Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

Yes, but it is essentially the same for all the cameras they sell, tweaked for a particular model, so spreading a million dollars over several million bodies might add 25 cents.  The 5D MK II paid off any initial firmware development cost years ago, so we are now dealing with incremental costs that will be spread out over the next 3 years.  A million dollard sounds like a lot but the very high numbers of bodies to be sold make it a low cost per unit, and the additional sales due to video bring in far more profit, probably 1000X whatever the cost is.
 
Like many here, I don't use the video features, but I do recognize that it brings resale value to my camera, and reduces my cost due to larger production runs.
 
The cost to Canon of developing the totally new AF system used in the 1D X and 5D MK III was likely 10X any developmental costs for upgrading the video. 

[zim]

I have no problem with video on my camera even though I’ve never used it. I tend to go with the better to have it just in case than not there when I could have really used it scenario.
The only thing I’m not clear on though (and what would change my mind) is does having it compromise the design of the sensor to the detriment of stills? if not then I don’t see the problem even if it does increase the price of the camera. Is there a definitive answer to the stills quality question?

[paul13walnut5]

When live view was fitted then the capability was pretty much there.

The 5D2 added a new sensor and processor to the 5D spec so it's difficult to see what cost the video feature added.

The 7D added a new a new sensor, AF system, pentaprism, wireless flash and twin image processors, and a dedicated AF processor to the 50D spec, as well as video, so it's hard to deduce what extra cost the video function indiviudually added.

The 500D added a new sensor and LCD screen to the 450D spec, so again it's hard to isolate what cost difference.

I don't use the PIC modes. Never have, never will.   I don't use spot metering.  Unlikely to.  I don't use AWB.  Not likely to.   I don't use custom profiles.  Unlikely to.

Canon don't make a camera specifically for me, but they make several that do what I want, so I put up with the redundancy.

I do use video, for my work.   And as great as it is, the video is compromised by the still sensor roots, not the other way about.  The AA filter is the wrong strength for the ultimate video resolution.  The colour sampling pulldown isn't great for video (4.2.0 where 4.2.2 is the norm, and 4.4.4 preferable) the sensor read-off is wrong (very slow version of frame transfer, rather than the preferable and switchable frame / interline transfer FIT type) causing the infamous jello shutter.

So if anything, stills considerations compromise the video capability, but then, it is a stills camera first and foremost.

That said, used with realistic expectations and sensible techniques I prefer shooting on my EOS camera for many types of job than on my 2/3" ENG camera.

Back in the day when I used an EOS 3 film camera, I loved ECF.  Some folk hated it.  I could never work out why they just didn't use it.   I would swap PIC modes AWB and spot metering for XLR inputs and a headphone out, but how popular would that be?

You will find it difficult to buy a camera without video these days, so regardless of the answers you come up with, thats how it is.

[Aglet]

Video's a feature I would not miss on my cameras and would prefer it not be there.

There's very likely some compromises made in the front end electronics to perform the high speed data acquisition required by video that may affect overall image quality for stills.

[Chuck Alaimo]

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800?  Even a rebel has so many features and options that a person coming from a p&s.  Photography isn't cheap, whether your a hobby person or aspire to make money with it, it ain't cheap - with that said though there are cheaper options.  I mean, I highly doubt that the vast majority of us here on the forum  when buying their first setup said ---not sure if i should buy (fill in blank) for $7000.  No, most of us either went from film camera to digital, or, a cheap P&S to a rebel or nikons equivalent.  From there, add a flash, a few better lenses, go shoot...go shoot...love it...go shoot, then eventually after time outgrow what we have and upgrade.

I know its getting old school on you here, but we can really break it down to ultra cheap.  If you really have no money, go build yourself a pin hole camera!

[elflord]

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.

Yeah, that part was kind of odd. There are also older bodies with no video that are dirt cheap for those who don't need video -- a 40D is about $400, a rebel XS is about $250.

Cost of glass pretty quickly dwarfs price of the body.

[cayenne]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Hey cayenne --- just a friendly bit of advice.  Before taking the plunge, if you know anyone that has an slr, borrow it for a day or 2.  Or, seeing as though it seems you have disposable income - rent one.  Maybe borrow a a 7d and a 60D then rent an mkii or mkiii.  Its an expensive piece of equipment, kind of like a car (at the $3000 its exactly like a used car).  Give a few SLR's a test drive, then take the plunge...

My fee for this advice is one mkiii, it can be sent too....LOL

[elflord]

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

[Stephen Melvin]

Video saved Canon's bacon, with the 5D Mk II. That camera would have sold about half as many units if it hadn't had video, and the extra funds allowed Canon to upgrade the Mk III extensively. Remember, R&D is booked as a percentage of sales, and video more than doubled sales of the Mk II. It wouldn't surprise me if it actually tripled them.

Increased sales lowers costs, so in other words, video has lowered the cost of bodies. Besides, video is pretty much "free," because Live View is an extremely useful photographic tool. Once you have Live View, all it takes is a bit of code and a 10¢ microphone to get video.

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

[briansquibb]

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

There are always costs - perhaps you mean that the costs are outweighed by increased profits from additional sales?

[cayenne]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in?  There are lots of dslr options under $1000.  They all have video too.  At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Hey cayenne --- just a friendly bit of advice.  Before taking the plunge, if you know anyone that has an slr, borrow it for a day or 2.  Or, seeing as though it seems you have disposable income - rent one.  Maybe borrow a a 7d and a 60D then rent an mkii or mkiii.  Its an expensive piece of equipment, kind of like a car (at the $3000 its exactly like a used car).  Give a few SLR's a test drive, then take the plunge...

My fee for this advice is one mkiii, it can be sent too....LOL

LOL...thanks for the advice.
I've pretty much already made the decision, just need to click the buy button.

I was first introduced to the Mark II last year late...while on a shoot for a short comedy...pro situation, lighting, sound people, a guy to pull focus...etc.

I saw what these things can do, and since then, have seen the amazing things pros are doing with them.
Someday maybe I can make money a little to pay for itself? Maybe. Down here in New Orleans, there is a HUGE industry with film and tv....and I've already got people saying just showing up on some of the more indie things..can get me on set and a little $$, so I can gain experience.

I want it for some cooking videos I'm already shooting just using my iPhone and iMovie to edit....I want that HD look.

I've got the cash in hand so I'm going to get the Mark III.....

I think I've researched myself to death at this point.

[cayenne]

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield .  With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C

[ScottyP]

Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's?  Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's? 
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video?  If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time.  If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

All I (in the OP) did was ask if it costs something and if perhaps it is wasted on some people?  I also expressed doubt that it could literally cost nothing.  I went on to indicate that I felt photography is expensive enough without having to buy video whether you want it or not. 

Nothing against video.  I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point.  If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck? 

Even if the true marginal cost of video is/were really almost negilgible, there is a percieved value, so maybe that provides a marketing opportunity.  Maybe they could avoid undercutting their other product lines with a cheaper stills-only body by using the justification/rationalization/distinction that the price is cheaper because it was stripped of video/audio capability.  Or perhaps I am over-analyzing this.

[Astro]

i don´t use video on my DSLR.
that said video is a fact and here to stay. so discussing this topic is kind of useless.

my problem is that canon seem to put more effort in video quality then in still image quality improvement.