Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[tt]

May sound silly - but as PC DIYers have done with their systems, haven't photogs looked at creating cooling systems? It'd involve consideration from the starting design of the camera, but a cooling system would be pretty feasible? Bit of liquid cooling for those astro long exposure videos?

[Cetalis]

The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise)

....

A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream. 

Long exposure work, live view, and high temperature environments, say a desert, would make overheating a consideration, even without video. Internally, long exposure work, fast burst rates, or extremely high resolution would mean that one would still need a continuous stream at some point in the pipeline; otherwise a buffer would not be necessary. Even as the data rides off the sensor into the buffer, it is also a continuous stream, albeit a short one in most cases.  Even if IQ for one, and only one exposure is prioritized, large format scanning backs still deliver data in a continuous stream.

Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it...If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.

Again, this seems like speculation with more certainty than is supported by the hard facts available to us.

Agreed. But even a dedicated stills-only camera can have video functionality slapped on with little extra cost.

[hollybush]

Performance per-watt continues to go up for mobile devices.

Not as fast as Canon is adding features, it seems. According to information in the following thread, the 1DX weighs 10% more and has 37% worse battery life than the outgoing model.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3650.msg76993/topicseen.html#new

I don't claim that's all due to video, and in fact in that thread I speculate that much of it is not, but I do think the marketing department would consider this less acceptable if video weren't in consideration.

(Edit for typo above)

[AvTvM]

next thing that comes with video is ... AUDIO!
Another bunch of electronics + processing stuff that drains valuable power and does nothing whatsoever for stills photography.  Additional components, additional development costs ... making stills+video(+audio) more expensive than stills only.

[stabmasterasron]

I used to hate video in dSLRs also.  Until I realized that because of video, Canon probably sold many more 5dmkii than they would have it had been a stills only camera.  And in the end, video may have made the camera cost less because they sold more.  I have not use for video, and I would love a modern ff camera body that was stills only, but if it causes the camera to cost less, then OK.  I am not saying for sure this is the case, just speculating.

[archangelrichard]

consider the difference between the (still oriented) 50D and the (more video oriented) 60D

First the 60D is PLASTIC. they had to go plastic to put in that "articulated" rear screen (video oriented)

Second, you lost the micro adjustment for focus

Third you trade off features for features just because memory is limited on the processor

and on and on - yes there is a difference


Hate? I don't think hate is the right word, but there are also SNOB's who, shall we say, like to flaunt their own ignorance or intolerance of others and constantly seek validation of their superiority by insulting others.

I don't think that too many sane people would begrudge video capabilities if they did not detract from still capabilities; the problem is that they do and will simply because they use resources in the processor that could be used for something else

And they are Plastic .......

[Waterdonkey]

Sounds like all you video haters should have bought a Kodak.... oh right they all but went out of business, why? They hung on too hard to film and I think Im right on this they never did an HDDSLR. 
Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

"And they are Plastic ......." Sure the 7D is plastic too its not, come on the 60D articulating screens are for family video, you can't get reliable focus from that thing.

Begin the Smiting 

[AvTvM]

Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

no smiting. As a Non-video photographer I would embrace new technology enthusiastically, if only Canon would BRING IT ON! First things that come to mind ...
* higher DR
* (even) better IQ at ISO 100-1600, I would forego ISO 6400+ in an instance for that
* better AF-systems
* usable Auto-ISO function
* ... and and and

Video+Audio capture? Not on my list. As simple as that.
Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!

[Cetalis]

consider the difference between the (still oriented) 50D and the (more video oriented) 60D

1: The 50D line was split between 60D and 7D.
2: The 50D can be retrofitted with video via a third party firmware extension (Magic Lantern)

Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!

If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension by a bunch of independent third party developers working in their spare time, I highly doubt that stills optimized and non-stills optimized DSLRs are that different. The cost of firmware development and adding in the microphones and an extra button is trivial, without even comparing it to how much more Canon can lower the price simply because it sells more. And as for R&D money, Canon sells TV lenses and cameras too. The difference between a video camera and a non-video camera is probably under $75USD, but it would cost Canon an exorbitant amount of money in either lost sales from videographers, or the increased cost of marketing two nearly identical models. In the end its simply not practical.

[Frank209]

I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera.

first of all;  BEST COMPARISATION EVER!!!

second; Get a rig! 

[AvTvM]

If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension ...

means the 50D was already a fully video enabled camera, rather than a stills camera. Canon just chose - for whatever reasons - to not unlock the video capabilities designed into the sensor and processing pipeline. Hardware is obviously already a compromised design.

[Orangutan]

If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension ...

means the 50D was already a fully video enabled camera, rather than a stills camera. Canon just chose - for whatever reasons - to not unlock the video capabilities designed into the sensor and processing pipeline. Hardware is obviously already a compromised design.

Classic "No true Scotsman" fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

AvTvM:  I respect your desire for a stills camera that is uncompromised by extraneous features.  You have given plausible arguments that video *could* compromise stills; however, this is not sufficient to show that it *has* compromised video.  To do so, you would need to know enough about sensor design to make verifiable assertions about those trade-offs.  I.e., you would need to be an engineer with specialty in this area.  Others, including me, have also made plausible arguments that video could improve stills photography.  I don't claim, however, that I have proved my case either.  In short, we just don't know: aside from ergonomics / body design (which are subjective anyway) we simply don't have enough technical detail to resolve this debate.

In direct response to your post, it is at least as plausible that video is precisely the "freebie" that many of us claim.  How far back would we need to go in the EOS line before you would concede that model xxD was *not* designed with video in mind and, therefore, if video can be enabled by Magic Lantern then it's a "freebie?"

[Neeneko]

May sound silly - but as PC DIYers have done with their systems, haven't photogs looked at creating cooling systems? It'd involve consideration from the starting design of the camera, but a cooling system would be pretty feasible? Bit of liquid cooling for those astro long exposure videos?

Actually, you can get cooling kits/conversions.  They are used by people into astrophotography.

[Neeneko]

Sounds like all you video haters should have bought a Kodak.... oh right they all but went out of business, why? They hung on too hard to film and I think Im right on this they never did an HDDSLR. 
Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

Ugh, I am starting to really hate the mythology around Kodak...

Kodak did not die because it failed to embrace technology or innovate.  They died because their CEO was a corporate raider who kept selling off profitable divisions in order to get record quarterly 'profits' and drive stock prices up, then had to keep doing it till there was nothing left.

One of the problems with consumers (and all the blogs talking about Kodak) is they tend to forget that they are not the world, and that companies have markets that are NOT consumer product.  Kodak's consumer division really was not it's biggest nor its most important, and its failure was not grounded in what was happening there.

But of course every analysis and blog tends to focus on that element because that is the only part the average person saw and, well, people are egotistical and like believing that their narrow demographic is THE important one.

[Cinnamon]

This is a great forum topic. Since some people dismissed video on DSLRs as a gimmick without much practical use, I thought I would never use the video features on my video capable DSLRs. I figured for the situations I'll want or need video, I'll use my video camera. A few years later, I have over 1 TB worth of video shot with SLRs!

I can understand why people don't use the video feature - without a rig, or stabilization equipment of some sort, the video can be a bit shaky unless you really dedicate time to improving handholding techniques to get useable video. Once you do that though, it's completely worth it. The quality of the footage you can capture is remarkable...and in some unexpected moments, I've been able to capture priceless moments that still pictures wouldn't be able to truly do justice for.

In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.