I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.
I like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.
ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.
consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.
it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.
First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.
Staying relevant in the market place? Probably
Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.
So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.
if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...
I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.
Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.
You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.
options v features... I say a feature of the suv is being a 4x4 with av6 with a tow option. an option is leather, Sun roof, etc.
regarding cameras, I say video is a feature of the device and an option is a battery grip, flash, memory card, etc.
but we can differ on this... I don't mind.
You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.
And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)
it is definitely a semantic argument.
people don't have to buy a car with options they don't want. they could get a completely option free car that barely meets the government's requirements for being a car and then do all the engineering themselves to add what they want. but that might cost more than getting a fully loaded car.
what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now.
is having a cd player really making people mad?