Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Stills vs Video  (Read 281 times)

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1569
Stills vs Video
« on: September 11, 2017, 01:55:18 PM »

At some point they will probably decide that the amount of effort required to support video in still image camera's simply merits a device of its own, then somebody will wake up and tell the world we need two devices, one that's ergonomically better suited for video, and one that is better suited for still image capture.

At which point we finally get better and simpler, but probably not cheaper devices to work with.

It's too bad they probably won't fall for that argument: if you slash video from a photocamera, you slash half the functionality, so it should be half the price!?
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 939
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2017, 05:24:21 PM »

For a digital camera with live view and/or mirrorless, it is relatively little additional hardware expense to add video.
Logged
John

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2017, 06:04:14 PM »

For a digital camera with live view and/or mirrorless, it is relatively little additional hardware expense to add video.

Yes, likely true especially considering that most videocapability is already baked into the chip.  And at one point it probably did make sense to distinguish oneself with videocapabilities. However, it seems lately the competition in the videocapabilities is becoming detrimental to development in both directions.

High quality video in a midrange camera seems overkill. I see two types of usecases:
1. The tourist shooter who likes to make the occasional videoclip
2. The professional shooter who really requires high-end results for commissioned projects etc.

How are either of these served by say a Panasonic LX100 or a Fuji X-T20 doing superior 4k video?
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 722
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2017, 05:47:27 PM »

It's called the Nikon Df, remember it?  It didn't do video, and I don't think anyone will release a follow up or competitor.

Logged
t: @PNWMF
Pages: [1]   Go Up