Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity

[Rand47]

Not only do I agree, I resent whatever money went into R&D and manufacturing costs for a feature on a camera that I don't want, won't use, and is too often in the way.

How about spend that same money giving me better image quality in one form or another, or a more robust camera design?

Adding video to a fine stills camera is like strapping some banjo strings on a Stradivarius because "someone" might like both violin and banjo music.  Hell, while we're at it, we might as well put a can opener on the thing too.  One might get thirsty during a concert.

Rand

[Isaac]

How much are we willing to pay for a bespoke camera?

[Telecaster]

I have to say I just can't get exercised about this stuff. Too much fun to be had with cameras & ancillary products. I do prefer a more modular approach to things in many areas, which is why I chose the Blackmagic Pocket Cinecam as my main tool for exploring video. But video capability in still cameras...doesn't bother me a bit.

-Dave-

[RobbieV]

I'm 28 and I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I don't care how many FPS my camera can record in, or how much "value" I'm getting by purchasing a camera that can do 10 things very good. I just want a camera that does one thing and is excellent at it in all aspects.

I wonder how much age has to do with the perspective a person has on this.

What do I mean by that?

Well all of the writers have grown up with film cameras, used them professionally and are accustomed to them. As to many of those that have thus far responded to this thread if the pictures are anything to go by :*)

But if you were to ask someone that is half of Mark's age (or less) what they thought on this topic, would you get the same answer?

And in 20 years time, will cameras that came before the age of convergence be "curios" that strange people collect in the same way that a Rollei might be today?

[Vladimirovich]

Not only do I agree, I resent whatever money went into R&D and manufacturing costs for a feature on a camera that I don't want, won't use, and is too often in the way.

I am not using in camera JPG, I resent whatever money went into it... oh wait, I need to see the image in EVF, that means I need a converter, damn... so do not be absurd, you really never know what use stills applications are getting from the money poured allegedly into video side of things.

[slackercruster]

fwiw.. I agree with Mark 100%. I shoot stills. Only. I'm a competent 'still' photographer. I shoot sports car racing and landscape. Probably never win a gallery prize. But I have a lot of fun roaming New England looking for my next shot. Video is a whole different game. And a huge time sponge. I enjoy great video as much as the next guy. But it's not for me. No need to clutter my camera with video anything.

gear: Canon 1D M4, and great series of "L" lenses, works for me

YES++

[Rand47]

I am not using in camera JPG, I resent whatever money went into it... oh wait, I need to see the image in EVF, that means I need a converter, damn... so do not be absurd, you really never know what use stills applications are getting from the money poured allegedly into video side of things.

No absurd at all, IMO.  Even the cost of design, circuitry, etc. for the stupid physical "movie button" is wasted as far as I'm concerned.  And technology spin off is hardly anything new and has little to do with convergence.  

Rand

[Rand47]

How much are we willing to pay for a bespoke camera?

You jump from single purpose to bespoke?  Even Carl Lewis couldn't get that far in one jump.  

Rand

[ErikKaffehr]

What you don't realise is that the money is already spent.

There is zero development cost for video, although there may be some license fees involved. The ASIC definitively supports video and so does the sensor. Would you think that anyone would develop an ASIC and a sensor without video support and sell at a lower price? Develop two sets of electronic components instead one? Not for commercial reasons.

It would possible to not enable video and not add the video button. That would make the camera more expensive, because they needed two variants.

So video is essentially a zero cost option. Disabling video in camera menus should take care of all problems.

Best regards
Erik

No absurd at all.  Even the cost of design, circuitry, etc. for the stupid physical "movie button" is wasted as far as I'm concerned.  And technology spin off is hardly anything new and has little to do with convergence. 

Rand

[Isaac]

You jump from single purpose to bespoke?

Which new cameras have zero support for video?

When you ask for a camera without video, you're asking for a bespoke camera.

[Vladimirovich]

No absurd at all, IMO.  Even the cost of design, circuitry, etc. for the stupid physical "movie button" is wasted as far as I'm concerned.

it is just a button, you can complain that you can't reassign it for any useful function (in some cameras like Panasonic GH3, albeit you can completely disable it there - but in many cameras that button can be used for still functions like in E-M1)

[Rand47]

What you don't realise is that the money is already spent.

There is zero development cost for video, although there may be some license fees involved. The ASIC definitively supports video and so does the sensor. Would you think that anyone would develop an ASIC and a sensor without video support and sell at a lower price? Develop two sets of electronic components instead one? Not for commercial reasons.

It would possible to not enable video and not add the video button. That would make the camera more expensive, because they needed two variants.

So video is essentially a zero cost option. Disabling video in camera menus should take care of all problems.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

In product manufacture, every 100th penny impacts product margin/cost. Just the physical parts are a waste of money as far as I'm concerned.  One button, the ribbon connector, the portions of the circuit board, etc. all drive up cost for something that is a negative in my view.  That's my point.  Nothing is free.

Best,
Rand

[Isaac]

Just the physical parts are a waste of money as far as I'm concerned.  ...  Nothing is free.

True, variant designs are not free, physical parts for variants are not free, production setup and QA for variants is not free etc

As Erik noted --

It would possible to not enable video and not add the video button. That would make the camera more expensive, because they needed two variants.

Incidentally, I still haven't made use of my camera's video functionality and I have mistakenly hit the video button a couple of times -- but that doesn't blind me to the general expectation that digital cameras will provide video.

Addendum: Note, I still haven't tried to disable the video button on my camera :-)

[daws]

I don't think I have ever agreed more with an article by Mark, or for that matter, LL than this article!

+1.

+2. Having come to digital still photography from 38 years in motion picture film and video, I couldn't agree more.

Not only do I agree, I resent whatever money went into R&D and manufacturing costs for a feature on a camera that I don't want, won't use, and is too often in the way.

How about spend that same money giving me better image quality in one form or another, or a more robust camera design?

Exactly.

[Rand47]

True, variant designs are not free, physical parts for variants are not free, production setup and QA for variants is not free etc

As Erik noted --


Incidentally, I still haven't made use of my camera's video functionality and I have mistakenly hit the video button a couple of times -- but that doesn't blind me to the general expectation that digital cameras will provide video.

Isaac,

You and 99% of us.  That's darn funny.  Thanks for the chuckle.  You've quite eloquently made Mark's point in his essay.  

Best,
Rand

[dreed]

Having come to digital still photography from 38 years in motion picture film and video, I couldn't agree more.

This is the problem.

People are expecting 21st century cameras to work like 20th century cameras.

By way of comparison is your 21st centory phone anything like your 20th century phone?

No.

What do they say about "You can't teach an old dog new tricks"?

Maybe the problem is this: there are lots of people who have cameras and have grown up using cameras that have developed a mindset around how and when to use a camera to create still photographs. A large percentage of these people thus have very little grasp of when or how to use a video camera to capture a moment however there is now a growing customer base of people that are not only creating photographs with the digital camera in their phones but also videos. That growing, younger customer base effectively now expects video to be there and if the rumors of the new Nikon DSLR are true then who does and doesn't buy it may simply be a function of age more than anything else.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that the video feature in digital cameras is being undervalued because a large percentage of digital camera owners don't recognise when to use it, never mind not understanding how to use it but that in the future, this problem will be less prevalent.

[daws]

^ I wondered how long it would take before "The Problem is the Customer is Behind the Times Out of Touch with Today Stupid" was launched floated dropped in the bowl.  

[dreed]

^ I wondered how long it would take before "The Problem is the Customer is Stupid" was dropped in the bowl.  

No, you've got it wrong.

The people who don't care about video aren't seen to be important by manufacturers. Why? Because over time that number of people will diminish, if not in terms of percentage then in absolute numbers.

Why would you engineer and manufacture something for a shrinking market share?

It's not that the customer is stupid but that the customer of 30 years ago is different to the customer of today and the customer of tomorrow.

[daws]

No, you've got it wrong.

The people who don't care about video aren't seen to be important by manufacturers. Why? Because over time that number of people will diminish, if not in terms of percentage then in absolute numbers.

Why would you engineer and manufacture something for a shrinking market share?

It's not that the customer is stupid but that the customer of 30 years ago is different to the customer of today and the customer of tomorrow.

Understood. And thank you for proving the point of Mark's essay.  

[Rand47]

By way of comparison is your 21st centory phone anything like your 20th century phone?

No, it isn't.  It does many more things I want it to do.  But if it had a cigarette lighter function, I'd resent paying for it.  It isn't' a matter of not knowing when to light-up (presumably because I'm too old), it is because I DON'T SMOKE.
What an insulting premise.

Best,
Rand