Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?

[AvTvM]

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.   

[Northstar]

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?

[RustyTheGeek]

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.

[dshipley]

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.

[Dylan777]

I will take 5D III without video features for $200-$500 less. I simply don't use video on my 5D III at all.

[rpt]

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...

[infared]

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!

[RustyTheGeek]

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.

[markbyland]

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.

[rpt]

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...

[unfocused]

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.

[RustyTheGeek]

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.

[iaind]

A 5DIII without video will cost a premium over std model duetolow volume. Look at 60Da  over std 60D 

[elflord]

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).

[SDsc0rch]

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)