Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[CatfishSoupFTW]

when this whole idea came out of video on DSLRs i wasnt for it, just because i almost felt like it wasnt a pairing that shouldnt happen. but its evolved in such a successful manner well beyond the amateur level that i have accepted it and have even myself, shot shorts with it. its great. i shoot fully manual to begin with, so its fun and fairly easy to grasp imo

[FredBGG]

Just go and shoot with a medium format digital and you'll see that sensors designed for stills only do a far better job. Both color and black and white is better. Today's 35mm  DSLRs still can't match the color quality of 5 to 6 year old MF digital backs. It would be interesting to see what could be done with a 3 layer stills only sensor in one of today's high end 35mm bodies.

[briansquibb]

The colour quality of even the best DSLRs doesnt get close to good film. Resolution - yes, DR - no.

[Ricku]

Just go and shoot with a medium format digital and you'll see that sensors designed for stills only do a far better job. Both color and black and white is better. Today's 35mm  DSLRs still can't match the color quality of 5 to 6 year old MF digital backs. It would be interesting to see what could be done with a 3 layer stills only sensor in one of today's high end 35mm bodies.

+1

I don't understand why they (Canon + Nikon) won't give us at least one body designed only for stills. Me and many many other photographers would buy it in a heart beat, because we don't give a sh1t about video in our DSLRs.

I really hate that IQ for stills is being sacrificed for stupid video.

[tt]

The colour quality of even the best DSLRs doesnt get close to good film. Resolution - yes, DR - no.

Doesn't even the RED need help with that though? If it's consistent, can you sort to some degree colour? I remember seeing the Zacuto shoot out and wondering how it'd pan out in a year or two (I think the Scarlet wasn't available at the time). The d800 and 5D successor should have sorted some issues out (eg wobble)

[AvTvM]

OK, why the hate? Here is why ... in a hateful rant:

1. I never shoot video (except on rare occassions a brief crappy clip of a scene on my iphone). Main reason is that the creation of at least halfway decent moving images requires levels of visual and staging creativity and amounts of time I do not have. I find still photography including post processing more than challenging enough. :-)

2. I  and millions of other photographers around the world would like to be able to choose cameras that are unfettered by any video features and unharmed by any of the many compromises inherent in enabling video capture along with stills capture. Those compromises manifest themselves like a bad disease ... starting with type and design of imaging sensors, data pipeline and processing, hardware and firmwar/software down to control elements and ergonomics of todays bastard stills/video cameras.  Capable of 2 things, but none of the two at 100%.

3. Rather than wasting half or more of the DIGIC's prowess on bloody video encoding I would like all of this  processing power harnessed for the capture and processing of still images and to drive AF-systems with yet unheard of capabilities. Including a 2012-worthy reincarnation of the Canon Eye Controlled Focusing [ECF], the most intuitive and ergonomic interface man has ever created to get a picture in focus.

4. I would like a camera body without a dedicated red video "record" button and without any other physical control elements, unnecessarily bloated "video" options in its menu tree and without any of the other video-related gimmicks that just get in the way of what I would like to do with my camera: capture the best possible still images in the most uncompromised and straightforward way! 

5. The most convincing tools are dedicated to one and only one prupose. A hammer is the best tool to drive in nails with as little effort as possible. For screws ... take a screwdriver, for gods sake! Seeing all these video types taking DSLRs and putting them into those monstrous rigs with follow focus control and steady cam rigs ... they would be way better served and overjoyed with dedicated video cams ... of course with a large sensor and of course not more expensive than a 7D, a 5D II or maybe a C300. The video types don't care for stills - and I fully appreciate that. 

6. For me please a 7Ds or a 5Ds or even better a mirrorless Canon SOL S (finally retire those old EOS-DSLRs of yesteryear!) with "s" for "stills only".

Make it so, Canon ... engage!

[briansquibb]

6. For me please a 7Ds or a 5Ds or even better a mirrorless Canon SOL S (finally retire those old EOS-DSLRs of yesteryear!) with "s" for "stills only".

Make it so, Canon ... engage!

Buy a 1Ds3 - and your wish will come true

[AvTvM]

hehe, yes that would be an option. But way too much money for an outdated sensor. 

[NormanBates]

but without income from customers interested in video, there's very little money for developing new sensors and processors!
stick to 1Ds3, pay an arm and a leg, or be done with this silly argument

and in any case let me remind you that for decades the stills world was subsidized by the movie industry (which made film cheap thanks to its huge demand)

[AvTvM]

but without income from customers interested in video, there's very little money for developing new sensors and processors!

not correct. There were 15 years of enormous progress in sensors and processors development used in DSLRs ... way before any of them was video-enabled. Ever since, most of the development money seems to be spent on this effort to try and turn still cams into half-assed videocams too.

All those who want to put sorry little video clips on youtube would be well enough served with their smartphones or compact digicams. And "serious" videographers at all levels from semi-pro to Hollywood-aspiring Indie filmmaker would be way better served with pure and true video cams. Sony, Pana, Canon could have started making large-sensor videocams a long time ago -  customers were not holding them back.

Demand for HDSLRs was and is solely fueled by the fact, that they offered good video-quality for significantly less money than true videocams, but definitely not by overwhelming demand of users who wanted to have one combi-tool to capture video and stills with.  It would be more than good enough, if both lines - stills and videocams - have the same or fully compatible lens mounts, so that quality   

Video-enabled still cams are just being stuffed down photographers' throats ... if there was free choice between say a 5D-V (video+stills) and a 5D-S (stills only) for 20% less money I would expect that 80% of cameras sold would be the stills version. But again, we are beinmg denied that choice.

outdated, end of life DSLRs without video - e.g. 1Ds III - are no solution. But offer me a 1D-S (1D X minus video functionality) for 4k and I take it any day. 

hammers for nails - screwdrivers for screws.
trucks for heavy loads - sportscars for speed.
videocams for video - still cams for still images!
   

[briansquibb]

hehe, yes that would be an option. But way too much money for an outdated sensor.

Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK

It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too

A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.

[Cetalis]

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?

[birtembuk]

While we all blah-blah about still/video capabilities, Canon are laughing all the way to the bank. Their mkt strategy in providing the masses w/ video DLSR is probably the right decision as their DSLR dept is making tons of money. So, it looks like photographers (seemingly soon to be extinct species) who don't give a damn about video have to get used to it. That's democracy. Now, what's frustrating is that we have no idea of what is the cost component of video in a VDSLR. If you tell me it's only 10% I'll swallow. If it's 30% it's bitter pill indeed. That's also why other alternatives become thinkable. Like going fishing instead ...     

[AvTvM]

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?

yes.

Please read post #35 ...  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3301.msg74696.html#msg74696

[AvTvM]

Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.

I agree with all of this, except that I would not want to drive or maintain a 1960s Rolls instead of a current Volkswagen.  :-)

Similarly, I do not want a 1Ds III ... i am neither lusting for FF nor for yesteryears' top cameras. All I want, is a highly capable APS-C camera as successor to my 7D. Preferably as a compact but "pro-grade" mirrorless camera, featuring
* top-notch, latest generation APS-C sensor [possibly a backlit CMOS?], electronics, image processing pipeline - all geared to deluiver highest IQ for stills capture, with video being no consideration at all
* top-notch AF system [dual system with CD-AF plus on-sensor PD-AF ... similar to Nikon 1, just in APS-C size]
* tough body with full sealing and ergonomics / control elements 100% dedicated to stills capture, no unnecessary buttons ["video record" etc.], no unneccessary video options cluttering the menus.
in one word: WITHOUT any video-stuff built in.

Should not be difficult to make ... right?