I wish Nikon do an experiment

Since you believe it is okay to call people idiots just because they disagree with you on such a trivial matter then I will not get in an argument with you.

Of course we show respect, but we don't call someone an "idiot" like the OP did!

TITCHY said:

I dont have a problem with Video , I simply choose not to use it as my preference .

I do not critisize users who want Video ,but I expect the same respect for my decision not to have it .

I dont think for one minute that it would be realistic to expect Nikon or any of the other DSLR manufacturers to produce variants ,just because of our choice differences .

I would think it a good idea however ,if the manufactureres keep external buttons and switches for video to a minimum ,and offer a firmware that will allow users to "hide" features they dont want ,not just Video .that would make for a simple menu system tailored to the owner of each particular camera .

at the end of the day ,these are essentially SLR cameras ,they have been designed based on known needs and ergonimics to suit the functions of still photography ,now that Video has been added ,I feel the shape of a DSLR is not really that suitable for motion pictures, and would hope that nikon does not desecrate the well known DSLR design too much towards Video specific design ,this would ultimately create in the long term ,a Video camera that simply can take stills too .
I think that its this idea that scares the dedicated still photographers .

so lets just agree to disagree without arguing about it ,and just enjoy our photography regardless.

video is here to stay ,we can only hope and trust ,that the manufactureres will do us proud without destroying the past .

Click to expand...

Grevture said:

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

I never use D-lighting, nor bracketing, nor focus priority or mirror lock up. Actually, I only used auto iso once, so lets get rid of that too. And P mode, that must cost a bundle to maintain. Or the crop modes, never use them either.

I want a cheaper camera with those functions removed!

Does that reasoning make sense to you? It is about as logical as the case you are making.

Look, new functions are added all the time. I guess many users will never use the remote capabilities (http server) of the new D4 - should it have been left out then? Or the memory banks of IPTC data? Or the ability to save a time lapse movie from a series of shots?

Many people seem to have a unhealthy hangup on video. It is just one function in a long, long list of functions of modern cameras. It is getting a bit tedious with people obsessing over this. Maybe I should start a new thread every week arguing about why we don't need bracketing or why further development of D-lighting or 3D focus robs valuable development resources from oter more important things. Like video ...

There are enough photo journalists an sports shooters wanting video in Nikon cameras to make Nikon develop it. You might not like it, but it is the way cameras is moving forward. Get over it.

Click to expand...

The OP was just putting out a theoretical question.

Next time try the decaf.

Geez...

001FJ said:

Since you believe it is okay to call people idiots just because they disagree with you on such a trivial matter then I will not get in an argument with you.

Click to expand...

After such insult I start seriously thinking about suicide.

It was sarcasm, if you cannot get one. And I am not interested getting argumentation with person who never give any argument. They say "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Have a nice day.

Question was - would you pay 50% more just to have a video ?

Lea5 said:

Why do you call users who wants to use video for their clients idiots? Do you own a studio? Do you get paid for photography? If not just shut up!

I preordered the D4 for it's videocapabilities only.

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nikon was never going to eat the difference to keep the price low. If you don't want video, just don't use it. Or get a D3s, small video presence, and IQ probably quite close. I don't think Nikon would run a videoless design, or custom orders. To expensive.

Blast,mutter,mumble #@ #, I can get a $700.00 custom surfboard,to my exact design, with painted on mural of choice. A $30k automobile,any colour at all,choice of engine. $300K fully persoalised home and I have really shortened the list. But, cannot get a camera (FF) just the way I want it even for $10k. I dont even want new parts that don't exist, or, stuff that Nikon hasn't got already in one of their cameras. I just want to put in all the bits I like and leave off the ones I don't.

Nikon is not being singled out here, they just have more of what I like and less of what leaves me cold. I would use a Nikon as my base.

If it can be unlocked for 1000$ - someone surely will find a way to unlock it for free

--
http://www.leonardas.net

I would pay plenty more ....you may need an extended eyepiece 'cause the back may be a bit thicker. I may be dreamin' , even looking through rosey glasses, but, lordy I did like that camera. Just picked it up again. Wow it feels good,...come to think of it what a great base for an interchangeable sensor. Oh well nostalgia...and what could have been!!

Agree ... from digital, I bought 6 Nikon cameras (DSLR, Coolpix & Nikon 1) any of them is better than the mythical F5 with its last evolved digital back. That must be why they never did it.

ziggyzed said:

I would pay plenty more ....you may need an extended eyepiece 'cause the back may be a bit thicker. I may be dreamin' , even looking through rosey glasses, but, lordy I did like that camera. Just picked it up again. Wow it feels good,...come to think of it what a great base for an interchangeable sensor. Oh well nostalgia...and what could have been!!

Click to expand...

--
Un saludo.

But most people with a common logic understand that the functionality of video itself does not add anything extra to the price of any digital camera of today.

I know a funnier one...

Lets do the same then with video cameras' If a video camera can make a good still image as well, add 1000 dollars extra to it's price so it can behave as a photo camera...what a logic

Michel

Leo "Zoom" said:

If it can be unlocked for 1000$ - someone surely will find a way to unlock it for free

--
http://www.leonardas.net

Click to expand...

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• Light is Everything -

http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05/ (my pixel mess on flikr)
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

M Lammerse said:

But most people with a common logic understand that the functionality of video itself does not add anything extra to the price of any digital camera of today.

Click to expand...

"Common logic", as you put it, would mean that most anyone off the street would realize this... which is of course false. There are a lot of people, even here that wouldn't necessarily believe this.

Me included. All these so called experts in these forums, that think they know what it does or doesn't cost to add the feature, can say all they want but until I hear it from Nikon, it's meaningless (for every "expert" here on something, there is another "expert" saying the opposite). And until Nikon can show me on paper, it's still just rhetoric.

If you don't think the price of today's cameras doesn't include the cost of R&D for video.. you're insane.

I am one of the many that has zero use for, or interest in, video... but I do understand it's here to stay. Until the video camera companies start incorporating the interchangeable lenses, with controllable apertures, it's going to stay. Of course "most" people in the market for a camcorder aren't going to buy a DSLR because it's a ridiculously priced way to get video capability, and it just wouldn't interest them in the first place.

DSLRs will NEVER be the camera a family looks at when they go to the store to purchase a camcorder. So the video "market" the camera manufacturers are reaching are "mostly" people in the DSLR market (Like the one goof that constantly posts how they ordered a D4 strictly for it's video..riiiight).

Now before someone gets all pedantic on me, of course there will be some that will be talked into a DSLR instead but only if they have interest in the DSLR level camera in the first place. No one is going to go looking for a $200 Sony or Canon camcorder, and go home with a $1500 Nikon kit.

So if Nikon and Canon, and those other guys, feel they are making enough income just from the SLR crowd... then video is here to stay.

But like the many others that don't bother arguing this stupid stuff in forums... I just accept that I have to pay for the technology, even if I never turn it on.

M Lammerse said:

I know a funnier one...

Lets do the same then with video cameras' If a video camera can make a good still image as well, add 1000 dollars extra to it's price so it can behave as a photo camera...what a logic

Click to expand...

That camera's design is to make video... "good stills" are not a selling point. My Sony Digital 8 camcorder, with it's 8MB memory stick, did that a decade ago.
So no, I wouldn't pay extra for a video camera to make good stills.

I would definitely pay less to get a nice DSLR without video.

I would also prefer to pay the same as I already am, if I felt they put that video R&D and hardware cost into something else, like cleaner images... or CCD-like colors... or ISO 64, 50 and 25.

TFergus said:

If you don't think the price of today's cameras doesn't include the cost of R&D for video.. you're insane.

Click to expand...

+10,000
Why do these people think engineers are free?

TFergus said:

But like the many others that don't bother arguing this stupid stuff in forums... I just accept that I have to pay for the technology, even if I never turn it on.

Click to expand...

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike (Don't fall or collide with others)
Layer 2: Follow the rules (Don't be the cause of traffic crashes)
Layer 3: Use Lane position (Discourage other drivers mistakes)
Layer 4: Hazard Avoidance (Avoid other drivers mistakes and road hazards)
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (Use protection when all else fails)

Chris, Broussard, LA

bikinchris said:

TFergus said:

If you don't think the price of today's cameras doesn't include the cost of R&D for video.. you're insane.

Click to expand...

+10,000
Why do these people think engineers are free?

Click to expand...

Look at the whole picture. The question is, how many D4's would sell if it includes video and how many would sell if it doesn't. Nikon will have done many surveys on potential users, and presumably found that video was a deal breaker for at least a significant proportion. So, the outcome is that they sell more D4's and make more money of they design it with video than if they design it without.

So, now they are committed to designing a camera with video. Why exactly would they want to let some purchasers opt out of paying the R&D costs for that? The absence of video will gain them no sales, since video haters have no competitive offering to buy. Their only decision is buy or don't buy and huff and puff as they might, the only ones who won't buy are the ones who never would have bought in the first place.
--
Bob

bobn2 said:

bikinchris said:

TFergus said:

If you don't think the price of today's cameras doesn't include the cost of R&D for video.. you're insane.

Click to expand...

+10,000
Why do these people think engineers are free?

Click to expand...

Look at the whole picture. The question is, how many D4's would sell if it includes video and how many would sell if it doesn't. Nikon will have done many surveys on potential users, and presumably found that video was a deal breaker for at least a significant proportion. So, the outcome is that they sell more D4's and make more money of they design it with video than if they design it without.

Click to expand...

The D4 is aimed at taking both stills and video, it's put in the market as a multi media format camera for professional media capturing, both still and video. Nikon makes this very clearly during their press and info meetings.

bobn2 said:

So, now they are committed to designing a camera with video. Why exactly would they want to let some purchasers opt out of paying the R&D costs for that? The absence of video will gain them no sales, since video haters have no competitive offering to buy.

Click to expand...

Why would they not include video? It gives more creative possibilities to the end user, it does not interfere with the other functionality that of taking still images and again just to include video functionality alone does not ad anything to the cost of the camera itself.

The are some here who think that compromises are made due to adding video functionality..what a naive way to think.

It's more the other way around, probable we will hear more about that of Nikon as well, especially in relation to the changes made of the 3500 FX focus module and the Expeed 3 processor which is really able to process lots of data and do several tasks at the same time, both for still (especially JPEG stills) and video

As an end user I'm happy that they really made the D4 a multi media camera, better and more video possibilities are for me the main reason to switch the D3S. The D3S is photo camera which offers also video, the D4 is really aimed at doing both.

bobn2 said:

the only ones who won't buy are the ones who never would have bought in . the first place.
--
Bob

Click to expand...

Indeed and keep nagging (or Mac'ing) about whats not good and Nikon got it all wrong...incredible.
Michel

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• Light is Everything -

http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05/ (my pixel mess on flikr)
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

bobn2 said:

bikinchris said:

TFergus said:

If you don't think the price of today's cameras doesn't include the cost of R&D for video.. you're insane.

Click to expand...

+10,000
Why do these people think engineers are free?

Click to expand...

Look at the whole picture. The question is, how many D4's would sell if it includes video and how many would sell if it doesn't.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the question. The question is how much R&D was spent on it, and how much cost could be deducted if it hadn't been, and how much cheaper would the camera be if that cost reduction was passed down, and how many would the sell at a cheaper price w/o video compared to a more expensive price w/ video. Simplifying to "w/ vs w/o" is meaningless, as it implies the same cost.

bobn2 said:

Nikon will have done many surveys on potential users, and presumably found that video was a deal breaker for at least a significant proportion.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that keeping up with the joneses has nothing to do with it. ;-)

bobn2 said:

So, the outcome is that they sell more D4's and make more money of they design it with video than if they design it without.

Click to expand...

Please acknowledge that it also cost them more to make.

bobn2 said:

So, now they are committed to designing a camera with video. Why exactly would they want to let some purchasers opt out of paying the R&D costs for that?

Click to expand...

Bingo. Force them to buy something they don't want. That's how you gain loyal followers.

bobn2 said:

The absence of video will gain them no sales, since video haters have no competitive offering to buy. Their only decision is buy or don't buy and huff and puff as they might, the only ones who won't buy are the ones who never would have bought in the first place.

Click to expand...

Again, force them to buy what they don't want. It's not how you generate good will. Not that they haven't been doing it to us for years with battery chargers and AC adapters and all that stuff, or those POSes posing as software.

But to the point: what happens if the R&D was put into a better still camera? What happens if the same cost made a more compelling still camera compared to the competition? Do we know that that wouldn't also sell "more" cameras, like the video feature supposedly does? Do we have any idea which would sell more? Of course we don't know, because we don't know what didn't happen. We only what did happen: video that many people don't care about.

M Lammerse said:

video functionality alone does not ad anything to the cost of the camera itself.

Click to expand...

You're either completely naive... or utterly stupid.

You're saying that upgraded video capabilities came with FREE R&D, FREE software coding, FREE hardware upgrades, etc.

Brilliant.

M Lammerse said:

The are some here who think that compromises are made due to adding video functionality..

Click to expand...

One definite compromise is cost.

Anyone who DOESN'T see that...
Well... see above.

bobn2 said:

bikinchris said:

TFergus said:

If you don't think the price of today's cameras doesn't include the cost of R&D for video.. you're insane.

Click to expand...

+10,000
Why do these people think engineers are free?

Click to expand...

Look at the whole picture. The question is, how many D4's would sell if it includes video and how many would sell if it doesn't.

Click to expand...

We don't disagree. If you kept the above quotes in context you would see that I was just reminding all those naive proselytizers that their beloved video isn't free.

Now take your point further and adding MP3, Touch Screen controls, or custom colors would sell more of them also.

Most "photographers" have no use for any of that either.

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Bizarre thinking. Somehow I don't think Nikon or Canon are going to bother!