Report: Japanese camera makers could see supply chain constraints due to supplier factory fire

They should make a camera with generic labeling of controls. Have a firmware that is stills only and sell it to these so called purists. They have one firmware with video and another no video. It be a like a Canon cripple hammer that these purists will pay for.

I want a camera with no shutter priority mode. I don't ever use that mode and I hate paying for a larger mode dial and the paint to mark an 'S' on it.

Stupid post. Even though I only use my Sony A7xx for photos I am happy it's able to shoot video as well. The small amount of people asking for a photography only camera would make it more expensive than a camera that shoot both stills and video.

I believe there is more than enough demand for a few "pure stills" mirrorfree FF cameras to make it worthwhile. People really shooting video/hybrid "in earnest" - not just a few shaky family videos they might just as well capture with any cameraphone - are a minority if not even just a small niche.

Nothing against hybrid and video cams, they may be even a necessity for professionals in certain areas of specialization, but large majority of dedicated camera buyers are amateurs/ enthusiasts. Many of them know, that even a R5 Canon will not turn them into the next Steven Spielberg. And not everybody is interested in posting their videos on youtube. Luckily.

So now we have dedicated video camera, hybrid cameras, but no current stills cameras any longer. There should be some as well.

What would the benefit be? A supposed $25 in savings for parts? They already did all the R+D for video for the rest of their camera lineup. It doesn't save money to delete lines of code.

My guess for the per unit pricing would go:

Minus $25 for video parts (generous estimate)
Add $50 for cost of making and supporting alternate non-video firmware
Add $25 for creating second run of boxes and user guides
Add $50 for marketing of second product (need some fancy video showing how "pure" the experience is)

Total savings over regular hybrid model is negative $100

Or you can just use the hybrid camera and ignore the video mode on the dial and record button as I do my Shutter Priority mode.

I don't like hybrids, but it isn't feasible to produce stills-only cameras any more. They would require additional assembly lines, extra development costs, and lowish demand would force prices way higher than we pay for hybrids.

The issue for me is that too many wrong choices are made, particularly when it comes to screens. Most stills shooters prefer tilting screens. Most video shooters, and people who frequently shoot vertical shots, prefer flippy screens.

So far, only Panasonic (S1), Fujifilm (XT3) and Pentax (K1) have attempted to find a solution that works equally well for all types of photography and videography.

It's not exactly difficult to design a tilting screen that has an articulating joint on the left side. Such a screen would be capable of tilting horizontally *and* vertically *and* swinging out to face front or back *and* could be reversed to protect the screen surface. It dumbfounds me that Canon, Nikon and Sony don't make screens like this.

I considered making a sarcastic post about how DPReview commenters would be up in arms that their cameras dare to include an ADC chip at all. But I can't even satirize that, this is too funny.

@xeppelin. What your are missing is that a "mirror free" stills camera has a screen and usually an EVF. Those devices require a "video" feed, so now the difference between that camera and a hybrid is the audio and some software/firmware for the video codec. There is no way that is enough difference to justify a separate model. You would save maybe $10 on the audio and maybe another $10 on a smaller FPGA. The rest is pretty much the same and the inventory cost alone of another SKU would dwarf savings.

I am not a video shooter, either. But having one combined product is likely less expensive in the long run, as the cost of amortizing overhead over a larger run of cameras brings down pricing. Sure, a run of 100,000 stills only cameras may cost less than a run of 100,000 Hybrid cameras in a vacuum, but 200,000 hybrid cameras will probably cost less than the two runs, with unit cost below any individual unit cost of either run. One set of tooling, one production line, one item to inventory, no left overs of one vs. the other when the next model comes out.

i am a pure stills amateur. i dont capture money shots. i dont get paid for my images.

and if i ever happen to be at the scene of some extremely spectacular event, in all likelihood i will not have any of my dedicated cameras on me. but my iphone 8 ;-) will very likely be in my pocket and i'll whip it out like any regular Joe and capture some shaky video of the first documented alien landing on earth. i will make a lot of money with it - totally irrespective of IQ, no matter if it is not in 4k/240 or 8k/120. lol

but i dont want to pay for video compromised stills cameras.

xeppelin, do you actually think that throwing a couple of Mics and an ADC into a camera makes it $1900 more expensive???? Hahahaha it's like $10 on the BOM cost to take a camera from stills capable to video capable. Shooting 45 MP RAW images at a 10 fps burst is as much of a data throughput challenge as 4K video, basically the only thing that need be added is some software and a mic.

@xeppelin you are dreaming if you think removing video from the R5 would cut the retail price by half.

Kona +1
It might reduce the price many would pay for it though, but less so the price to make it.

So, no battery level monitoring then!
Lots of batteries blowing up as chargers can't see when they are charged or even monitor how much current they're supplying.

Analogue to digital converters get used for lots of stuff.

I assume you do know that it's an ADC that converts the voltage on the sensor to a digital value?

I couldn’t agree more...just give me a pinhole and a cave wall to draw on...no REAL photographer needs anything more than the ability to create monotone petroglyphs

@PinnyHead

"I couldn’t agree more...just give me a pinhole and a cave wall to draw on...no REAL photographer needs anything more than the ability to create monotone petroglyphs."

LOL. Can you imagine how disruptive it must have been when primitive art moved to color? I wonder if there were purists insisting on monochrome for artistic reasons.

Here are a couple of stills oriented cameras. Pretty affordable as well.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ivy-cliq-plus-instant-camera-printer-pearl-white

https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/consumer/instax/cameras

@ xeppelin. You want all the features of the expensive camera except video and refuse to accept the reality that the camera you want won't be materially cheaper to build than the Hybrid and given current volume levels, both cameras would actually be more expensive. You clearly want what you want and have no concept of manufacturing and distribution processes or costs. If you want a cheaper camera, you can buy a cheaper hybrid. Even the cheapest cameras have some sort of video capability and that ought to make it clear that adding video is not a huge cost factor. At the other end of the spectrum, even the Leica Monochrom has 4k video and if there ever was a purist camera, that is pretty close to the pinnacle.