fuji, can we have one don't do video?

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

Both engineering and economics likely doom your suggestion.

Many functions in many electronic devices these days are accomplished via software, not hardware, but there are often external controls for those functions, so:

1) there would be little or no hardware savings by removing functions, but there could be hardware costs (for instance if removing the video function you'd want to remove the video record button, necessitating a new external panel and possibly a new circuit flex), and

2) there could actually be a significant software engineering cost to going into the code to remove unused software modules and rewriting menus, and perhaps even a reliability cost, since software, even modularized, might have unforeseen and undocumented interactions.

Those costs would need to be spread over the probably relatively small number of cameras sold with reduced functionality, so those crippled cameras would actually wind up costing more, perhaps substantially more, than the fully functional ones.

Finally, distributors and retailers would need to stock more models, increasing inventory costs.

Hi,

here was another thread on this recently. As Zilver Haylide suggests above, I don't think it's going to happen. After all the R&D to include video, the development necessary to remove it for a non-video body will likely preclude it. And if it doesn't, it will probably cost more than the standard model because my guess is that the sales projections would be smaller than the generic video-capable option. And that gives choice - why would they invest in it when every owner has the option to simply never turn video on?

Regards, Rod

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

No video would be OK with me.

Actually, my ideal camera would be an X-E1 with faster auto focus and anyone who owned an X-E1 knows the video was so bad that it was almost like having no video.

That's some stupid artificial market segmentation.

Video is expensive to develop, not to put in cameras (provided they wouldn't be using last-gen processors).

They need to push it out as much as possible, and taking it away from cameras doesn't make them cheaper, so you can't sell them for less.

Makes no sense, and it would be a stupid move IMO.

ZilverHaylide said:

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

Both engineering and economics likely doom your suggestion.

Many functions in many electronic devices these days are accomplished via software, not hardware, but there are often external controls for those functions, so:

1) there would be little or no hardware savings by removing functions, but there could be hardware costs (for instance if removing the video function you'd want to remove the video record button, necessitating a new external panel and possibly a new circuit flex), and

2) there could actually be a significant software engineering cost to going into the code to remove unused software modules and rewriting menus, and perhaps even a reliability cost, since software, even modularized, might have unforeseen and undocumented interactions.

Those costs would need to be spread over the probably relatively small number of cameras sold with reduced functionality, so those crippled cameras would actually wind up costing more, perhaps substantially more, than the fully functional ones.

Finally, distributors and retailers would need to stock more models, increasing inventory costs.

Click to expand...

I actually in the software field. so removing some functionality should be easy and won't be much cost if software developed correctly.

by removing video, for example, the camera probably won't need to have to uhs ii slots. Those are much needed for video. (I am not saying it is a good idea. I know it is easy to give and difficult to take away. I just give an example.) another example is over heating prevention, that might be just video related. So there should be some hardware reduction there. There might be more but I just give few possibilities.

Here is what I think it is critical for Fuji if they ever consider this idea. Fuji need to understand remove video is an idea worth to consider and fit in they camera lineup. Secondly they must work hard to come up with a killer camera will swap the market to make all non video photographers to get on fuji. For this, Fuji should have enough incentive to do.

It is a very big task, but they also have some good foundation, such as ooc jpg, great reasonable priced fuji lens, and also the great continuous firmware update. Just like Ed B commented, xe1 will do fine. I totally agree. with the great low light performance and fast focus of xt3, if put these in xe1 and strip out video, I think it is already a great product in raw form.

My thoughts are this product gonna be simple, so simple that you almost just need to work on aperture and speed only, and it is fun to work with. Hopefully it is also priced great so everyone can afford. (glass not included. sell the body cheap and user will buy your lens.)

I know it is easy to say and hard to get there. Fuji, are you listening?

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

N O. Dear Lord, please make it stop.

Much of the R&D done for video actually benefit still taking almost just as much. Were it not for the need of slow motion 4K video, I doubt we'll never achieve a near global-shutter-like electronic shutter these days.

Removing functionality is easy in software, but it's still resource intensive with additional R&D cost. The UHS-II hardware is probably very cheap, the buffer memory might not be, but I'd like it to be there.

Think about it this way - stills taken at sufficiently high frame rate is almost indistinguishable from video from an R&D standpoint. Sure you can save on the microphone and ports, and maybe save some on video codec software, but that's pretty much it.

If a company delivers a stills-only camera nowadays it had better be able to do 20-30 fps, because the expectation has already been set.

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

I would love that. And please include native ISO 50.

I haven't used the video function on any of my Fujis. It's not a religion, I'm not interested...

Thing is I've never found the video functions in the way of anything. What am I missing?

While I share your sentiment that not everyone is a video freak, you must also realized the reality that:

(1) due to Economy of Scales: its More Expensive to make a Still-Only-Camera for a minority group of traditional photographers than it is making a Mass Market camera with video feature.

(2) Mass Market want video, and it is the responsibility of manufacture to give what consumer wants

(3) its important to realized you're in a photographer Minority dictating terms against a mass consumer company that makes product for mass consumption. Catering to your wishes is EGO pleasing but makes no business sense.

The only way this can happen is

Are you willing to Pay $1000 premium for a X-T3 Without Video?

Talk is cheap, until consumer are willing to PAY a premium buying VIDEO-LESS camera, its a FAILURE. Just look @the sales failure of Nikon DF

Tspin, it’s not exactly a match, but have you considered picking up a Sigma to keep things simple?

007peter said:

While I share your sentiment that not everyone is a video freak, you must also realized the reality that:

(1) due to Economy of Scales: its More Expensive to make a Still-Only-Camera for a minority group of traditional photographers than it is making a Mass Market camera with video feature.

(2) Mass Market want video, and it is the responsibility of manufacture to give what consumer wants

(3) its important to realized you're in a photographer Minority dictating terms against a mass consumer company that makes product for mass consumption. Catering to your wishes is EGO pleasing but makes no business sense.

The only way this can happen is

Are you willing to Pay $1000 premium for a X-T3 Without Video?

Talk is cheap, until consumer are willing to PAY a premium buying VIDEO-LESS camera, its a FAILURE. Just look @the sales failure of Nikon DF

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure Nikon stripped out much of the software / hardware except for the video button, ou essentially paid for the privilege of not having that button.

One other thing; the feed to the EVF / backscreen is essentially a video feed. I'm sure there is almost nobody who wants those removed

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

Click to expand...

Why?

Under the hood it needs to have much/most of the video pipeline anyway for EVF and LCD liveview. Taking out the video codecs from the (assuming) ARM SoC is not feasible either. It would have to be done in software only to just hide the options.

If too many menu items or something like that is the only reason, then maybe a new menu item could be made that simply hides all the video functionality. If purism is the reason, then see above, a mirrorless can't really live without the video pipeline.

From a purist perpective, one could also argue the same about AF. Please, make one without AF because there's just too much stuff related to AF in the camera. It's complicated and on top of that the PDAF array takes away light gathering ability of those pixels, if they contribute to the image at all, thus reducing IQ.

Why? Just go buy a DSLR or a Leica M.

tspin said:

ZilverHaylide said:

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

Both engineering and economics likely doom your suggestion.

Many functions in many electronic devices these days are accomplished via software, not hardware, but there are often external controls for those functions, so:

1) there would be little or no hardware savings by removing functions, but there could be hardware costs (for instance if removing the video function you'd want to remove the video record button, necessitating a new external panel and possibly a new circuit flex), and

2) there could actually be a significant software engineering cost to going into the code to remove unused software modules and rewriting menus, and perhaps even a reliability cost, since software, even modularized, might have unforeseen and undocumented interactions.

Those costs would need to be spread over the probably relatively small number of cameras sold with reduced functionality, so those crippled cameras would actually wind up costing more, perhaps substantially more, than the fully functional ones.

Finally, distributors and retailers would need to stock more models, increasing inventory costs.

Click to expand...

I actually in the software field. so removing some functionality should be easy and won't be much cost if software developed correctly.

Click to expand...

Since this software needs to be written and highly optimised for the specific hardware it's running on, I am not sure it's what you consider "developed correctly", which may involve some overheads being present n the code.

klayking said:

by removing video, for example, the camera probably won't need to have to uhs ii slots. Those are much needed for video. (I am not saying it is a good idea. I know it is easy to give and difficult to take away. I just give an example.) another example is over heating prevention, that might be just video related. So there should be some hardware reduction there. There might be more but I just give few possibilities.

Click to expand...

Any changes to the hardware would increase to unit price.

klayking said:

Here is what I think it is critical for Fuji if they ever consider this idea. Fuji need to understand remove video is an idea worth to consider and fit in they camera lineup. Secondly they must work hard to come up with a killer camera will swap the market to make all non video photographers to get on fuji. For this, Fuji should have enough incentive to do.

Click to expand...

For Fuji the cheapest way to remove video is to disable video related items in the menu and replace the video button with a function button. This way they could even provide an extra carrot for the still only mined photographers.

But simpler still, just do as I do, and ignore the video functions of the camera. Use it as a still camera only. No costs involved to the manufacturer or to the end user.

It's all just in the mind.

klayking said:

It is a very big task, but they also have some good foundation, such as ooc jpg, great reasonable priced fuji lens, and also the great continuous firmware update. Just like Ed B commented, xe1 will do fine. I totally agree. with the great low light performance and fast focus of xt3, if put these in xe1 and strip out video, I think it is already a great product in raw form.

My thoughts are this product gonna be simple, so simple that you almost just need to work on aperture and speed only, and it is fun to work with.

Click to expand...

You can do this already with the X-T3 or the X-T2 for that matter

klayking said:

Hopefully it is also priced great so everyone can afford. (glass not included. sell the body cheap and user will buy your lens.)

Click to expand...

You can already buy an X-T100, almost a perfect fir for what you want. Just ignore the video.

klayking said:

I know it is easy to say and hard to get there. Fuji, are you listening?

Click to expand...

They may well be listening, but in the end I think they will say know. They probably think it's unlikely they would generate additional sales.

But it's just my point of view, your may well be different.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'll never understand these periodic requests for separate camera models that don't have video. Is it really that hard to simply ignore the feature and never use it (which mostly represents my own usage)? It's not costing any more... and if there is any small cost, it's FAR less than what it would cost for Fuji to carry a separate camera that is only differentiated by it's lack of video support.

Please consider simply ignoring this and any other feature that you neither use nor like rather than suggesting that we should pay a premium for Fuji to carry additional cameras with no video support. It's a bad idea... always has been, always will be. It also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how products are manufactured and marketed. Adding SKUs costs money, which ultimately results in additional costs for consumers. To be brutally honest, I'm not interested in paying a premium because some people simply can't ignore features that are there but that they choose not to use.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

Oh no not this argument again.

The LCD and EVF are being fed a video feed.

But somehow there's some dreamland of photographic purity revealed by just stopping the user recording these feeds despite these feeds always existing in a mirrorless camera because it's how they flipping work.

If you're such a "purist" why on earth are you using something as technologically advanced as a mirrorless digital camera in the first place.

Jerry-astro said:

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'll never understand these periodic requests for separate camera models that don't have video. Is it really that hard to simply ignore the feature and never use it (which mostly represents my own usage)? It's not costing any more... and if there is any small cost, it's FAR less than what it would cost for Fuji to carry a separate camera that is only differentiated by it's lack of video support.

Please consider simply ignoring this and any other feature that you neither use nor like rather than suggesting that we should pay a premium for Fuji to carry additional cameras with no video support. It's a bad idea... always has been, always will be. It also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how products are manufactured and marketed. Adding SKUs costs money, which ultimately results in additional costs for consumers. To be brutally honest, I'm not interested in paying a premium because some people simply can't ignore features that are there but that they choose not to use.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

Click to expand...

When there is a periodic request, that means there is a need. Lots of opinions already, nothing right or wrong. I want to put on a closure to this thread by adding one more comments.

Killer app and killer gadget will change a company. We knew what Jobs did with apple. Lots of us loved x100/xpro1, that is the starting of fuJi x camera. Can Fuji really come out something affordabke and bigger and swap the market? Just my thoughts. There are more to add but I will stop here and leave the rest for your imagination.

tspin said:

Jerry-astro said:

tspin said:

Video is great but can we have one don't do that at all. Or make the xpro3 just for that.

just use xt3 but strip out video completely. Ibis or not, I am not sure. I am sure plenty will buy. Actually that will complete fuji lineup pretty well. Don't you think so?

probably should stay with the basic and remove all complicated features. That will be great.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'll never understand these periodic requests for separate camera models that don't have video. Is it really that hard to simply ignore the feature and never use it (which mostly represents my own usage)? It's not costing any more... and if there is any small cost, it's FAR less than what it would cost for Fuji to carry a separate camera that is only differentiated by it's lack of video support.

Please consider simply ignoring this and any other feature that you neither use nor like rather than suggesting that we should pay a premium for Fuji to carry additional cameras with no video support. It's a bad idea... always has been, always will be. It also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how products are manufactured and marketed. Adding SKUs costs money, which ultimately results in additional costs for consumers. To be brutally honest, I'm not interested in paying a premium because some people simply can't ignore features that are there but that they choose not to use.

Click to expand...

When there is a periodic request, that means there is a need. Lots of opinions already, nothing right or wrong. I want to put on a closure to this thread by adding one more comments.

Killer app and killer gadget will change a company. We knew what Jobs did with apple. Lots of us loved x100/xpro1, that is the starting of fuJi x camera. Can Fuji really come out something affordabke and bigger and swap the market? Just my thoughts. There are more to add but I will stop here and leave the rest for your imagination.

Click to expand...

You are looking at video every time you use the viewfinder. Would you prefer an optical VF only? No live view? I doubt Fuji would sell many of those cameras.

Sal