Poll Question: Do you care about video or not when buying camera?

My D750 has video feature, but I never use it, I have not used my X-T20 for video either. So video capabilty is not important for me. However, my daughter often use the D750 (on a tripod) to shoot video.

I shoot video every now and then, but I use my Gopro ona gimbal to shoot video.

I'm gonna give it a try someday, but video feature on a still camera is not important for me.

Fezhat said:

tspin said:

Vic Chapman said:

TangoMan said:

Trippster said:

With the introduction of new video capabilities in Fujifilm cameras, are video features or video capability a part of your buying decision.

Click to expand...

I bought my X-T20s for their video capabilities. I was completely happy with the image quality of my X-A1s before that, even though I wished they had better AF.

I find myself now, not only shooting longer projets, but also more and more memories. There's no denying that watching a short video brings back memory in a much more immersive way than a set of photos.

Like it or not, video is now where the battle is between manufacturers. As for static images, they have reached a level of "much more than good enough" quality from most manufacturers and for most people. That being said, I also think that Fuji has the most pleasant colours straight out of camera

Click to expand...

That's not what the result of the vote shows.

I used to get shouted down when I said didn't want to pay for video and its research when I don't use it. I've had 6 Fuji cameras - still have 4 and still don't want video. All those who said it doesn't cost anymore seem to forget all the R&D. I started with low quality X-Pro1 video I didn't need and now I have 2 x 4k video capable bodies in my collection which I don't need but R&D which I paid for. Why can we not have a non-video camera and charge only those who want the video? There are B&W only cameras so it's not a strange request.

Vic

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I also got shouted down when asked for non video camera very lately. Very happy to see the vote of this post. It clearly show that most votes do not want/care about video. If Fuji can remove video and sell a cheaper and simpler model, it will sale. At least more than one that I will buy.

Great post, op.

Click to expand...

If you guys intend you buy a couple of thousand non video cameras each maybe it will be worthwhile to make but even then I doubt if there would be any profit in to to sell 135 cameras at last count ..... dream on Fuji is not your personal camera maker

The R&D is about all cameras not just one model

Click to expand...

I can't really answer that because I don't understand it.

It does sound as if you think I'm not entitled to an opinion - even though it's a majority opinion.

If that is your point then I invite you to take a very long walk off a very short pier.

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Trippster said:

70 Percent has been pretty consistent throughout this poll of folks who don’t care for video when they purchase a new camera.

Click to expand...

People who don't like something or feel a need to complain will vote. Those that are happy with what they have don't care and probably won't even bother because it makes no difference. Forums are anecdotal, and the plural of anecdotal is not "data."

Fuji already has a still camera with great still IQ, that had no investment in video R&D, the X-T100. It's clear that it's $599 cost went into build quality, still IQ, and very little on AF or video. At launch, 90 percent of the complaints, in this forum, were about it NOT having proper 4K video. Responses in this forum is always based on individual context of the threads IMO.

Sal

Sal Baker said:

Trippster said:

70 Percent has been pretty consistent throughout this poll of folks who don’t care for video when they purchase a new camera.

Click to expand...

People who don't like something or feel a need to complain will vote. Those that are happy with what they have don't care and probably won't even bother because it makes no difference. Forums are anecdotal, and the plural of anecdotal is not "data."

Fuji already has a still camera with great still IQ, that had no investment in video R&D, the X-T100. It's clear that it's $599 cost went into build quality, still IQ, and very little on AF or video. At launch, 90 percent of the complaints, in this forum, were about it NOT having proper 4K video. Responses in this forum is always based on individual context of the threads IMO.

Sal

Click to expand...

Likewise you'd not have users praising the lack of something - this is a Fuji forum - we only complain! :-D

Vic

Vic Chapman said:

Fezhat said:

tspin said:

Vic Chapman said:

TangoMan said:

Trippster said:

With the introduction of new video capabilities in Fujifilm cameras, are video features or video capability a part of your buying decision.

Click to expand...

I bought my X-T20s for their video capabilities. I was completely happy with the image quality of my X-A1s before that, even though I wished they had better AF.

I find myself now, not only shooting longer projets, but also more and more memories. There's no denying that watching a short video brings back memory in a much more immersive way than a set of photos.

Like it or not, video is now where the battle is between manufacturers. As for static images, they have reached a level of "much more than good enough" quality from most manufacturers and for most people. That being said, I also think that Fuji has the most pleasant colours straight out of camera

Click to expand...

That's not what the result of the vote shows.

I used to get shouted down when I said didn't want to pay for video and its research when I don't use it. I've had 6 Fuji cameras - still have 4 and still don't want video. All those who said it doesn't cost anymore seem to forget all the R&D. I started with low quality X-Pro1 video I didn't need and now I have 2 x 4k video capable bodies in my collection which I don't need but R&D which I paid for. Why can we not have a non-video camera and charge only those who want the video? There are B&W only cameras so it's not a strange request.

Vic

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I also got shouted down when asked for non video camera very lately. Very happy to see the vote of this post. It clearly show that most votes do not want/care about video. If Fuji can remove video and sell a cheaper and simpler model, it will sale. At least more than one that I will buy.

Great post, op.

Click to expand...

If you guys intend you buy a couple of thousand non video cameras each maybe it will be worthwhile to make but even then I doubt if there would be any profit in to to sell 135 cameras at last count ..... dream on Fuji is not your personal camera maker

The R&D is about all cameras not just one model

Click to expand...

I can't really answer that because I don't understand it.

It does sound as if you think I'm not entitled to an opinion - even though it's a majority opinion.

If that is your point then I invite you to take a very long walk off a very short pier.

Vic

Click to expand...

The forum members here are a minority of fuji buyers so there is no consensus, as for your walk no dramas God invented boats saves me walking on water

seegeeb said:

My D750 has video feature, but I never use it, I have not used my X-T20 for video either. So video capabilty is not important for me. However, my daughter often use the D750 (on a tripod) to shoot video.

I shoot video every now and then, but I use my Gopro ona gimbal to shoot video.

I'm gonna give it a try someday, but video feature on a still camera is not important for me.

Click to expand...

You have a very good use case here. Tools provide multi function normally do not do well, especially get into pro level. Your choice of gopro with gimbal provides advantage over d750, that is why you do it.

That adds to the point of separate out video from camera.

tspin said:

seegeeb said:

My D750 has video feature, but I never use it, I have not used my X-T20 for video either. So video capabilty is not important for me. However, my daughter often use the D750 (on a tripod) to shoot video.

I shoot video every now and then, but I use my Gopro ona gimbal to shoot video.

I'm gonna give it a try someday, but video feature on a still camera is not important for me.

Click to expand...

You have a very good use case here. Tools provide multi function normally do not do well, especially get into pro level. Your choice of gopro with gimbal provides advantage over d750, that is why you do it.

That adds to the point of separate out video from camera.

Click to expand...

Depens what you use is. Video quality on even a X-T20 is much better than that of a GoPro. you would need a larger gimbal and it's bigger, and isn't water resistant and stuff, but still, the video quality of X-T20 is quite a lot better than GoPro. Different stuff from different folks.

I don't need my camera to be water resistant, I do both photography and video. I don't need a gimbal either and don't want the smaller size of a go pro. I wanted the video quality that X-T20 had and also a photography camera. If X-T20 didn't have video, would I still have bought it and gotten a dedicated video camera too? No I would not, that combo would have been more expensive with the same quality. I would probably have gone with Sony ML instead if Fuji didn't have video.

I am not a pro tho, but GoPro would be too bad video quality for a pro videographer as long as the person had another option anyway.

Fezhat said:

Vic Chapman said:

Fezhat said:

tspin said:

Vic Chapman said:

TangoMan said:

Trippster said:

With the introduction of new video capabilities in Fujifilm cameras, are video features or video capability a part of your buying decision.

Click to expand...

I bought my X-T20s for their video capabilities. I was completely happy with the image quality of my X-A1s before that, even though I wished they had better AF.

I find myself now, not only shooting longer projets, but also more and more memories. There's no denying that watching a short video brings back memory in a much more immersive way than a set of photos.

Like it or not, video is now where the battle is between manufacturers. As for static images, they have reached a level of "much more than good enough" quality from most manufacturers and for most people. That being said, I also think that Fuji has the most pleasant colours straight out of camera

Click to expand...

That's not what the result of the vote shows.

I used to get shouted down when I said didn't want to pay for video and its research when I don't use it. I've had 6 Fuji cameras - still have 4 and still don't want video. All those who said it doesn't cost anymore seem to forget all the R&D. I started with low quality X-Pro1 video I didn't need and now I have 2 x 4k video capable bodies in my collection which I don't need but R&D which I paid for. Why can we not have a non-video camera and charge only those who want the video? There are B&W only cameras so it's not a strange request.

Vic

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I also got shouted down when asked for non video camera very lately. Very happy to see the vote of this post. It clearly show that most votes do not want/care about video. If Fuji can remove video and sell a cheaper and simpler model, it will sale. At least more than one that I will buy.

Great post, op.

Click to expand...

If you guys intend you buy a couple of thousand non video cameras each maybe it will be worthwhile to make but even then I doubt if there would be any profit in to to sell 135 cameras at last count ..... dream on Fuji is not your personal camera maker

The R&D is about all cameras not just one model

Click to expand...

I can't really answer that because I don't understand it.

It does sound as if you think I'm not entitled to an opinion - even though it's a majority opinion.

If that is your point then I invite you to take a very long walk off a very short pier.

Vic

Click to expand...

The forum members here are a minority of fuji buyers so there is no consensus, as for your walk no dramas God invented boats saves me walking on water

Click to expand...

What a ridiculous answer.

The forum members are just as much a cross section here as on any other forum. For your information - they are large cross section.

Do you have a problem with me other than me having an opinion? Are you just a troll?

Just go away if you can't come up with a sensible argument.

Vic

No 4K video capability = no sale.

I primarily shoot stills. And that is what I'm going to customize whichever camera I own or rent to do. However I also do video stuff as a hobby, and have done live streaming and videography for several events. Which means any camera I own must be useful as a B roll camera if not the primary camera.

That said, I am not interested in 4k. I can't stream in 4k, and I don't care for editing 4k footage for my own little productions. Instead I'd rather have full HD with better DR and lower compression/higher bitrate.

Sal Baker said:

KariP said:

Trippster said:

With the introduction of new video capabilities in Fujifilm cameras, are video features or video capability a part of your buying decision.

Click to expand...

Making good real videos is so time consuming, that i'm taking photographs only. In theory those fantastic things are really fantastic and tempting. I can imagine how great videos it is possible to create, 4K, great sound , IQ and all

BUT

where are all those technically perfect videos ? I have found some 4K videos from Youtube when i wanted to see 4K ... those videos were extremely boring, only technically rather good looking image quality.

What is the point in making great gear, but obviously very very few can shoot videos ?

Click to expand...

What’s the point in making great still cameras when so many people can’t shoot great photos?

Sal

Sal Baker said:

Nice to know , that my camera can take videos - i know that nobody wants to see my great videos if i start one day.

There is of course the remote possibility, that i have a camera with me and i can use it when something exceptional happens - like aliens visiting or something.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

VERY Good question - but basic photographs are not so deadly boring.

Perhaps only 1% of video shooters study the basics of storytelling. Quite many can take acceptable images with a camera . Perhaps not always great art , but...

It can take 30 minutes to look at some "great" holiday or whatever video. Great suffering. Never "art". Photos - especially in the net - are much easier. And when there is the unlikely nice image i can stop for a moment.

Hours of supersharp 4K video - no story and no content - ouch. 12 printed pictures from a holiday - easy to be polite and interested.

And then there is the possibility of printing something yourself . On paper. There are still some who can do that.

Modern young people shoot 4K videos with their phones , share them somewhere once - and that is it. Somebody can have a laugh when something funny happens in some party in a 15 sec video. 4K ILC camera is not necessarily needed ...

Of course my camera at the moment has 4K video possibility and also the next camera will have (possibly T3) - i can live with that. Perhaps i will play with video privately at home some day. I try to protect my fellow citizens ;-)