07-17-2020 04:23 PM
I agree Trevor. Swiss army knives can be useful at times but purpose built tools are better at accomplishing specific tasks. Between a 1DX, 1DX II, 1DX III, and 5DS R I have various video options but I hate shooting video with the form factor of a DSLR and for me the XF 400 camcorder is a great video solution that doesn't take up much room in a bag. It also has forced air cooling so that it can shoot 4K high frame rate video for long periods of time in hot weather without concern.
To paraphrase from Michael Crichton's Jurassic park, scientists and engineers sometimes spend far too much time asking whether we can do something and far too little time asking whether we should do something.
I too am tempted to agree. But I guess I'd like to know by how much the price of the camera would actually be reduced by the elimination of video. I suspect it would not be by very much. Like Trevor and Rodger, I seldom, if ever, use my cameras' video capability. But it's sort of nice to know it's there, just in case.
That said, the quibbling we often see about the extent of the video capability in a given film camera leaves me cold. If you have to worry about exactly what's included, you probably need a video camera.
07-17-2020 04:32 PM - edited 07-17-2020 04:37 PM
Hi again Bob
Yep, I have to agree with you here too. My thought is that in building a camera from the ground up for stills rather than video there could be considerable tweaking of the electronics and firmware to make an awesome stills unit. It would simply the interface (both physical and software) and some of that processing horsepower could go to other capabilities.
It seems to me that a lot of people throwing criticism at DSLR and MILCs are not, in fact, wanting to use them seriously as stills cameras, but they want them to perform like dedicated video cameras. It needs someone to have the courage to put out a dedicated variant of each type - a great stills camera that does minimal video and a great video camera without the heat and time limitations of the current compromise.
07-18-2020 11:46 AM
The price reduction of removing the video component is negligible. The sensor, the processor, the main logic board, EVF, etc. would all be the same whether for straight photographic use or for use as a highbred. The only additional cost of adding the video component is in heat reduction (always a good idea, even for straight photography) and the additional software needed to tell the camera how to shoot and process video.
If there were significant costs, what company would not attempt to recapture that cost by keeping two cameras selling just like they did in the days of film? It wasn't that long ago that I purchased a Nikon D5000 for stills (it still did 720p) and a Canon Vixa HFM31 for video. I even "jerry-rigged" the same rig so that I could shoot both at the same time with a single shutter release. But if it were costly to make a highbred, they would protect the video camera the same way they do the professional line C200+.
However, what many still photographers are forgetting is how much of the sales of cameras in this rapidly decreasing market is coming in the video and YouTube market. Leading to "quantities of scale" keeping the prices more affordable to everyone, and the advances in technology at this point are coming from that environment at a faster rate than the pure photography market.
In fact from a photography standpoint, other than cost and video, what would a newer Canon have over a Hasse 5 series with a digital back if used in a fashion photography setting. In many ways, I would still prefer a 500C to almost any current camera in production today in a strictly photographic environment.
07-18-2020 12:17 PM
One thing I forgot to add in my earlier post.
I believe the EU "TAX" that increased the price for cameras that were seen as a "camcorder" expired in 2018. And newer cameras by both Sony and Panasonic do not have the 29:59 recording limit. Why Canon continues to embed this into their firmware is unknown except perhaps out of fear that the tax may be reinstated.
Still You could simply put in the code with a branch around the time limit, and simply remove the branch in a new version of the firmware and push out the update should the tax be reinstated. Just seems like a friendlier way to do it.
07-22-2020 05:39 PM - edited 07-22-2020 05:41 PM
Nikon grasped that nettle with the Df (Df for Digital fusion with classic film cameras), which was originally panned for what was considered its shortcomings - no video, no built-in flash, single card etc. But those where characteristics of the era it was meant to represent, when SLR cameras had those characteristics, and it is now a bit of a classic. It's a brilliant camera in its own right with a fantastic low-light FF sensor, and I love the classic interface that allows one to savour the moment of actually taking the photograph, but with a great under-the-hood digital features.
Yep, I still have my monumental stable of digital Canon gear (as indicated in my profile), and I DO understand the market pressures that all camera companies are under. I will be grateful for the fact that we still have conventional still cameras at all. I doubt I will use the cell phone as my go-to device.