# I just want a stills camera.



## Ozarker (Feb 23, 2015)

There is some fantastic technology out there and our DSLRs can do some very spectacular things. Our phones can too. Here's the rub: When I get a phone, all I really want is a phone; something to make phone calls with. I personally don't like taking photos and video with the phone, surfing the internet with it, playing games on it, etc. I think it is great that the phones can do that, but I don't use those features. I know people do, and it is great for them. I'm happy for them. But haven't you ever just wished you could just buy a phone without all that?

I have both a T5i and a 70D. They both take great video as far as I am concerned, but it is something I never use.

Have you ever just wished you could buy a DSLR that wasn't an attempt by the manufacturer to develop a "jack of all trades" camera? I'd like to be able to buy a Canon DSLR that focused purely on being a picture taking instrument. I'm wondering whether or not what we use today to take photos would be leaps and bounds further along the evolutionary trail if so much extra technology didn't have to be crammed into such a small case.

Don't misunderstand, please. My 70D is a technological wonder. It is. Thing is, I only use it for photos. What if there was a model segment in the Canon line that just focused on being great cameras? Not cameras and video cameras, but just cameras? Does anyone else wonder this or long for this? Not saying Canon should scrap the cameras that try to do it all (I like them)... but just maybe there should be "L" bodies that focus just on photography. I do not know if the Canon Cine Cameras take photos, but aren't they sort of an "L" video camera?


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 23, 2015)

I agree, and have been "bashed' for that thought right here on this site. I've owned a 30D, 60D, 7D, 7D2, and a 5DM3. All shoot video -- but I've never shot a single frame of video in any one of these cameras, ever.

It appear the DSLR's of today aim for the video user, improve the camera functions to create quality video for the consumer, and as a by-product of that technology, improve the stills function as well. I know, I know, that's probably not true, but it seems it when you listen to the ads factor in video as a secondary function but make it a big deal to have it. If I have a choice, 'I'd go with a stills only camera and hope it improved the stills function even more each generation.


----------



## Good24 (Feb 23, 2015)

I agree... but will play devil's advocate to some degree. I think it seems that the video capabilities within a DSLR are here to stay, since 1) it's already been integrated into the bodies and 2) I'm guessing the "stills only" crowd is a small minority and the vast majority of consumers do want some video functions.

But a DSLR that is geared towards a still shooter is still on my wish list. I envision it will still have some video functions. The 6D almost fulfills this, in my opinion except that it skimped on a key still photo feature, the AF. If the current 6D had the 19-pt. cross type AF system of the 7D, it would be near perfect for me. (I'd also like 1/8000 shutter speed - another still photo feature that was skimped on b/c I do shoot wide open and do find myself shooting at 1/6400 and 1/8000 from time to time.) 

Part of the frustration (mine and I'm guessing the OP's) is that you feel like you are paying for new/extra features you don't need. For example, if the 6D Mark II has dual pixal AF, which is really a video function, it becomes a turn off. Don't load it up with video features and skimp on stills features. 

Another note: I want more interchangeable focus screens incl. a split prism and/or microprism collar. Now that is a true stills feature. The 5D and 7D lines don't allow for interchangeable focus screens. Only the 6D (and the 5D Mark II and I think the 1D) allow it. 

Bottom line, for me, I'd love to see the 6D line be devoted to stills. It can and should have video functions, I get that. But don't load it up with the latest video capabilities. Load it up with stills capabilities. Add better AF. Introduce new focus screens. Give it the latest sensor/processor. To me, that's what the 6D Mark II should be.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 23, 2015)

Get a 5D.

I notice that in the UK prices of good, used late production 5Ds ( no, not the 5Ds, the plural of the original 5D) are actually beginning to go up.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 23, 2015)

*Re: Nikon Df*

I thought the Nikon Df put this to rest. When it came out it was hailed by lots of stills purists as the "Right Thing." Sales were mediocre: it was not a total bust, but not successful either.

DSLR stills-only is not only dead, but its dessicated skull is the muse for a soliloquy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 23, 2015)

A stills only Camera will be a niche camera that only appeals to a few buyers. Nikon found this out with the DF. It does not take better photos than a camera with video, does not cost less, and has little resale value. Buyers looked at it and said "Whats the Point?"

For those who want stills only, get a DF. Canon has and probably will continue mass marketing cameras, their entire production and marketing distribution system is setup for it. Its what they do best, turn out a good, reliable product that may not be the best, but costs less and still makes a bigger profit.

So far, Sony has not been able to match the low cost of production that Canon has, so their profits are slim. They are planning on going all out with sensor sales and are making big $$ on those. The market forcast is for sensors to be integrated into everything, from Cameras, and Phones to cars, TV sets, Microwaves, Games,
Houses, Everything. All products will be smart products and recognize the owner, its going to change a lot of things.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2015)

The Nikon DF is a FAIL due to it's fugly retro design and its even uglier and half-assed pseudo-retro USER INTERFACE, combined with the fact that it was build on the basis of the consumer-grade D600 instead of taking a D800 as base model. Plus of course the price tag Nikon put on it.

Had Nikon truly made the Nikon DF a "pure stills only camera" as suggested in their fabulous teaser campaign for it, and priced it sensibly - either D800 body (minus video capture) and D4s sensor in it at the Df price tag or D600 body plus D4 sensor at a significantly lower price tag, it would have been a total home run for Nikon. But, they missed it.

I have not ever recorded a single minute of video with any of all my video enabled DSLRs (and mirrorless cameras). And I won't ever, because I lack any skills as movie maker/cinematograph/director and it takes me more than enough time just to PP my stills images. Can't even imagine starting to edit videos or putting suitable sound in them. 

I know A LOT of other people with DSLRs, MILC, compact cams, smartphones and tablets who never ever capture videos at all. I would definitely be more than ready to buy a "fully stills-optimzed" camera. Of course not in a fat old mirrorslapper with pseudo-retro UI, but as a FF-sensored mirrorless cam without HD / 4k video out (but WITH live View viedo feed!) ... at a 20% lower price or with 20% better stills features at the same price. Either way.


----------



## mps (Feb 23, 2015)

then get the new 5ds/r, (almost) no video features there...

besides...

so what? your cam has a videofunction you dont use? then dont use it! i personally shoot mostly video, but i NEVER thought crying about my camera having a photo function! (yeah, i know... then get a camcorder.. bäh, a couple of years ago if you wanted a big sensor you HAD to get a dslr, and oddly enough i dont like the ergonomics of most of the newer s35 camcorders - sony fs7 could change my mind...)

its not like a "pure" stills cam would take better stills than one with video function (this only works the other way round, lol) and looking at the nikon df´s price you dont pay less either - so why care?


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 23, 2015)

FYI, monkey, the 30D did not have video, it didn't even have live view feature. That being said, i remember many moons ago when the 50D was announced and released... It was a stills only camera... and not only did it have a sizable jump in resolution, it also sported the live view (but not video). Many arm chair pundits and reviewers bashed it because it had the video technology but no video. Software companies like magic lantern even took it upon themselves to try to unlock the video. Feed. Shortly after, the 5d2 came out, Drum Roll Please...with video. Now it's been debated, upon here and throughout the interwebs, how much of a difference, if any, would there be if they released a camera with no video. It was agreed that there likely would not be any additional advances in that camera vs a camera with video, and as long as it had live view, it likely wouldn't be cheaper either. So as far as a "Jack of all trades" mentality, i think your going to be disappointed by my response, but if you want a stills only camera, feel free to buy a older camera, a film camera, or medium format if you wish. Most DSLR's are aimed primarily as a stills camera with video functionality built in, with the exception of the C series of cameras. If you dont like video, dont use it. In the event you ever need it, a kids birthday, some other event, then you got it. But hoping that you can get a stills only camera that perhaps have better features (stills wise) than the current cameras with video, is a foolhardy proposition. You may have a case about it being slightly cheaper, but that likely wouldn't happen either... So in the meantime, dont let video slow you down or discourage you from shooting and enjoy what you got right now.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 23, 2015)

A stills only camera would appeal to a smaller audience which would drive up the cost. I don't really use video, but I don't care it's there. I don't use bulb mode either and some other features my camera has.

And remember, "video", is still very much a part of "stills photography"... Just a bunch of low res blurry pics tied together.


----------



## slclick (Feb 23, 2015)

Leica. 

I see your point, I agree with your point but I accept Canon's decisions. I too am a stills only shooter. I use a 5D3, which can take amazing video in the right hands. There have been many threads and posts on the economics of adding or subtracting certain feature sets from a dslr and some folks get pretty heated up about it. 

I see it this way, there quite a few functions on my camera that I don't use, video is only one of them. I just ignore those menus and set my custom functions to suit me.


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 23, 2015)

Don't think anyone here is "crying" over it ...

The idea behind OP thoughts (maybe) and mine for certain, if we had R&D on stills only, and R&D on video, BOTH would improve separately, and the stills developers would be focused on stills improvement, instead of the stills improvement coming as a by-product of video production.

Far as the engineering, I'm not sure how that affects one or the other. But as is usually the case, when one tries to combine two different 'abilities', both usually suffer - even if it's a minor amount. 

I'm betting it's more the consumer factor ($$$), that more consumers want the ability to do both in one unit - so it drives the sales. I'm also betting if Canon (or Nikon, or Sony) built a very high-end Pro level stills camera that captured 'better' images than other models, it would carry the Pro market. It's unlikely that anyone shooting video with a DSLR does it for high-end professional reasons -- videos of the family events, and maybe something like the RE sales videos or promotions, or a quick video on a one-shot marketing campaign (tele-commercials) but never for true video as in movies or documentary -- Cinema cameras cover that level of production.

Yes, we can simply not use it -- but my guess - if development centered on still images, the improvement would be greater and quicker than developing both. The fact is too, we still pay for it, and it weighs at least something, even if lightweight.

This discussion will continue, like that about Nikon and Canon 'better' threads ... because those that use it think it is necessary or great and would complain if it disappeared, and those that don't use it and could care less if it even exists. Both positions are correct for individuals -- so the discussion will never end with either side a 'winner' ...


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 23, 2015)

You may not need video, but are you using features that are accomplished by having the video component?

- Live view gives a great method to frame, focus, expose all remotely, either tethered or wireless. No video = no live view

- 10x magnification - shooting macro and need to be sure it's in focus, done

- focus peaking - manual focus via an adapter and make sure what you want is in focus

Besides, the design considerations done for video can't hinder a camera. Think thermal management and readout on the chip - things that video pushes a lot.

If you want a stills camera, might I suggest the 645D from Pentax. It's 40MP, lots of legacy glass options, and doesn't have a lick of video ability.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 23, 2015)

Nikon tried a camera "pure photography" with the ugly Nikon DF. :-[ Sales were not good, and do not think Canon will try something like that.

The question is:
A camera for photos only, will be cheaper to produce?

The answer is:
If this camera sells fewer units, its price must be high to offset weak sales.

This is a vicious cycle:
Is it expensive because it sells too little? Or sells too little because it is expensive? : :-X


----------



## cpreston (Feb 23, 2015)

Seriously, you are buying a stills camera. For Canon, the video is purely an afterthought outside of the 1DC, a few design aspects of the 5DIII and possibly the 70D. Pretty much every aspect that affects video performance also benefits photo performance. Sure, the headphone jack and amp could go, but those are cheap junk. The dual pixel technology is very useful for those who like to shoot off an LCD. Sure, you could remove the LCD entirely and have a fully dedicated photos camera, but I doubt there are any photographers clamoring for that.

Seriously, the design and cost considerations for video are all in the consumers mind. Marketing realizes this and markets to photographers and videographers prejudices with these so called dedicated cameras, but images are images. And the video images from Canon DSLR's are well known to be seriously hobbled due to the fact that the sensor and processors are designed entirely for single still images and a mirror.


----------



## SPL (Feb 23, 2015)

I agree!, I have used a T1i, 7D, 6D, 1DX, and now currently use a 5D III. Not once have I used the video function in any of these cameras. Now,…that’s just me and the needs I want of my equipment…Canon has some absolutely fantastic video features in their bodies…I just don’t use them. The video function will have to just sit there patiently until the next owner wishes to explore and use it. If there was a Canon body with better stills functions and no video capability…I would probably have it in my bag…..but cost/production reasons, probably not feasible, and that is OK.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 23, 2015)

Get a 5D3!!! Wait a minute, I just read the owner's manual... apparently my 3 year old 5D3's take video ??? Never knew that or cared as I don't ever use it. Don't think removing it would make a change in price or use... at least for me. Actually if it were removed you''d be hearing from the peanut gallery about how evil Canon crippled it... boooo hooo hooo...


----------



## dak723 (Feb 23, 2015)

Put me down as another DSLR owner that has never shot a second of video - so, yes, I would buy a stills only camera if it meant doing away with all the video associated functions (including live view) IF that made the camera cheaper. Otherwise these functions don't get in my way and can be ignored, so it doesn't really matter much. Removing the video won't increase the stills IQ, so it really would only be a benefit if the price was lower.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm partly with the OP.

We have a Sony blueray player that tries to be so clever it's almost unusable. All we want is a DVD player, but it's running a full OS inside it so it takes for even to do anything and even crashes entirely occasionally.. dire pice of junk.... less is more, reliability is under-rated... thinking about it a raspberry pi, a very cut down linux kernal and a USB DVD drive would probably suffice. (It's what I'm doing for a NAS)

Camera wise I have the aforementioned 30D and I would have found live view useful for astrophotography focussing, but now I've gone CCD there I don't need it.

The next camera will have video as it comes for free, but I really won't use it much (I can think of one use: my daughter playing her clarinet). If I came into money I'd take a 5Ds for a test drive as it looks like a camera aimed at stills, where basic video comes along for the ride.


----------



## slclick (Feb 23, 2015)

As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2015)

slclick said:


> As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!



Live view video stream for a svga lcd (at best) for short durations at a time is quite a low requirement compared to 4k video capture for up to 29 minutes duration. 

The entire camera, sensor, thermal concept, d/a components, electronics, heat sinks, codecs, firmware, menus etc. is different and more complex than a pure stills capture photo camera - even with live view.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Does anyone else wonder this or long for this?



Lotsa people have been wondering for ages, and this is a very popular topic. The usual answer is that is afaik ...


doing special-purpose cams for a minority would be more expensive, so you're actually spending *less* money for *more* features on mass-produced still-video hybrid dslrs
not using video isn't very hurtful if you discount the stronger aa filter that might be weaker for pure stills
video is a "free" add-on concerning the technology, nothing special about grabbing frames of the sensor and then putting 'em into a video stream instead of a jpeg. Sure, they have to put some r&d into it, but not adding the existing firmware to a camera wouldn't do you any good.

If you feel very strongly about this, do a Magic Lantern "anti-feature" request - I guess it's fairly easy to disable (and probably hide) all video functions on your dslr to stop any confusion and malicious feelings 

Last not least, you'll *love* video on the upcoming 4k cameras if you can grab 120 raw frames from the video stream - compare this to an expensive 1dx that needs lots of sturdy tech to flip the mirror 12x per second...


----------



## meywd (Feb 23, 2015)

So the 1D X is not a camera made for stills? or does having a video mode on it affect the image quality? the same goes for the 5D/7D, ignore that it has a video mode and live happily ever after.


----------



## slclick (Feb 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!
> ...



That's great but I'm still glad.


----------



## cpreston (Feb 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> The entire camera, sensor, thermal concept, d/a components, electronics, heat sinks, codecs, firmware, menus etc. is different and more complex than a pure stills capture photo camera - even with live view.



And that is why you have the cinema series. Trust me, Canon DSLR's are designed as stills cameras with an incredibly cheap mic and a simple algorithm for saving the sensor readout as H.264 file added so that it can record video. My understanding is that the 5D3 may have had the sensor designed with a certain number of photosites that allows 1080p pixel binning, but it didn't hurt photos unless you are wedded to a very specific resolution. Also, processing and heat removal have more of an effect on video than photography, but I doubt any photographer complains when the fps of a camera increases due to increased processing and sensor speeds.

The technologies are the same, it's just the use that is different.


----------



## Good24 (Feb 24, 2015)

slclick said:


> As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!



If Canon offered better focus screens, you wouldn't need live view! 

I mean, that really makes my point. I'm not 100% with OP - there will be video, and that's a good thing, and a stills-only camera isn't realistic. But still I want Canon to be sensitive to stills shooters and enthusiasts. I believe in the SLR experience, where you hold the camera eyepiece to your eye. Call me old fashioned. I use Live View too but I resent that I have to because the focus screens are weak.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2015)

Good24 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > As a macro shooter I can't do without Live View so I guess I'm glad the video is there!
> ...



Not just weak, non interchangeable on that model.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 24, 2015)

It is amazing what people extrapolate from what I said. 

1. I said the current cameras were technological wonders (I love both of mine and I am contemplating a 1Dx or its replacement when it comes out.). 

2. I have nothing against Canon having video on their cameras. I'm happy the video feature is there for those that use it. 

3. I never said or suggested that a pure stills camera was wanted because it would be less expensive. In fact, the cameras right now are less expensive than they would be as stand alones because they are designed, marketed, and appeal to a very wide audience of consumers.

4. I certainly wasn't crying about anything, but I would now suggest that the poster who said so is a little too emotional about the topic. Untwist your panties.

It never fails that people write and act in such a rude way when they can hide behind a screen. Those same people aren't such sloppy jerks when it comes to face to face interaction. They know better, and might have to account for their boorish behavior.

5. The post had to do with whether or not a stills camera allowed to evolve on it's own, without having to cram so much more technology into the small case, might evolve more quickly and be a better camera in the long run. It is a question, not a manifesto. It makes sense to me that the size of the platform limits what can be crammed in there.

I see no reason why "live view" is necessarily dependent upon having video recording capabilities in the camera. My got dang car looks out its back end and doesn't record a cotton picken thing. Live view doesn't record anything when using it on the camera either. It is using the same sensor one takes photos with... like looking through an electronic view finder.

Yes, I can just ignore the video features, and I do. Duh. That isn't the point or question posed in the post. Sheesh!


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 24, 2015)

I guess the OP's question could be rephrased:
Does video function in DSLRs interfere with the development of actual still-photography capabilities? e.g., would a 1/100,000s be standard exposure time, were it not for the video features?
I doubt that. Most of the video functionality is soft-ware based, maybe with the exception of the microphone and the sound/video in/out ports. A stills-only camera may be slightly cheaper to design/manufacture, but considering sales volume, those savings go out the window in a heart beat.
I'm another stills only photographer. Very happy that the 5dSR has "only" rudimentary video features. That is a big positive selling point for me.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2015)

A camera without unnecessary holes in its shell for mic, speakers, video-only connectors would be better and cheaper to weatherseal. Those holes are additional video-induced compromises and weaknesses compared to what a pure stills machine would be. And never ever used by the makority of people purchasing these cameras. Stills only, no real video use is not a minority for Dslr users, but a massive majority.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 24, 2015)

Hi Folks. 
Just a thought, but didn't video limit the stills abilities of my camera, the 7D with that over powering AA filter in front of what was at its time a great sensor? Hasn't this been shown to be a fact by the other bodies which used the sensor with a less aggressive AA filter proud un sharper images? 
So video did hurt at least one body, but I also use the video function in preference to my phone for short clips at parties etc (because it is there and what the hell) and understand that it's here to stay and helps keep the cost of the camera down, and when I'm not using it, it causes no grief and if I never use it again it won't change the way the camera works. 
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the 7D, as if I have to give permission!  : ;D ;D

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 24, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 5. The post had to do with whether or not a stills camera allowed to evolve on it's own, without having to cram so much more technology into the small case, might evolve more quickly and be a better camera in the long run. It is a question, not a manifesto.



I imagine that the development teams are divided into photography and videography groups. Would putting twice as many people into photography software improve photography? Maaaaybe, but more likely they'd just finish the work package sooner. 

If there are video-specific hardware compromises made, such as an strong low pass filter (mentioned above), then it's possible a stills-only camera would be a little better than a hybrid. I suspect those situations are rare, and that no, photography wouldn't evolve significantly faster if it weren't for video.



AvTvM said:


> A camera without unnecessary holes in its shell for mic, speakers, video-only connectors would be better and cheaper to weatherseal. Those holes are additional video-induced compromises and weaknesses compared to what a pure stills machine would be.



Kind of picking a nit, there. Neither a rather insignificant body weakness nor the cost of a gasket have any impact on still photography performance, any more than the presence of a mirror box impacts video performance. If they created light leaks, that would be another story entirely.


----------

