't want to have to spend 10x as much as they had been for something that was nearly as good. There still isn't another option <$5k (BlackMagic aside) that provides video like a DSLR can.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 05:41:28 PM
Live View for Macro is priceless.

However I see the OP's intent and understand the questions. Leica anyone?

This question gets asked every few months and the responses pour in from a marketing point of view, an engineering one and production points. I like the idea of less menus, singular purpose and optimal ergonomics, but the tooling is already there and with the growth and hipness of dslr video, I just don't see it being anything but a niche market and expensive, read: Not for Canon or Nikon.

If I had my druthers I'd like a Canon body that used both 35mm film and had a digital sensor. The 5D3F.

I appreciate your comment because the point here is to think outside the box and wonder how things might be different, not just say that no one would want it.  Just adding to a long list of features isn't always the best thing IMO.

Based on what I've read so far, it looks like I need to revisit using Live View a bit and make sure I've given it a fair shake.  However, most of my shooting is hand held and live view usually doesn't AF well in that scenario.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 05:51:17 PM
Ever heard of the 40D?  50D, 1D MK III, 1DS MK III?  All have live view but no video.
Live view came long before video.
Yes, but what you are pointing out is that Canon missed the ability to implement video earlier. The 50D can record video when you hack the firmware with Magic Lantern (and I imagine you could on the others, if they put in the time).

To go into the OP's questions, I think its possible that they would make a few different design choices if video weren't involved, but, I don't think they would be significant enough for me to really notice a difference in my final images. And I don't think they would cause the camera to cost less, so, it's a moot point for me. I think people have imagined video on a DSLR to be this super complicated (and expensive) process that is ruining their DSLR, when the reality is that it is not impacting them at all, and its making their camera cheaper.
That's the way I've looked at it for years.  Just an extra benefit that might be handy to have from time to time that drives sales to reduce the price of the camera for everyone.  However, after I experienced and read about others experiencing AF Lock problems in low light on my new 5D3, I started rethinking this and wondering if trade-offs and compromises might be happening in order to improve the movie part of the camera since it had become such a big deal with the 5D2.  And then what else might possibly be compromised in order to make the video feature better?  And so I threw out the thought about a still image only camera possibly being a good idea.  Esp for those that never use it.  What additional still image features would be possible if that energy wasn't spent on video?  For example, the eye track focusing way back in the day.  That was pretty interesting.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: AvTvM on November 15, 2012, 06:37:40 PM
Very simple .. I would buy a 5D IIIs like "stils only" .. with LiveView but no video recodring or video out, no video related controls, no microphones and speaker but the holes in the biody covered 100% waterproof, no video-related menue items, no Video-realted ICs and wiring inside ... nothing ..

for the price of a Nikon D800 ... so 500 Euro less ... IN AN INSTANT!   :)
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RichM on November 15, 2012, 06:45:13 PM
Very simple .. I would buy a 5D IIIs like "stils only" .. with LiveView but no video recodring or video out, no video related controls, no microphones and speaker but the holes in the biody covered 100% waterproof, no video-related menue items, no Video-realted ICs and wiring inside ... nothing ..

for the price of a Nikon D800 ... so 500 Euro less ... IN AN INSTANT!   :)

I agree.  I am a photographer, and not a videographer. I would gladly save the $s and buy a camera without video.  If it meant better IQ for photos, or lower costs, I'm in.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Neeneko on November 15, 2012, 07:18:33 PM
Ah, this old topic.

Look, at the end of the day, unless someone can actually get a copy of Canon's engineering schedule, testing costs, design documents, etc, guessing at how much video costs to add is just that, pure guesswork.

However, even if sales volumes go up, video is NOT free.  It ads complexity that needs more testing (not as cheap or quick as people might think), it requires more hardware and software to operate, and chances are there were design meetings where they had to weigh various decisions based off how they would impact still vs video performance.

Outside DSLRs, plenty of dedicated still and video cameras still exist.  They tend to fill niches now, places where volume is already low and thus the reduced engineering costs and less weighted design decisions really matter.  If Canon put the same resources into developing a dedicated still camera instead of a multimedia camera, chances are it would be functionally superior in some non trivial ways, just like Canon's dedicated video cameras are generally considered better then their multimedia ones.

Part of what we have here, as a marking issue, is that there is a larger market for video then stills in general, so dedicated video cameras make sense because plenty of videographers would probably complain at the design compromises but not enough still photographers do.. and still photographers who are really particular move to one of the niche cameras.

Realistically, multimedia cameras, esp at the consumer end, are probably here to stay.  But just like monochrome ones, a few specialized models will probably stick around.  Or who knows, maybe some open source kit plus 3D printers will just let people design whatever they hell they want.. I am already seeing that start to creep in to the video market....
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: AvTvM on November 15, 2012, 08:00:26 PM
looking at costs of parts is not sufficient. Video DOES cost .. actually an arm and a leg in development costs.
And  in manufacturing costs.  I do not want a camera that is further dumbed down and artificially crippled, got enough of these from Canon already. I want exactly the 5D III MINUS all video crap other than liveview for not more money than wat a Nikon D800 costs (including  video). 

There is no point whatsoever in 2012 to use DSLRs for video. By now, excellent videocams can be had for little money. Just look at The Sony NEX VG600 ... full frame sensor, dedeicated video machine, all video bells and whistles. Without a clumsy mirror box, prism and optical viewfinder which are just a nuisance in capturing video  for pretty much the same price as a 5D III. 

So it is about high time, Canon brings some decent cameras dedicated to stills photographers, rather than just sucking up to the videots all the time.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: bycostello on November 15, 2012, 08:35:42 PM
i'd buy it if it made it cheaper and or lighter....
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
From my personal experience...

I can shoot pretty watchable HD video with my Panasonic HDC-TM900.  So can my wife.  It is ergonomically designed for the task just like several other Sony camcorders I have owned over the years.  It's light as a feather which helps me hold it steady for 20 minutes during a long recital if a tripod is out of the question.  I've shot a ton of video ever since I was a kid, even took a lot of home movies on 8mm film.  But I'm not a videographer or a filmmaker.  And neither are most of the DSLR owners, even if they are darn good photographers.

I watched and waited for digital video camcorders to gain acceptable still picture capability and over time realized that the pictures would never be close to the quality of a DSLR.  The sensor just isn't designed for that.

As I got back into SLR photography a few years ago, I anticipated DSLRs to bridge the same gap from the other side.  I watched and waited for DSLR video to improve and here we are today.  The sensor quality is indeed there, and the lenses are a big advantage.  But a DSLR is fundamentally designed for holding to the face to shoot still photography.  DSLR camera design and ergonomics are all wrong for video and many features that make video easy for the average consumer are missing.  No AF, no stereo sound, no image stabilization, the list goes on.  The ergonomics and missing features must be bolted on with 3rd party accessories, handles, stabilization rigs, lights, microphones, and eye pieces.  This is fine for the amateur or semi-pro filmmaker and videographer that appreciate the advantages of the device for their craft and don't want to spend $40K+ yet.  I guess this is the market that Canon is trying to appeal to with DSLR video because you really can't tell me that many average users (including photographers) are interested in all that effort and expense when all they have to do is pick up a top of the line HD camcorder from Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc and make great video without all the work and bolt-ons.

My question is just because the quality is available from a DSLR sensor, why do photographers want to build an erector set video camera?  Because Canon told them they could?  IMO, creating professional, compelling and well edited video footage is a huge challenge.  It's not nearly as easy as taking compelling photographs.  Someone please explain to me what technique they use to create a smooth quality video production using only their DSLR by itself at an event.  And how do they light it?

Don't get me wrong.  I don't fault anyone who uses the 5D2 or 5D3 for video work and creates great video footage.  I think that's really pretty cool.  And if that is your interest, craft, talent etc than all power to you.  But to say you can offer professional video footage because you have a DSLR, that I find hard to believe.  No offense but it's just not that simple.

So with all that said, I would love to see some serious head scratching happen to innovate and create some killer new ideas for still photography in the DSLR.  Because at the end of the day, that is what the DSLR is best at.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 15, 2012, 10:00:48 PM
Other Feature Ideas - DSLR model for Still Photography.  (Yes, many of these would apply to video as well.)

-  Of course there is always room for better AF, low light, and metering.
-  Built-In SSD Memory to allow faster buffering and copying media to other media, etc.  (like 120GB or more internal, maybe make it removable like a super high speed media module)
-  Built-In Wireless Flash/Shutter Trigger (built in pocket wizard from canon)  Would love to grab flash off of camera for side light and put it back, no fuss, compact w/o extra hot shoe items
-  Maybe a way to have an IR sensor enable/disable (I have no idea how to do this but I can wish for it!)
-  Maybe be able to easily remove/change out the sensor for other sensors for whatever benefit this could offer, like IR.
-  Built-In Wireless File Transmitter (instead of charging a ton for the add-on module, hopefully 6D WiFi will allow this)
-  Make the built-in File Transfer natively compatible with Android and iOS easily through WiFi
-  Make all this wireless connectivity work both ways, allow full camera controls from phones, computers, etc. (6D will allow some of this)
-  Thunderbolt, USB3, etc fast connections
-  Built-In wireless system for wireless printing that could create small prints easily on site.  (A high quality polaroid.)
-  The ability for the DSLR to back up/retrieve all settings so you could easily program it without thumbing through menus all the time.  Have different setting files for different reasons, etc.  It would also make it easy to use multiple DSLRs and quickly change key settings.
-  The ability to link DSLRs together wirelessly to trigger interesting multi-camera shots or even move images back and forth.
-  Have a way to tilt or rotate the internal sensor to create interesting effects or microadjust.
-  Add DLNA or other similar technology for easy wireless connectivity with projectors and televisions, etc.
-  Come up with a better way to control dust and sensor debris
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: weixing on November 15, 2012, 11:12:22 PM
Hi,
   IMHO, once you have life view, video is just a software feature that can be easily add in... the additional hardware cost for the video is actually minimum (only mic). By removing video, you only save firmware space, but lost a huge advantage in marketing... unless they can come out with a feature that is desire by still photographers to replace the video feature. Hmm... may be an advanced RAW image processing module (like an embedded DPP or Photoshop plugin) with the space left by the video module in the firmware memory... better if the camera can have two type of firmware, one is with video and the other with the DPP plugin... let user decide ;D

    Anyway, once you included a feature, it's hard to remove without user complaints... look how many user complaint when Canon remove the micro adjustment feature from the xxD and I was one of them.

   Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: preppyak on November 15, 2012, 11:37:37 PM
However, even if sales volumes go up, video is NOT free.  It ads complexity that needs more testing (not as cheap or quick as people might think), it requires more hardware and software to operate, and chances are there were design meetings where they had to weigh various decisions based off how they would impact still vs video performance.
True, but, the sales volume is what mitigates those extra pieces in cost. For example, say it cost Canon 20% less to make a video-less DSLR. The question is, could they sell it for 20% less at the same sales volume (clearly not, some people only use video, etc), and if not, what would the cost have to be to make up for the difference. If it got 20% fewer buyers, they'd have to sell it for about the same price...at which point, it'd seem likely they'd lose most of those customers who would just buy the video one cause video is "free" (and it'd help resale). And if the video-less model had extra features to make it more enticing, well, then that would cost in R&D, testing, etc as well, and that camera would be priced accordingly. It's entirely possible a "stills only" camera with a few extra features would have to cost more, thus why Canon hasn't done it.

So, when I say video is "free", obviously I know it has a cost, but, it is one of the few things on the camera that probably more than pays for itself compared to cameras 5yrs ago. Heck, it may well be that the reason Canon has the diversity of body options it does now (xxD and xD in APS-C, two full-frame non-1 series cameras), because more customers have more needs.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: c3hammer on November 16, 2012, 12:41:58 AM
As soon as we have 4k 30p video spill down to the masses, still image acquisition will cease to exist out side of frame captures :)

Cheers,
Pete
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: wockawocka on November 16, 2012, 02:46:48 AM
There would be no benefit to such a camera, whereas there are tremendous benefits to having a camera with video capability. One of the first ones, of course, is live view. That is, by far, the biggest innovation since the digital age began. Extremely useful capability, and once you have that, video is absolutely free.

You of course, understand cameras can have Live view without video? The 1Ds3 and 40D as an example.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: rpt on November 16, 2012, 03:11:53 AM
If the 5D3 did not have video I would not have bought it... I don't want to lug a dedicated video camera for what I do - hobby. Having said that, even if I had to lug 2 cameras, I'd prefer the video camera to be a dslr so I could select the lenses for the shoot. Then again, I am not a pro but that is what I would want.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: NormanBates on November 16, 2012, 04:27:36 AM
Just so everybody knows a bit better what we're talking about...

2 quotes from the comments here: http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/red-announces-6k-120fps-sensor-with-15.html (http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/red-announces-6k-120fps-sensor-with-15.html)

Quote
We didn't make this one but if you need a sensor like this, send me $2.5 million and wait 12 months and it's yours.

Quote
24MP sensor with 5um pixels
84fps speed at full resolution
15-16b-equivalent ADC resolution at full speed
Global shutter efficiency of 120dB (at what conditions?)
Low read noise (how much?)
Chip area is roughly 2x of the array area (like in Red Dragon)
Power is low enough (how much?)

They're talking about a sensor heavily optimized for pro video, but I guess the development cost for a sensor optimized for stills should be similar.

In any case, no idea what you lose by going for video, though: I guess you'd have a bit better DR with rolling shutter instead of global shutter, but they're talking full well of 200Ke and read noise of 2 or 3 e, which means 16 stops of DR... do you really want to go stills oriented? Just give me this one!!!
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: AvTvM on November 16, 2012, 05:13:15 AM
yes, scrap video in DSLRs. It was great wehn the 5D 2 came out - but solely for  price reasons, because  large_sensor video capturing devices cost huge amounts back then.

I do want 15+ EV DR in a stills camera.
I want all the AISC doing video encoding crap ripped out an dreplaced by way more powerful AF hardware .. .to finally get on-sensor hybrid Phase + contrast detect AF that leapfrogs what a 1D X or D4 currently deliver .. by a mile.
I do want electronic shutter [global shutter] and finally done away with the mechanical, vibration-inducing curtain shutters ... and even more importantly, I want X-sync up to 1/8000s.

And yes, I want all of this in a killer stills-only DSLR at a reasonable price.
Currently that means to me: not more than what a Nikon D800 costs. 

I do not care, how Canon wants to go about this .. but they could easily build a 5Ds - for stills and a 5D c with video added on top and for a significantly higher price [because it is dual use, for those who really need or want  it] ... just as long as I get my stills-optimized imaging device.

I am sick and tried with all that video crap stuffed into my imaging products. I do not need it. I do not want it. I do not use. For the very raesons stated a few posts earlier: because it is way beyond my capabilities to produce videos that I myself would ever want to watch.   
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Northstar on November 16, 2012, 05:41:26 AM
Very simple .. I would buy a 5D IIIs like "stils only" .. with LiveView but no video recodring or video out, no video related controls, no microphones and speaker but the holes in the biody covered 100% waterproof, no video-related menue items, no Video-realted ICs and wiring inside ... nothing ..

for the price of a Nikon D800 ... so 500 Euro less ... IN AN INSTANT!   :)

Yes...just like you said.  Also, live view can be very handy at times, but knowing canon, they would make a model as you described, and then another one for $500 more that had live view. ::).  A little bit funny, sad, and true all at the same time time..eh?
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 16, 2012, 08:07:50 AM
THANK YOU AvTvM!

You're looking at this the way I am.  There are a ton of advancements that would benefit stills if we put our heads together and said 'What If?".  Rolling Shutter, wonderful idea.  I've wondered for a long time why we still use mechanical shutters in 2012 on a digital sensor.  Speed is all I can think of.  Higher Speed Sync not limited to 1/200 range.  I think we are on the same conceptual page.

Same thanks Northstar.  Glad we agree!  Canon releasing a still camera that features big advances in still image capture does not mean a 5D3 hybrid video DSLR would go away.  It would just be another choice for those more serious about still photography.  I know some serious filmmakers.  I know what goes into real filmmaking and it's hard work.  IMHO, either you are doing serious filmmaking or you are shooting camcorder video.  There's not much of a middle ground unless I guess you include the DSLR erector set.  And that's fine.  It's a great way to explore the craft and begin to develop serious filmmaking skills with some very creative (and expensive) DSLR video accessories.

To be honest, I was starting to wonder if I was going to stop posting here.  Seems like there are some critical folks on this forum that just prefer to criticize.  At first I thought this forum was different but turns out it's pretty much like most others.  (Which is why I usually just avoid posting.)  Write a post, people call you stupid.  If I'm right, everyone else is wrong so shutup.  Life's too short!

So thanks for the post confirming that I'm not the only one with this idea.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: dshipley on November 16, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
This is a purely hypothetical question but I'm guessing many of you have thought about it once or twice.

I'm curious if anyone else would consider a DSLR designed, dedicated and optimized solely for still photography  worthwhile / desirable?

Quite simply: If you could get better still images from a camera without video, would you buy it?

-  Would you buy it instead of a hybrid model with video features if it produced better still images?
-  Would you buy it if the images were the same but it was designed differently for still photography use?

Does anyone else think compromises might exist in hybrid DSLR designs in order to offer HD video on the same sensor?

-  Would a sensor designed for dedicated still photography perhaps offer better specs, IQ, sensitivity, speed, [insert other perceived benefit here]?
-  How much better would a dedicated still photography camera perform if it didn't have to produce video as well?
-  Would the CPU, processing and firmware possibly be less complex, more efficient and stable?
-  Would the control layout and ergonomics, menus, etc be easier to use and offer more versatility and/or control?
-  Is it possible that video features have delayed R&D while engineers work out new challenges due to the hybrid designs?
-  Do you think video increases the price of the camera?  Is it logical to think a dedicated still camera might cost slightly less while still offering better images?

Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on.  Might make an interesting discussion.  Thanks for your time.

Cameras dedicated solely to photographic image quality already exist... they're called Medium Format DSLRs.

If we're talking about 35mm (Full Frame) and smaller DSLRs you're still looking at cameras that are optimized for photography over video. So while current DSLR sensors do allow video they do so without making any concessions to photographic quality. There are many ways that sensors in current DSLRs could be optimized specifically for video capture, but doing so would lower the sensors photography advantages.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Dylan777 on November 16, 2012, 11:01:25 AM

I will take 5D III without video features for $200-$500 less. I simply don't use video on my 5D III at all.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: rpt on November 16, 2012, 11:48:05 AM
I am going to be killed (or worse) for this. But I think we (me included) need to think about this beyond the next few years or decades. Think evolution. I believe that no living entity (humans included) has had a still camera to help it see. I look to nature for ideas and validation. And probably because it can't sue me ;). So if video is prevalent in nature, and the megapixels are just going to grow, like somebody said in a thread on this forum, a still will just be a frame of the movie. And a frame may be made up of a hundred (just a number from the top of my spinal cord) 1/800000, f512, XSO 512M snaps...

Would you dream on like this? I do.

And at the moment I am limited by my current gear. And my eyesight...
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: infared on November 16, 2012, 11:50:01 AM
If the 5D3 did not have video I would not have bought it... I don't want to lug a dedicated video camera for what I do - hobby. Having said that, even if I had to lug 2 cameras, I'd prefer the video camera to be a dslr so I could select the lenses for the shoot. Then again, I am not a pro but that is what I would want.
I agree...no videO and maybe some added features for B&w imaging..but stills ONLY!  I owned a 5DII and I never turned on the video feature!...
I have a 5DIII now and I imagine it will be the same...do not even care how the video works!! LOL!
Think I am not the average camera user these days, tho..so maybe there is no market for a stills camera...???
I occasionally use live view...but I could live a simpler life without it...no doubt!
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 16, 2012, 12:09:29 PM
I am going to be killed (or worse) for this. But I think we (me included) need to think about this beyond the next few years or decades. Think evolution. I believe that no living entity (humans included) has had a still camera to help it see. I look to nature for ideas and validation. And probably because it can't sue me ;). So if video is prevalent in nature, and the megapixels are just going to grow, like somebody said in a thread on this forum, a still will just be a frame of the movie. And a frame may be made up of a hundred (just a number from the top of my spinal cord) 1/800000, f512, XSO 512M snaps...

Would you dream on like this? I do.

And at the moment I am limited by my current gear. And my eyesight...
I totally understand and agree that a high quality high megapixel full resolution video is essentially a sequential 24 or 29 fps consecutive string of still frames.  I have thought the same thing for years so I think you are right on the money.  However, since I got back into photography and don't really do video much anymore, there's just something about individual frames that keeps me interested where the video doesn't.  The high res video "shot" would use a ton of memory.  And it is hard to start and stop.  And I'm not sure how sharp each image would be.  And of course post would take quite a while.  I already spend hours sorting through all my still frames and they are being shot at either one shot or 6fps.  Sorting through 29fps would probably put me in my grave!  But it's still a solid thought/idea infared.  I totally get it.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: markbyland on November 16, 2012, 01:56:10 PM
No video means no live view. Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats live view focussing for still life work. That includes landscapes. Not sure what the optimal aperture is for the depth of field you want? No worries; just press the DoF preview button while in live view and your eyes will tell you.

A DSLR without video is crippled, and it would take serious effort to do the crippling.

Thanks, but no thanks.

And, yes. I write this as somebody who has virtually no interest in videography whatsoever.

b&

That's interesting, my Fujifilm S3 Pro has Live View and no video shooting. My 50D had live view without video. How did they manage to do that? My new K-5 has video but I couldn't tell you the first thing about how to use it. My mode dial could literally have two settings: "M" or "B", and I would be perfectly satisfied and forget live view. Parallax is already an issue. I want my eye view, not the camera's from yet another angle.

By the way, those two cameras that didn't have video were not "crippled" by any sense of the word. In fact, I've won a few photo challenges with both of those cameras.

All 3 of those cameras, the literal couple of times I tried using live view, simply destroyed battery life as a result of it being turned on. It's a serious waste of power, IMO.

Personally, I think it's a useless feature that should have never been introduced in to still cameras. Just because it's possible doesn't necessarily always mean it should be done. It causes sensors to run excessively hot without proper heat dissipation, thus killing pixels, and completely wastes battery life.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: rpt on November 16, 2012, 02:04:13 PM
I am going to be killed (or worse) for this. But I think we (me included) need to think about this beyond the next few years or decades. Think evolution. I believe that no living entity (humans included) has had a still camera to help it see. I look to nature for ideas and validation. And probably because it can't sue me ;). So if video is prevalent in nature, and the megapixels are just going to grow, like somebody said in a thread on this forum, a still will just be a frame of the movie. And a frame may be made up of a hundred (just a number from the top of my spinal cord) 1/800000, f512, XSO 512M snaps...

Would you dream on like this? I do.

And at the moment I am limited by my current gear. And my eyesight...
I totally understand and agree that a high quality high megapixel full resolution video is essentially a sequential 24 or 29 fps consecutive string of still frames.  I have thought the same thing for years so I think you are right on the money.  However, since I got back into photography and don't really do video much anymore, there's just something about individual frames that keeps me interested where the video doesn't.  The high res video "shot" would use a ton of memory.  And it is hard to start and stop.  And I'm not sure how sharp each image would be.  And of course post would take quite a while.  I already spend hours sorting through all my still frames and they are being shot at either one shot or 6fps.  Sorting through 29fps would probably put me in my grave!  But it's still a solid thought/idea infared.  I totally get it.
:)
My 2c - we live in the present but to survive we must dream up the future...
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: unfocused on November 16, 2012, 02:38:48 PM
Quote
It causes sensors to run excessively hot without proper heat dissipation, thus killing pixels, and completely wastes battery life.

Only if you use it.

I'm in the "it-reduces-the-overall-cost-to-consumers-by-expanding-the-market" camp. I've never used the video but I don't mind that it is there and maybe someday I will use it.

Part of the OP's original question was whether or not video impacted still image quality. That was pretty well answered early-on in this thread. Knowing that it doesn't have any discernible effect and knowing that it probably reduces, rather than increases, the final cost, I don't understand why people care.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: RustyTheGeek on November 16, 2012, 03:25:45 PM
Quote
It causes sensors to run excessively hot without proper heat dissipation, thus killing pixels, and completely wastes battery life.

Only if you use it.

I'm in the "it-reduces-the-overall-cost-to-consumers-by-expanding-the-market" camp. I've never used the video but I don't mind that it is there and maybe someday I will use it.

Part of the OP's original question was whether or not video impacted still image quality. That was pretty well answered early-on in this thread. Knowing that it doesn't have any discernible effect and knowing that it probably reduces, rather than increases, the final cost, I don't understand why people care.

It's not a care or a worry, I just wonder what cool advancements, features, etc would/could be possible if some (or all) of the energy spent on developing better video on the still camera were just dedicated to the still camera.  Just one model in the line up with better still specs and features.  Let's ignore possible cost reductions that video may provide.  I'm not trying to imagine stuff within the confines of Canon's balance sheet.  Just imagine period.  Forget for a moment that video *might* reduce overall cost or marketability.  That's all assumption anyway.  Just concentrate on the camera.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: iaind on November 16, 2012, 05:22:33 PM
A 5DIII without video will cost a premium over std model duetolow volume. Look at 60Da  over std 60D 
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: elflord on November 16, 2012, 06:57:38 PM
It's not a care or a worry, I just wonder what cool advancements, features, etc would/could be possible if some (or all) of the energy spent on developing better video on the still camera were just dedicated to the still camera.

It's not really zero sum in that sense though. That is, more "energy" spent on developing better video does not mean less "energy" spent on the stills camera. (in fact it's probably the other way around -- if video functionality helps raise R&D dollars that a stills-only camera would not be able to raise, then spending more "energy" on the video features actually means that more is available for enhancing stills).
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: SDsc0rch on November 16, 2012, 07:02:59 PM
I just wanna say..

I have ZERO interest in video - if canon brought it a "still only" camera to market, I would consider it

if I needed a camera, and it had good specs, I'd buy it

(cam w/ good specs WITH video.. still buy it - but like the current state of affairs.. id never use it! lol)
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: jimjamesjimmy on November 16, 2012, 08:29:33 PM
id get used to it , one day still and video will be one and the same. 

imagine a camera that could shoot  24 per second easily in a dslr type body, they exist , its a movie camera, and youll just pick which frame is best for your needs.

you wont even need to focus , youll be able to do most of that in post!  it may all sound scary but thats the future!
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: crasher8 on November 16, 2012, 10:36:36 PM
whinge, had to look that one up.

I  think DB closed this thread. Move on, take photographs.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Northstar on November 16, 2012, 10:47:20 PM
It's not a care or a worry, I just wonder what cool advancements, features, etc would/could be possible if some (or all) of the energy spent on developing better video on the still camera were just dedicated to the still camera.

It's not really zero sum in that sense though. That is, more "energy" spent on developing better video does not mean less "energy" spent on the stills camera. (in fact it's probably the other way around -- if video functionality helps raise R&D dollars that a stills-only camera would not be able to raise, then spending more "energy" on the video features actually means that more is available for enhancing stills).

+1000000000000000

Canon spend a FIXED % of net sales on R&D each year. [Read the financial statements of the company whose product you purport to care about so much that you so readily profess to comment on it's products features]

Video functionality = HIGHER SALES = MORE REVENUE = MORE R&D  ....really is that simple folks

So to those people who are not listening or reading earlier posts, a stills only DSLR will likely cost more to produce, and will have LESS money spent on R&D......... thus you cannot get a DSLR that costs proportionately more to produce (lower sales volume, thus lower production quantity = higher per unit fabrication cost) for less money?

Why keep reiterating nonsense that you want a 5D3 w/out Video with 15-stops of latitude for $500 less, when its gonna cost more to manufacture? :o >:( :( ;) ??? ::) :-[


edit: the original OP is about a dedicated 'purist' photography DSLR-only camera, but this thread has morphed into another whinge about Canon's pricing policy

DB...i don't think you've read through this entire thread very well because if you had you would realize that there does seem to be some interest in a camera without video. 

Think of it this way...ALL new dslr's have video, entry level crops all the way up to FF pro bodies.  With that said, I would venture a guess that better than 50% of dslr camera users DON'T use the video or rarely use it....so, if you're a marketing person at canon and I present you this information, you would be smart to think of a way to take advantage of this info/opportunity to sell/market a differentiated camera....just as the OP suggests.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Hobby Shooter on November 17, 2012, 01:21:40 AM
Hmm, haven't read all posts, but at my level I am really happy there is video in cameras. I have a 5D3 and in the rest of the family we have a number of Canons, S100, G11 and a couple of other that the children use, my youngest daughter also have a very cheap Canon Legria SD. Most I do is still, but I am very happy that the 5D3 has video capabilities, I basically don't know anything about videography, but it's great to have to capture moments. I also use it for some Youtube stuff.

So for me I wouldn't be interested in a camera like that as it would reduce my flexibility.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: Northstar on November 17, 2012, 10:34:48 AM

Quote
I have read 100% of this thread, and I stand over my earlier point that it is a fallacy to suggest that a stills only DSLR would cost substantially less to purchase + would have better IQ.
[/quote]

I agree with you on this point about "substantially" less and "better IQ".  You're right, that's not going to happen.

But how about "a little bit less" and "optimized" for stills....a camera marketed to that "more than 50%" number I referenced.   

Anyway...I think if it was conceptualized, built, and marketed to this target market, it would be successful. IMO.


Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: sanj on November 17, 2012, 11:55:45 AM
If there was a better DSLR without video and cost same I would certainly go for it. That would in fact be nice.

At the same time, having video in my camera's does not bother me at all. I just do not use it.
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: unfocused on November 17, 2012, 12:35:18 PM
DB: You foolishly forget that logic and facts are meaningless on internet forums.

But, this thread was good for one thing. I learned a new word. (whinge)
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: crasher8 on November 17, 2012, 01:04:14 PM
and Tautology
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: rpt on November 17, 2012, 09:41:07 PM
and Tautology
And I just discovered that it is a real word! My language is improving! But I still want my dslr to be able to do video...
 :)
Title: Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
Post by: crasher8 on November 18, 2012, 09:58:55 AM
I for one do not need video, however I do need liveview and a larger vocabulary.