« on: May 12, 2012, 04:53:30 PM »
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's? Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's?
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video? If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time. If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.
All I (in the OP) did was ask if it costs something and if perhaps it is wasted on some people? I also expressed doubt that it could literally cost nothing. I went on to indicate that I felt photography is expensive enough without having to buy video whether you want it or not.
Nothing against video. I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point. If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck?
Even if the true marginal cost of video is/were really almost negilgible, there is a percieved value, so maybe that provides a marketing opportunity. Maybe they could avoid undercutting their other product lines with a cheaper stills-only body by using the justification/rationalization/distinction that the price is cheaper because it was stripped of video/audio capability. Or perhaps I am over-analyzing this.