May 26, 2015, 10:03:19 AM

Author Topic: Baffles the mind  (Read 14157 times)

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2013, 11:17:33 AM »

From what you say, I conclude that you know very well before a shoot, wehteher you will capture video or stills and usually it is one or the other. From my observation of videographers, capturing [professional level] video does not leave enough time and room to allow them to also capture stills at the same time during a shoot.


Doesn't just not leave time.  It really is a headphuq.  Video does require composition, but you have other tools, other rules, you can make a point via montage, you can make a point via sound, your viewer may only have 2s to interpret your shot.

I will generally think in sequences.

Stills: completely different.  Compostion, that single frame is your single chance to make your point.  I'll will focus purely on that single frame.


So why not just take the requisite camera along for the task at hand. Motion cam when its video time and stills camera, when its stills time. And for the very few occasions when really both are required, you'll want to have two separate cameras anyway ... "typically" one on a tripod (video) and one your hand (stills). 


A number of reasons as I detailed in my post.  They suit different applications.  Let me turn it around.  Next time you go to take some portraits you are only allowed to use a 135/leica/minature format DSLR with an 85mm lens. You like?  Why restrict yourself?  My ENG's and HDVs work great for some applications.  My DSLR works better for some. My gopro works better for some.

I'll use whatever tool gets me the results that will satisfy my client and I.  I don't care what shape it is or badge thats on it.  I'll only use it if it works and if it's the best tool I have available to me.

As also discussed previously, I'm not in the habit of combining the two, there is a work leisure divide.

I rarely shoot stills hand held in any case... I'll usually have a monopod, or a 'pod' or a superclamp.


So, in essence, I fail to see the overwhelming usage scenario for fully video-enabled stills cameras. To me, the sole reason why DSLRs are being abused to also capture video is the absurdly high preice-level of [large sensored] video cams [with  a lens mount that accepts a wide range of lenses that are way less expensive than typical video-lenses].

I disagree in quite strong terms. Blame live view, not video.  I still worked in camera retail at the launch of the first digital rebel.  It cost as much as the 70D does now.  It's a myth that video adds costs to cameras.  The 5D3 cost a lot more than the 5D3 because its a lot more camera in all sorts of ways, much like the 5D2 on launch cost more than the 5D, it was a lot more camera, and nobody objected to video then.

Just ignore the video bit.  Don't use it.

It's not holding you back. It's not holding canon back.  Live with it.  I wish I could get an EOS in colours other than black, so I bought a white M.  I detailed all the functions I don't use on my DSLR.  Would canon do me a version pared down to just what I need.

Come on.

I shoot stills quite seriously as a hobby.  My cameras, all video enabled, match or exceed my ability and requirements.

I shoot video professionally, and in many situations my video enabled DSLRS are my goto choice.

Nothing in this life is without it's caveats. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2013, 11:17:33 AM »

Skywise

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2013, 11:19:44 AM »
As a hobbyist/traveler I LOVE the video capabilities of my T4i and use them a lot.

BUT - I had a Rebel Xti and I took that with me along with a stand-alone video camera on my trips beforehand.  So I would've always had a DSLR with me for photos.

Now I don't have to carry around two sets of camera equipment for family trips. (yay!) But I perfectly understand why people wouldn't bother - The video is cumbersome, not as good as using an actual video camera (in terms of control - the IQ I get from the T4i far surpasses the Canon video camera I used just 3 years ago but I would hope that would be the case with exponentially more expensive glass!)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2905
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2013, 11:19:57 AM »
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.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

takesome1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 677
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2013, 11:23:39 AM »
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.

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2905
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2013, 11:36:08 AM »
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.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

takesome1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 677
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2013, 11:44:48 AM »
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)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2905
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2013, 12:05:22 PM »
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?
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2013, 12:05:22 PM »

takesome1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 677
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2013, 12:15:05 PM »

 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?

That cracks me up, really most are dead now?

CD player, in most vehicles you can order it without the CD player. I am sure that there is someone that had to pay for it when it was in a car and they didn't want it.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2013, 12:20:43 PM »
I love car analolgies!

They solve nothing and make the poster look a bit ridiculous (canon forum, CAM ER A's)

Keep em coming.

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2905
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2013, 12:24:05 PM »

 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?

That cracks me up, really most are dead now?

CD player, in most vehicles you can order it without the CD player. I am sure that there is someone that had to pay for it when it was in a car and they didn't want it.

I was pleased with myself after I  came up with that.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1518
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2013, 12:31:44 PM »
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)

You can complain all you want, but the market for stills only is not big enough to warrant a separate product offering.  Perhaps you can find 100,000 others and sign a petition/contract telling Canon that all of you will be willing to buy a stills camera every year for the next ten years.  I'm sure a revenue stream of 100-200M/year will tempt Canon to develop a stills camera for you.

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1286
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2013, 12:57:38 PM »
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.

Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2013, 01:51:54 PM »
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.

It all depends on what you like (and need) to do with a camera.  Some people have enough videos to watch already.  Others prefer the experience and the results of the still image art form.  For very many these days, it comes down to what tool for what purpose.  Still images are accessible in a different way than video.  Video demands you to spend the time watching it, usually instead of doing something else.  Still images, especially those mounted on a wall...can be viewed and enjoyed for brief yet repeated periods at random...while doing other things.

If you are wanting to make money, then wedding photography and video are the most prevalent means.  So video is an important part of the equation to many of those people.  Then there are "independent" film-makers, the advertising world...etc...all of course use video or "motion pictures". 

But as for your idea that manufacturers aren't focusing enough on video ability, or that it should be the "main focus"...that's just wrong on both counts.  A DSLR, is a "digital single lens reflex" camera.  It's not a cinema camera...except of course for the 1DC, haha.  A DSLR's primary purpose will always be stills photography, because that's the basic concept of the design.  There's a mechanical focal plane shutter, a reflex mirror for phase detection autofocus sensors, etc.  Cinema cameras don't need to work that way.

In the past I used to shoot a lot of video with a video camera, back before they got very good.  I now shoot video with my 6D, but only about 5% of the time so far.  The rest is stills.  I make some money from the stills.  The 6D's video ability isn't in the top league, nor is it meant to be.  That's more than fine with me!  To do video in a high quality way, you need the gear and accessories for it.  Which generally means you're spending a lot of time and money doing it...and making money from it.  Or else some people spend their time but not much resources, and get more compromised, casual results meant solely for youtube consumption by people with a lot of free time on their hands.  That gets old after a while.

Frankly for myself, I want to approach motion pictures from the other side.  I've always been interested in both movies and music recording.  I wouldn't mind having my own soundstages, and letting the real film makers come and use the facility, and pay me for the privilege...while occasionally letting me watch them work.  I already have the facility but it needs to be converted into a soundstage, which for me isn't going to happen in the immediate future. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2013, 01:51:54 PM »

takesome1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 677
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2013, 04:41:23 PM »


Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C

$.30? really? I guess all the R&D that Canon had to do they just absorbed themselves?

takesome1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 677
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM »

You can complain all you want, 

Yes we can

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM »