Baffles the mind

[paul13walnut5]

I shoot about 50:50 video photo with my DSLR.

The difference is I rarely shoot video for anything other than my full time job or paid freelance work, and I rarely shoot stills for anything other than my own pleasure.

I have other camcorders that do somethings better than my DSLR (ENGs with proper audio, servo zoom, built in CC and ND filtration) but on some jobs my DSLR is better (discreet, light, compact, dof, quality of lenses, low light)

I take on board the point that some DSLRs may be compromised by the inclusion of video, I think the AA filter is overboard on the 5D3, for example.

I would also argue that video has enhanced some DSLRs, such as in new live view AF technologies.

What I can say with some certainty is that I like cameras with both.

For all the folk who say it costs them money or they'll never use it, well, please, here, take my:

spot average metering
green square mode
P mode
any pic mode
JPEG shooting
wb bracketing
awb
I could go on but you get the idea.

I never once accused Canon of designing a camera specifically for me, nor did I ever expect them too!

 

[m]

I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

Some people spend more than twice that much and never shoot color on it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860536-REG/Leica_10760_M_Monochrom_Black_and.html

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.

They will probably always be behind a dedicated motion picture camera.

 

[AvTvM]

what really baffles me, is
* why Canon demands a much higher price for dedicated video-cams like a C100 to C500, since these cameras are all way simpler and cheaper to produce than any DSLR - no mirror, no submirror, no separate phase-AF module, no viewfinder prism, no optical veiwfinder, no mechanics, no complex adjustments ...

* why videographers always demand that DSLRs should become even more "video-bastardized" rather than clamoring Canon to offer them decent, dedicated video-optimized cameras with a large sensor and EF-mount at prices not higehr or even lower than corresponding DSLRs ... not only at the 1Dc level, but also at the pricepoints of a Rebel, a 7D/II and a 5D III.

Really baffles me, why stills photographers should have to put up with these constant demands for ever more video-crap in "our type of cameras".

 

[AvTvM]

I shoot about 50:50 video photo with my DSLR.

The difference is I rarely shoot video for anything other than my full time job or paid freelance work, and I rarely shoot stills for anything other than my own pleasure.

I have other camcorders that do somethings better than my DSLR (ENGs with proper audio, servo zoom, built in CC and ND filtration) but on some jobs my DSLR is better (discreet, light, compact, dof, quality of lenses, low light)

From what you say, I conclude that you know very well before a shoot, wehteher you will capture video or stills and usually it is one or the other. From my observation of videographers, capturing [professional level] video does not leave enough time and room to allow them to also capture stills at the same time during a shoot.

So why not just take the requisite camera along for the task at hand. Motion cam when its video time and stills camera, when its stills time. And for the very few occasions when really both are required, you'll want to have two separate cameras anyway ... "typically" one on a tripod (video) and one your hand (stills).

So, in essence, I fail to see the overwhelming usage scenario for fully video-enabled stills cameras. To me, the sole reason why DSLRs are being abused to also capture video is the absurdly high preice-level of [large sensored] video cams [with a lens mount that accepts a wide range of lenses that are way less expensive than typical video-lenses].

 

[mackguyver]

I'm in the don't care about video camp and agree with the other commenters. The funny thing is that this was the primary reasons I went with Canon. In the Nikon D90 vs XSi decision, I decided that I didn't care about video and didn't want to pay extra for it. But my reasons for not shooting video are as follows, and are personal, so I'm sure many will disagree with them:

[list type=decimal]
[*]I think still images are more powerful in most circumstances because you can reflect on them. I can remember numerous amazing photos I've seen, but far fewer videos (Tsunami footage, Rodney King beating, and some others)
[*]I spend enough time shooting, editing, and sitting in front of the computer. Filming 60 minutes of video for 3 minutes of final footage (an often heard figure) just isn't for me.
[*]I don't have the money or desire to invest in matte boxes, focus pullers, external monitors, external storage, a fluid head, external mics, cages, variable ND filters, constant lighting, etc., etc. required for good quality video.
[*]I love using RAW to process my images and give them my personal look, and Canon doesn't support raw video, yet
[/list]

I realize that you don't have to go overboard on all the extra gear, but I'm a perfectionist and wouldn't be happy to shoot "decent" footage. The sad part is that I love movies and have dreamed of being a director since I was very young. Maybe someday I'll do something with video, but for now, I love taking stills too much to spend any time shooting video.

Despite my personal opinions, I in no way fault people for wanting to shoot video and I'm constantly amazed by the work being shot with DSLRs.

 

[takesome1]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

 

[jdramirez]

I used to love video, cutting something boring into something interesting, but then hd video came along and my computer was under powered and my programs no longer worked... and it was such a time cost to edit... I still do some video, but mostly just small cuts, and rarely do I ever shoot at the highest video quality because I don't like throwing clips into the garbage, but I also don't want a 5 gb file that is really just trash.

 

[jdramirez]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

 

[cayenne]

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 actually bought my Canon 5D3 (my first DSLR) primarily FOR video originally.

I'd been cast in a short, comedic sketch down here in New Orleans...set in a bar, and was a pro shoot...caterer, lighting crew, sound crew..etc.
I saw they were shooting the thing with what appeared to be a regular "camera"...I asked about it, and it was the 5D2.

I was very intrigued, and started looking into this..found out how it was popular to use it, "low cost" way to get really great filmic looks, with DOF....etc.

I've not really taken any pics much in decades. Way back in HS and College, I had a Nikon FA black body film camera and played with that, but after College, I just never really picked up a camera again. I had the phone and a small P&S that I rarely used.

But I got excited the more I read, researched (See my early posts on here for what I was picking brains for)...and saved my money. I'd found the 5D3 was coming out soon, so I actually waited about 6 more mos and got that after it had been out about a month I think.

And so, there began my journey with DSLRs...and I did start out with doing mostly video. Learning how to edit, started with iMovie...moved to FCPX...learning how to use Davinci Resolve Lite...and now, I'm moving into the Adobe CS6 Production Suite of products.

I LOVE video...I actually find it to be easier to do than stills, as far as getting a "story" going...I actually love the editing process.

However, along the way, I've fallen in love with still photography too!! I really am enjoying this too...especially portraiture. I've been watching (and bought some) of the Creative Live sessions, and learning posing, etc.

I've taken some products shots for a lady selling handmade wedding bouquets...and at that same shoot had access to a couple of young lady models dressed in wedding gowns to shoot with them...
After that session..one young lady did other modelling for me in exchange for shots.

So..I'm building my portfolio with that.

I just got word that I've been accepted to be on the event photographer staff for VooDoo Fest here in New Orleans first of next month:

http://worshipthemusic.com/

I'll be there with credentials, backstage access...shooting the likes of Pearl Jam, NIN...etc.

So, it has been a great journey, and while I still love video....I'm enjoying shooting stills JUST as much.

And I hope some day to get some slight mastery of PhotoShop...before I croak.


The 5D3 is a fantastic camera...and I can't wait for Magic Lantern to get the firmware for the 5D3 a little safer and out of Alpha...so I can try to really stretch things with RAW video.

But everyone has their priorities and their love of what they do...personally, I'm wringing every bit of use and fun out of my purchase.

And hell, hope some day, to actually maybe make a little extra $$ off of...at least enough to help pay for my newly acquired lens addiction....

Cayenne

 

[takesome1]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

 

[paul13walnut5]

From what you say, I conclude that you know very well before a shoot, wehteher you will capture video or stills and usually it is one or the other. From my observation of videographers, capturing [professional level] video does not leave enough time and room to allow them to also capture stills at the same time during a shoot.

Doesn't just not leave time. It really is a headphuq. Video does require composition, but you have other tools, other rules, you can make a point via montage, you can make a point via sound, your viewer may only have 2s to interpret your shot.

I will generally think in sequences.

Stills: completely different. Compostion, that single frame is your single chance to make your point. I'll will focus purely on that single frame.

So why not just take the requisite camera along for the task at hand. Motion cam when its video time and stills camera, when its stills time. And for the very few occasions when really both are required, you'll want to have two separate cameras anyway ... "typically" one on a tripod (video) and one your hand (stills).

A number of reasons as I detailed in my post. They suit different applications. Let me turn it around. Next time you go to take some portraits you are only allowed to use a 135/leica/minature format DSLR with an 85mm lens. You like? Why restrict yourself? My ENG's and HDVs work great for some applications. My DSLR works better for some. My gopro works better for some.

I'll use whatever tool gets me the results that will satisfy my client and I. I don't care what shape it is or badge thats on it. I'll only use it if it works and if it's the best tool I have available to me.

As also discussed previously, I'm not in the habit of combining the two, there is a work leisure divide.

I rarely shoot stills hand held in any case... I'll usually have a monopod, or a 'pod' or a superclamp.

So, in essence, I fail to see the overwhelming usage scenario for fully video-enabled stills cameras. To me, the sole reason why DSLRs are being abused to also capture video is the absurdly high preice-level of [large sensored] video cams [with a lens mount that accepts a wide range of lenses that are way less expensive than typical video-lenses].

I disagree in quite strong terms. Blame live view, not video. I still worked in camera retail at the launch of the first digital rebel. It cost as much as the 70D does now. It's a myth that video adds costs to cameras. The 5D3 cost a lot more than the 5D3 because its a lot more camera in all sorts of ways, much like the 5D2 on launch cost more than the 5D, it was a lot more camera, and nobody objected to video then.

Just ignore the video bit. Don't use it.

It's not holding you back. It's not holding canon back. Live with it. I wish I could get an EOS in colours other than black, so I bought a white M. I detailed all the functions I don't use on my DSLR. Would canon do me a version pared down to just what I need.

Come on.

I shoot stills quite seriously as a hobby. My cameras, all video enabled, match or exceed my ability and requirements.

I shoot video professionally, and in many situations my video enabled DSLRS are my goto choice.

Nothing in this life is without it's caveats.

 

[Skywise]

As a hobbyist/traveler I LOVE the video capabilities of my T4i and use them a lot.

BUT - I had a Rebel Xti and I took that with me along with a stand-alone video camera on my trips beforehand. So I would've always had a DSLR with me for photos.

Now I don't have to carry around two sets of camera equipment for family trips. (yay!) But I perfectly understand why people wouldn't bother - The video is cumbersome, not as good as using an actual video camera (in terms of control - the IQ I get from the T4i far surpasses the Canon video camera I used just 3 years ago but I would hope that would be the case with exponentially more expensive glass!)

 

[jdramirez]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.

 

[takesome1]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.

Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.

 

[jdramirez]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.

Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.

options v features... I say a feature of the suv is being a 4x4 with av6 with a tow option. an option is leather, Sun roof, etc.

regarding cameras, I say video is a feature of the device and an option is a battery grip, flash, memory card, etc.
but we can differ on this... I don't mind.

 

[takesome1]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.

Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.

options v features... I say a feature of the suv is being a 4x4 with av6 with a tow option. an option is leather, Sun roof, etc.

regarding cameras, I say video is a feature of the device and an option is a battery grip, flash, memory card, etc.
but we can differ on this... I don't mind.

You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.

And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)

 

[jdramirez]

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 like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video.

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share.

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.

Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.

options v features... I say a feature of the suv is being a 4x4 with av6 with a tow option. an option is leather, Sun roof, etc.

regarding cameras, I say video is a feature of the device and an option is a battery grip, flash, memory card, etc.
but we can differ on this... I don't mind.

You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.

And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)

it is definitely a semantic argument.

people don't have to buy a car with options they don't want. they could get a completely option free car that barely meets the government's requirements for being a car and then do all the engineering themselves to add what they want. but that might cost more than getting a fully loaded car.

what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now.

is having a cd player really making people mad?

 

[takesome1]

what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now.

is having a cd player really making people mad?

That cracks me up, really most are dead now?

CD player, in most vehicles you can order it without the CD player. I am sure that there is someone that had to pay for it when it was in a car and they didn't want it.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I love car analolgies!

They solve nothing and make the poster look a bit ridiculous (canon forum, CAM ER A's)

Keep em coming.

 

[jdramirez]

what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now.

is having a cd player really making people mad?

That cracks me up, really most are dead now?

CD player, in most vehicles you can order it without the CD player. I am sure that there is someone that had to pay for it when it was in a car and they didn't want it.

I was pleased with myself after I came up with that.