Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?

[AvTvM]

looking at costs of parts is not sufficient. Video DOES cost .. actually an arm and a leg in development costs.
And in manufacturing costs. I do not want a camera that is further dumbed down and artificially crippled, got enough of these from Canon already. I want exactly the 5D III MINUS all video crap other than liveview for not more money than wat a Nikon D800 costs (including video).

There is no point whatsoever in 2012 to use DSLRs for video. By now, excellent videocams can be had for little money. Just look at The Sony NEX VG600 ... full frame sensor, dedeicated video machine, all video bells and whistles. Without a clumsy mirror box, prism and optical viewfinder which are just a nuisance in capturing video for pretty much the same price as a 5D III.

So it is about high time, Canon brings some decent cameras dedicated to stills photographers, rather than just sucking up to the videots all the time.

 

[bycostello]

i'd buy it if it made it cheaper and or lighter....

 

[RustyTheGeek]

From my personal experience...

I can shoot pretty watchable HD video with my Panasonic HDC-TM900. So can my wife. It is ergonomically designed for the task just like several other Sony camcorders I have owned over the years. It's light as a feather which helps me hold it steady for 20 minutes during a long recital if a tripod is out of the question. I've shot a ton of video ever since I was a kid, even took a lot of home movies on 8mm film. But I'm not a videographer or a filmmaker. And neither are most of the DSLR owners, even if they are darn good photographers.

I watched and waited for digital video camcorders to gain acceptable still picture capability and over time realized that the pictures would never be close to the quality of a DSLR. The sensor just isn't designed for that.

As I got back into SLR photography a few years ago, I anticipated DSLRs to bridge the same gap from the other side. I watched and waited for DSLR video to improve and here we are today. The sensor quality is indeed there, and the lenses are a big advantage. But a DSLR is fundamentally designed for holding to the face to shoot still photography. DSLR camera design and ergonomics are all wrong for video and many features that make video easy for the average consumer are missing. No AF, no stereo sound, no image stabilization, the list goes on. The ergonomics and missing features must be bolted on with 3rd party accessories, handles, stabilization rigs, lights, microphones, and eye pieces. This is fine for the amateur or semi-pro filmmaker and videographer that appreciate the advantages of the device for their craft and don't want to spend $40K+ yet. I guess this is the market that Canon is trying to appeal to with DSLR video because you really can't tell me that many average users (including photographers) are interested in all that effort and expense when all they have to do is pick up a top of the line HD camcorder from Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc and make great video without all the work and bolt-ons.

My question is just because the quality is available from a DSLR sensor, why do photographers want to build an erector set video camera? Because Canon told them they could? IMO, creating professional, compelling and well edited video footage is a huge challenge. It's not nearly as easy as taking compelling photographs. Someone please explain to me what technique they use to create a smooth quality video production using only their DSLR by itself at an event. And how do they light it?

Don't get me wrong. I don't fault anyone who uses the 5D2 or 5D3 for video work and creates great video footage. I think that's really pretty cool. And if that is your interest, craft, talent etc than all power to you. But to say you can offer professional video footage because you have a DSLR, that I find hard to believe. No offense but it's just not that simple.

So with all that said, I would love to see some serious head scratching happen to innovate and create some killer new ideas for still photography in the DSLR. Because at the end of the day, that is what the DSLR is best at.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Other Feature Ideas - DSLR model for Still Photography. (Yes, many of these would apply to video as well.)

- Of course there is always room for better AF, low light, and metering.
- Built-In SSD Memory to allow faster buffering and copying media to other media, etc. (like 120GB or more internal, maybe make it removable like a super high speed media module)
- Built-In Wireless Flash/Shutter Trigger (built in pocket wizard from canon) Would love to grab flash off of camera for side light and put it back, no fuss, compact w/o extra hot shoe items
- Maybe a way to have an IR sensor enable/disable (I have no idea how to do this but I can wish for it!)
- Maybe be able to easily remove/change out the sensor for other sensors for whatever benefit this could offer, like IR.
- Built-In Wireless File Transmitter (instead of charging a ton for the add-on module, hopefully 6D WiFi will allow this)
- Make the built-in File Transfer natively compatible with Android and iOS easily through WiFi
- Make all this wireless connectivity work both ways, allow full camera controls from phones, computers, etc. (6D will allow some of this)
- Thunderbolt, USB3, etc fast connections
- Built-In wireless system for wireless printing that could create small prints easily on site. (A high quality polaroid.)
- The ability for the DSLR to back up/retrieve all settings so you could easily program it without thumbing through menus all the time. Have different setting files for different reasons, etc. It would also make it easy to use multiple DSLRs and quickly change key settings.
- The ability to link DSLRs together wirelessly to trigger interesting multi-camera shots or even move images back and forth.
- Have a way to tilt or rotate the internal sensor to create interesting effects or microadjust.
- Add DLNA or other similar technology for easy wireless connectivity with projectors and televisions, etc.
- Come up with a better way to control dust and sensor debris

 

[weixing]

Hi,
IMHO, once you have life view, video is just a software feature that can be easily add in... the additional hardware cost for the video is actually minimum (only mic). By removing video, you only save firmware space, but lost a huge advantage in marketing... unless they can come out with a feature that is desire by still photographers to replace the video feature. Hmm... may be an advanced RAW image processing module (like an embedded DPP or Photoshop plugin) with the space left by the video module in the firmware memory... better if the camera can have two type of firmware, one is with video and the other with the DPP plugin... let user decide ;D

Anyway, once you included a feature, it's hard to remove without user complaints... look how many user complaint when Canon remove the micro adjustment feature from the xxD and I was one of them.

Have a nice day.

 

[preppyak]

However, even if sales volumes go up, video is NOT free. It ads complexity that needs more testing (not as cheap or quick as people might think), it requires more hardware and software to operate, and chances are there were design meetings where they had to weigh various decisions based off how they would impact still vs video performance.

True, but, the sales volume is what mitigates those extra pieces in cost. For example, say it cost Canon 20% less to make a video-less DSLR. The question is, could they sell it for 20% less at the same sales volume (clearly not, some people only use video, etc), and if not, what would the cost have to be to make up for the difference. If it got 20% fewer buyers, they'd have to sell it for about the same price...at which point, it'd seem likely they'd lose most of those customers who would just buy the video one cause video is "free" (and it'd help resale). And if the video-less model had extra features to make it more enticing, well, then that would cost in R&D, testing, etc as well, and that camera would be priced accordingly. It's entirely possible a "stills only" camera with a few extra features would have to cost more, thus why Canon hasn't done it.

So, when I say video is "free", obviously I know it has a cost, but, it is one of the few things on the camera that probably more than pays for itself compared to cameras 5yrs ago. Heck, it may well be that the reason Canon has the diversity of body options it does now (xxD and xD in APS-C, two full-frame non-1 series cameras), because more customers have more needs.

 

[c3hammer]

As soon as we have 4k 30p video spill down to the masses, still image acquisition will cease to exist out side of frame captures

Cheers,
Pete

 

[wockawocka]

There would be no benefit to such a camera, whereas there are tremendous benefits to having a camera with video capability. One of the first ones, of course, is live view. That is, by far, the biggest innovation since the digital age began. Extremely useful capability, and once you have that, video is absolutely free.

You of course, understand cameras can have Live view without video? The 1Ds3 and 40D as an example.

 

[rpt]

If the 5D3 did not have video I would not have bought it... I don't want to lug a dedicated video camera for what I do - hobby. Having said that, even if I had to lug 2 cameras, I'd prefer the video camera to be a dslr so I could select the lenses for the shoot. Then again, I am not a pro but that is what I would want.

 

[NormanBates]

Just so everybody knows a bit better what we're talking about...

2 quotes from the comments here: http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/red-announces-6k-120fps-sensor-with-15.html

We didn't make this one but if you need a sensor like this, send me $2.5 million and wait 12 months and it's yours.

24MP sensor with 5um pixels
84fps speed at full resolution
15-16b-equivalent ADC resolution at full speed
Global shutter efficiency of 120dB (at what conditions?)
Low read noise (how much?)
Chip area is roughly 2x of the array area (like in Red Dragon)
Power is low enough (how much?)

They're talking about a sensor heavily optimized for pro video, but I guess the development cost for a sensor optimized for stills should be similar.

In any case, no idea what you lose by going for video, though: I guess you'd have a bit better DR with rolling shutter instead of global shutter, but they're talking full well of 200Ke and read noise of 2 or 3 e, which means 16 stops of DR... do you really want to go stills oriented? Just give me this one!!!

 

[AvTvM]

yes, scrap video in DSLRs. It was great wehn the 5D 2 came out - but solely for price reasons, because large_sensor video capturing devices cost huge amounts back then.

I do want 15+ EV DR in a stills camera.
I want all the AISC doing video encoding crap ripped out an dreplaced by way more powerful AF hardware .. .to finally get on-sensor hybrid Phase + contrast detect AF that leapfrogs what a 1D X or D4 currently deliver .. by a mile.
I do want electronic shutter [global shutter] and finally done away with the mechanical, vibration-inducing curtain shutters ... and even more importantly, I want X-sync up to 1/8000s.

And yes, I want all of this in a killer stills-only DSLR at a reasonable price.
Currently that means to me: not more than what a Nikon D800 costs.

I do not care, how Canon wants to go about this .. but they could easily build a 5Ds - for stills and a 5D c with video added on top and for a significantly higher price [because it is dual use, for those who really need or want it] ... just as long as I get my stills-optimized imaging device.

I am sick and tried with all that video crap stuffed into my imaging products. I do not need it. I do not want it. I do not use. For the very raesons stated a few posts earlier: because it is way beyond my capabilities to produce videos that I myself would ever want to watch.

 

[Northstar]

Very simple .. I would buy a 5D IIIs like "stils only" .. with LiveView but no video recodring or video out, no video related controls, no microphones and speaker but the holes in the biody covered 100% waterproof, no video-related menue items, no Video-realted ICs and wiring inside ... nothing ..

for the price of a Nikon D800 ... so 500 Euro less ... IN AN INSTANT!

Yes...just like you said. Also, live view can be very handy at times, but knowing canon, they would make a model as you described, and then another one for $500 more that had live view. :. A little bit funny, sad, and true all at the same time time..eh?

 

[RustyTheGeek]

THANK YOU AvTvM!

You're looking at this the way I am. There are a ton of advancements that would benefit stills if we put our heads together and said 'What If?". Rolling Shutter, wonderful idea. I've wondered for a long time why we still use mechanical shutters in 2012 on a digital sensor. Speed is all I can think of. Higher Speed Sync not limited to 1/200 range. I think we are on the same conceptual page.

Same thanks Northstar. Glad we agree! Canon releasing a still camera that features big advances in still image capture does not mean a 5D3 hybrid video DSLR would go away. It would just be another choice for those more serious about still photography. I know some serious filmmakers. I know what goes into real filmmaking and it's hard work. IMHO, either you are doing serious filmmaking or you are shooting camcorder video. There's not much of a middle ground unless I guess you include the DSLR erector set. And that's fine. It's a great way to explore the craft and begin to develop serious filmmaking skills with some very creative (and expensive) DSLR video accessories.

To be honest, I was starting to wonder if I was going to stop posting here. Seems like there are some critical folks on this forum that just prefer to criticize. At first I thought this forum was different but turns out it's pretty much like most others. (Which is why I usually just avoid posting.) Write a post, people call you stupid. If I'm right, everyone else is wrong so shutup. Life's too short!

So thanks for the post confirming that I'm not the only one with this idea.

 

[dshipley]

This is a purely hypothetical question but I'm guessing many of you have thought about it once or twice.

I'm curious if anyone else would consider a DSLR designed, dedicated and optimized solely for still photography worthwhile / desirable?

Quite simply: If you could get better still images from a camera without video, would you buy it?

- Would you buy it instead of a hybrid model with video features if it produced better still images?
- Would you buy it if the images were the same but it was designed differently for still photography use?

Does anyone else think compromises might exist in hybrid DSLR designs in order to offer HD video on the same sensor?

- Would a sensor designed for dedicated still photography perhaps offer better specs, IQ, sensitivity, speed, [insert other perceived benefit here]?
- How much better would a dedicated still photography camera perform if it didn't have to produce video as well?
- Would the CPU, processing and firmware possibly be less complex, more efficient and stable?
- Would the control layout and ergonomics, menus, etc be easier to use and offer more versatility and/or control?
- Is it possible that video features have delayed R&D while engineers work out new challenges due to the hybrid designs?
- Do you think video increases the price of the camera? Is it logical to think a dedicated still camera might cost slightly less while still offering better images?

Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on. Might make an interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.

Cameras dedicated solely to photographic image quality already exist... they're called Medium Format DSLRs.

If we're talking about 35mm (Full Frame) and smaller DSLRs you're still looking at cameras that are optimized for photography over video. So while current DSLR sensors do allow video they do so without making any concessions to photographic quality. There are many ways that sensors in current DSLRs could be optimized specifically for video capture, but doing so would lower the sensors photography advantages.

 

[Dylan777]

I will take 5D III without video features for $200-$500 less. I simply don't use video on my 5D III at all.

 

[rpt]

I am going to be killed (or worse) for this. But I think we (me included) need to think about this beyond the next few years or decades. Think evolution. I believe that no living entity (humans included) has had a still camera to help it see. I look to nature for ideas and validation. And probably because it can't sue me . So if video is prevalent in nature, and the megapixels are just going to grow, like somebody said in a thread on this forum, a still will just be a frame of the movie. And a frame may be made up of a hundred (just a number from the top of my spinal cord) 1/800000, f512, XSO 512M snaps...

Would you dream on like this? I do.

And at the moment I am limited by my current gear. And my eyesight...

 

[infared]

If the 5D3 did not have video I would not have bought it... I don't want to lug a dedicated video camera for what I do - hobby. Having said that, even if I had to lug 2 cameras, I'd prefer the video camera to be a dslr so I could select the lenses for the shoot. Then again, I am not a pro but that is what I would want.

I agree...no videO and maybe some added features for B&w imaging..but stills ONLY! I owned a 5DII and I never turned on the video feature!...
I have a 5DIII now and I imagine it will be the same...do not even care how the video works!! LOL!
Think I am not the average camera user these days, tho..so maybe there is no market for a stills camera...???
I occasionally use live view...but I could live a simpler life without it...no doubt!

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I am going to be killed (or worse) for this. But I think we (me included) need to think about this beyond the next few years or decades. Think evolution. I believe that no living entity (humans included) has had a still camera to help it see. I look to nature for ideas and validation. And probably because it can't sue me . So if video is prevalent in nature, and the megapixels are just going to grow, like somebody said in a thread on this forum, a still will just be a frame of the movie. And a frame may be made up of a hundred (just a number from the top of my spinal cord) 1/800000, f512, XSO 512M snaps...

Would you dream on like this? I do.

And at the moment I am limited by my current gear. And my eyesight...

I totally understand and agree that a high quality high megapixel full resolution video is essentially a sequential 24 or 29 fps consecutive string of still frames. I have thought the same thing for years so I think you are right on the money. However, since I got back into photography and don't really do video much anymore, there's just something about individual frames that keeps me interested where the video doesn't. The high res video "shot" would use a ton of memory. And it is hard to start and stop. And I'm not sure how sharp each image would be. And of course post would take quite a while. I already spend hours sorting through all my still frames and they are being shot at either one shot or 6fps. Sorting through 29fps would probably put me in my grave! But it's still a solid thought/idea infared. I totally get it.

 

[markbyland]

No video means no live view. Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats live view focussing for still life work. That includes landscapes. Not sure what the optimal aperture is for the depth of field you want? No worries; just press the DoF preview button while in live view and your eyes will tell you.

A DSLR without video is crippled, and it would take serious effort to do the crippling.

Thanks, but no thanks.

And, yes. I write this as somebody who has virtually no interest in videography whatsoever.

b&

That's interesting, my Fujifilm S3 Pro has Live View and no video shooting. My 50D had live view without video. How did they manage to do that? My new K-5 has video but I couldn't tell you the first thing about how to use it. My mode dial could literally have two settings: "M" or "B", and I would be perfectly satisfied and forget live view. Parallax is already an issue. I want my eye view, not the camera's from yet another angle.

By the way, those two cameras that didn't have video were not "crippled" by any sense of the word. In fact, I've won a few photo challenges with both of those cameras.

All 3 of those cameras, the literal couple of times I tried using live view, simply destroyed battery life as a result of it being turned on. It's a serious waste of power, IMO.

Personally, I think it's a useless feature that should have never been introduced in to still cameras. Just because it's possible doesn't necessarily always mean it should be done. It causes sensors to run excessively hot without proper heat dissipation, thus killing pixels, and completely wastes battery life.

 

[rpt]

I am going to be killed (or worse) for this. But I think we (me included) need to think about this beyond the next few years or decades. Think evolution. I believe that no living entity (humans included) has had a still camera to help it see. I look to nature for ideas and validation. And probably because it can't sue me . So if video is prevalent in nature, and the megapixels are just going to grow, like somebody said in a thread on this forum, a still will just be a frame of the movie. And a frame may be made up of a hundred (just a number from the top of my spinal cord) 1/800000, f512, XSO 512M snaps...

Would you dream on like this? I do.

And at the moment I am limited by my current gear. And my eyesight...

I totally understand and agree that a high quality high megapixel full resolution video is essentially a sequential 24 or 29 fps consecutive string of still frames. I have thought the same thing for years so I think you are right on the money. However, since I got back into photography and don't really do video much anymore, there's just something about individual frames that keeps me interested where the video doesn't. The high res video "shot" would use a ton of memory. And it is hard to start and stop. And I'm not sure how sharp each image would be. And of course post would take quite a while. I already spend hours sorting through all my still frames and they are being shot at either one shot or 6fps. Sorting through 29fps would probably put me in my grave! But it's still a solid thought/idea infared. I totally get it.

My 2c - we live in the present but to survive we must dream up the future...