Photo only camera
- Thread starter SaP34US
- Start date
I don't do video, but a stills only camera is a poor bet, you can get one, its the Nikon DF. A flop, and resale value is poor as well. You can get a good used one for just over $1000.
I want a camera that I can sell after I'm ready to replace it.
I want a camera that I can sell after I'm ready to replace it.
Upvote
0
I don't do video and I would buy such a camera if it fits my photo needs, but from a marketing perspective, video features help to fill the spec sheet and get media coverage, which may turn into sales, even by people who will rarely or never use the video features - often because they soon understand that shooting good videos requires more than a video-capable camera.
As almost every device with an imaging sensor can do video, I see little reason for a camera company to release devices without video, but maybe high-end "medium" format or very high mpx cameras which are well known to be used in a specific way.
As almost every device with an imaging sensor can do video, I see little reason for a camera company to release devices without video, but maybe high-end "medium" format or very high mpx cameras which are well known to be used in a specific way.
Upvote
0
If it were a ground-up design, yes it would cost more than a shared-architecture product (significant new development NRE, which is then amortized over a smaller pool of buyers). I suspect that’s what the OP intended.
If it is merely someone spending a few days to disable video functions in code, and a few weeks testing to ensure nothing went awry, and a few weeks updating documentation (code releases, user manuals, product packaging, configuration management, etc), it could probably come for the same price. As it is I don’t press the video buttons on my cameras, so it matters very little whether they call a function or not
Last edited:
Upvote
0
But surely the point of photo-only would be to save on things like manufacturing in that you would not need to heatsink all that processor power for video etc and different internal architecture and in that case it is completely new manufacturing line, tooling, quality checks etc. And those costs would be amortised across fewer cameras sold. I say 'fewer' because as LDS says, video is a marketing feature and I think most people would choose a camera with some video in it - which is why the 5D2 was such a success.
They would not change programming (why wold they) and all you would end up with is an intentionally (and genuinely!) crippled camera.
They would not change programming (why wold they) and all you would end up with is an intentionally (and genuinely!) crippled camera.
Upvote
0
Those are recurring costs. You don’t amortize them over production lots (excepting sometimes volume discounts).
The BOM would probably be cheaper, but is it enough cheaper to recoup the non-recurring costs of a full design cycle? Depends on the market size. I expect this would be a small market.
Upvote
0
Surely! I don't need any of the video functions and on a small point and shoot it's too easy to turn video recording on. DSLRs are a bit different but in my opinion it's easier to remove a function completely than to remember if I have turned it off or not. By the way, a removed function can not be turned on accidentally. So an APS-C point and shoot with relatively large zoom range (between 24 and 360 mm) and a lightweight body would make sense for me.
Upvote
0
I think that today any DSLR or MILC or P&S has the capability to also shoot video.
So if there was a photo only camera it would be "crippled by manufacturer" to withhold an already integrated function.
Of course there could be differences in the implementation, the quality and the interface for video.
But I don't see any reason to withhold general video functionality just for marketing and/or price reasons.
If you put the question different, e.g.:
Would you sacrifice quality in the video implementation (interface, output, etc.) for better stills/photo function (eg. IQ, AF, etc)?
Here I'd be in 100% at once.
So if there was a photo only camera it would be "crippled by manufacturer" to withhold an already integrated function.
Of course there could be differences in the implementation, the quality and the interface for video.
But I don't see any reason to withhold general video functionality just for marketing and/or price reasons.
If you put the question different, e.g.:
Would you sacrifice quality in the video implementation (interface, output, etc.) for better stills/photo function (eg. IQ, AF, etc)?
Here I'd be in 100% at once.
Upvote
0
Perhaps a secondary question would be "how many people would like a photos only camera without liveview?" Liveview shares much of the processing as video, so if you're ripping out video, then liveview should go too.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
