Do all cameras nowadays really need to cater to videographers? Am I a purist for disagreeing?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Il Mostro Regular Member • Posts: 320
Re: What irks me most

JacquesC wrote:

fraga500 wrote:

MrSee wrote:

I think it’s become the norm. Nowadays if you want to compete in camera sales, they have to have all the bell and whistles!

I have an X-H1 and have never shot video. I wish I could buy a stills camera only, but that’s the way it is.

I agree completely: that's the way it is today, the industry will do what sells more. But (for example) I still find bizarre when people judge the X100 series' video capabilities with the same weight as cameras that were indeed built for recording - instead of accepting that some of those tools are still made mainly with photography in mind.

This judgment (by critics and potential users) is also IMO one of the things that may be leading the industry to think we really need video features in every "photocamera".

I echo your sentiments.

I would LOVE to see at least some cameras made for just photography and with absolutely zero video capability.

What irks me (as a photographer only) is that some of the hybrid cameras incorporate functionality aimed at videographers that actually spoils it somewhat for photography. An example of this is the fully articulated screen (as in X-T4) which may be useful for video but a PITA for photography.

This is why it is still a pleasure to take my 5D out for a spin.

 Il Mostro's gear list:Il Mostro's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D +36 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
rlx
jrk
GF
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow