October 21, 2014, 09:54:07 PM

Author Topic: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?  (Read 18948 times)

Richard8971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #105 on: May 14, 2012, 12:16:32 AM »
Well as far as I am concerned, video on DSLR's is wasted and a waste of my camera's resources and my hard earned money.

 and I hate the fact it is even there.

I honestly don't understand that sentiment, could you try to explain it...

I'm not saying this is necessarily your concern, but it seems that this is not so much about unnecessary features and wasted money as it is a philosophical issue: some folks don't believe video is art in the same way as stills photography, and are resentful of being associated with a lesser craft.  On the other hand, we have video enthusiasts who consider DSLR video to be a toy.

If you have a minute I'd appreciate an explanation.  Why is it worth the emotional energy?

Thanks.

 I believe the majority of people that are posting here are avid photography enthusiasts not videography enthusiast.

I want the best camera my money can buy in a particular price range please make note - not a video camera. So if you wanna throw video in fine as long as you do not negatively impact my camera's functionality with video or start raising the price. I am not looking to purchase a video camera or a video system.

 Personally I see point and shoots as being the trade offs. I do not want to think my digital single lens reflex camera is a trade off.........  I want it to be the best camera (not the best video camera that I can get for the money I pay. Compromise negatively impacts my still photography which thus negates my reason for buying into this system to begin with.

I have a minute and the above answers your question. I bought a DSLR for stills, NOT video. I wonder how much better my camera would be if it wasn't drug down with unnecessary crap like video and it's support. Oh well...

D
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 12:20:04 AM by Richard8971 »
Canon 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #105 on: May 14, 2012, 12:16:32 AM »

AG

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #106 on: May 14, 2012, 01:51:24 AM »
Can we stop flogging this...



If you honestly believe that adding video to your DSLR has hindered its ability in ANY way then your fooling yourself. Thats like saying that a phone can't have an MP3 player built in because it may affect the way you can make calls.

Then as soon as someone proves that its not the case, people jump up and down, pointing and shouting and claiming that suddenly they have "factual proof" that it happened to their nephews best friends cousins neighbours brother, and he's a professional photographer so it must be true.

Lets be honest here.

Does it even freaking matter??

If you believe that video is hindering your picture taking abilities then either A. buy a camera that does not have video (Leica for example) or B. stop taking pictures because obviously your not as good as you think you are.

Simple solutions.

As for video raising the costs of the bodies... honestly? Id have to say not as much as what pure profiteering is doing.
Supply and demand.
You have a camera that has no video and you may sell 2000 of them a year, you take that same camera and add state of the art video feature via firmware (because lets face it its the same freaking sensor either way, they didn't hinder it just to make it shoot videos). Suddenly they sell 1 million copies.

If you were a burgeoning company that wants to make money and have a "HOT" device on your hands would you sell that for the same price as the model that sold 2000 copies or would you milk the market for everything its got and try selling it for 30% more.
Then the internets get flooded by people blaming the video for the reason why their beloved camera now costs 30% more than the previous model, especially since they "don't ever and will never use it".

Its not video raising costs....its GREED and Profit.

Plain and simple.

Can we let these types of threads die now please (i miss the I'm selling all my crap and moving to Nikon thanks to the D800E threads)??

Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

kdsand

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • Newt II a human stampede
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #107 on: May 14, 2012, 02:15:57 AM »
I think most people would agree that yes the price is all about supply and demand.

I also believe most people would admit that videos is making an increased impact.

I myself for one am not going to jump brands, turncoat nor quit photography.  :o

I have to wonder if people saying shut up grin and bear it are actually closet videographers. Hmm?  :-[  :-X  :-[

Lol love the cartoon.  :D
60D, t2i, Magic Lantern, Manfrotto, Joby, Domke, SanDisk and excetera excetera

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #108 on: May 14, 2012, 04:25:48 AM »
But video does hinder a camera's ability.  Canon has $X to put towards new product development.  Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features.  We'd have variable ISO across the sensor, inbuilt ND grads, GPS, Bluetooth, WIFI connectivity, inbuilt ST-E3 functionality, inbuilt IR autofocus assist, improved weathersealing and durability, carbon fibre camera bodies, increased processing power, buffers, longer lasting batteries etc etc.  They'd also have the money to develop an adapter for EX speedlites that provides wireless connectivity with the ST-E3 and 600EX.  They'd even have money to develop a longer camera strap.  But instead Canon has chosen to develop DSLR video features.

I'm not saying that Canon (or any other manufacturer) is wrong with this.  Clearly, the market has spoken and we've said that we value video more.  last year, I even went out and bought a camera specifically because I wanted to take videos with a DSLR.  But to answer the initial question, cameras could be improved from a pure photographic perspective if video development resources were allocated to other areas.  But I think Canon has their priorities right in developing video.  My only concern is how much people have to pay to get top image quality (especially if they decide to discontinue the 5Dii).
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 04:33:45 AM by Hillsilly »
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

NormanBates

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • www.similaar.com
    • View Profile
    • www.similaar.com
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #109 on: May 14, 2012, 05:44:00 AM »
the mistake there is to believe that "Canon has $X to put towards new product development".

it has $X if it's going to develop a stills-only camera (which they predict will sell A units) and $Y if it's going to be a stills-and-video camera (which they'll predict will sell B units)

none of us has any idea what X, Y, A, B are, but I'd guess that a $3K camera that doesn't record video won't sell as much as one that does, so A<B, and I'd guess that means X<Y

in any case, the cost of including video is very low: once you have live view, all you have to do is record that signal feed; and the encoding is not expensive: the video processor in the $15K Canon C300 costs less than $50 to manufacture (it can also be found on $300 consumer videocameras); please start a thread complaining that the 5D3 is more expensive than it need be because it has weather sealing that you don't need because you don't ever shoot in the rain; it's much more expensive than this silly video thing

as for the price hike, don't blame the yen, video, or anything like that: blame Canon
the D800 is also made in japan (yen argument us bollocks) and also shoots pretty decent video (see recent Philip Bloom review and comparison with 5D3), and it's $3K instead of $3.5K, while beating the 5D3 in nearly every metric that matters for stills


edit: I'm a video shooter, but if I buy a 5D3 it will be 90% for stills only
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 05:48:57 AM by NormanBates »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #110 on: May 14, 2012, 05:44:21 AM »
@kdsands

Just noticed you've installed magic lantern on your T2i.

So are you a closet videographer then?   ;)

« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 06:36:54 AM by paul13walnut5 »

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1018
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #111 on: May 14, 2012, 06:38:04 AM »
yes - video raises the price of DSLRs.
Because up to now, Video-DSLRs are still the cheapest available large-sensor camcorders, video shooters are happy to pay whatever is charged for a video-DSLR, as long as it is substantially lower than what a similarly capable dedicatedvideo-cam costs. This drives up prices of DSLRs for stills shooters.

yes, video is wasted on the majority of all DSLR-buyers
only a smallish proportion of purchasers uses (hi-end) video capabilities. Many others may capture a few short clips  after purchase "to try it out", but will never seriously use video in DSLRs at all. Videos that are up to the standars of "enthusiast amateur still photos" are not easy to produce. In terms of creative imagination, skills, time and money for planning, capture and post production, even a fairly simple video is beyond the realm of most amatuer DSLR purchasers. 

I for one would love to get a DSLR like the 5D3 with all video-capabilitis disabled in firmware [except liveview] at a 25-50% discount on current price.   

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #111 on: May 14, 2012, 06:38:04 AM »

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #112 on: May 14, 2012, 07:31:04 AM »
But video does hinder a camera's ability.  Canon has $X to put towards new product development.  Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features.

It doesn't follow, because X is not some fixed constant. The amount they're prepared to invest depends on the anticipated returns. That's why stills only cameras are not cheap -- they might put the money into those extra features but they need to charge more per unit shipped to get it back.


OldSalt

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Amateur Hobbyist
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #113 on: May 14, 2012, 08:00:55 AM »
I for one am not at all interested in shooting video.  I was perfectly happy with my 450D (last Canon Rebel DSLR to not have a video function) and only upgraded to improve my still shot capabilities.  I also believe it is impossible to add video into a DSLR body without increasing the cost, IT JUST CANNOT HAPPEN!   Now I would not want to speculate on how a MFR such as Canon might go about determining the return/retail costs, since there are so many factors that go into such an analysis, but I guarantee you the cost of development and features for video function are ADDED to the end cost, MFR's are not giving us anything, ever.
    So IMHO there is an increased cost to adding the video functionality albeit probably not a significant added cost to retail (10% is my WAG) and the limited R&D costs are also shared in the development of a DSLR thereby taking away valuable funds that might go towards still photography features that are at present being spread a crossed both still and video.  Could they build a "still only" and create a single minded focused purpose built DSLR with today‚Äôs modern features strictly as they are related to still photography (such as a option of in-camera HDR) and sell it, I'm sure they could but I doubt it would cost any less simply because the video features taken out of the body would be replaced with added still photography features.
Gripped 7D | Nifty 50 | 70-200 f2.8L | 28-135 f3.5-5.6 | 75-300 f4-5.6 | EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 | EF-S Kit 18-55 | 430EX II | Gripped 450D | Vanguard ABH-340L on top of an Induro Alloy 8M AT-413 |

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #114 on: May 14, 2012, 08:31:09 AM »
I just don't get it.

If you don't want to use video then don't.  Some of us do. 

Canon have been adding to their feature set (in camera wireless flash, increased ISO ranges) but folk will always find something to moan about.

I use about 15% of my cameras interface (video postion, M and if I'm feeling lazy Av) I also use the depth of field preview a lot, although I know that many folk do not.

I wish Canon would make a DSLR with XLR audio inputs, a headphone socket, but without spot metering, without a 2s self timer, without a P or CA or PIC modes.  In fact, lets bin Tv mode and AiFocus whilst we are at it.  I'll keep all the AF points on my 7D, but I wish canon would make a rebel with one single centre AF point, as the rest are entirely superflous to my needs.  I would rather the cost of developing firmware that lets you switch your shutter and Ae lock buttons was instead spent on an external audio level control.

But then it would be a camera for me.  Not for the x'ooo's of people needed to make the product commercially viable.

I have a 7D a 550D and have recently bought a 600D.  And the swivel LCD and audio levels make the 600D the camera I go to most for video.  Which is now my main usage of my EOS cameras (I've used EOS cameras since the early 90's, first was a 1000fn, followed by a 5, a 300, a 3, a 50e, a 300x, a 400D, and I sold a fair few cameras in my days in camera retail)

I love that canon are adding decent video functionalty to their DSLRs.  And my EOS is often first choice ahead of the 2/3" ENG camera I use where longer record runs are required.

I could live without CA, P, Tv, BULB, DEP, PIC, I could live without any ISO setting above 1600 (in fact I would prefer a range from ISO25-800) I could live without AF pretty much entirely, and to keep the cost down, just give me centreweighted average metering.

My point is that Canon aren't making cameras for any one individual. Believe me, that with the exception of the 1D-C and the C300 & C500, video plays second fiddle to photo on every EOS camera.   I can't believe the offence some folk take at the inclusion of video.   Really?  Go and march on a bank.   Stand for election.  Open a soup kitchen and get some real problems.
 
You don't like video, hell, don't use it.  It really is that simple.  Your stills are not being done down because of it. 

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 745
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #115 on: May 14, 2012, 09:32:44 AM »
I think one of the problems is that the anti-video crowd believe that Canon develop their specs first, then develop the tech & features to go in it.  It's more likely the reverse.  Sure, they have a rough idea of what the next camera will be, but not the details -- the market will determine that.  Let's consider my guess about the time timelime of a new hypothetical 70D.

Ongoing schedule: Canon's various R&D departments continue to develop tech that could go into their crop line: several types of sensors, screens, processing chips, etc.  This process never stops, they're just always trying to develop better and/or cheaper components.  These same departments work on the tech for all of their models, not just the 70D, so the new screen or sensor could go into a 7DMII as well, depending on later market conditions.

About 6-9 months before product announcement, Canon must start to "lock down" their feature set.  They will know from experience how long it takes to prepare a factory line for each new component and the finish assembly.  Features will be locked down in the order required to lock down other components, and by the prep schedule of the factory lines.   E.g., they must lock down the body size and shape before locking down layout of internal components.  At this point, nearly all the tech is already designed, prototyped, tested,  and estimates are made of production costs.  Next, Canon checks the market conditions, and also examines tea leaves to determine what the main competition is likely to produce.  From this, they select the components to go in the new product.  In some cases they may be able to delay this decision for a while, but at some point they must just go with a choice or delay production.

Probably around 3 months from launch, all the features must be locked down.  Now the firmware engineers start working overtime to polish and test the firmware with the exact feature set.   Occasionally, the firmware engineers will find problems that can only be solved by a hardware change (e.g. processor is just not fast enough for a given task); this delays production while R&D determines the cheapest of their dev components that will do the job.

From 3 months to launch: factory lines ramp up, marketing department goes to work, writers go to work.

Based on my assumptions (yes, these are my _assumptions_) there's nowhere in the process that video can *substantially*increase cost, it's just one part of the process.  Sure, it might take $10 extra or even $20 -- but nothing worth worrying about.  To put it another way, they sell $150 p&s cameras that take HD video roughly on par with the SLR line (the main difference is the sensor quality), and I refuse to believe that much more than $20 is the cost of including video.

In short, considering R&D spread over multiple models and the relatively decent video quality in cheap P&S cameras, it's seems like a lot to swallow the notion that it's a significant cost in DSLR's.


Are there any production engineers out there who can critique the above hypothetical timeline?


briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #116 on: May 14, 2012, 09:41:59 AM »
Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #117 on: May 14, 2012, 10:17:00 AM »
@briansquibb
Quote
for example 22mp is a video size

Really?  How do you come to that conclusion?  On a chip that is neither natively 5:4, 4:3 or 16:9 aspect into the bargain?

This really is getting to the nonsensical stage.  Try and find any comparable product at a comparable spec and price that doesn't feature some kind of video capture.

If you don't like it, don't use it.  Really interested to hear the logic of how any 3:2 aspect chip is video sized, let alone how 22MP specifically is a video resolution.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #117 on: May 14, 2012, 10:17:00 AM »

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 745
    • View Profile
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #118 on: May 14, 2012, 10:18:42 AM »
Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image

I think this is unknowable: given that the overwhelming critiques of the 5D2 had nothing to do with resolution, we could easily attribute this to other design requirements, such as fps, and not drawing sales away from the 1DX.  Again, look at the D800: video is comparable to the 5D3 but higher MP, so we can't really say that 22MP is a "video size."  Without more detailed and definitive info (which we may never have) there's no reason to believe this was video driven as there are plenty of other plausible reasons.  There are lots of wedding/event still photographers who are overjoyed that it's not greater than 22MP.  28MP would be a better landscape resolution, but is that the 5d3's market position?

While it is plausible 22MP was selected for video, it's no more so than other explanations.  I think it would be more legitimate to complain that Canon hasn't release a true landscape camera (D800 direct competition) than to ask why the 5D3 has the specs it has.

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #119 on: May 14, 2012, 10:44:34 AM »
Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image

I think this is unknowable: given that the overwhelming critiques of the 5D2 had nothing to do with resolution, we could easily attribute this to other design requirements, such as fps, and not drawing sales away from the 1DX.  Again, look at the D800: video is comparable to the 5D3 but higher MP, so we can't really say that 22MP is a "video size."  Without more detailed and definitive info (which we may never have) there's no reason to believe this was video driven as there are plenty of other plausible reasons.  There are lots of wedding/event still photographers who are overjoyed that it's not greater than 22MP.  28MP would be a better landscape resolution, but is that the 5d3's market position?

While it is plausible 22MP was selected for video, it's no more so than other explanations.  I think it would be more legitimate to complain that Canon hasn't release a true landscape camera (D800 direct competition) than to ask why the 5D3 has the specs it has.

I was asking the simple question - has the 5DIII design been compromised as a stills camera by incorporating video?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?
« Reply #119 on: May 14, 2012, 10:44:34 AM »