Baffles the mind

[roxics]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

 

[brett b]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

Many people who make their living with still photography don't like being forced to pay for video functionality that isn't going to benefit them financially.
For me, video doesn't boost my income.
While I agree with you're thoughts that video features can be improved, I disagree that photo features are "set". Your focus of interest will influence what you believe should be prioritized in future generation DSLR's.

 

[fragilesi]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

Many people who make their living with still photography don't like being forced to pay for video functionality that isn't going to benefit them financially.
For me, video doesn't boost my income.
While I agree with you're thoughts that video features can be improved, I disagree that photo features are "set". Your focus of interest will influence what you believe should be prioritized in future generation DSLR's.

Agreed. In addition I'm no pro but photography not videography is what I want the camera for. The video functionality has been used a few times and I have appreciated it but . . .

If Canon say brought out a 70d-like camera with zero video capability and just a couple of stills improvements such as an extra stop or two of low-light improvement and 100% viewfinder for the same price I would likely choose that instead.

 

[daltech]

For me, I make money with stills, not video, and I couldn't care much about AF speed, I think today's lens, like the Canon 70-200 IS II USM is plenty fast with any recent body, what I'm after, is ISO performance/quality, less noise, and there, there's PLENTY of room for improvement, although it has got better.

 

[bvukich]

I've had a 5D3 since shortly after it was available, and I can honestly say I haven't shot a single second of video with it. I also have a 60D, also since shortly after it was available, I think I've shot maybe two short videos.

I just have zero interest in video. Stills are way more interesting to me.

I don't have any illusion that a modern DSLR without video would be cheaper, in fact the opposite is more likely true. I would bet however, that compromises in stills performance have been made to accommodate video. But complaining about that would be pretty pointless.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[davidson]

pretty much the same as people who buy them for video only, or people who buy them and use only the green square. very few people use every single feature of their cameras. people buy what they want and use it how they choose....*shrugs shoulders*

 

[unfocused]

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

I don't have a $3,000 body, but I've never shot video on my $1,600 body. Why not? Maybe because I know I suck at it. Good video and good stills photography are worlds apart. I "see" in stills, I compose in stills and I prefer stills for the final presentation of my work.

I put video in the category of "maybe some day." Sure, I have some interest but I wouldn't be happy with crappy, amateurish work. I have had enough experience in my paying career to know that there are vast differences between the two mediums and if you are going to be good at it, you have to develop an entirely different skill set.

Many people who make their living with still photography don't like being forced to pay for video functionality that isn't going to benefit them financially. For me, video doesn't boost my income.

Well, in a way it does boost your income because it reduces your costs. No one is "forced to pay for video functionality" in fact just the opposite. Still photographers are coasting on the cost savings that has been generated by the inclusion of video functionality in the product.

DSLRs aren't film cameras. They are at heart video cameras that have been modified to shoot stills. Including the video capability costs the manufacturers next to nothing and significantly increases the sales base, thereby lowering the cost of the final product for everyone. In addition, video improvements help improve the overall functionality of the product so we all benefit from the research and development.

I would bet however, that compromises in stills performance have been made to accommodate video.

This is, in my opinion, a legitimate concern. For the past several years we've seen a convergence between stills and video. But, we may soon reach the point where one begins to infringe upon the other.

Would a 20 mp APS-C sensor have less noise and better low-light sensitivity if it did not have dual-pixel technology splitting the pixels so that video autofocus is improved? I don't know. If we start seeing significant compromises being made to accommodate video, I may change my opinion, but so far, the tiny adjustments that are being made are probably well worth it in the interest of keeping the cost of equipment somewhat affordable.

In summary: I'm not personally interested in video but I welcome the video functionality because it saves me money and generates innovation that spills over to my stills photography.

 

[Don Haines]

Most of the video that I have shot with my 60D has been through the telescope for use in image-stacking... I have shot a few concerts with it and the obligitory clips of Fluffy the cat... and a couple chasing geese down a creek. GooseCreek2 on Vimeo


I have done a few clips from the canoe, but most of the time when I am shooting video my Go-To camera is a GoPro.... more for the indistructability than anything else... I have shot a lot of poor footage with it

Quality wise, the DSLR and the lens selection wins hands-down... Would I miss video on my DSLR? Yes, but not enough to care one way or the other..

 

[trof2]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

Many people who make their living with still photography don't like being forced to pay for video functionality that isn't going to benefit them financially.
For me, video doesn't boost my income.
While I agree with you're thoughts that video features can be improved, I disagree that photo features are "set". Your focus of interest will influence what you believe should be prioritized in future generation DSLR's.

Agreed. In addition I'm no pro but photography not videography is what I want the camera for. The video functionality has been used a few times and I have appreciated it but . . .

If Canon say brought out a 70d-like camera with zero video capability and just a couple of stills improvements such as an extra stop or two of low-light improvement and 100% viewfinder for the same price I would likely choose that instead.

I'm also among the people who have used the video function a handful of times. I recently discovered that the captured video can be used to generate Lytro-style selective focus images. Cool, sure, but I don't really care for that either.

If a still-only camera with superb quality stills was available, I'd get one in a heartbeat, too. The thing is that Canon won't strip functionality from their lineup because that significantly reduces their marketability. Eliminating video won't reduce production costs because it's probably a 90% software function. They would only be losing the videographers with that move.

...unless there is a substantial market of photo "purists" (who haven't already turned to Leica). Although, I bet there is a significant chunk of the Leica photo purists who wouldn't mind going with a Canon analog for the EF lineup...

 

[DIABLO]

I love Indy car racing but not Nascar. Even though they both are cars racing.
I love Rugby but not football. Even though they both run with a ball and are tackled.
I love Baseball but not cricket. Even though they both use wooden objects and a ball.

I could go on and on but we all get the picture. Not liking one thing,event,etc of similar qualites does not or should not baffles one's mind.

I grew up taking pictures using those cheap film cameras. When I decided to make
the jump to digital I did my research. Video wasn't a factor at all. I just brought the best camera I could afford and that was it.
I would rather capture a photo of a Ivory Billed Woodpecker(if they still exist) than a few seconds of video of it.

Its a give and take world we live in. Even though most of us will not use the video function of a dslr, its still a huge selling point for canon. Therefore its here to stay!

 

[Aglet]

How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

Hmmm.. I've never heard anyone want to print and hang a video on a wall.

Only time I shot video was for a raucous parade that I was then able to show to some housebound octogenarians later. (used a 60D)
OTOH, my buddy was shooting stills of the same event and I prefer looking at his stills, and the few that I took, than my video.

 

[Loswr]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

Do you find it easy and/or convenient to shoot video with your dSLR?

Perhaps the 70D's DPAF will result in AF quality that approaches that of current camcorders, I haven't tried it. How about a nice, smooth power zoom function? Easy to use dedicated accessories like a directional mic that transmits sound to the recording right through the hotshoe? I have one for my Vixia HF M41. A form factor that fits easily in one hand? Shall I go on?

I've seen plenty of dSLR video footage that is, quite frankly, crap. The DoF is thin, the shooter can't keep the subject(s) in focus, there are extraneous noises from zooming, exposure changes aren't handled well, I get queasy from the camera motion, etc. I've seen dSLR video footage that looks great...and I've seen the rigs used to create that footage - stabilizers/harnesses, LCD viewfinder or external monitor, follow focus setup, etc.

While there are no doubt some stills shooters with zero interest in video, I suspect there are a lot more stills shooters with no interest in shooting video with a dSLR. Speaking for myself, I do shoot family videos - and I find the Vixia camcorder or even my iPhone much more conventient for that use.

 

[Dylan777]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

I have 2 5D III. I don't recall last time I shoot video with it. I shoot thousand-thousand photos with it though.

This is why Canon making "IS" primes, instead of fast primes :-\

"They don't need to get any better than they already are" - really?

 

[sdsr]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

Yes, really. I once accidentally shot some video with a point-and-shoot when I inadvertently knocked it into video mode, but aside from that and the few minutes of frantic kitten activity I intentionally (if cluelessly) shot with my 6D, I've never used the video function of any camera I've owned (when I sell them on ebay, I add a disclaimer to that effect). I just don't want to do it (and if I did, I would buy a video camera). This isn't "dismissal" - it's a simple lack of inclination. Nor does it seem "natural" to me that if you like doing the one you'll like doing the other (it would seem more "natural" to me to want to paint as well as take still photos). I no more want video in a camera than I want a camera in a phone.

(Nor have I used any camera I've owned to create HDR images, take slow shutter photos of waterfalls, or do various other things I could have done with them.)

 

[7enderbender]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

Interesting thought. I am one of those crazy people. I've had my 5DII (my first digital SLR by the way, coming directly from 35mm film) now for exactly 3 years I think. I've used the video functionality once.

Video doesn't interest me as a medium or art form if you will. I despise the editing process and only do it if I absolutely must. And then I use a designated camcorder. Or better yet my iPhone. I don't care about the quality of it. My approach to video is that of other people's snapshots with their camera phones. I share them with friends and family and rarely look at them again. I go to the movie theater maybe once a year - at best.

It's not that I don't enjoy the occasional movie or even TV series for it's production value. But even then I look at things like lighting or so more as a photographer if that makes sense. Things like score and sound I also pay more attention to.

Photography is about the moment. For actual story telling along a timeline I prefer music, books or the actual content of a movie or feature.

I wonder where the different preferences come from. Come to think of it it may be how we process details. I like the details of visual arts but maybe I'm not quick enough to process them in moving pictures. In music on the other hand I notice every little detail immediately even though it's a continuum. I believe that's why I prefer photography and music over pretty much everything else.

 

[dstppy]

+1 for no video.

1) too much borderline OCD for editing . . . I gotta have credits and everything
2) good 'real' video needs external mics just to start with . . . they don't take pictures as well
3) see #1: video takes up too much space; I can keep all of my raw (even bad ones) just to feel like I'm not missing anything
4) see #1: canon software messes with my numbering scheme

Just like having good equipment doesn't make you a real photographer, having video equipment doesn't make you a filmmaker; I think most of us appreciate that it's a different skill set and therefore it's a 'nice' feature, just not one that we'd like to finance.

 

[RC]

I haven't even tested the video function on my 5D3. I've captured a few videos from my S100. I've shot hours and hours of video from camcorders. I think Neuro hit the nail on the head.

 

[brad-man]

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

I suspect that you shoot video more than you shoot stills, and this is why you are baffled. As many have already said, to properly shoot video requires many bulky and expensive accessories as well as a different skill set and vision. I suppose I am a dinosaur since I don't even own a phone that shoots video. The handful of videos that I have made were at parties where drinking, silliness and occasional disrobing have occurred. My 550D was more than adequate for this purpose, and my 5Dll was even more so

 

[unfocused]

+1 for no video.

...just not one that we'd like to finance.

But...but...but...we are NOT financing it. It is financing us.

 

[AvTvM]

+1 for no video.

...just not one that we'd like to finance.

But...but...but...we are NOT financing it. It is financing us.

Wrong. Canon would have much higher revenue (and profits) and could spend more of it on R&D to give us much better stills and video cameras if all those videographers would just buy dedicated, expensive Canon videocams instead of going cheapskate and abusing DSLRs which by their very nature (mirror in lightpath) are not well suited to capture video. Video does not need 20+ megapixel sensors either, if Full-HD is just 2 MP and even 4k is only 8 MP.

I have purchased 4 Canon DSLRs over the last few years, and had to pay for useless video capabilities, while the cameras got more and more "video optimized" and "stills-compromised". In all those years I have taken exactly a single 10 second test clip with each of these DSLRs just to see whether "it works". I like watching good films and videos, but am not interested to capture video myself, because I find it hard enough to get halfway decent still images. GOOD videos take so much more time, effort, money and creative plus organizational skills during pre production, production, post-production to get a final product that is worthwhile watching. I am no director, no producer, no videographer and do not aspire to ever become one.

Fotr the kind of videos 99% of amateurs shoot and put on youtube or vimeo, any smartphone would be more than good enough. Shallow DOF? Utterly ridiculous! Again, 99% of amateur videographers have no clue how to use it in any meaningful way. They're hard pressed to hold a camera steady.

All I want is a stills-optimized camera with outstanding IQ, superior ergonomical handling totally unfettered by red "record video buttons", no microphones, no headphone jacks, no speakers ... nothing! That would also make good weathersealing easier and cheaper. And all the electronical components would not have to be designed in order to handle and process hours of high-dataflow video streams but rather be optimized to give stellar IQ, high resolution, incredible dynamic range and incredibly low noise, no banding, and outstanding color fidelity. AA filters also not needed any longer (a pure video requirement). All the "video-capability" I ever want in one of my cameras is a liveview feed to the built-in LCD and/or EVF.

Is this really so hard to understand?