Seems like Canon (and Nikon also) are putting all of their development money into the video side of DSLR's. As a still photographer who doesn't care about the video enhancements, I feel that we are paying needlessly for the video enhancements. I think that I will stay with camera bodies that don't do video instead of paying extra for the video features. Anybody else feel this way?

BTW, I have a 5DMk2 and love it but I never use the video capability. I also have the 40D which is just fine without the video features! Maybe buy a 1D3?

I opted for a 50D over the 7D for the same exact reason. I really liked the AF in the 7D and was willing to pay a few hundred more for some of those features but not $700 more. Video just isn't important to me in a DSLR.

Hey .. I think once you get the hang of video, shooting HD video using top-notch SLR lenses is a big plus. I tried my hand at video with a 500D, and it came out ok.

I wonder if Canon or Nikon will make *any* bodies that don't have video going forward? They both seem to have put it in everything released - from P&S to pros series bodies. My guess is it's here to stay in new bodies & so harder to avoid as pre-video bodies (& their other features) age. Of course, you don't have to use it but I think it's going to be hard to buy a new body without it.

Any camera with Live View already has video capability, the only difference is that now you can actually capture it, so what's the big deal? And isn't the usual argument "nice to have it, turn it off if you don't need it"?

How much does video feature add to the cost of a DSLR body? Assuming that you need Live View.

Although I agree with you, the manufacturers are adding video to be competitive and to give each camera an edge for those that want video.
Honestly, if adding video adds to the cost of each camera, I too would rather not have it.

I don't really think you end up paying that much just for the video features. There is very little in the camera design that is specific to video. I suppose some portion of the overall price may be seen as accounting for the firmware development costs.

Using the 7D as a current example: The 7D is what, $300 or $400 more than the 50D was at launch? The 7D is an upgrade in a lot of ways, so video maybe accounts for a small fraction of the difference in MSRP, but personally I would see the difference coming from the much better AF system, the viewfinder, the new sensor, the dual digic chips etc. etc.

I don't see the appeal of video at all, but them I'm strictly stills.

If I did though I'm sure I would prefer a proper video eyepiece rather than looking at the back of a camera, which either handheld or even on a tripod in sunlight isn't going to be very easy or ergonomic.

I fear it has become a bit of a bandwagon now. I just don't use it, although I really value liveview.

David

I remember when the same thing was said about autofocus. "Extra cost", "unnecessary", "fad", "gimmick", "unprofessional", blah, blah blah.
Sure glad the manufacturers didn't listen to the vocal minority back then either.

dont think ANY dslr will now come without some sort of video. Good thing Bad Thing I dont really care . I doubt now that its been done that much of the budget in development goes solely into the Video aspect of it. Alot of developments from it could make the stills side of a DSLR a better experience. Like better Liveview AF that will undoubtably come and that will mostly be due to the want/need for better video AF from general users (mums & dasds frather the pro film makers).
Better and longer lasting sensors that produce less heat and therefor probably less hi iso noise should be another bonus for still users

One side-effect of video I'd like to see are really good LCD viewfinders, possibly doing away with the mirror & prism altogether. You could have superimposed live histo's, very high frame rates and allsorts.

I got the 7D specifically for video. If they had a 60D with video I might have been tempted to go that way. That being said the new AF, VF and other stills features are all pluses.

The video are really useful if you ever take the camera on holiday. As I have said various times on number of forums you don't want to carry too much stuff when traveling. At the same time there are things you can't record with just stills. That's where the video part comes in. The fact that it's really high quality video with DOF control just makes it so much better. Now if only the AF would work faster.

I think the way I see it is the way a lot of people would see the video feature on these cameras. You can't very well expect Canon to build something specifically for a narrow market of people who don't want video. Especially when the video is an add on that doesn't cost them much more to do. As such I don't think even if there's no video feature you'll see any drop in pricing.

i'd personally rather see them go to full frame or bring up a medium format prosumer camrea than video, but hey that is me.

Video was a "cool" feature that coerced me into buying the T1i as a back-up camera, but honestly I've only used the video feature once and I wouldn't miss it if it was gone.

I think you guys complaining about video are missing the real effect this is/will have on dslrs.


First off, did canon have to spend money on developing video for slrs?...YES.

What you guys are missing is that this money spent is MORE than offset by the increase in number of units sold to people who

1. Are buying for the video capabilities alone.
2. Are able to justify an slr (or an upgrade) based on the fact they can also use it as a camcorder.

More units sold = lower price per unit = more sales = more innovation in both the still and video department.

We all win.

Just a thought... I have been to a few sporting events where Video capture is not allowed but stills is.... with the trend of DSLR's going that way, do you think it might catch up to us and create a blanket coverage of no camera's period?

The 7D/5D mkII seem very well priced for all that they include video. The 1D mk4 however is now listed at the same price as a 1Ds mkIII in the UK and I have little doubt that a whole heck of a lot of that price is due to the video. No doubt the same is true with the very expensive D3s. I don't remember the 1D mkIII being anywhere near that much at release (please correct me if I'm wrong) but if it wasn't then methinks it's the video not the megapixels that are dictating the new entry point to canon's 1D series.

The 1D3 was $4500 initially. The 1D4 is about 11% more.

How much have the prices on most lenses gone up during the same time frame? Well over 11%

Edit: Talking US prices, but the point is the relative difference

MacroImaging96 wrote:
Just a thought... I have been to a few sporting events where Video capture is not allowed but stills is.... with the trend of DSLR's going that way, do you think it might catch up to us and create a blanket coverage of no camera's period?


Interesting thought. I came across that in an event I was at last August. Cameras with video had to be signed for and a release submitted, where as stills only did not. so my DSLR could fire away but my PS could not without authorization.

I think DLSRs will be assumed to have video soon enough and therefore be treated differently than they are now.