April 18, 2014, 07:57:41 PM

Poll

Would you buy a Canon EOS DSLR without video-capture capability [but with liveview]

Yes, even at same price as same camera with video enabled
3 (4.9%)
Yes, but only at a discount of min. 10% compared to same DSLR with video
9 (14.8%)
Yes, but only at a discount of min. 30% compared to same DSLR with video
22 (36.1%)
Yes, but only at a discount of min. 50% compared to same DLSR with video
2 (3.3%)
No, I would NOT buy a video-disabled DSLR
25 (41%)

Total Members Voted: 61

Voting closed: May 21, 2012, 10:32:24 AM

Author Topic: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?  (Read 2839 times)

AmbientLight

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 484
    • View Profile
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2012, 05:11:31 PM »
This is quite an interesting poll. I am shooting stills mostly, so I sympathize to some extend with the original poster, but I tend to surprise myself using video more and more often, so there is something I would miss in a stills-only body, even if the rest were the same. This alone was the reason I voted no.

What benefit would a still-only camera provide over a camera providing both stills and video? It is obvious (at least) to me that video features do not get into the way of shooting stills. It is even confusing for me to think that there would be an issue with the way Canon handles both areas as part of one product. So if video would be disabled and video-side-effect-features like live-view are still useable, where would be the point to disable video?  :o Maybe in the future given even more processing power we will even benefit from some advanced video autofocus features, so there may be more nice video-side-effect-features in store for us.

Add to this the arguments by TrumpetPower!, which I find to be quite valid, so here's my +1 on that post.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2012, 05:11:31 PM »

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2012, 05:38:26 PM »
People have been saying that Canon "cripples" cameras as is and leaves features off to differentiate pricing... I think if they had a video disabled camera, it would be one of those "crippled" things....  Unless they did something to bring up the value and specs of the stills only, but then the video camera would almost need the same or there will be the same discontent with the 5d2 crowd when the 7d came out with the superior feature set. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2012, 05:38:43 PM »
As far as I know the added cost for video is minimal (on the 5DII it sounded like something they added at the last minute).  Now I'm sure the few added video features of the 5DIII added a little to the cost, but not sure how much losing those features would save you price-wise. 

Now I would buy a 1DC if they stripped the STILL features from it (12fps/61pt AF) and lowered the price to about $8k.
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

ScottyP

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 470
    • View Profile
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2012, 06:22:09 PM »
Video is just one feature. 

I DON'T expect them to sell a no-video body for LESS MONEY. 

Instead of a lower price, I DO think they could offer a couple of small OTHER FEATURES to replace video, but still charge the SAME MONEY.

If you removed video, but replaced it with something appealing borrowed from a slightly higher-end model body I would take that, yes.  Just pick one feature to add; microfocus adjustment, better weatherproofing, slightly better AF, etc..
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

ScottyP

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 470
    • View Profile
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2012, 06:26:55 PM »
This poll is fundamentally flawed because the correct answer is not included:

Would you pay more (30-50%) for a stills-only camera?

Trying to be patient here. I've explained this in another thread. Video makes cameras cheaper, not more expensive.

I know that's hard for some people to wrap their head around, but so long as the marginal cost of adding video is less than the increased profits from added sales due to video, the price is less for a video-enabled camera than for one that is not video-enabled.

If you want to debate whether or not video optimization introduces compromises to still image quality, that's a different issue. But, as far as cost goes, you are not "paying" anything for video.

You have a sneering tone.  You had the same sneering tone in the other thread.  Thank you ever so much for "explaining it" to everyone.  You even explained it to everyone more than once, and we should be grateful.  Sorry it is hard for everyone to "wrap their heads around" the "facts" which you have been granted from up on high.  Perhaps if you printed your facts on some stone tablets and gave them to everyone, they would finally get the reverent acceptance they deserve.
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2012, 06:31:46 PM »
Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"
But the question should be grounded in reality. Canon couldn't sell that camera at $2500 if they have to R&D a new sensor, new focus system, etc; and they knew the market was smaller than the original market that put the 5dIII at $3500. I mean, sure, I'd GLADLY take my dream camera at half the reasonable market price, but it has no practical application as a poll, everyone would answer yes to getting their dreams.



So that is a 7D with an uprated sensor - $2500 sounds eminately possible if the design was simplified at conception

The OP did not mention a reduced price so that argument is irrelevant

I believe the question should be modified to be: 

Quote
would you buy a optimised still camera without video

If the answer is a resounding yes - then perhaps a second question might be asked

Quote
How much would you be prepared to pay
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 06:39:08 PM by briansquibb »

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 799
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2012, 06:45:09 PM »
From a marketing point of view I think the video capabilities are a product of the 90's convergence 'ideology'. I think that both the still and videocapabilities are brilliant. However, IMHO, there seems to be two different kinds of people who buy those cameras for different purposes. I know several people who bought the 5D II for filmproduction (and they never use it for stills, but were so impressed with its videocapabilities at the low price point. On the other hand, most of my friends, myself included only use the camera for stills. Speaking only for myself, the reason I do not shoot video with it (the 5D II) is because I am not good enough, and the lack of AF makes it hard, given that you must know where people are going to move and be positioned - to be able to use any fun apertures... I would be happy to have video capabilities if they could provide me with AF, thus giving me the opportunity to use all my expensive glass for other than stills.
5DII w/grip, (1Ds III), 3x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon: 8-15L, 16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, (200/2L) 17L TS, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2012, 06:45:09 PM »

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2012, 07:05:14 PM »
I believe the question should be modified to be: 
Quote
would you buy a optimised still camera without video
If the answer is a resounding yes - then perhaps a second question might be asked
Quote
How much would you be prepared to pay

I did not want to ask for specific price points for specific levels of cameras/feature sets. 

What I am interested in is to get an idea, how much DSLR-purhcasers appreciate video capability. At current it seems, they would be prepared to pay  quite a bit more for a video enabled camera than for a stills-only camera. But lets see, how the poll continues. It will be open for 7 days.

I do believe Canon should be able to sell a video-only cam with a large sensor and 5d3 video capabilities for USD/€ 2000. After all, they could leavy off the entire mirror box, mirror+submirror assembly, entire phase-AF system, large prism, mechanical shutter unit, optical viewfinder ... all of this is not neede for video. Actually it is  rather in the way of an ergonomical video cam.  All of these items are fairly expensive in terms of production cost ... both parts and labor - with a lot of small-tolerance fitting and adjustments. A 5D3 without these items might really be possible for 2k [given Nikon's D800 price point for the hybrid stills/video D800]. 

Canon, Nikon and even more so Sony (with the SLT design that defintiely compromises stills capture in a big way!) are all bundling video plus stills in DSLR-Cameras and are not offering purchasers a choice of
a) optimized for stills only  [@ somewhat lower price, since savings are not so huge]
b) optimized for video only [@ substantailly lower price]
c) compromised - video and stills [@ current price or even more, since many purchasers seem willing to pay]
but only offer c)
... trying to push "convergence".
To me, that would really mak sense, if those cameras were not digital but analog and require film, that would also be sold by the camera manufacturer. Then, pushing the user bnase towards a more film-hungry video would sound like a great marketing strategy. But for all I know Canon and Nikon are not producing digital media. Sony is, but only at a small(er) scale, after its proprietary memory stick desaster utterly failed. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2012, 07:05:14 PM »