# Why all the hate for still camers?



## Neeneko (Feb 29, 2012)

This is sorta the inverse of the 'why so much hate for VDSLRs' thread, since it got me wondering.. why so much hate for dedicated still cameras?

In general the people asking for a stills-only camera are not suggesting multimedia cameras shouldn't exist, they just want something optimized for their use case.. so why is this so offensive, or why are people so defensive about their preferred combination of features?

Is it really that threatening to have other choices on the market? Does it really have to be all or nothing? Is it insecurity or fear that if Canon produces both types that they will no longer cater to the needs of videographers? Is it begin threatened that other use cases have a voice which leads to less of their own? Is it riding the high of being a major design focus and not wanting it to end? Is it simply discomfort at being reminded that there are more types of photography and thus their one twue way might not be the type of the market? Is it techno elitism and the ego bruising that goes along with that (anyone who follows slashdot can see what happens when someone *gasp* does not see the obvious greatness in someone's favorite tech..)?

I am really curious why people seem to feel it is so important that their market segment eradicate another, and that space can not be shared.


----------



## Beautor (Feb 29, 2012)

I like the cut of your jib. 

When I started the thread asking why people hate video in DSLRs I was honestly curious if anyone had a verifiable complaint showing how having video capabilities in their still camera reduced the quality of their pictures. Personally I don't shoot video with my 60D. I bought it because it was a good step up from my wife's previous T1i, and allowed her to expand her photography skills. When I buy a 5D, it will be because it is a fantastic camera that takes amazing still images. The video will be a simple perk that I'll rarely if ever use. If I had the option between a DSLR with or without video, and the one without video was significantly cheaper (10% or more) I would definitely go with the a still only camera. 

On the other hand, I just don't see that it make a lot of sense from a marketing perspective to bring out two, almost equivilant camera's, one and one without video just to make a few hundred people happy. With the 5D series, I'm sure Canon is looking to have sales in the millions of units each year. By adding a few lines of code and a microphone to an existing unit they've expanded their market enormously, allowing a huge increase in R&D funding to create new and better features in each new model. 

I honestly don't think there is enough demand for a still-only DSLR to justify making another line. Reading through the threads here on CR, it appears that there's a half dozen advocates for the still-only DSLR, and hundreds of others who either like video or don't care enough to post about it.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 29, 2012)

neeneko, I think it's primarily a function of development and marketing costs. at the end of the day, yes, it is cheaper, and simpler, for canon to develop a single camera at any given price point that incorporates as many general functions as is reasonable for them to put into it, rather than splitting a product into two or three subproducts. having two mass consumer versions of a 5D-type camera, for instance, would complicate production scheduling, shipping and inventory, and fundamentally may confuse consumers. this goes all the way from Canon HQ down to the level of the local camera store. I'll bet you there's a lot of people interested in buying the new Nikon D800/D800E who are scratching their heads trying to figure out if they're purchasing the right one, or what they're missing out on if they don't purchase the other one, or if one is strictly better than the other.


----------



## SPG (Feb 29, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Is it really that threatening to have other choices on the market? Does it really have to be all or nothing? Is it insecurity or fear that if Canon produces both types that they will no longer cater to the needs of videographers? Is it begin threatened that other use cases have a voice which leads to less of their own? Is it riding the high of being a major design focus and not wanting it to end? Is it simply discomfort at being reminded that there are more types of photography and thus their one twue way might not be the type of the market? Is it techno elitism and the ego bruising that goes along with that (anyone who follows slashdot can see what happens when someone *gasp* does not see the obvious greatness in someone's favorite tech..)?



Or is it all of the above?

Seriously though, beyond the emotional aspects of having your camera able to do something else, there is no way that Canon would compromise the still image capability of their cameras. They know that they sell a lot more of these to customers that are primarily still photographers. The people who work in the camera division of Canon are all there to make still cameras. That's their background and it's what they do. The popularity of the video side really did catch them by surprise, and although they do like selling more cameras because of it, they're pragmatic enough to understand that their bread and butter comes from photographers. They caught on to the DSLR video movement and introduced the 7D, but beyond that they've really just made small tweaks in the same video capability up until now. They also understand that they don't need to make any of their stills cameras perfect for video at the expense of stills use as they've launched the Cinema EOS division to accomodate that need. 
Since I do both photography and video I'm quite happy at the way it looks like things are heading. Excellent stills cameras with improved video. If business picks up I might get a more dedicated video camera, but for now it's nice to have one that does both well.


----------



## Waterdonkey (Feb 29, 2012)

So best I can figure is that the "Haters" feel that the video gets in the way of, or crowds out pure photo functionality. 

BULL S#?T! By this logic we should be arguing over 100MP FF cameras with DR of like 40 and a useable iso up to 5,000,000. ??? Come on this is not a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario. 

5D M II brought an entire new audience to the DSLR market. Raise the buyer volume and it helps keep the price down. You are't paying any extra for having video that you don't use.


----------



## Del (Feb 29, 2012)

Waterdonkey said:


> 5D M II brought an entire new audience to the DSLR market. Raise the buyer volume and it helps keep the price down. You are't paying any extra for having video that you don't use.



+1 Well said. 

Just look at hit TV series like 'House' recorded entirely on Canon 5D Mk II's + presumably canon L primes

HD DSLRs do not just add a new potential set of users/buyers who incidentally keep residual values way higher for still photo users (which they benefit greatly from when they wish to trade-up, for example to the Mk III), but they add a new dimension to the way ordinary folk can now capture video/events.


----------



## daveswan (Mar 1, 2012)

I don't hate stills only cameras, it's just that I wouldn't buy one at this point.

ATM I use a 5D original for "photography" and a 550D for movies. I hardly ever use it for straight photography, but I'm hoping that the next generation of Canon DSLRs will combine stunning raw stills and clean motion with DR comparable to the stills DR.

Else I'll probably get a GH2 and apply the Driftwood Seaquake hack for movies, even though tI don't like the small sensor.


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 1, 2012)

I absolutely don't hate stills only cameras

but some people say a camera is worse just because it has video, and that's plain wrong

adding video to a camera which already has live view is basically free

as I already said on another thread, a high-end video processor (the one on the C300) is a very very cheap piece of silicon, it costs less than the weather sealed plugs on a weather-sealed camera (and I don't see anybody complaining that they don't shoot in the rain, so they want a non-weather-sealed 5D3)


----------



## wockawocka (Mar 1, 2012)

I hardly use video but you can imagine the scenario if they did stills only and stills with video:

Say the 5D3 is released and it's $4000

Then we fly to an alternative universe where there are two models.

Without video = $4000
With = $5000

It's not being hated on at all, tbh I'd rather have an amazing stills camera than a bit of both but I don't think these days it takes that much extra tech to do video as well. So it gets included, then becomes a measure of a cameras quality because of it.


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 1, 2012)

Waterdonkey said:


> So best I can figure is that the "Haters" feel that the video gets in the way of, or crowds out pure photo functionality.
> 
> BULL S#?T! By this logic we should be arguing over 100MP FF cameras with DR of like 40 and a useable iso up to 5,000,000. ??? Come on this is not a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario.
> 
> 5D M II brought an entire new audience to the DSLR market. Raise the buyer volume and it helps keep the price down. You are't paying any extra for having video that you don't use.



To be blunt, we don't know this, and probably never will.

There is a trade off in situations like this, increased development costs/design compromises, vs increased volume producing higher sales. It is plausible either dominates the equation, but anyone who claims to know for sure which one is the bigger factor is a little too sure of their own guesswork.

But make no mistake, video is not 'free', it comes at a cost. The real question is, is this cost higher or lower then the price reduction due to increased market volume.


----------



## SPG (Mar 2, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> Then we fly to an alternative universe where there are two models.
> 
> Without video = $4000
> With = $5000
> ...


Not to rehash this, but the reality is that it's more like this:

Without video = $3500
With = $3500

It's not being hated on, it's just that live view already enabled video in DSLRs, so the only addition are components like the new headphone jack and .... not a whole lot else. Consider that Canon can now sell more cameras to filmmakers and so they're making enough profit to more than cover for that new headphone jack and even lower the price due to economies of scale. So maybe in the real world DSLRs would cost even more without video?


----------



## infared (Mar 2, 2012)

I agree. I would love to go back to the world of a Still Camera. I FINALLY bought a digital camera because I thought that that camera was "there-there" (5D Mark II) with digital still imaging at a price I could almost afford! LOL!. The quality I sought was in that camera. The first thing I did was go into the menu and disable the video button, (one less way to make an error). I come from an era where still shooters were still shooters and film/video was something completely different. They certainly were (are still are in my mind), two astoundingly different disciplines/art-forms. 
Not long after I made my major camera purchase did I come to find out that "my" cherished still camera was one of the hottest video cameras going and that people were shooting commercials, TV shows and Movies with it? I just scratched my head, kept shooting and wondered if my camera could have cost about $1000 less if it was EVERYTHING that was a still-camera and non of the video capabilities?????
I have to say, with the video button disabled, I though that the camera was an un-compromised still camera.
So..if the new 5D Mark III had no video would it sell for $2500????? I will never know. I just have to accept that it is a new world of combo cameras, (from point-and shoots to high-end rigs) and it isn't going away anytime soon.
So far I really think the manufacturers that I have bought and used a LOT (Canon and Panasonic MFT) are very courteous to us still guys in the way that the cameras are laid out. I do not know how it is for the video shooters!


----------

