Are photographers losing out to videographers?

FishyFish

FishyFish

Messages
7,810
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
I was alerted to a blog post today complaining about how stills cameras are increasingly being designed with videography in mind, resulting in features that add to the cost and complexity of the camera but which are not (or little) used by many photographers. Stuff like microphone jacks; fully artuclulated screens that can interfere with tripod brackets; video stabilisation features not available in stills modes; lenses designed to have silent focusing etc. I found it an interesting read.

www.thewanderinglensman.com

As A Photographer, I Feel Like A Second Class Citizen

The Wandering Lensman is a blog about the passion of photography, sharing images as well as thoughts about life, travel, living, etc.
www.thewanderinglensman.com www.thewanderinglensman.com

While I understand that the video features are a must for some users, I wonder how many people, if given the choice of a DSLR or mirrorless camera completely devoid of video features at a reduced price, would go for the cheaper option?
 
I think the biggest implication for me is price as the video centric features can be turned off or just ignored but what makes them possible will inevitably I suppose add to the price of the cameras, maybe to lenses too for all I know.

Stills photographers will very probably be a dying breed though and as the younger get involved they'll expect video and if cameras as we know them don't have it they'll use something else so the cameras really have to have it to survive.
 
Depends how much saving would be involved. I rarely use video but it's nice to have the facility to had should I feel the need. Silent focussing can be a boon to stills photographers too.
 
I doubt that it would reduce the price significantly. The main difference is software and the computing power to run it. Some years ago they had to increase the computing power in DSLR's for JPEG conversion. At that time I would have been happy to have bought a DSLR with Raw output only, if it was cheaper but there may not have been enough customers who would think the same. This may also be true for video which was only taking advantage of the more powerful on board computing. With my last DSLR I rarely used the video but found myself videoing my daughters wedding which turned out to be worthwhile. I upgraded that camera 3 years ago but have never used the video at all. I can see capturing videos could be very attractive but I cannot start what would be a new hobby now and I am happy to stick to still photography.

Dave
 
The savings nowhere near what many suspect.

In order to put live view into dslrs, they’d added the ability to record video. Adding a mic and then the audio jacks costs very little.

So it’s just software, but then we start really pushing video quality and we have to think about faster processors (it’d take someone smarter than me to work out how much more processing speed 8k video needs compared to 20fps at full resolution).

I suppose focus speed and noise then becomes an issue - but it’s not like photographers didn’t want instant focussing silent motors before
 
FishyFish said:
While I understand that the video features are a must for some users, I wonder how many people, if given the choice of a DSLR or mirrorless camera completely devoid of video features at a reduced price, would go for the cheaper option?
Click to expand...

As prices tend to be heavily related to units sold, a dedicated video series of cameras AND a dedicated stills series of cameras, may just result in more expensive cameras for everyone.
 
I believe they still manufacture Video cameras, however I like the video capability on my 7D, it's not as convenient as a video camera but still very useful, AS said I doubt there is much of a cost implication, I remember when video capability first came out on DSLR's As regards articulated screens, I would like one, as I age, getting down is more difficult, or rather getting back up again, than it used to be.
 
For wildlife especially video seems to be the upcoming thing ,even more so if you can edit it properly . Most comments above reflect this
 
I actually find the tilting screen and live view really useful on my 6D 2
I never thought I would but recently it’s been really helpful for macro photography
 
This though?
FishyFish said:
fully artuclulated screens that can interfere with tripod brackets;
Click to expand...
The articulating screen when folded in doesn’t interfere with brackets.
The articulating screen is useful to a majority of photographers.

Less than 1% of all photographs are taken with a tripod
Most tripod users don’t use a tripod bracket.

So what you mean is that a hugely beneficial feature for all photographers isn’t available to a tiny minority who use tripod brackets.

But you’d like to spin it to make it look like it’s a video feature (it isn’t) that’s a hindrance to photographers (it isn’t).
 
Phil V said:
This though?

The articulating screen when folded in doesn’t interfere with brackets.
The articulating screen is useful to a majority of photographers.

Less than 1% of all photographs are taken with a tripod
Most tripod users don’t use a tripod bracket.

So what you mean is that a hugely beneficial feature for all photographers isn’t available to a tiny minority who use tripod brackets.

But you’d like to spin it to make it look like it’s a video feature (it isn’t) that’s a hindrance to photographers (it isn’t).
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the points were paraphrased from the blog post I linked to. I found them interesting, but I’m not necessarily agreeing with them. My main point of interest was the broader suggestion that stills photographers are paying for video features that they might not want. The comments above would point to the case being that, yes, they are, but probably not by a significant amount

I‘m not personally trying to spin anything, I was interested in the broader opinion.
 
I have three dslr cameras.. Al cost over £5k EACH and I never use Live view or video.. Pretty sure whetever the savings made by not having those features it would have been worth it over my £15k spent
 
As above- I have 2 bodies totally around £5,000 +

Have never used the video function on either - so I personally would welcome a video function free body

I can't see that happening anytime soon though- Not with Sony at any rate

Les :)
 
I'd say that both stills photographers and vidographers benefit from multipurpose cameras. Products that would be too expensive to develop for a single, limited market can become profitable when they are sold into two or more seperate markets. Even if you don't use some or even most of the facilities, you still benefit from the lower price made possible by the larger volume of production.

Besides which, you can spend some time in the other man's world and you may well get something out of it! :LOL:
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
would go for the cheaper option?
Click to expand...
Definitely, yes. If it's not there, it can't be broken.

I never make videos with my cameras. The phone does that well enough, but I use it very rarely there too, except for video notes at work.

After all, photography is my hobby. Making movies is something completely different and making a movie where not everyone falls asleep immediately is obviously very difficult. At least judging by what I see ;)
 
I thought the article was a bit of a needless rant and not very well thought through.

—Most You Tube digital camera reviews seem to be now skewed to highlight the video features and still photographic features get a lesser mention.
YouTuber's are video creators (Hence the video you are watching.....) so have a bias towards video features and specs. That being said I can think of plenty that talk at length about the photographic merits of a camera and put their focus here

—Reviewers tell their audiences that a camera is subpar because it doesn't have features such as external microphone and/or headphone jacks.
Same as the above, your "Reviewer" is a video creator...

—The big headlines lately in digital photography is not about more dynamic range, less noise at higher ISOs, but all about overheating when trying to record video
Completely disagree. This is a recent trend purely revolving around the Canon R5 overheating.....

—A small number, I would bet, yet, we are forced to deal with a swing out LCD that is almost impossible to use with an L-bracket on a tripod. Fujifilm created the absolute perfect 3-way tilting LCD screen then went ahead and ruined the X-T4 by putting a fully articulating LCD screen on it. A sad day for us still photographers.
I've used full articulating screens on an L-Bracket just fine.....

—If you examine almost all firmware updates in the past few years, most seem to be aimed toward improving video. Not much has been aimed at still photography.
Up until recently, Fuji was the only major camera brand doing constant firmware updates because of its Kaizen principle, so not true. And if you look at Fuji's main updates, They have centred around improving auto-focus speed and accuracy which is great for wildlife and sports photography.

—You can no longer buy a digital camera without video, as far as I can find.
Not sure why this is a problem, if you don't want video, don't use it. Even my D3400 had video features and it cost £300.....

—Already 4K video is now passé. 8K vdeo is all of a sudden the "new, best thing" and, mark my words, you will see more and more cameras come out with 8K video in the next couple of years, with a commensurate higher price tag, despite the fact that there is almost no 4k content available for general viewing. I hear the video people now complain about how processor intensive and how much memory 4K takes. Good luck with 8K!
Not sure where the higher price tags comes in, the Canon R5 is on par with the Canon 5D Mark IV when it came out....

—Beyond IBIS, manufacturers are now adding a digital-based IS system so you can walk make your video appear as though it is on a gimbal or tripod. I love the idea of more IBIS capabilities but that digital stabilization feature is not available to still photographers. Yet, another video based feature we still photographers can't use... But we're paying for it.
I don't think the writer knows how digital stabilisation works....

—Today's lenses are being developed and marketed to the video crowd as they can be silently focused. Still photographers don't need silent focusing.
Tell that to a wedding photographer....
 
Although my DSLR 5D4 has video, I have not yet used it. I believe it is possible to pull a single frame out of a video sequence. Has anyone done this? Could this feature be exploited more in future?

Dave
 
redsnappa said:
That factor is age, you are all old and come from a time where each device or gadget had one function only. I still hear older (usually) men moaning that their phone has a camera on it.
Click to expand...

That's a rather sweeping statement. What proportion of the "old" welcome multifunction gadgets compared to the proportion of the "old" that don't. How have you made this assessment. Not everyone who posted here was against stills cameras including video. I'm also not sure how you can tell peoples ages on the forum, and you seem to have extended your statement beyond the forum anyway.

To stick with video features, and coming from a time when making cine films was incredibly expensive, and the practicalities of doing cine and stills meant it was effectively impossible, I think the video capability in stills cameras is fantastic addition.

It's "because" I'm old and can remember how it was in the "old days" that I think the multifunction capability of cameras are fantastic. You just have to ignore the bits you don't like, or/and choose a camera where the features you don't like are the least intrusive to its operation.

I'm also very pleased to have my camera phone available for the very rare occasion that I use it (a few times a year as a camera, but weekly with the Viewfinder II app). Having a camera with me all the time is rather comforting, even if its not the greatest camera in the world (iPhone 7).

And I've already said, that because of the economy of scale, I am dubious there would be any worthwhile savings to be had by stripping out the video capability in stills cameras.
 
I am also old but welcome new technology. As I have indicated I don't currently use my video features on my DSLR. However, I used to make many videos of my children with a camcorder and have digitised the videos. Had I had these facilities in my DSLR at the time, I would have been pleased but that came much later when my children had grown up.

Dave
 
FishyFish said:
While I understand that the video features are a must for some users, I wonder how many people, if given the choice of a DSLR or mirrorless camera completely devoid of video features at a reduced price, would go for the cheaper option?
Click to expand...

If you want a cheaper stills camera, buy older cameras? Unless you have a specific niche, digital stills tech has matured for the majority. Video tech is still advancing and is of course the headline on new cameras.
 
I'm not sure the article holds up to be honest, stills capabilities haven't really moved on much in the last five years, where as video has come on in leaps and bounds. I shoot with a D810 which is about 5 years old and is basically on a par with that of a Z7 or D850 purely for stills. If you want a stills-centric camera just buy an older camera.
 
I can't believe you are still having this rather pointless debate. Video vs still is ONLY about the sensor readout rates and data compression, the rest is exactly identical process. i.e. when you take your high res stills the camera can takes its sweet time to record it to the cards. For video they have to basically deal with the same card and cable bandwith so they have to downsample, compress and limit the fps to fit into that technical restriction. The sensor readout is still the same, just like you pop live view on and watch that video stream. So no, you are not paying any extra for the features, you are paying for a universal sensor that will eventually shoot 8K stills at 30fps. In fact the R5 does now. If you are not happy you are free to buy lesser or older models or even go back to film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top