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.