Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[Cetalis]

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?

 

[birtembuk]

While we all blah-blah about still/video capabilities, Canon are laughing all the way to the bank. Their mkt strategy in providing the masses w/ video DLSR is probably the right decision as their DSLR dept is making tons of money. So, it looks like photographers (seemingly soon to be extinct species) who don't give a damn about video have to get used to it. That's democracy. Now, what's frustrating is that we have no idea of what is the cost component of video in a VDSLR. If you tell me it's only 10% I'll swallow. If it's 30% it's bitter pill indeed. That's also why other alternatives become thinkable. Like going fishing instead ...

 

[AvTvM]

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?

yes.

Please read post #35 ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3301.msg74696.html#msg74696

 

[AvTvM]

Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.

I agree with all of this, except that I would not want to drive or maintain a 1960s Rolls instead of a current Volkswagen.

Similarly, I do not want a 1Ds III ... i am neither lusting for FF nor for yesteryears' top cameras. All I want, is a highly capable APS-C camera as successor to my 7D. Preferably as a compact but "pro-grade" mirrorless camera, featuring
* top-notch, latest generation APS-C sensor [possibly a backlit CMOS?], electronics, image processing pipeline - all geared to deluiver highest IQ for stills capture, with video being no consideration at all
* top-notch AF system [dual system with CD-AF plus on-sensor PD-AF ... similar to Nikon 1, just in APS-C size]
* tough body with full sealing and ergonomics / control elements 100% dedicated to stills capture, no unnecessary buttons ["video record" etc.], no unneccessary video options cluttering the menus.
in one word: WITHOUT any video-stuff built in.

Should not be difficult to make ... right?

 

[Cetalis]

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?

yes.
Please read post #35 ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3301.msg74696.html#msg74696

2. I and millions of other photographers around the world would like to be able to choose cameras that are unfettered by any video features and unharmed by any of the many compromises inherent in enabling video capture along with stills capture. Those compromises manifest themselves like a bad disease ... starting with type and design of imaging sensors, data pipeline and processing, hardware and firmwar/software down to control elements and ergonomics of todays bastard stills/video cameras. Capable of 2 things, but none of the two at 100%.

3. Rather than wasting half or more of the DIGIC's prowess on bloody video encoding I would like all of this processing power harnessed for the capture and processing of still images and to drive AF-systems with yet unheard of capabilities. Including a 2012-worthy reincarnation of the Canon Eye Controlled Focusing [ECF], the most intuitive and ergonomic interface man has ever created to get a picture in focus.

4. I would like a camera body without a dedicated red video "record" button and without any other physical control elements, unnecessarily bloated "video" options in its menu tree and without any of the other video-related gimmicks that just get in the way of what I would like to do with my camera: capture the best possible still images in the most uncompromised and straightforward way!

5. The most convincing tools are dedicated to one and only one prupose.

2: Can you give specific examples? I'm still not seeing this one.

3: The 1Dmk4 has good AF and can also shoot video, same with the 1DX, which has 3 DIGICs. I am led to believe that video functionality does not affect AF, which appears to be limited more by the AF unit than the processor.

4: The 5DmkII has all its video settings in the live view menu, away from all the other stills settings. The 7D has one video setting in the menu, and again, nowhere near stills settings. Can you give a specific example where the movie record button has displaced something useful?

5: Specialized tools are often more expensive and relatively unpopular; midrange zooms sell more than say, the 14mmL, 800mmL and the MP-E.

 

[SPG]

It's kind of funny to see some of the reactions to DSLR video from the purists. The reality is that having video features doesn't impact the photo functionality of the current cameras in any meaningful way. OTOH, photo functions definitely impact video functionality, but I have yet to hear any filmmakers complain that their DSLR takes photos.
Over my career I've had a foot planted in each camp. I've been a freelance photographer, senior staff photographer, photo editor, and also a DP, TV producer, independent film producer, editor, and a few other things. Getting the 7D was a great day for me. A single camera to take stills and I can get shots that we could only get before with 35mm movie cameras? Why couldn't I have had this twenty years ago!
If you're going to get upset that someone is shooting video on a stills camera, then definitely don't take a look at any of the modern mobile phones, and make sure you stay far away from instagram.

 

[distant.star]

If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.

And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?

 

[daveswan]

He he, just wait until Canon takes away the pentaprism and replaces it with an EVF to satisfy the video brigade.

I'm only joking, but I *have* seen video guys lambasting Canon for not doing just that.

Oh, and BTW you *can* get a "video" camera (Actually digital cinema) with specs out-doing film, 14 stops DR and a wider gamut than cune negative.

It's called the Sony F65, and that will be £85,000 sir. Oh and would sir like lens with that?

 

[kubelik]

If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.

And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!

uh ... no. that's the price difference for a 61-point AF system and 6 FPS shutter. the 5D Mark II came with video and it cost $2500.

they're not throwing anyone under the bus, they ran the numbers and predicted that the market could sustain a $3500 FF pro-AF camera. people on these forums love to assume that pricing structure is something 'owed' to them by the companies, whether Canon or Nikon. no such thing. they are pricing their goods the same way that you price your goods as a photographer. if I feel my potential client base is willing to pay $4000 for a wedding package there is no way you're going to get me to sell it for $3000.

 

[briansquibb]

Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.

I agree with all of this, except that I would not want to drive or maintain a 1960s Rolls instead of a current Volkswagen.

Similarly, I do not want a 1Ds III ... i am neither lusting for FF nor for yesteryears' top cameras. All I want, is a highly capable APS-C camera as successor to my 7D. Preferably as a compact but "pro-grade" mirrorless camera, featuring
* top-notch, latest generation APS-C sensor [possibly a backlit CMOS?], electronics, image processing pipeline - all geared to deluiver highest IQ for stills capture, with video being no consideration at all
* top-notch AF system [dual system with CD-AF plus on-sensor PD-AF ... similar to Nikon 1, just in APS-C size]
* tough body with full sealing and ergonomics / control elements 100% dedicated to stills capture, no unnecessary buttons ["video record" etc.], no unneccessary video options cluttering the menus.
in one word: WITHOUT any video-stuff built in.

Should not be difficult to make ... right?
[/quote]

So you want every feature of the 1Ds3 except that you want an APS-C sensor that doesn't exist

I dont understand the obsession with APS-C technology

 

[Neeneko]

Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.

They have not gotten quite that cheap here, but I am being patient. I will take a good outdated camera over a glitzy new one that doesn't do what I want all that well anyway ^_^

 

[AvTvM]

So you want every feature of the 1Ds3 except that you want an APS-C sensor that doesn't exist
I dont understand the obsession with APS-C technology

No. I do NOT want a 1Ds III. I Do not want a FF camera. I do NOT want to buy 400mm+ superteles. I want a pro-grade APS-C 7D successor for the price of the 7D or 20% less, because there is no video gagdetry build in. And I would like that thing to have 1D-X AF system. Not possible? Yes, possible. Nikon did just that when they brought out the D300 with the D3 AF module. Full featured, pro-grade APS-C stills cam at 1/4 the porice of an FF camera.

 

[Neeneko]

No. I do NOT want a 1Ds III. I Do not want a FF camera. I do NOT want to buy 400mm+ superteles.

Ahm.. then don't buy a 400mm+ telephoto lens. You can always crop in post processing if you were not able to zoom in close enough.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

By the multitude of opinions and rants that Canon does not build the exact combination of features that each want, there will be no peace until they release a fully modular system so each could assemble whatever they wanted.

 

[Neeneko]

Over my career I've had a foot planted in each camp. I've been a freelance photographer, senior staff photographer, photo editor, and also a DP, TV producer, independent film producer, editor, and a few other things. Getting the 7D was a great day for me. A single camera to take stills and I can get shots that we could only get before with 35mm movie cameras? Why couldn't I have had this twenty years ago!
If you're going to get upset that someone is shooting video on a stills camera, then definitely don't take a look at any of the modern mobile phones, and make sure you stay far away from instagram.

I think this is one of the perspective issues.
Photographers and videoographers often do not see the difference. Engineers, people who have worked in embedded systems and have a feeling for how the design and marketing processes go can take guesses at what hybrid cameras are actually costing the unfavored market. We also know how disconnected marketing group think can get from actual demographics, and right now 'video in DSLR' is the unchallengeable twuth in marketing, regardless of actual market demand.

In fact, producing a stills-only body is risky from an individual career perspective. Right now a lot of exeuctives have their reputation staked on this particular market. If their own company starts producing a line of still cameras again, that runs the risk of demonstrating that the market is still there and thus they were wrong, and that can be career killing. Thus they have a powerful incentive to insure that everyone agrees still only cameras are a dead end.

 

[Neeneko]

By the multitude of opinions and rants that Canon does not build the exact combination of features that each want, there will be no peace until they release a fully modular system so each could assemble whatever they wanted.

I keep hoping that makebots will become good enough that we will see a new rise in DIY cameras for just this reason. Right now the modular cameras are so bloody expensive due to small market, which keeps the market small, which keeps them expensive, rinse lather repeat.

 

[Not Afraid Of The Future]

A mountain bike caught in mid jump is good subject matter: a video of the same thing? Boring.

Someone at the top of a big air kite jump is a cool image: the ten minutes of standing round under the kite waiting for just the right minute to "pop"? Boring.

If video of action sports is boring then why did Youtube/Vimeo completely obliterate the action sports magazine industry? While the standing around might be more boring for you market trends tell us the average viewer prefers video by a very wide margin

 

[Not Afraid Of The Future]

Just go and shoot with a medium format digital and you'll see that sensors designed for stills only do a far better job. Both color and black and white is better.

Apples to Oranges. It has absolutely nothing to do with MF digital being dedicated to stills but entirely with the size of the sensor. Of course you're going to get a better image with a sensor 4x the size. In the same way a point and shoot doesn't produce the same quality as a DSLR

 

[distant.star]

If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.

And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!

uh ... no. that's the price difference for a 61-point AF system and 6 FPS shutter. the 5D Mark II came with video and it cost $2500.

they're not throwing anyone under the bus, they ran the numbers and predicted that the market could sustain a $3500 FF pro-AF camera. people on these forums love to assume that pricing structure is something 'owed' to them by the companies, whether Canon or Nikon. no such thing. they are pricing their goods the same way that you price your goods as a photographer. if I feel my potential client base is willing to pay $4000 for a wedding package there is no way you're going to get me to sell it for $3000.

I think you perfectly make my point on the pricing. Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." With a 5D3, they'll now say they have addressed what the market said were the small deficiencies in the 5D2 video, do a business reset and price it at $3500 -- with certainty they'll sell as many or more to the same video crowd who paid $2500. That's simply how business works, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. But the demand that drives the pricing is coming from the video, not the stills.

And the whole discussion could be moot as that rumored $3500 price may be a kit price. Who knows!

What I will disagree with is the point that better AF and shutter are worth $1000. In a stills-only camera, they could never get away with that. Also, I'd be surprised if their unit cost for such an upgrade were over $100.

 

[rocketdesigner]

why the hate?

The evolution of DSLR's into HDSLR's is hard to accept by those who will never use video functionality.

And while I am on the video side of the end-user fence, I understand their feelings ...why are they paying for video in a form factor that- up to recent history - has been exclusively their domain .. still photography.

In fact, when I spend literally hours setting up and fine tuning for a shoot using an HDSLR, the effort involved is similar to shooting 35mm cinema ... the camera requires exact, metered lighting, the gear (mattebox, Follow Focus, external monitors, sound recorders et al) takes forever to properly assemble ... I wonder why I just didnt invest in a regular video camera to begin with (and probably saved money all the while).

So let the pure photographers gripe, they have a point. But at the end of the day, I love the craft, the gear, and the final product that I am getting from my camera.