August 01, 2014, 12:54:08 PM

Author Topic: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?  (Read 8701 times)

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 750
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #15 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.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2012, 05:41:28 PM »

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 750
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #16 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.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
    • View Profile
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #17 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!   :)

RichM

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • NH Sports Photography
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #18 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.
5d3, 7d gripped,  17-40f4L, 24-105f4L, 70-200f2.8LII, 50f1.8, 300f4L, 430EX2

Neeneko

  • Guest
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #19 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....

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
    • View Profile
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #20 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.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2012, 08:35:42 PM »

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 750
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #22 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.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 750
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #23 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
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

weixing

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #24 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.

preppyak

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 11:43:31 PM by preppyak »

c3hammer

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #26 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

wockawocka

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
    • Wedding Photography
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #27 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.
1DX, 5D3 and Hasselblad H Series owner.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2012, 02:46:48 AM »

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2123
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #28 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.

NormanBates

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • www.similaar.com
    • View Profile
    • www.similaar.com
Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #29 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

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!!!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2012, 04:27:36 AM »