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

[unfocused]

It causes sensors to run excessively hot without proper heat dissipation, thus killing pixels, and completely wastes battery life.

Only if you use it.

I'm in the "it-reduces-the-overall-cost-to-consumers-by-expanding-the-market" camp. I've never used the video but I don't mind that it is there and maybe someday I will use it.

Part of the OP's original question was whether or not video impacted still image quality. That was pretty well answered early-on in this thread. Knowing that it doesn't have any discernible effect and knowing that it probably reduces, rather than increases, the final cost, I don't understand why people care.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

It causes sensors to run excessively hot without proper heat dissipation, thus killing pixels, and completely wastes battery life.

Only if you use it.

I'm in the "it-reduces-the-overall-cost-to-consumers-by-expanding-the-market" camp. I've never used the video but I don't mind that it is there and maybe someday I will use it.

Part of the OP's original question was whether or not video impacted still image quality. That was pretty well answered early-on in this thread. Knowing that it doesn't have any discernible effect and knowing that it probably reduces, rather than increases, the final cost, I don't understand why people care.

It's not a care or a worry, I just wonder what cool advancements, features, etc would/could be possible if some (or all) of the energy spent on developing better video on the still camera were just dedicated to the still camera. Just one model in the line up with better still specs and features. Let's ignore possible cost reductions that video may provide. I'm not trying to imagine stuff within the confines of Canon's balance sheet. Just imagine period. Forget for a moment that video *might* reduce overall cost or marketability. That's all assumption anyway. Just concentrate on the camera.

 

[iaind]

A 5DIII without video will cost a premium over std model duetolow volume. Look at 60Da over std 60D

 

[elflord]

It's not a care or a worry, I just wonder what cool advancements, features, etc would/could be possible if some (or all) of the energy spent on developing better video on the still camera were just dedicated to the still camera.

It's not really zero sum in that sense though. That is, more "energy" spent on developing better video does not mean less "energy" spent on the stills camera. (in fact it's probably the other way around -- if video functionality helps raise R&D dollars that a stills-only camera would not be able to raise, then spending more "energy" on the video features actually means that more is available for enhancing stills).

 

[SDsc0rch]

I just wanna say..

I have ZERO interest in video - if canon brought it a "still only" camera to market, I would consider it

if I needed a camera, and it had good specs, I'd buy it

(cam w/ good specs WITH video.. still buy it - but like the current state of affairs.. id never use it! lol)

 

[jimjamesjimmy]

id get used to it , one day still and video will be one and the same.

imagine a camera that could shoot 24 per second easily in a dslr type body, they exist , its a movie camera, and youll just pick which frame is best for your needs.

you wont even need to focus , youll be able to do most of that in post! it may all sound scary but thats the future!

 

[crasher8]

whinge, had to look that one up.

I think DB closed this thread. Move on, take photographs.

 

[Northstar]

It's not a care or a worry, I just wonder what cool advancements, features, etc would/could be possible if some (or all) of the energy spent on developing better video on the still camera were just dedicated to the still camera.

It's not really zero sum in that sense though. That is, more "energy" spent on developing better video does not mean less "energy" spent on the stills camera. (in fact it's probably the other way around -- if video functionality helps raise R&D dollars that a stills-only camera would not be able to raise, then spending more "energy" on the video features actually means that more is available for enhancing stills).

+1000000000000000

Canon spend a FIXED % of net sales on R&D each year. [Read the financial statements of the company whose product you purport to care about so much that you so readily profess to comment on it's products features]

Video functionality = HIGHER SALES = MORE REVENUE = MORE R&D ....really is that simple folks

So to those people who are not listening or reading earlier posts, a stills only DSLR will likely cost more to produce, and will have LESS money spent on R&D......... thus you cannot get a DSLR that costs proportionately more to produce (lower sales volume, thus lower production quantity = higher per unit fabrication cost) for less money?

Why keep reiterating nonsense that you want a 5D3 w/out Video with 15-stops of latitude for $500 less, when its gonna cost more to manufacture? ??? : :-[


edit: the original OP is about a dedicated 'purist' photography DSLR-only camera, but this thread has morphed into another whinge about Canon's pricing policy

DB...i don't think you've read through this entire thread very well because if you had you would realize that there does seem to be some interest in a camera without video.

Think of it this way...ALL new dslr's have video, entry level crops all the way up to FF pro bodies. With that said, I would venture a guess that better than 50% of dslr camera users DON'T use the video or rarely use it....so, if you're a marketing person at canon and I present you this information, you would be smart to think of a way to take advantage of this info/opportunity to sell/market a differentiated camera....just as the OP suggests.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Hmm, haven't read all posts, but at my level I am really happy there is video in cameras. I have a 5D3 and in the rest of the family we have a number of Canons, S100, G11 and a couple of other that the children use, my youngest daughter also have a very cheap Canon Legria SD. Most I do is still, but I am very happy that the 5D3 has video capabilities, I basically don't know anything about videography, but it's great to have to capture moments. I also use it for some Youtube stuff.

So for me I wouldn't be interested in a camera like that as it would reduce my flexibility.

 

[Northstar]

I have read 100% of this thread, and I stand over my earlier point that it is a fallacy to suggest that a stills only DSLR would cost substantially less to purchase + would have better IQ.

[/quote]

I agree with you on this point about "substantially" less and "better IQ". You're right, that's not going to happen.

But how about "a little bit less" and "optimized" for stills....a camera marketed to that "more than 50%" number I referenced.

Anyway...I think if it was conceptualized, built, and marketed to this target market, it would be successful. IMO.

 

[sanj]

If there was a better DSLR without video and cost same I would certainly go for it. That would in fact be nice.

At the same time, having video in my camera's does not bother me at all. I just do not use it.

 

[unfocused]

DB: You foolishly forget that logic and facts are meaningless on internet forums.

But, this thread was good for one thing. I learned a new word. (whinge)

 

[crasher8]

and Tautology

 

[rpt]

and Tautology

And I just discovered that it is a real word! My language is improving! But I still want my dslr to be able to do video...

 

[crasher8]

I for one do not need video, however I do need liveview and a larger vocabulary.