I just want a stills camera.

[AvTvM]

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

Live view video stream for a svga lcd (at best) for short durations at a time is quite a low requirement compared to 4k video capture for up to 29 minutes duration.

The entire camera, sensor, thermal concept, d/a components, electronics, heat sinks, codecs, firmware, menus etc. is different and more complex than a pure stills capture photo camera - even with live view.

 

[Marsu42]

Does anyone else wonder this or long for this?

Lotsa people have been wondering for ages, and this is a very popular topic. The usual answer is that is afaik ...

• doing special-purpose cams for a minority would be more expensive, so you're actually spending *less* money for *more* features on mass-produced still-video hybrid dslrs
• not using video isn't very hurtful if you discount the stronger aa filter that might be weaker for pure stills
• video is a "free" add-on concerning the technology, nothing special about grabbing frames of the sensor and then putting 'em into a video stream instead of a jpeg. Sure, they have to put some r&d into it, but not adding the existing firmware to a camera wouldn't do you any good.

If you feel very strongly about this, do a Magic Lantern "anti-feature" request - I guess it's fairly easy to disable (and probably hide) all video functions on your dslr to stop any confusion and malicious feelings

Last not least, you'll *love* video on the upcoming 4k cameras if you can grab 120 raw frames from the video stream - compare this to an expensive 1dx that needs lots of sturdy tech to flip the mirror 12x per second...

 

[meywd]

So the 1D X is not a camera made for stills? or does having a video mode on it affect the image quality? the same goes for the 5D/7D, ignore that it has a video mode and live happily ever after.

 

[slclick]

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

Live view video stream for a svga lcd (at best) for short durations at a time is quite a low requirement compared to 4k video capture for up to 29 minutes duration.

The entire camera, sensor, thermal concept, d/a componenta, electronics, heat sinks, codecs, firmware, menus etc. is different and more complex than a pure stills capture photo camera - even with live view.

That's great but I'm still glad.

 

[cpreston]

The entire camera, sensor, thermal concept, d/a components, electronics, heat sinks, codecs, firmware, menus etc. is different and more complex than a pure stills capture photo camera - even with live view.

And that is why you have the cinema series. Trust me, Canon DSLR's are designed as stills cameras with an incredibly cheap mic and a simple algorithm for saving the sensor readout as H.264 file added so that it can record video. My understanding is that the 5D3 may have had the sensor designed with a certain number of photosites that allows 1080p pixel binning, but it didn't hurt photos unless you are wedded to a very specific resolution. Also, processing and heat removal have more of an effect on video than photography, but I doubt any photographer complains when the fps of a camera increases due to increased processing and sensor speeds.

The technologies are the same, it's just the use that is different.

 

[Good24]

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

If Canon offered better focus screens, you wouldn't need live view!

I mean, that really makes my point. I'm not 100% with OP - there will be video, and that's a good thing, and a stills-only camera isn't realistic. But still I want Canon to be sensitive to stills shooters and enthusiasts. I believe in the SLR experience, where you hold the camera eyepiece to your eye. Call me old fashioned. I use Live View too but I resent that I have to because the focus screens are weak.

 

[slclick]

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

If Canon offered better focus screens, you wouldn't need live view!

I mean, that really makes my point. I'm not 100% with OP - there will be video, and that's a good thing, and a stills-only camera isn't realistic. But still I want Canon to be sensitive to stills shooters and enthusiasts. I believe in the SLR experience, where you hold the camera eyepiece to your eye. Call me old fashioned. I use Live View too but I resent that I have to because the focus screens are weak.

Not just weak, non interchangeable on that model.

 

[Ozarker]

It is amazing what people extrapolate from what I said.

1. I said the current cameras were technological wonders (I love both of mine and I am contemplating a 1Dx or its replacement when it comes out.).

2. I have nothing against Canon having video on their cameras. I'm happy the video feature is there for those that use it.

3. I never said or suggested that a pure stills camera was wanted because it would be less expensive. In fact, the cameras right now are less expensive than they would be as stand alones because they are designed, marketed, and appeal to a very wide audience of consumers.

4. I certainly wasn't crying about anything, but I would now suggest that the poster who said so is a little too emotional about the topic. Untwist your panties.

It never fails that people write and act in such a rude way when they can hide behind a screen. Those same people aren't such sloppy jerks when it comes to face to face interaction. They know better, and might have to account for their boorish behavior.

5. The post had to do with whether or not a stills camera allowed to evolve on it's own, without having to cram so much more technology into the small case, might evolve more quickly and be a better camera in the long run. It is a question, not a manifesto. It makes sense to me that the size of the platform limits what can be crammed in there.

I see no reason why "live view" is necessarily dependent upon having video recording capabilities in the camera. My got dang car looks out its back end and doesn't record a cotton picken thing. Live view doesn't record anything when using it on the camera either. It is using the same sensor one takes photos with... like looking through an electronic view finder.

Yes, I can just ignore the video features, and I do. Duh. That isn't the point or question posed in the post. Sheesh!

 

[Zeidora]

I guess the OP's question could be rephrased:
Does video function in DSLRs interfere with the development of actual still-photography capabilities? e.g., would a 1/100,000s be standard exposure time, were it not for the video features?
I doubt that. Most of the video functionality is soft-ware based, maybe with the exception of the microphone and the sound/video in/out ports. A stills-only camera may be slightly cheaper to design/manufacture, but considering sales volume, those savings go out the window in a heart beat.
I'm another stills only photographer. Very happy that the 5dSR has "only" rudimentary video features. That is a big positive selling point for me.

 

[AvTvM]

A camera without unnecessary holes in its shell for mic, speakers, video-only connectors would be better and cheaper to weatherseal. Those holes are additional video-induced compromises and weaknesses compared to what a pure stills machine would be. And never ever used by the makority of people purchasing these cameras. Stills only, no real video use is not a minority for Dslr users, but a massive majority.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
Just a thought, but didn't video limit the stills abilities of my camera, the 7D with that over powering AA filter in front of what was at its time a great sensor? Hasn't this been shown to be a fact by the other bodies which used the sensor with a less aggressive AA filter proud un sharper images?
So video did hurt at least one body, but I also use the video function in preference to my phone for short clips at parties etc (because it is there and what the hell) and understand that it's here to stay and helps keep the cost of the camera down, and when I'm not using it, it causes no grief and if I never use it again it won't change the way the camera works.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the 7D, as if I have to give permission! : ;D ;D

Cheers, Graham.

 

[3kramd5]

5. The post had to do with whether or not a stills camera allowed to evolve on it's own, without having to cram so much more technology into the small case, might evolve more quickly and be a better camera in the long run. It is a question, not a manifesto.

I imagine that the development teams are divided into photography and videography groups. Would putting twice as many people into photography software improve photography? Maaaaybe, but more likely they'd just finish the work package sooner.

If there are video-specific hardware compromises made, such as an strong low pass filter (mentioned above), then it's possible a stills-only camera would be a little better than a hybrid. I suspect those situations are rare, and that no, photography wouldn't evolve significantly faster if it weren't for video.

A camera without unnecessary holes in its shell for mic, speakers, video-only connectors would be better and cheaper to weatherseal. Those holes are additional video-induced compromises and weaknesses compared to what a pure stills machine would be.

Kind of picking a nit, there. Neither a rather insignificant body weakness nor the cost of a gasket have any impact on still photography performance, any more than the presence of a mirror box impacts video performance. If they created light leaks, that would be another story entirely.