Is it just me?

[hsjd700]

I have no interest in movie mode. I just want to take photographs. So, why is it then, when I purchase a new camera, I have to pay for the unwanted Technology of movie mode? If I wanted to make movies I would bye a dedicated movie camera. I Wonder, would Nikon sell more or less cameras? Would Nikon's dedicated still camera have a market? and if so, could we see a Z7 ll stills camera (Hypothetically) sell for a $1000 dollars cheaper? Or is it just me having a rant? : (

 

[Robin]

Hi I feel exactly the same having no wish or need of a movie mode.
It would be great to have the option of stills only camera especially at a lower cost .
It would be interesting to know how many folks would prefer just the camera option without video at a reduced cost ?
Rant away

 

[StefanSC]

Realistically, the cost of implementing video in a modern ML and DSLR is quite low at this point. It's just a side-effect of providing live-view, faster sensor readouts for high FPS and low latency EVFs and electronic shutters with litle distortion.

I'd guesstimate that it's under 10% of the total production costs of developing a new camera.
Also, I'd guesstimate that not having video would decrease sales of most cameras by more than 10%.

So there is a chance in the long-run that a camera without video would be more expensive than the same camera but with video .

 

[JANuser]

Does movie mode add cost? Maybe a little, there are licence fees for the video codecs, and some countries (EU) put import fees on video cameras (which is why Nikon cameras used to have time recording limits). It likely makes up less than 5% of the cameras per unit cost, so Nikon wont be making this kind of camera for a niche group of shooters any time soon.

 

[jeffnles1]

I never had much interest in video until my wife got a new Sony bridge camera (RX10-iv) while her old RX10-iv was in the shop for repairs. I "inherited" the repaired one and use it mainly for video. I'm no videographer and don't anticipate being a competition for any of the YouTube giants but I will say video is fun and has expanded my photography. I still shoot thousands of stills for every few minutes of video but there are some animal behaviors that are much more expressive in video than a sequence of stills.

The one thing that may sway me from my D500 to a Z6/Z7ii or maybe a Canon/Sony mirrorless system would be the ability to quickly go from stills to video with the same camera while keeping my eye glued to the viewfinder.

Jeff
(edited to correct my bad typing skills).

 

[DavidT]

I’m with you. Never have taken a video with my cameras and don’t care to. The you tubers make such a big deal about 8k and flip to side screens but who has 8k displays? Who wants to deal with these massive files? No one so it’s stupid camera companies are even bothering with it.

 

[Charles Loy]

I don't use the movie mode, I ignore it.

 

[forestB]

I too have always wondered why all cameras have a video option. It would be nice if ordering a camera was similar to a laptop and you could build it with the features you choose and the finial price was a result of your wants and needs. Oh well the grass is always greener right!

 

[forestB]

As far as the cost being low to provide video I disagree. I feel like stills photographers are fronting the bill for R&D so that videographers can get another 4K of resolution and some overheating issues until the second firmware is released.

 

[Strodav]

Good post OP. I skip over the parts of the camera reviews that go through video capabilities and video has virtually no sway in my photo equipment purchases. I understand that vlogging is important to some, but not to me. When I want to capture a little video, it’s usually for family events where I use my iPhone.

 

[JANuser]

I’ll be honest, this is kind of funny to read. You all seem to want 20+ FPS from your cameras, but you hate video. You are basicly shooting video at that point. Heck if you want fast frame rates shoot video. 30FPS, 60FPS, 120FPS+. 8k and beyond, you want that too. Once video is high enough resolution just take a freeze frame from the video. Never miss a shot again. You’ll also never have to worry about the buffer again, shoot video till you get what you want. Just ignore video centric shutter speeds and you get what you want.

 

[Strodav]

I’ll be honest, this is kind of funny to read. You all seem to want 20+ FPS from your cameras, but you hate video. You are basicly shooting video at that point. Heck if you want fast frame rates shoot video. 30FPS, 60FPS, 120FPS+. 8k and beyond, you want that too. Once video is high enough resolution just take a freeze frame from the video. Never miss a shot again. You’ll also never have to worry about the buffer again, shoot video till you get what you want. Just ignore video centric shutter speeds and you get what you want.

If you are saying designing for video makes for a good still camera, OK. That might be partially true, but I don’t hate video. Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s just not important to me.

 

[Woodpecker]

I have no interest in movie mode. I just want to take photographs. So, why is it then, when I purchase a new camera, I have to pay for the unwanted Technology of movie mode? If I wanted to make movies I would bye a dedicated movie camera. I Wonder, would Nikon sell more or less cameras? Would Nikon's dedicated still camera have a market? and if so, could we see a Z7 ll stills camera (Hypothetically) sell for a $1000 dollars cheaper? Or is it just me having a rant? : (

As mentioned before from the technological point of view there is a floating border between taking single photos, the insane burst frame rates of the latest ML cameras and recording a video. It seems to be a purely legal affair around protectionism for market segments. That's also the reason why the video function of my DSLRs have time limits of max. 30 minutes as long as you don't use a hacked firmware.

I like the idea, because I am also not interested in video - at the moment (!)
That said, after all cameras are more or less computers these days, why not provide licensing models like we know it from software, e.g.

Classic --> Photo only including burst shooting and time lapse
Multimedia --> Classic plus normal video recording
Extreme --> Multimedia plus high speed / extreme slo mo

Even a pay per use model would be thinkable, e.g. activating the video function for a 3 months just to have time to practice and then take the camera on a 6 week trip so that you don't have to carry a second camera ....

 

[JANuser]

If you are saying designing for video makes for a good still camera, OK. That might be partially true, but I don’t hate video. Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s just not important to me.

Did I quote your post? No, it wasn’t aimed any anyone specifically. Don’t get in a huff.

 

[forestB]

Imagine how frustrating it would be to only want to do video and having to pay for a flagship stills camera to get what you want..

 

[eaj101]

I don't have any use for video either, but I'm not of an age (ahem) to be interested in youtube, snapchat, instagram, tiktok or any of the rest of the social video apps. And looking at the others here I suspect we might just not be the target market. I certainly read enough that video is critical, but I wouldn't know

 

[StefanSC]

It just hit me:

such a camera already exists... the Nikon Df

 

[DavidT]

I did read on Canon Rumors that Canon is going to release an R5S this year that will strip the video out of the camera and focus on stills. I hope this is a trend because I would rather pay the price for still than 8K that I don't want.

 

[PhilcTx]

Up until the past year I also mostly ignored the video capabilities of my cameras.

But for some as yet unexplained reason something clicked and I began to explore it more and more. Perhaps to learn and explore something new and different.

It's another avenue of creativity, learning, and exploration that's at our fingertips with the video capabilities of recent DSLR/mirrorless cameras. The camera manufacturers would not put it in cameras unless the market wanted it - which it does big time.

DSLR Video Weekly: Why Is DSLR Video So Popular?

This is article #1 in the DSLR Video Weekly series. If you’d like the whole thing in one shot, check out the book Creating DSLR Video: From Snapshots to Great Shots. Whether you stumbled across the video options in your DSLR camera or specifically selected your camera with video shooting in...

photofocus.com

 

[EricBowles]

Before you write off video, take a look at the Split Second function. This allows you to capture up to 120 fps as small JPEG files with the Z cameras. It creates a series of JPEG files during a 1-3 second burst. The file size is as large as 8 megapixels, which would provide an uncropped 16 x 20 print. There are limits on exposure and focus changes.

Z 7/Z 6 TIPS | Technical Solutions | Nikon Professional Services

 

[Niels.hr.Hansen]

I really rarely use the video option, and think that the little could be covered with my phone. So when evaluating a new camera model I don't consider video modes, just note that it's there.
But what would be the difference between a Nikon Z7 II - Still and an Nikon Z7 II - Live? Physical stuff like different lens mount, CPU, memory cards, screen, buttons, sensor? No not likely. I guess that a dedicated video would be without a mechanical shutter, and that's about it. On the software side I'm quiet sure the 2 models would be different, but anyway rather alike. Most likely the camera producer makes software modular, so some main parts of the software would be exactly the same, like menu, writing data to memory cards, controlling aperture, shutter (the electronic) and signal gain (ISO). But components to handle specific parts of video and still pictures would be handled in separate modules only being available according to model.
Would development or production cost change? Probably not with a dime.
Would the producer sell more cameras by having dedicated function models? Not likely, rather fewer.
What would happen to prices for a dedicated camera model, would a dedicated still pic camera be cheaper than today's combo model? No it is likely to be marketed at a higher price, leading to even fewer sold.
It's like buying a Swiss army knife for the lovely sharp blade and the wine screw that you uses over and over again, but never touches the can opener or the scissors. it doesn't make the knife poorer or useless, you just have an extra option if you decide to use it some time

 

[ssheipel]

Reason I didn't buy the D4; was still pouting that video was added to the D3s -- I'm just so not interested in shooting video. Actually haven't even thrown the switch to video on my D6 and have shot a 20 second video on my Z6, of my living room furniture. I'm glad others shoot video of course -- like the outcome -- but I find myself fast forwarding through several of my favourite wildlife photographer's videos in the field to the still shots of the wildlife, then going back to watch the video Someone in my life explained to me that my complaint about not wanting to pay extra for the video capabilities doesn't hold much water technically; apparently not much "added" for video with an digital camera. So now I just ***** that when I want to review camera specs everybody clouds that information with video specs

 

[frdjohns]

Funny story - A while ago I was selling a Nikon body that I had, which was in like new condition. The buyer sent me a message asking if the video functions all worked as intended. I am embarrassed to say I had no idea how to use the video at all. Didn't even know how to turn video on. I had to get on the phone with the buyer and have him talk me through the functions he wanted to see.

Long story short. He bought the camera. I still could not tell you how to shoot video on any of my camera bodies...

 

[Jim G]

I have no interest in movie mode. I just want to take photographs. So, why is it then, when I purchase a new camera, I have to pay for the unwanted Technology of movie mode? If I wanted to make movies I would bye a dedicated movie camera. I Wonder, would Nikon sell more or less cameras? Would Nikon's dedicated still camera have a market? and if so, could we see a Z7 ll stills camera (Hypothetically) sell for a $1000 dollars cheaper? Or is it just me having a rant? : (

I have no use for video as well.

JIM

 

[Replytoken]

I have no interest in movie mode. I just want to take photographs. So, why is it then, when I purchase a new camera, I have to pay for the unwanted Technology of movie mode? If I wanted to make movies I would bye a dedicated movie camera. I Wonder, would Nikon sell more or less cameras? Would Nikon's dedicated still camera have a market? and if so, could we see a Z7 ll stills camera (Hypothetically) sell for a $1000 dollars cheaper? Or is it just me having a rant? : (

While I understand that many of us do not presently shoot video, and may not shoot video in the future, I think that you are not going to successfully unwind the marriage between the two, and if you could, I suspect that the savings would be less than a tenth of the hypothetical savings you used in your post at best. Thankfully, most of Nikon's dedicated buttons can be reprogrammed so you can almost ignore any video functions in daily use. And since the hardware that is video oriented is not substantial, I cannot see much weight/size savings if this split were possible. As has been mentioned above, and discussed by Thom Hogan on this post of his ( https://bythom.com/newsviews/what-12k-does-to-us.html )

Finally, I should point out something I missed before all you still photographers complain that video doesn't do anything for you. It does: it provides more pixels. But it also provides something else. Actually, I had sort of noticed this but didn't actually follow through in documenting it. Did you know your Z6 II can take stills at 30 fps (eventually 60 fps)? It can, at 4K resolution.

Technological progress comes in many forms, and video has heavily contributed to digital photography this past decade. I would hate to see them split apart and lose the spillover even if I never shoot video.

--Ken