I just want a stills camera.

[Ozarker]

There is some fantastic technology out there and our DSLRs can do some very spectacular things. Our phones can too. Here's the rub: When I get a phone, all I really want is a phone; something to make phone calls with. I personally don't like taking photos and video with the phone, surfing the internet with it, playing games on it, etc. I think it is great that the phones can do that, but I don't use those features. I know people do, and it is great for them. I'm happy for them. But haven't you ever just wished you could just buy a phone without all that?

I have both a T5i and a 70D. They both take great video as far as I am concerned, but it is something I never use.

Have you ever just wished you could buy a DSLR that wasn't an attempt by the manufacturer to develop a "jack of all trades" camera? I'd like to be able to buy a Canon DSLR that focused purely on being a picture taking instrument. I'm wondering whether or not what we use today to take photos would be leaps and bounds further along the evolutionary trail if so much extra technology didn't have to be crammed into such a small case.

Don't misunderstand, please. My 70D is a technological wonder. It is. Thing is, I only use it for photos. What if there was a model segment in the Canon line that just focused on being great cameras? Not cameras and video cameras, but just cameras? Does anyone else wonder this or long for this? Not saying Canon should scrap the cameras that try to do it all (I like them)... but just maybe there should be "L" bodies that focus just on photography. I do not know if the Canon Cine Cameras take photos, but aren't they sort of an "L" video camera?

 

[monkey44]

I agree, and have been "bashed' for that thought right here on this site. I've owned a 30D, 60D, 7D, 7D2, and a 5DM3. All shoot video -- but I've never shot a single frame of video in any one of these cameras, ever.

It appear the DSLR's of today aim for the video user, improve the camera functions to create quality video for the consumer, and as a by-product of that technology, improve the stills function as well. I know, I know, that's probably not true, but it seems it when you listen to the ads factor in video as a secondary function but make it a big deal to have it. If I have a choice, 'I'd go with a stills only camera and hope it improved the stills function even more each generation.

 

[Good24]

I agree... but will play devil's advocate to some degree. I think it seems that the video capabilities within a DSLR are here to stay, since 1) it's already been integrated into the bodies and 2) I'm guessing the "stills only" crowd is a small minority and the vast majority of consumers do want some video functions.

But a DSLR that is geared towards a still shooter is still on my wish list. I envision it will still have some video functions. The 6D almost fulfills this, in my opinion except that it skimped on a key still photo feature, the AF. If the current 6D had the 19-pt. cross type AF system of the 7D, it would be near perfect for me. (I'd also like 1/8000 shutter speed - another still photo feature that was skimped on b/c I do shoot wide open and do find myself shooting at 1/6400 and 1/8000 from time to time.)

Part of the frustration (mine and I'm guessing the OP's) is that you feel like you are paying for new/extra features you don't need. For example, if the 6D Mark II has dual pixal AF, which is really a video function, it becomes a turn off. Don't load it up with video features and skimp on stills features.

Another note: I want more interchangeable focus screens incl. a split prism and/or microprism collar. Now that is a true stills feature. The 5D and 7D lines don't allow for interchangeable focus screens. Only the 6D (and the 5D Mark II and I think the 1D) allow it.

Bottom line, for me, I'd love to see the 6D line be devoted to stills. It can and should have video functions, I get that. But don't load it up with the latest video capabilities. Load it up with stills capabilities. Add better AF. Introduce new focus screens. Give it the latest sensor/processor. To me, that's what the 6D Mark II should be.

 

[Sporgon]

Get a 5D.

I notice that in the UK prices of good, used late production 5Ds ( no, not the 5Ds, the plural of the original 5D) are actually beginning to go up.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Nikon Df

I thought the Nikon Df put this to rest. When it came out it was hailed by lots of stills purists as the "Right Thing." Sales were mediocre: it was not a total bust, but not successful either.

DSLR stills-only is not only dead, but its dessicated skull is the muse for a soliloquy.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A stills only Camera will be a niche camera that only appeals to a few buyers. Nikon found this out with the DF. It does not take better photos than a camera with video, does not cost less, and has little resale value. Buyers looked at it and said "Whats the Point?"

For those who want stills only, get a DF. Canon has and probably will continue mass marketing cameras, their entire production and marketing distribution system is setup for it. Its what they do best, turn out a good, reliable product that may not be the best, but costs less and still makes a bigger profit.

So far, Sony has not been able to match the low cost of production that Canon has, so their profits are slim. They are planning on going all out with sensor sales and are making big $$ on those. The market forcast is for sensors to be integrated into everything, from Cameras, and Phones to cars, TV sets, Microwaves, Games,
Houses, Everything. All products will be smart products and recognize the owner, its going to change a lot of things.

 

[AvTvM]

The Nikon DF is a FAIL due to it's fugly retro design and its even uglier and half-assed pseudo-retro USER INTERFACE, combined with the fact that it was build on the basis of the consumer-grade D600 instead of taking a D800 as base model. Plus of course the price tag Nikon put on it.

Had Nikon truly made the Nikon DF a "pure stills only camera" as suggested in their fabulous teaser campaign for it, and priced it sensibly - either D800 body (minus video capture) and D4s sensor in it at the Df price tag or D600 body plus D4 sensor at a significantly lower price tag, it would have been a total home run for Nikon. But, they missed it.

I have not ever recorded a single minute of video with any of all my video enabled DSLRs (and mirrorless cameras). And I won't ever, because I lack any skills as movie maker/cinematograph/director and it takes me more than enough time just to PP my stills images. Can't even imagine starting to edit videos or putting suitable sound in them.

I know A LOT of other people with DSLRs, MILC, compact cams, smartphones and tablets who never ever capture videos at all. I would definitely be more than ready to buy a "fully stills-optimzed" camera. Of course not in a fat old mirrorslapper with pseudo-retro UI, but as a FF-sensored mirrorless cam without HD / 4k video out (but WITH live View viedo feed!) ... at a 20% lower price or with 20% better stills features at the same price. Either way.

 

[mps]

then get the new 5ds/r, (almost) no video features there...

besides...

so what? your cam has a videofunction you dont use? then dont use it! i personally shoot mostly video, but i NEVER thought crying about my camera having a photo function! (yeah, i know... then get a camcorder.. bäh, a couple of years ago if you wanted a big sensor you HAD to get a dslr, and oddly enough i dont like the ergonomics of most of the newer s35 camcorders - sony fs7 could change my mind...)

its not like a "pure" stills cam would take better stills than one with video function (this only works the other way round, lol) and looking at the nikon df´s price you dont pay less either - so why care?

 

[awinphoto]

FYI, monkey, the 30D did not have video, it didn't even have live view feature. That being said, i remember many moons ago when the 50D was announced and released... It was a stills only camera... and not only did it have a sizable jump in resolution, it also sported the live view (but not video). Many arm chair pundits and reviewers bashed it because it had the video technology but no video. Software companies like magic lantern even took it upon themselves to try to unlock the video. Feed. Shortly after, the 5d2 came out, Drum Roll Please...with video. Now it's been debated, upon here and throughout the interwebs, how much of a difference, if any, would there be if they released a camera with no video. It was agreed that there likely would not be any additional advances in that camera vs a camera with video, and as long as it had live view, it likely wouldn't be cheaper either. So as far as a "Jack of all trades" mentality, i think your going to be disappointed by my response, but if you want a stills only camera, feel free to buy a older camera, a film camera, or medium format if you wish. Most DSLR's are aimed primarily as a stills camera with video functionality built in, with the exception of the C series of cameras. If you dont like video, dont use it. In the event you ever need it, a kids birthday, some other event, then you got it. But hoping that you can get a stills only camera that perhaps have better features (stills wise) than the current cameras with video, is a foolhardy proposition. You may have a case about it being slightly cheaper, but that likely wouldn't happen either... So in the meantime, dont let video slow you down or discourage you from shooting and enjoy what you got right now.

 

[pdirestajr]

A stills only camera would appeal to a smaller audience which would drive up the cost. I don't really use video, but I don't care it's there. I don't use bulb mode either and some other features my camera has.

And remember, "video", is still very much a part of "stills photography"... Just a bunch of low res blurry pics tied together.

 

[slclick]

Leica.

I see your point, I agree with your point but I accept Canon's decisions. I too am a stills only shooter. I use a 5D3, which can take amazing video in the right hands. There have been many threads and posts on the economics of adding or subtracting certain feature sets from a dslr and some folks get pretty heated up about it.

I see it this way, there quite a few functions on my camera that I don't use, video is only one of them. I just ignore those menus and set my custom functions to suit me.

 

[monkey44]

Don't think anyone here is "crying" over it ...

The idea behind OP thoughts (maybe) and mine for certain, if we had R&D on stills only, and R&D on video, BOTH would improve separately, and the stills developers would be focused on stills improvement, instead of the stills improvement coming as a by-product of video production.

Far as the engineering, I'm not sure how that affects one or the other. But as is usually the case, when one tries to combine two different 'abilities', both usually suffer - even if it's a minor amount.

I'm betting it's more the consumer factor ($$$), that more consumers want the ability to do both in one unit - so it drives the sales. I'm also betting if Canon (or Nikon, or Sony) built a very high-end Pro level stills camera that captured 'better' images than other models, it would carry the Pro market. It's unlikely that anyone shooting video with a DSLR does it for high-end professional reasons -- videos of the family events, and maybe something like the RE sales videos or promotions, or a quick video on a one-shot marketing campaign (tele-commercials) but never for true video as in movies or documentary -- Cinema cameras cover that level of production.

Yes, we can simply not use it -- but my guess - if development centered on still images, the improvement would be greater and quicker than developing both. The fact is too, we still pay for it, and it weighs at least something, even if lightweight.

This discussion will continue, like that about Nikon and Canon 'better' threads ... because those that use it think it is necessary or great and would complain if it disappeared, and those that don't use it and could care less if it even exists. Both positions are correct for individuals -- so the discussion will never end with either side a 'winner' ...

 

[Halfrack]

You may not need video, but are you using features that are accomplished by having the video component?

- Live view gives a great method to frame, focus, expose all remotely, either tethered or wireless. No video = no live view

- 10x magnification - shooting macro and need to be sure it's in focus, done

- focus peaking - manual focus via an adapter and make sure what you want is in focus

Besides, the design considerations done for video can't hinder a camera. Think thermal management and readout on the chip - things that video pushes a lot.

If you want a stills camera, might I suggest the 645D from Pentax. It's 40MP, lots of legacy glass options, and doesn't have a lick of video ability.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Nikon tried a camera "pure photography" with the ugly Nikon DF. :-[ Sales were not good, and do not think Canon will try something like that.

The question is:
A camera for photos only, will be cheaper to produce?

The answer is:
If this camera sells fewer units, its price must be high to offset weak sales.

This is a vicious cycle:
Is it expensive because it sells too little? Or sells too little because it is expensive? : :-X

 

[cpreston]

Seriously, you are buying a stills camera. For Canon, the video is purely an afterthought outside of the 1DC, a few design aspects of the 5DIII and possibly the 70D. Pretty much every aspect that affects video performance also benefits photo performance. Sure, the headphone jack and amp could go, but those are cheap junk. The dual pixel technology is very useful for those who like to shoot off an LCD. Sure, you could remove the LCD entirely and have a fully dedicated photos camera, but I doubt there are any photographers clamoring for that.

Seriously, the design and cost considerations for video are all in the consumers mind. Marketing realizes this and markets to photographers and videographers prejudices with these so called dedicated cameras, but images are images. And the video images from Canon DSLR's are well known to be seriously hobbled due to the fact that the sensor and processors are designed entirely for single still images and a mirror.

 

[SPL]

I agree!, I have used a T1i, 7D, 6D, 1DX, and now currently use a 5D III. Not once have I used the video function in any of these cameras. Now,…that’s just me and the needs I want of my equipment…Canon has some absolutely fantastic video features in their bodies…I just don’t use them. The video function will have to just sit there patiently until the next owner wishes to explore and use it. If there was a Canon body with better stills functions and no video capability…I would probably have it in my bag…..but cost/production reasons, probably not feasible, and that is OK.

 

[Pookie]

Get a 5D3!!! Wait a minute, I just read the owner's manual... apparently my 3 year old 5D3's take video ??? Never knew that or cared as I don't ever use it. Don't think removing it would make a change in price or use... at least for me. Actually if it were removed you''d be hearing from the peanut gallery about how evil Canon crippled it... boooo hooo hooo...

 

[dak723]

Put me down as another DSLR owner that has never shot a second of video - so, yes, I would buy a stills only camera if it meant doing away with all the video associated functions (including live view) IF that made the camera cheaper. Otherwise these functions don't get in my way and can be ignored, so it doesn't really matter much. Removing the video won't increase the stills IQ, so it really would only be a benefit if the price was lower.

 

[rfdesigner]

I'm partly with the OP.

We have a Sony blueray player that tries to be so clever it's almost unusable. All we want is a DVD player, but it's running a full OS inside it so it takes for even to do anything and even crashes entirely occasionally.. dire pice of junk.... less is more, reliability is under-rated... thinking about it a raspberry pi, a very cut down linux kernal and a USB DVD drive would probably suffice. (It's what I'm doing for a NAS)

Camera wise I have the aforementioned 30D and I would have found live view useful for astrophotography focussing, but now I've gone CCD there I don't need it.

The next camera will have video as it comes for free, but I really won't use it much (I can think of one use: my daughter playing her clarinet). If I came into money I'd take a 5Ds for a test drive as it looks like a camera aimed at stills, where basic video comes along for the ride.

 

[slclick]

As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!