Stills only camera

[dunfly]

Problem with a stills only camera is that the majority of people would not buy it. It would be a specialty camera that would have to be engineered and built for a small market, so eliminating video would actually increase the unit cost of the camera. It would be like asking for a car with crank up windows instead of automatic windows. Sure they could do it, but from a business standpoint, why would they.

 

[Solarflare]

My DSLRs might as well not have video capability, since I never use it.

There is only a very specific kind of camera for which any serious reviewer would care about vlogging at all, and thats those rather cheap ones, with these extreme flipscreens that allow to point forward.



And I'd buy an all mechanical car (except for those parts which increase efficiency) over a car with all these riddiculous features any time.

Because the simpler and better built a device is, the less often it will break.

Which is pretty much why all metal manual focus Zeiss/Voigtländer/Leica lenses are the most robust lenses you can get.

Video on a camera however hardly changes much about it. Sure for a DSLR you need lifeview in order to make video possible. But all DSLR have lifeview anyway. Otherwise, well you need some software for it and sufficient processing power. Thats all.

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!

There is no technical issue to make a camera with really low base ISO, however high ISO will suck on such a camera, thats why nobody does it.