Baffles the mind

[Random Orbits]

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)

You can complain all you want, but the market for stills only is not big enough to warrant a separate product offering. Perhaps you can find 100,000 others and sign a petition/contract telling Canon that all of you will be willing to buy a stills camera every year for the next ten years. I'm sure a revenue stream of 100-200M/year will tempt Canon to develop a stills camera for you.

 

[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 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.

Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C

 

[CarlTN]

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.

It all depends on what you like (and need) to do with a camera. Some people have enough videos to watch already. Others prefer the experience and the results of the still image art form. For very many these days, it comes down to what tool for what purpose. Still images are accessible in a different way than video. Video demands you to spend the time watching it, usually instead of doing something else. Still images, especially those mounted on a wall...can be viewed and enjoyed for brief yet repeated periods at random...while doing other things.

If you are wanting to make money, then wedding photography and video are the most prevalent means. So video is an important part of the equation to many of those people. Then there are "independent" film-makers, the advertising world...etc...all of course use video or "motion pictures".

But as for your idea that manufacturers aren't focusing enough on video ability, or that it should be the "main focus"...that's just wrong on both counts. A DSLR, is a "digital single lens reflex" camera. It's not a cinema camera...except of course for the 1DC, haha. A DSLR's primary purpose will always be stills photography, because that's the basic concept of the design. There's a mechanical focal plane shutter, a reflex mirror for phase detection autofocus sensors, etc. Cinema cameras don't need to work that way.

In the past I used to shoot a lot of video with a video camera, back before they got very good. I now shoot video with my 6D, but only about 5% of the time so far. The rest is stills. I make some money from the stills. The 6D's video ability isn't in the top league, nor is it meant to be. That's more than fine with me! To do video in a high quality way, you need the gear and accessories for it. Which generally means you're spending a lot of time and money doing it...and making money from it. Or else some people spend their time but not much resources, and get more compromised, casual results meant solely for youtube consumption by people with a lot of free time on their hands. That gets old after a while.

Frankly for myself, I want to approach motion pictures from the other side. I've always been interested in both movies and music recording. I wouldn't mind having my own soundstages, and letting the real film makers come and use the facility, and pay me for the privilege...while occasionally letting me watch them work. I already have the facility but it needs to be converted into a soundstage, which for me isn't going to happen in the immediate future.

 

[takesome1]

Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C

$.30? really? I guess all the R&D that Canon had to do they just absorbed themselves?

 

[takesome1]

You can complain all you want,

Yes we can

 

[AvTvM]

Canon should really give us the choice:

EITHER
A) 5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video)

OR

B) 5D IIIs "stills only" version, withall possibilities to output video cut in hardware. Mic disabled, headphone jack soldered close. Record viedo-button freely assignable to anything the user wants, except to capture video. LiveView enabled, as is. Price: 20% lower than version A-, beacuse it offers a significantly smaller feature set.

Similar to many cars which can be ordered as 2WD or as 4WD (at extra cost).

I wpuld bet my life, that the "stills only" 5D IIIs version would sell EXTREMELY well. It would clearly outsell the stills+video model at a ratuio of 3:1 or more. Once people really would have to pay for a larger feature set, they would think twice, whether they really need it or whether their family event videos could not be shot using their smartphone.

 

[jdramirez]

Canon should really give us the choice:

EITHER
A) 5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video)

OR

B) 5D IIIs "stills only" version, withall possibilities to output video cut in hardware. Mic disabled, headphone jack soldered close. Record viedo-button freely assignable to anything the user wants, except to capture video. LiveView enabled, as is. Price: 20% lower than version A-, beacuse it offers a significantly smaller feature set.

Similar to many cars which can be ordered as 2WD or as 4WD (at extra cost).

I wpuld bet my life, that the "stills only" 5D IIIs version would sell EXTREMELY well. It would clearly outsell the stills+video model at a ratuio of 3:1 or more. Once people really would have to pay for a larger feature set, they would think twice, whether they really need it or whether their family event videos could not be shot using their smartphone.

Why would the 5D IIIs be cheaper? The mic isn't expensive hardware and nor is the 3.5mm audio jack. It may be more than 30 cents, but the ability to do video is software and not hardware as evidenced by the 50D + magic lantern now being capable of video.

So why would NOT having video reduce the price of the body by $600?

Maybe if you reduced the ram and the buffer and processor speed, but then you probably have reduced performance in AI Servo.

Maybe the frames per second is reduced by consequence to the reduced hardware... but I think what we are looking at is the 6D. Which is $1500-2000ish for the body...

I'm not an engineer... so maybe I'm wrong... maybe all the performance of the mkiii can be kept while reducing costs by $600... but I really don't think so.

And would a $2400 mkiii without video sell well... yeah... as evidenced by the 5d mkii and the 6D which both have video and but are considered mainly a camera for stills.

I don't like Colin Cowherd... but he has a theory about assuming other people are just like you (me). It is a fallacy.

 

[roxics]

Thank you all for the replies. I do understand your position better now. I also understand that motion and stills are different disiplines to a certain degree.

I do both professionally and have been for the last seven years. For me DSLR's with video have been a great tool for the type of work I do. Corporate work that often includes web based videos, portraits, office/factory photography, etc.
The ability to carry one camera that I know well and one set of lenses, just makes the transition from video to photography work a little easier when going back and forth.

As for cost. I would guess that having video on DSLRs probably balances out. Whatever R&D cost that goes into these cameras for video functionality is probably paid for by the increased sales of people now buying these cameras primarily for video work, whereas before they would not have bought them but instead gone with a more traditional style video camera. But the market has now shifted and consumers aren't buying $1000+ dollar dedicated video cameras unless they are professionals or indie filmmakers.

There is also the benefit that someone like myself would be willing to pay more for a camera that can do both, than have to buy two different cameras, the other of which maybe not from the same manufacturer. I can use the same lenses and accessories. It saves me money overall.

Maybe I came off too strong in saying that the photography side is good enough and they need to just focus on video. Obviously there is no end to what can be improved for photography. That said, some of you pointed out dynamic range and better ISO sensitivity for low light. Something that is not just beneficial to photography but video as well. Good images are desired in both camps. That we can all agree on.

But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range, there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side.

The difference between video and photography is that Canon now has a higher end product to protect on the video side. So a lot of video people feel that they are artificially crippling the video functionality on their DSLRs as a result. Whereas these are their high end stills cameras, so there is nothing to cripple to protect something higher up the chain. Unless they bring out a medium format system at $10K+.

For example, if Canon decided that you can only shoot raw photos on a 5D3 and above, a lot of screaming and yelling would be going on from the APS-C and 6D crowd. Yet that is exactly what they seem to be doing with the video functionality on these cameras. Leaving out little things like headphone jacks, better recording codecs, clean HDMI outputs, higher frame rates, etc. That is primarily why I say that video functionality needs to be their top priority right now. Not because they should stop work on improving stills functionality, but because they are starting to lag behind Panasonic and even Nikon in the video realm.

Why even include video?
I think the answer is simple. Both industries right now (Photography and Video) are struggling against cheaper alternatives like smartphones. By binding the two functions together on their top end cameras they can sell the same camera to both markets. Plus it does sound better to say "this camera can do both."
I would also think that would actually save them some money.

Someone above used a car analogy. I've often wondered if car companies could be more profitable by getting rid of all the by-to-order options and just including all the available features on every vehicle. It would certainly simplify inventory when the only difference is the exterior color of the car. I would think that it would streamline the whole process from design to manufacturing when you cut out all that extra time and work keeping the same model with different features on the lot. This process seemed to work for Apple in the late 90's when they streamlined their product line to just four models. I assume it works for camera manfuacturers as well. I can only imagine the headache of having to make and stock the same camera model in three types; video only, photo only and video+photo.

 

[paul13walnut5]

But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range, there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side.

The video quality is fine for a lot of applications.

I doubt you'll ever see RAW video on a rebel. Wrong market.

I don't shoot feature films, and I really have to wonder how many folk who shoot uncompressed actually benefit from it?

Yep, more DR is always good, but how many folk who complain about it actually scrim filter and light a scene to bring it all within DR in any case? Again, a forum feature that I don't really think has any bearing on how the majority of users actually work. It's a bit like top trumps after a certain point...

 

[roxics]

The video quality is fine for a lot of applications.

I doubt you'll ever see RAW video on a rebel. Wrong market.

I don't shoot feature films, and I really have to wonder how many folk who shoot uncompressed actually benefit from it?

Well you can get raw through the magic lantern hack on a rebel. Granted it is standard definition, but it is available. I think eventually as processing and storage ability rise to a certain degree while cost plummets, it will become a no-brainer to have raw video as an option. Technically we could say the same thing about raw photo ability on rebels, wrong market. I know several people who own rebels and have no idea what raw even is, they don't even know what M mode is. They only shoot jpeg in auto mode. But it's cheap enough that it is there for the people who do. Plus it's expected. The same will eventually be true for raw video. It will be expected. Already the video world in in an uproar because these cameras have been proven to be capable of raw shooting and yet limited from the factory from doing so.

 

[paul13walnut5]

The uproar is misguided.

Off course the cameras have a raw conversion stage, so RAW is always there in any camera, the problem is a) getting an output at that stage, and, as pertains to the rebels, b) having a system architecture, data throughput and recording medium that permits this.

Do rebels need an SSD caddy? Of course not.

Do most folk shooting RAW and slowing their workflow to a crawl really benefit? I would argue probably not. Nice to have the option, sure, but largely redundant.

 

[mackguyver]

Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:

Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.

 

[Dylan777]

Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:

Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.

It looks like a robot to me ;D

 

[cayenne]

Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C

$.30? really? I guess all the R&D that Canon had to do they just absorbed themselves?

Amortized over all the units they sell....for R&D to put in a couple of jacks?

I'd still say yes...$0.30....maybe up to $1, but sure, I think that's about all you'd save on stills only camera. realistically.

 

[cayenne]

Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:

Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.

It looks like a robot to me ;D

Hmm...I always thought the quote was:

"He who dies with the most toys....................wins!!"

 

[AvTvM]

Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs.

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".

 

[jdramirez]

Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs.

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".

I wish i understood your logic.

let's say the body costs 3000 retail.
1000 of that is profit for the seller and for Canon.

2000 is left for the parts which is broken up into r&d, manufacturing costs, marketing, and parts.

I'd personally prefer not to pay for the marketing costs. can we make that happen?

I don't have a point here... I'm just exasperated. I'm getting to see what can be eliminated to bring the cost down because the parts and manufacturing costs aren't going anywhere.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Philip Blooms rig is hilarious.

This to me is the antithesis of what DSLR shooting is all about. If I was going to have a rig like this then I'd use a red camera at the heart of it, or a Sony F at least.

I accept that Philip enjoys great success which he is always happy to share, but I also think sometimes he is plain wrong, and this rig is just one of those times.

Whats with the iphone?

He may be joking, but I have actually ran into folk like this, who have a followfocus and mattebox for a shorty forty.

Camera & lens. Audio interface. Headphones. Support.

Thats all you need. Why follow focus via crappy plastic tip ties and horrible knobs without bearings etc when you can physically touch the focus ring. Sure if you are working with a focus puller and mechanical lenses, otherwise, its just grandstanding, and it slows you down.

 

[paul13walnut5]

DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

Sorry. You are plain wrong.

The underlying technology came in with the 40D and the 450D. It was called live view. It was an innovation for stills users. And one which folk seem to have quite liked, especially the tethering with preview. Somewhere along the way somebody thought it would be quite an easy firmware ammend to let folks record the live view output.

Blame live view. I don't recall an attendant rise in price when live view came out.

Video guys reluctantly adopted the 5D2 and then canon gave it decent firmware (after about a year into it's life as I recall) and it's success was assured. The first out the box usuable at launch video DSLR was the 7D (for serious users, or those in PAL regions) but again that camera had so many new features, both at the price point, and for DSLRs in general, that it would be impossible to isolate the cost for the video features.

As I said, you are plain wrong. The R&D stage would have been prior to live view. Bump your gums about that.

 

[jdramirez]

DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

Sorry. You are plain wrong.

The underlying technology came in with the 40D and the 450D. It was called live view. It was an innovation for stills users. And one which folk seem to have quite liked, especially the tethering with preview. Somewhere along the way somebody thought it would be quite an easy firmware ammend to let folks record the live view output.

Blame live view. I don't recall an attendant rise in price when live view came out.

Video guys reluctantly adopted the 5D2 and then canon gave it decent firmware (after about a year into it's life as I recall) and it's success was assured. The first out the box usuable at launch video DSLR was the 7D (for serious users, or those in PAL regions) but again that camera had so many new features, both at the price point, and for DSLRs in general, that it would be impossible to isolate the cost for the video features.

As I said, you are plain wrong. The R&D stage would have been prior to live view. Bump your gums about that.

as one who primarily focuses on stills, I love live view plus manual focusing. it is quite literally my favorite provided I have the time to setup and my subject isn't squirming around.