Reading mode: Light Dark

I wonder..........

Go to last post
J A C S said:
Gjames said:
I often wonder how many users never use their cameras for video and just take stills?

Would you be interested in a high end camera that didn't have video capability?
Click to expand...
I would not even notice if there is video or not. Unless, of course, the REC button gets in my way; then I would need to find a way to disable it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Before I consider buying a camera I will research its capabilities so I would expect to know whether it had a video function long before I ever handed one. As most recent cameras have video my expectation would be that any camera I might be interested in was video capable.

I understand the desire to try out a new camera but for some years it has been my practice to configure my cameras before using them. Nikon introduced a button arrangement with the F5 that remains virtually unchanged except that one of the buttons is now red and configured to video capture. It is the work of but a few moments to restore that button’s function to that of its equivalent on the F5.

Does the video button get in the way? I haven’t a clue, I reconfigure it before I have a chance to find out.
 
GeoffRG said:
Does the video button get in the way? I haven’t a clue, I reconfigure it before I have a chance to find out.
Click to expand...
It did, more than once. I kept pressing it accidentally, and the real PITA is that there was no obvious way to get back to stills mode. I know that it must be in the manual but I did not read that part because, well, I do not care about video. As I said already, I postpone customizing the buttons for after I get familiarized with the new camera. It was quite different from the 5D4 it replaced.
 
Other than accidentally, I have never taken a video with any of my cameras. I have some older models that don’t do video but I think these days it’s going to cost more for a camera made specifically without it than with it. This has been discussed at length in the forums if you search.
 
I never use video. not my interest.
 
J A C S said:
GeoffRG said:
Does the video button get in the way? I haven’t a clue, I reconfigure it before I have a chance to find out.
Click to expand...
It did, more than once. I kept pressing it accidentally, and the real PITA is that there was no obvious way to get back to stills mode. I know that it must be in the manual but I did not read that part because, well, I do not care about video. As I said already, I postpone customizing the buttons for after I get familiarized with the new camera. It was quite different from the 5D4 it replaced.
Click to expand...
With me it is a case of knowing that the three buttons grouped around the shutter release are going to be Mode, ISO, Exposure compensation, irrespective of how Nikon have configured them. That is how I have become used to them and I see no reason to change. As it happens with the D5 they start as Video, ISO, Exposure compensation making it easy to reconfigure.
 
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
 
The only thing a manufacturer will create with a non-video camera is a product some people definitely won’t buy. Such a camera won’t be cheaper, because they need to run two models and would need double of everything.
 
Gjames said:
I often wonder how many users never use their cameras for video and just take stills?

Would you be interested in a high end camera that didn't have video capability?
Click to expand...
I shoot video but stills are much more important.
 
Hey! 📸 It's interesting how some prefer photos over videos. A high-end camera without video could be a neat option for those passionate about still photography. It's all about catering to specific interests. What do you think? Would you be into a camera like that?
 
hellen22 said:
Hey! 📸 It's interesting how some prefer photos over videos. A high-end camera without video could be a neat option for those passionate about still photography. It's all about catering to specific interests. What do you think? Would you be into a camera like that?
Click to expand...
Can I guess that you did not spend much time at all reading the previous comments?
 
hellen22 said:
Hey! 📸 It's interesting how some prefer photos over videos. A high-end camera without video could be a neat option for those passionate about still photography. It's all about catering to specific interests. What do you think? Would you be into a camera like that?
Click to expand...
If you can build a mirrorless camera without video capability please be my guest. However, as already stated several times, a mirrorless camera is essentially a video camera with capture capability for still and video recording.
 
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
Having a camera without video capability could actually cost more for the reasons laid out by other posters. The economy of scale describes a situation where production costs go down as the quantity of product produced increases. Offering a camera without video capability would not sell well and the few that were sold would reduce the number sold of cameras that do have video capability. The separate production run of cameras without video would be small enough to greatly increase the per-unit cost which would be significant and passed down to the consumer. So the choice would be to pay more for the video-less camera or pay less and not use the video capability of the camera with video. The number of stills-only cameras sold could be small enough to add several hundred dollars to the unit cost which would add even more cost which would result in sales so small that production would cease. Camera companies know this so I suspect you will not see them producing videoless cameras.
 
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video
Click to expand...
Noticeably, else not very tempting. I would say unlikely
raunak said:
or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
That would be a different camera then, and if a version of that camera with video costs about the same, we will be back at square one
 
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the rub.

As has already been mentioned, a stills only camera would most likely command a premium price because of the extremely limited market appeal. And than to expect superior specs in addition would only add more to the cost.

Better to just buy the camera with the video and ignore it.

My vehicle and many others have a fuel saving feature that involves shutting the engine down at times when the vehicle is stopped. Some may not like that feature so they just tun it off and ignore it was ever there. BTW…. I saw about a 2mpg boost in fuel economy when I decided to leave it on.
 
Last edited:
tbcass said:
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
Having a camera without video capability could actually cost more for the reasons laid out by other posters. The economy of scale describes a situation where production costs go down as the quantity of product produced increases. Offering a camera without video capability would not sell well and the few that were sold would reduce the number sold of cameras that do have video capability. The separate production run of cameras without video would be small enough to greatly increase the per-unit cost which would be significant and passed down to the consumer. So the choice would be to pay more for the video-less camera or pay less and not use the video capability of the camera with video. The number of stills-only cameras sold could be small enough to add several hundred dollars to the unit cost which would add even more cost which would result in sales so small that production would cease. Camera companies know this so I suspect you will not see them producing videoless cameras.
Click to expand...
I repeat “mirrorless cameras are video cameras with capture capabilities, you can’t have one without video capability because you couldn’t have a viewfinder/live view.
 
gary0319 said:
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the rub.

As has already been mentioned, a stills only camera would most likely command a premium price because of the extremely limited market appeal. And than to expect superior specs in addition would only add more to the cost.

Better to just buy the camera with the video and ignore it.

My vehicle and many others have a fuel saving feature that involves shutting the engine down at times when the vehicle is stopped. Some may not like that feature so they just tun it off and ignore it was ever there. BTW…. I saw about a 2mpg boost in fuel economy when I decided to leave it on.
Click to expand...
Funny that you mentioned it. Last time I was on the market for a new car, it turned out that this feature came with strings attached: a second battery or a larger one, etc. I eliminated all cars with that feature from my list, and the list did not remain empty.
 
GeoffRG said:
tbcass said:
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
Having a camera without video capability could actually cost more for the reasons laid out by other posters. The economy of scale describes a situation where production costs go down as the quantity of product produced increases. Offering a camera without video capability would not sell well and the few that were sold would reduce the number sold of cameras that do have video capability. The separate production run of cameras without video would be small enough to greatly increase the per-unit cost which would be significant and passed down to the consumer. So the choice would be to pay more for the video-less camera or pay less and not use the video capability of the camera with video. The number of stills-only cameras sold could be small enough to add several hundred dollars to the unit cost which would add even more cost which would result in sales so small that production would cease. Camera companies know this so I suspect you will not see them producing videoless cameras.
Click to expand...
I repeat “mirrorless cameras are video cameras with capture capabilities, you can’t have one without video capability because you couldn’t have a viewfinder/live view.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing live view with video capability. The fact that mirrorless cameras have a mechanical shutter makes your post incorrect. Video cameras have no mechanical shutter. Using DSLRs with the mirror locked up for live view use does not make them video cameras either but it does allow them to be used for video.
 
tbcass said:
GeoffRG said:
tbcass said:
raunak said:
Yes, I would be interested but provided it was cheaper because of not having Video or if it costs about the same then i'd expect it to have really stunning specs for photo shooting.
Click to expand...
Having a camera without video capability could actually cost more for the reasons laid out by other posters. The economy of scale describes a situation where production costs go down as the quantity of product produced increases. Offering a camera without video capability would not sell well and the few that were sold would reduce the number sold of cameras that do have video capability. The separate production run of cameras without video would be small enough to greatly increase the per-unit cost which would be significant and passed down to the consumer. So the choice would be to pay more for the video-less camera or pay less and not use the video capability of the camera with video. The number of stills-only cameras sold could be small enough to add several hundred dollars to the unit cost which would add even more cost which would result in sales so small that production would cease. Camera companies know this so I suspect you will not see them producing videoless cameras.
Click to expand...
I repeat “mirrorless cameras are video cameras with capture capabilities, you can’t have one without video capability because you couldn’t have a viewfinder/live view.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing live view with video capability. The fact that mirrorless cameras have a mechanical shutter makes your post incorrect. Video cameras have no mechanical shutter. Using DSLRs with the mirror locked up for live view use does not make them video cameras either but it does allow them to be used for video.
Click to expand...
I don't think that posters are saying that a mirrorless camera is literally a video camera, but rather that the things that make it a competent stills camera are also essential elements of a video camera - the ability to process, in real time, heavy streams of image data in service of viewing, tracking, and focusing. The specific act of capturing a still image is a surprisingly small part of what the imaging sensor and supporting processing is doing. When presented this way, it becomes more obvious that a stills-only camera that is practically useful - i.e., that the viewing, tracking, and focusing functions are competent - would differ little from one that also offered video and therefore would not cost less. It mostly likely would cost more given the size of the market for it.

In this sense the video camera analogy I think is useful.

In fact, the cheaper, simpler stills-only camera that people want already exists: it's a DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top