Stills only camera

[stapo49]

I have noticed that when you read camera reviews a lot of focus seems to be on "perfect" vlogging camera. As I have no real interest in video I would like to see camera companies come out with the " perfect " stills camera. I am also happy to have no video capacity at all. Anyone else like to see this or are most people happy with the stills/video combo?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Jeff1548 48]

I agree with you............

 

[JonFZ300]

I look at still image quality and consider video a bonus. I like having video but don't use it that much.

 

[waday]

I have noticed that when you read camera reviews a lot of focus seems to be on "perfect" vlogging camera. As I have no real interest in video I would like to see camera companies come out with the " perfect " stills camera. I am also happy to have no video capacity at all. Anyone else like to see this or are most people happy with the stills/video combo?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

If, and only if, there were benefits to have a stills only camera, then it might be useful?

When I say benefits, I'm thinking: smaller, faster, cheaper, lighter, etc.

Otherwise, I don't mind having video as an option when I want it. I don't usually use video, and when I do, I use my phone. But, a high quality option with my camera is always nice.

 

[Richard Hutchings]

I've had my D5600 for a couple of weeks and haven't even considered using the video. Yeah, I would have liked a camera that only shoots stills if it were cheaper. Someday it will come in handy I guess.

 

[Soocom1]

I kinda agree with you.

I personally would love such a camera (prob. digital) full frame and with an ISO (there I said it..) of 6-124,000. Yes I said 6!

 

[Overread16 4]

Honestly I'm right there with you in liking dedicated machines for specific tasks. I still prefer an mp3 player over a mobile phone; or a kindle over a tablet (though I hasten to add that e-readers are totally different to tablets anyway so this one is a bit of a stretch).

That said when it comes to a camera like a DSLR or even a point and shoot; there's very little that benefits stills that doesn't benefit video and vis-versa. Especially since we have many using or having the option to use live-view which is purely just a video feed. So improving video is no bad thing and much of it is software and data recording sides of things; whilst mechanical improvements will no doubt mostly benefit stills work as well. So I don't see an issue with this style of technology combination as they compliment each other very readily.


As for reviews there's a lot of bloggers online now so its no surprise to me that there are loads of them blogging the "perfect blogging camera" because its the current hot thing to do is make yourself a video-blog or channel. So yep loads of reviews are going to focus on it; though I'm sure good searching will show many that only give a nodding glance at the video and instead focus on the stills performance of the camera. Note if you're looking at things like entry level DSLR or point and shoots with fast turnover on new versions it might be that video is seeing more gains compared to stills where the technology/feature jumps are far smaller

 

[stapo49]

Thanks for the comments guys. Lots of good points made there.

I guess I just don't like paying for something i will rarely or never use, though as you said Overread the live view function is something I don't want to lose.

You would think that having less video focus in a camera the price would come down but in reality it would probably, ironically, be something of a niche item and be more expensive.

 

[ac12]

I had one of my student bring up an "issue."
The Canon T7i can do video, BUT . . . if you try to zoom while shooting video, you WILL shake the camera and the video.
Most of the zooms on dSLR and mirrorless are made for still photography, NOT video.
For video, you want to be able to zoom while you are shooting, and you do NOT want the video to shake from you turning the zoom ring. Otherwise the zoom is nothing but a variable focal length lens, only a bit better than the turret movie and video cameras of the past. So you have to set the focal length, shoot, stop, set focal length, shoot, stop . . .

My father's super 8 camera (1970s) could shoot AND zoom smoothly at the same time; this was handheld, not on a tripod.
So if you really want to shoot video, you need a video camera with PROPER video zoom lens, NOT a still camera.

 

[Overread16 4]

You would think that having less video focus in a camera the price would come down but in reality it would probably, ironically, be something of a niche item and be more expensive.

Thing is its a bit of a yes-no answer. By offering a product that covers more interests the potential market grows which can actually lower the price of the product, especially if the features compliment each other well. Ergo most of the stills technology compliments video very readily so the video is just an evolution of that tech so its not a huge leap outside of the original function of the machine.

DSLRs and indeed most cameras have always been jack of all trades; able to offer a wide variety of features for different users. It's honestly rare to get consumer market specialist tools for cameras, the only one I'm really aware of is some versions of cameras have a "astrophotography" version where there's a feature or two (I forget what) which aids that very niche genre. Otherwise you get your tool and use it for your needs.


I'd be right there with you though if they started putting phones inside DSLRs!

 

[Derrel]

I have noticed that when you read camera reviews a lot of focus seems to be on "perfect" vlogging camera. As I have no real interest in video I would like to see camera companies come out with the " perfect " stills camera. I am also happy to have no video capacity at all. Anyone else like to see this or are most people happy with the stills/video combo?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Good video performance is not a big issue, to ME. These days, at least some video capability in a camera is the norm, the expected. Some models offer superb video capabilty, and are known as superb video shooters. I, do not care if my stills camera shoots video of great quality, or is it has a flippy screen for vlogging, but then I am not a vlogger...

 

[RowdyRay]

I hear you. When researching my next camera, it was hard to find videos with photo comparisons between different makes and models. They were happy to compare features or the latest high ISO sensor or processor with no actual proof that it helped. Most were focused on the video capabilities. But there are a some out there like the Northrups and a few others I can't think of right now, that do a pretty good job of telling it like it is. You just have to dig and find them.

Think every camera I've owned for the last 10 years had the option of video. Maybe used it twice. Not a big priority. I do have grandkids, and would be happy to film things like their first steps, but the kids have cellphones at the ready. So it really wasn't part of my purchase decision.

 

[Dave442]

I am very happy that I started my DSLR journey with the D200. No video option to drag me off down that long road; and just as good - no live view.

The Nikon Df was a very interesting camera to me, with one of the reasons being no video. I think it was able to benefit from a smaller battery because of the no-video feature.

I can never jump back and forth between photos and video during a shoot so it is really better to have another camera dedicated to video (I could see using two cameras of the same type, but one set for still and the other for video - like having two Nikon Z6 bodies).

However, I think the cameras that are more focused on video area better option - something like the Canon XC10 as the video camera to go in the bag with your Canon 5D.

 

[snowbear116 47]

I see it as the same as green box auto and the scene settings -- I don't want them but the cost is probably not really significant, so I just don't use them.

 

[Fujidave]

I have noticed that when you read camera reviews a lot of focus seems to be on "perfect" vlogging camera. As I have no real interest in video I would like to see camera companies come out with the " perfect " stills camera. I am also happy to have no video capacity at all. Anyone else like to see this or are most people happy with the stills/video combo?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I 100% agree with you, as for me a camera should be just that and not for video. If you want to video something buy a camcorder I say.