Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

[cayenne]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too. At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Hey cayenne --- just a friendly bit of advice. Before taking the plunge, if you know anyone that has an slr, borrow it for a day or 2. Or, seeing as though it seems you have disposable income - rent one. Maybe borrow a a 7d and a 60D then rent an mkii or mkiii. Its an expensive piece of equipment, kind of like a car (at the $3000 its exactly like a used car). Give a few SLR's a test drive, then take the plunge...

My fee for this advice is one mkiii, it can be sent too....LOL

LOL...thanks for the advice.
I've pretty much already made the decision, just need to click the buy button.

I was first introduced to the Mark II last year late...while on a shoot for a short comedy...pro situation, lighting, sound people, a guy to pull focus...etc.

I saw what these things can do, and since then, have seen the amazing things pros are doing with them.
Someday maybe I can make money a little to pay for itself? Maybe. Down here in New Orleans, there is a HUGE industry with film and tv....and I've already got people saying just showing up on some of the more indie things..can get me on set and a little $$, so I can gain experience.

I want it for some cooking videos I'm already shooting just using my iPhone and iMovie to edit....I want that HD look.

I've got the cash in hand so I'm going to get the Mark III.....

I think I've researched myself to death at this point.

 

[cayenne]

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield . With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C

 

[ScottyP]

Opinions?
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's? Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's?
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video? If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time. If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.

All I (in the OP) did was ask if it costs something and if perhaps it is wasted on some people? I also expressed doubt that it could literally cost nothing. I went on to indicate that I felt photography is expensive enough without having to buy video whether you want it or not.

Nothing against video. I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point. If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck?

Even if the true marginal cost of video is/were really almost negilgible, there is a percieved value, so maybe that provides a marketing opportunity. Maybe they could avoid undercutting their other product lines with a cheaper stills-only body by using the justification/rationalization/distinction that the price is cheaper because it was stripped of video/audio capability. Or perhaps I am over-analyzing this.

 

[Astro]

i don´t use video on my DSLR.
that said video is a fact and here to stay. so discussing this topic is kind of useless.

my problem is that canon seem to put more effort in video quality then in still image quality improvement.

 

[kdsand]

I mentioned the upcoming prime 24&28 I.S. 2.8

Perhaps this will be the first clear or obvious sign of video/ value impact. If the price is at the $750 range with little or no improvement for regular photographers - it could be a bad sign regarding future releases.
:'(

 

[Penn Jennings]

It isn't the cost of the hardware which is the issue - it is the cost to produce the firmware which is high. The extra software will cost millions to produce - and that has then to be spread over each body sold

Magic Lantern is free. How many people develop it? If Canon needs millions to do what a couple of guys can do for free then Canon has a problem.

I'm sure that there is a cost. However, video also drives a lot of sales.

 

[Axilrod]

I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

There is absolutely no evidence that shooting video affects the lifespan of a DSLR.

 

[rocketdesigner]

Video saved Canon's bacon, with the 5D Mk II. That camera would have sold about half as many units if it hadn't had video, and the extra funds allowed Canon to upgrade the Mk III extensively. Remember, R&D is booked as a percentage of sales, and video more than doubled sales of the Mk II. It wouldn't surprise me if it actually tripled them.

Increased sales lowers costs, so in other words, video has lowered the cost of bodies. Besides, video is pretty much "free," because Live View is an extremely useful photographic tool. Once you have Live View, all it takes is a bit of code and a 10¢ microphone to get video.

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

+1 ... Although many will argue with you, great points, thank you.

 

[kdsand]

Well I guess I can always sell off some of my collection to keep up with the price increases Canon is demonstrating.
I had to say that to make sure I keep relevant to the discussion
;D

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/1923-leica-camera-fetches-2-16-million-euros-185156596.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

Yikes.

 

[rocketdesigner]

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield . With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C

Would definitely advise against Final Cut X ... go with Premiere.

 

[psolberg]

I think video isn't raising the cost but it is definitively changing the specs of some bodies. Take for instance the 5DmkIII. 22MP in 2012 would NEVER had happen if canon didn't think all it's photographers are closet videographers and made video the first and foremost priority when it started the sensor. The 5DMKIII in a world where canon didn't care so much for video would have been a 40MP body like the D800 with first and foremost emphasis on still image quality and DR for landscape/studio/portrait photographers. However the irony is that canon's protection of it's precious C series means it holds back on it's DSLRs not even offering 4:2:2 out uncompressed. huh

I hope for canon that it finds its way back to the still shooter. Stills aren't going away and they remain an art that is so different from video that the moment you put too much stupid emphasis on video, you screw the still shooter.

 

[elflord]

Nothing against video. I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point. If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck?

Leica make stills only cameras but they are not cheap. That is the part you're missing -- a cheap stills only camera would not be a viable product unless it sold enough and didn't undercut other products. Stills only models are niche products and therefore quite expensive.

The good news is that if you really do want a stills only body, there are some very good inexpensive stills only cameras on the market -- the 40D, the 50D, and the 5D classic. Canon aren't interested in selling a stills only full frame body for less than $1000- or a stills only APS-C for less than $500-, but you could buy one in those price ballparks if that was what you really wanted.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@psolberg

Take for instance the 5DmkIII. 22MP in 2012 would NEVER had happen if canon didn't think all it's photographers are closet videographers and made video the first and foremost priority when it started the sensor.

If thats true then explain why the C300 & C500 don't have this video priortised sensor you speak of?

Is pulldown from 18 or 21 MP all that different from 40MP?

Come on!

Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, canon didn't deliver a 40MP 5D3 because a) folk don't need it b) r&d would make it even more expensive and c) 35mm lenses just cannot resolve the detail.

Are you jealous that Nikon made a 36MP body for 10MP lenses? Do you want to blame video? Oh but the Nikon has video too!

Here's the thing. Nikon were first with DSLR video. With the D90. Wasn't very good. Canon added it into the 5D2, perhaps as an afterthought. Wasn't very good. Some smart guys cracked the 5D2 and made it good. Canon launched some firmware that made it legitimately very good.

Folk got right into it and bought a DSLR purely for video.

So canon are somehow wrong to cater to folk who'll double or even triple the sales of 5D2s? And wrong to cater for the same folks who'll flock to the 5D3?

Lets not forget, the 5D and 5D2 were pretty pedestrian in terms of speed and AF. The 5D3 solves those problems. What problem, exactly, does a 36Mp sensor solve?

Get a grip and get over it. Video and stills can peacefully co-exist despite what bitter wedding photographers think.

 

[cayenne]

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Don't forget to keep some space in your budget for glass.

I'm starting off with the 5D Mark III with the kit 24-105L lens. I've also got enough for this initial purchase to get a prime lens and I'm going for the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is from what I can see, the best bang for my buck on initial purchase. I've read this lens has fast AF for stills, and good bokeh, etc....and low light.

I'm also looking to soon buy a ND filter set for outdoor video, and I'm upgrading iMovie to Final Cut Pro X...and likely will get Apeture too, since I bought a mac book pro late last year.

I bought the mac in anticipation of the camera...

Once I recover from this buy...and have some experience down...I'm looking for some wide angle lenses...trying to figure what I want for that.

I'll likely look into renting lenses at that point to see what I like the best, since i'm likely looking at prime L lenses...and want to be sure what works best for me at the $1600-$2K+ range....

My only concern at this point is....I don't know enough at this time, when I get my camera in, to be able to know if it has something wrong with it....like stuck pixels, or if lens is defective...etc.

I've seen people showing noise and some problems with the camera/lens from time to time. But aside from that...I'm ready to get this show on the road (no pun intended).

I am looking to likely get my initial camera and lens from crutchfield . With their rewards program, I'll get enough credit to almost buy the battery grip for free....

C

Would definitely advise against Final Cut X ... go with Premiere.

Any particular reasons why?

From what I read, FCPX now has all the features people were complaining it didn't have upon release.

And well....with camera purchase....I can swing $300 for FCPX....Adobe looks to be trying to price themselves out of the market.

I"m also going to be playing with Cinelerra too http://cinelerra.org/

I have linux boxes....and the new macbook pro (I can run linux on it too with VMWare and Parallels)

I'm figuring that between the two, I'll be able to cover about anything Premier does.....?

 

[paul13walnut5]

Im a long term FCP user and have switched back to Premiere (which I used long before FCP was out)

FCPX is not for me. I'm old school and from a linear background. Tracks/layers make sense. Clinets demand tapes no matter how its shot, and sound engineers deamnd omfies for broadcast mixes, no matter what it's cut on.

If I were totally new to editing and didn't have such demands from clients I would give FCPX a good look, 64 bit, native H264 handling, open gl accelaration etc, good price.

However I fear the mac I type this on will be my last ever mac. Premiere runs better on a PC costing £1000 less than a mac I would need to get full cuda etc.

Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.

 

[preppyak]

Any particular reasons why?

From what I read, FCPX now has all the features people were complaining it didn't have upon release.

Get FCP X. It's basically designed just for the prosumer market, though they have finally gotten in some of the key components (multi-cam, etc). The interfaces are nice, and unless you have specific experience in FCP 7 or Adobe, you won't notice anything that throws you.

FCP X was a huge marketing mistake for Apple; they pulled the rug out of a lot of users whose lives depended on FCP7 features. Had they done from the start what they eventually decided on (allowing new FCP7 licenses while improving X to its level), you'd have a lot less people angry with it.

I was one of the people that swore off X and said I'd go to Adobe once I had to...just because Apple handled it so poorly. This past week at work, we bought 3 licenses of X for the price of one Adobe license, and I have no regrets with it so far.

 

[preppyak]

Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.

Yeah...they're going to lose the higher end pro market. But, that seems to be the way Apple was going; especially with rumors the Mac Pro may not continue on

 

[7enderbender]

Well, whatever the additional cost for building and developing is I wish they kept it separate. I can't stand video shooting and editing and if I have to then I use a video camera. I wouldn't want to waste even one second lifespan of my 5DII on that. I know others feel different that's why I think a split would be nice. Should really be in everyone's interest though. It's the old jack-of-all-trades thing vs. just some versatility we would expect from a DSLR system.

You could always go out and buy a Leica, then you wouldn't have to feel that you'd wasted your money on video.

Which video features of the 5DII do you find detrimental to your stills shooting ?

In fact, I can't go out and buy a Leica M9 with the lenses I'd want. I simply can't afford that and the EOS DSLR system is the best I can do. I know that this is a luxury complaint.

It's not the video features per se that are "detrimental" since I don't use them. It's that video and some other stuff has been crammed into modern SLRs that I pay for but don't need. Video is really the smaller issue. My biggest beef is still that with digital I'm forced to buy AF which I'm not too fond of. I never switched from FD to EOS for exactly that reason. When comparing the viewfinder of my 25 year old AE-1 p to that of my 5DII it makes me still a bit sad.

And as you said - the only alternative in the digital world for guys and gals like me is buying into a viewfinder system for 20 grand or so. No can do.

 

[7enderbender]

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too. At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.
However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Interesting. I never understood why people would buy a DSLR for its video capabilities. Yes, you get the large sensor and decent low light capabilities. But for serious filming don't you have to attach all sorts of expensive gizmos and struggle finding the right (off brand) lenses and third party firmware etc?

For that kind of money and effort I would just buy (or rent...) a professional video camera and call it a day.

 

[ScottyP]

Nothing against video. I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point. If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck?

Leica make stills only cameras but they are not cheap. That is the part you're missing -- a cheap stills only camera would not be a viable product unless it sold enough and didn't undercut other products. Stills only models are niche products and therefore quite expensive.

The good news is that if you really do want a stills only body, there are some very good inexpensive stills only cameras on the market -- the 40D, the 50D, and the 5D classic. Canon aren't interested in selling a stills only full frame body for less than $1000- or a stills only APS-C for less than $500-, but you could buy one in those price ballparks if that was what you really wanted.

Let me put it differently then. Take a for example something like the 60D. Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart. Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example.

A stills specialty camera. That could catch Nikon flat-footed. One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM. Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.