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

[RustyTheGeek]

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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Whats the point? You want to pay more to have someone disable video?
Very low sales volume, poor resale value, and higher price for the same camera with Video disabled in the software?
It is, of course, possible to develop a all new sensor that does not support video. The cost to develop a new sensor and associated firmware is extremely high and must be amortized over the expected sales.
Assuming $10 million to develop one (Likely low estimate), and 5,000 sales, you would add at least $2000 to the manufacturers cost, and that will mean $4,000 or more retail.
That puts a camera in the $11,000 range with a 1 series body.
Maybe just better to buy a Hasselblad and digital back?

 

[Stephen Melvin]

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.

 

[bchernicoff]

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.

I'm sure that a hybrid camera like Sony makes takes a hit in sensor performance due to the translucent mirror technology. I don't believe they use that just for video though. I think it helps them reduce the number of moving parts (mirror box, etc.)

As far as the sensor in the new T4i which has embedded phase detect points built in goes... I don't know... maybe it has an impact. Those consumer cameras are a compromise anyway. No one buys them thinking they are getting the best IQ Canon can offer.

For a traditional DSLR like the 5D Mk III, there was discussion that Canon used a stronger anti-alias filter in front of the sensor to combat the aliasing problems of the Mk 2 when shooting video. A stronger anti-aliasing filter certainly would have an impact on still image quality. How much? A smidgen. DPreview compared the D800 with AA filter to its AA-less D800E brother and found that the D800E was slightly sharper between f/4 and f/5.6 under lab conditions. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22 So, did Canon's decision to use a stronger AA filter to help video users have a real impact on still IQ...probably not.

If you want the absolute in IQ, pay $43,000 for a Hasselblad. Don't have that kind of money? Buy the D800E and pick a lens that can deliver enough resolving power. Could that camera be manufactured cheaper if it didn't have the video features? For sure, but the price they charge for a body is not strictly tied to manufacturing cost. They have to consider development cost and expected sales as well. The 5D Mk 2 showed the world that adding video boosts sales in a major way. Building a body that lacked video means fewer sales, so the sale price goes up even though it might cost them less to manufacture each body. Everything is a trade off.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Well, I wasn't so much asking about Canon's development cost, process or feasibility, just how receptive folks would be to it if it existed and why. Maybe suggest other benefits.

Have you never wondered if a still image DSLR would be better or cheaper? Folks keep throwing around medium format and Hasselblad as an alternative. Well, that's pretty good company to be in isn't it? Just a little out of my price range but I would love to own one.

 

[bchernicoff]

Have you never wondered if a still image DSLR would be better or cheaper?

I answered that question. It could be very slightly better, but it would not be cheaper as the market for such a camera would be much smaller.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

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.

I have found Live View to be a nice feature in theory but it just doesn't focus fast or accurately enough to make me want to use it much. Plus, it tends to overheats the sensor fairly quickly. Much like video, I've found Live View to be a more of a novelty although it has been steadily improving. I've tried to use it with the articulating screen on my 60D but usually have to disable it because the focus won't lock consistently.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

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&

 

[PackLight]

You guys have it wrong and you probably just put seeds of thought in Canon's marketings head.
There would be no additional cost in doing this, or should I say very little.
Canon simply rewrites the firmware to take out the video function, they then release it as a camera optimized for photos only. We buy it thinking it is just bit better in reality we get the same components with less programing.

 

[bchernicoff]

Sorry, that was rude of me. This needs to be an open place for people of all skill levels to ask questions.

Also, on your 60D, use the directional buttons inside the rear dial to move the live view rectangle around...that determines where it magnifies when you zoom in.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

No video means no live view. Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats live view focussing for still life work.

Ever heard of the 40D? 50D, 1D MK III, 1DS MK III? All have live view but no video.
Live view came long before video.

 

[bchernicoff]

I guess a mod deleted my previous post.

Use Live View for manual focus. Switch on Live View, press the Magnify Glass button once or twice to zoom in, use direction buttons to move area of zoomed view to your subject, and then manually focus.

 

[crasher8]

Live View for Macro is priceless.

However I see the OP's intent and understand the questions. Leica anyone?

This question gets asked every few months and the responses pour in from a marketing point of view, an engineering one and production points. I like the idea of less menus, singular purpose and optimal ergonomics, but the tooling is already there and with the growth and hipness of dslr video, I just don't see it being anything but a niche market and expensive, read: Not for Canon or Nikon.

If I had my druthers I'd like a Canon body that used both 35mm film and had a digital sensor. The 5D3F.

 

[dolina]

Leica, a camera company that still sells manual focus range finders (albeit in digital form) has finally introduced video in their next M body.

With that in mind a dedicated still-only SLR will sell as much as a 1200mm f/5.6

This question reminds me of other questions raised in the past like mobile phones without cameras, cars without power windows, computers with CRT displays, iPods with FM/AM radio, fully furnished homes without a refrigerator, tablets that weigh more than 2 pounds and unpasteurized milk.

BTW none of my statements are meant to ridicule anyone. It is just that modern conveniences have rolled things into one and unrolling them would be unthinkable to a lot of people.

 

[preppyak]

Ever heard of the 40D? 50D, 1D MK III, 1DS MK III? All have live view but no video.
Live view came long before video.

Yes, but what you are pointing out is that Canon missed the ability to implement video earlier. The 50D can record video when you hack the firmware with Magic Lantern (and I imagine you could on the others, if they put in the time).

To go into the OP's questions, I think its possible that they would make a few different design choices if video weren't involved, but, I don't think they would be significant enough for me to really notice a difference in my final images. And I don't think they would cause the camera to cost less, so, it's a moot point for me. I think people have imagined video on a DSLR to be this super complicated (and expensive) process that is ruining their DSLR, when the reality is that it is not impacting them at all, and its making their camera cheaper.

BTW none of my statements are meant to ridicule anyone. It is just that modern conveniences have rolled things into one and unrolling them would be unthinkable to a lot of people.

Well, and they were rolled together for a reason in the first place. The 5d2 was so popular because videographers didn't want to have to spend 10x as much as they had been for something that was nearly as good. There still isn't another option <$5k (BlackMagic aside) that provides video like a DSLR can.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Live View for Macro is priceless.

However I see the OP's intent and understand the questions. Leica anyone?

This question gets asked every few months and the responses pour in from a marketing point of view, an engineering one and production points. I like the idea of less menus, singular purpose and optimal ergonomics, but the tooling is already there and with the growth and hipness of dslr video, I just don't see it being anything but a niche market and expensive, read: Not for Canon or Nikon.

If I had my druthers I'd like a Canon body that used both 35mm film and had a digital sensor. The 5D3F.

I appreciate your comment because the point here is to think outside the box and wonder how things might be different, not just say that no one would want it. Just adding to a long list of features isn't always the best thing IMO.

Based on what I've read so far, it looks like I need to revisit using Live View a bit and make sure I've given it a fair shake. However, most of my shooting is hand held and live view usually doesn't AF well in that scenario.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Ever heard of the 40D? 50D, 1D MK III, 1DS MK III? All have live view but no video.
Live view came long before video.

Yes, but what you are pointing out is that Canon missed the ability to implement video earlier. The 50D can record video when you hack the firmware with Magic Lantern (and I imagine you could on the others, if they put in the time).

To go into the OP's questions, I think its possible that they would make a few different design choices if video weren't involved, but, I don't think they would be significant enough for me to really notice a difference in my final images. And I don't think they would cause the camera to cost less, so, it's a moot point for me. I think people have imagined video on a DSLR to be this super complicated (and expensive) process that is ruining their DSLR, when the reality is that it is not impacting them at all, and its making their camera cheaper.

That's the way I've looked at it for years. Just an extra benefit that might be handy to have from time to time that drives sales to reduce the price of the camera for everyone. However, after I experienced and read about others experiencing AF Lock problems in low light on my new 5D3, I started rethinking this and wondering if trade-offs and compromises might be happening in order to improve the movie part of the camera since it had become such a big deal with the 5D2. And then what else might possibly be compromised in order to make the video feature better? And so I threw out the thought about a still image only camera possibly being a good idea. Esp for those that never use it. What additional still image features would be possible if that energy wasn't spent on video? For example, the eye track focusing way back in the day. That was pretty interesting.

 

[AvTvM]

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!

 

[RichM]

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!

I agree. I am a photographer, and not a videographer. I would gladly save the $s and buy a camera without video. If it meant better IQ for photos, or lower costs, I'm in.

 

[Neeneko]

Ah, this old topic.

Look, at the end of the day, unless someone can actually get a copy of Canon's engineering schedule, testing costs, design documents, etc, guessing at how much video costs to add is just that, pure guesswork.

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.

Outside DSLRs, plenty of dedicated still and video cameras still exist. They tend to fill niches now, places where volume is already low and thus the reduced engineering costs and less weighted design decisions really matter. If Canon put the same resources into developing a dedicated still camera instead of a multimedia camera, chances are it would be functionally superior in some non trivial ways, just like Canon's dedicated video cameras are generally considered better then their multimedia ones.

Part of what we have here, as a marking issue, is that there is a larger market for video then stills in general, so dedicated video cameras make sense because plenty of videographers would probably complain at the design compromises but not enough still photographers do.. and still photographers who are really particular move to one of the niche cameras.

Realistically, multimedia cameras, esp at the consumer end, are probably here to stay. But just like monochrome ones, a few specialized models will probably stick around. Or who knows, maybe some open source kit plus 3D printers will just let people design whatever they hell they want.. I am already seeing that start to creep in to the video market....