p.10 #1 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Apart from the fact LiveView was available in bodies without any video capability at all. Sure the tech crosses over but LV would be available on stills only digital cameras regardless of any video capabilities.
p.10 #3 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
n0b0 wrote:
- "But it's just extra lines of codes in the firmware, extra menu and button, and it doesn't affect your still photography at all"
D
I would doubt above statements as dev with 16 years of such codes behind. Besides some single lines could cost more than mil's of another. Also since video is in SLR - 80% of any firmware changes are video related, that is very unpleasant to one who is expecting real photo related fixes and changes.
Nothing is illogical in "i dont like" or "i dont want" it is personal option, it is just funny to read "it cost nothing.." lame statements anymore
p.10 #4 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Breitling65 wrote:
I would doubt above statements as dev with 16 years of such codes behind. Besides some single lines could cost more than mil's of another. Also since video is in SLR - 80% of any firmware changes are video related, that is very unpleasant to one who is expecting real photo related fixes and changes.
Nothing is illogical in "i dont like" or "i dont want" it is personal option, it is just funny to read "it cost nothing.." lame statements anymore
So tell me then, after calculating the change in American dollar value and inflation rate, how much more did Canon charge for 5D2 compared to 5D to recoup that million dollar in coding?
Wait... 5D without video recording cost US$3300 in 2005 while 5D2 with video recording cost US$2700 in 2009. Does that mean the buyers are getting MORE features for LESS money? "Lame statement" indeed.
80%?? How did you come up with that number? Still, you have to wonder... If that number is true, which I doubt, does that mean the video guys spend more money on video DSLRs to make Canon prioritise them instead of the still photographers?
For an IT guy, you sure lack logical thinking. Video is already in DSLR with the advent of LV. If you don't like or don't want video, why don't you buy a DSLR WITHOUT Live View? Video recording is just an extension of that technology, much like extended ISO like 51200 or 102400. And I bet you more people use video in DSLR than photographers use ISO51200 or 102400.
Meh, enough of this, you're just being argumentative even when you have nothing to stand on. Keep ignoring all the facts and cry all you want about video recording, you're still getting them anyway... Don't like it? Well, that's just too bad for you isn't it?
p.10 #5 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Video capabilities of a DSLR has nothing to do with us having LiveView. LV is an extension of viewfinder tech (as is evf). Undoubtedly the implementation of LV led them onto the road to also including video, but it is a fact that LV was a feature on cameras long before video was brought to the table.
Developing Video for DSLR obviously cost money but I'm not convinced it did add any appreciable cost, and may have made things cheaper in the long run. It would be interesting to know what engineering decisions might be impacted in order to provide video, for instance does the need to design in the ability run the sensor for longer periods benefit or degrade performance for stills only photography?
p.10 #6 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
n0b0 wrote:
So tell me then, after calculating the change in American dollar value and inflation rate, how much more did Canon charge for 5D2 compared to 5D to recoup that million dollar in coding?
Wait... 5D without video recording cost US$3300 in 2005 while 5D2 with video recording cost US$2700 in 2009. Does that mean the buyers are getting MORE features for LESS money? "Lame statement" indeed.
80%?? How did you come up with that number? Still, you have to wonder... If that number is true, which I doubt, does that mean the video guys spend more money on video DSLRs to make Canon prioritise them instead of the still photographers?
For an IT guy, you sure lack logical thinking. Video is already in DSLR with the advent of LV. If you don't like or don't want video, why don't you buy a DSLR WITHOUT Live View? Video recording is just an extension of that technology, much like extended ISO like 51200 or 102400. And I bet you more people use video in DSLR than photographers use ISO51200 or 102400.
Meh, enough of this, you're just being argumentative even when you have nothing to stand on. Keep ignoring all the facts and cry all you want about video recording, you're still getting them anyway... Don't like it? Well, that's just too bad for you isn't it?...Show more →
First it is absolutly fine to do LV without video as someone said already, second price on one camera made in 2005-2006 can't be compared to one made in 2008 since different money value. And even with such difference could be hidden cost and some technology they are reusing and been already made for full of dust in stores video camcorders. Ignoring people opinion and what people actually like causing people are changing brands or being unhappy with such fact that we like it or not but Canon stick video inside and will improve it and firmware it every time. Personally I don't care about video much except one fact - I am not alone who don't need video and that is something this thread showing very clear to you even if you don't like such facts.
p.10 #7 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
For what I do, I can't imagine buying a DSLR without video and now that we have full frame cameras shooting at 60fps, the creative possibilities are endless. What other video gear that cost less than $3500 can you find that has a full frame sensor and compatible with EOS lenses? Plus the fact that cinema primes and zooms are being made in EOS and now F mounts that the demand for video DSLRs is growing. Lets not forget that none of these take away or hinder DSLRs producing still images and its highly doubtful that it adds any more to the price of the camera since this technology already exist.
What I dont like however is the implementation of HDR in their newer bodies. Those resources could have been allocated for something awesome like a built-in intervalometer or something else useful. But then again, if I dont use it I just ignore it.
p.10 #9 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
panicatnabisco wrote:
... Lets not forget that none of these take away or hinder DSLRs producing still images and its highly doubtful that it adds any more to the price of the camera since this technology already exist..
Why people have this idea is puzzling, but I've never seen, or been involved with any high tech product (and there have been many) that follows your scenario.
No technology, capability, functionality, or any way you want to describe it gets added at "zero" cost. If there's a development budget and you add video, speakers, new body design, or anything to support it, that "cost" is factored in the budget. This means something else is cut (such as still features like improved (i.e., working) AF, buffer size, VF size, you name it) to make room for it, or the cost of the development goes up and the product cost to the customer goes up. It's a zero-sum game; add to one area, take away from another. The 5d2 is a classic example of this.
Of course over time new features are simply built in and you no longer have the chance to remove them (e.g. new logic built in to chip design) but if you can tell us where and how to get a free lunch, I'm sure we'd all like to know. It would revolutionize manufacturing.
p.10 #10 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
panicatnabisco wrote:
For what I do, I can't imagine buying a DSLR without video and now that we have full frame cameras shooting at 60fps, the creative possibilities are endless. What other video gear that cost less than $3500 can you find that has a full frame sensor and compatible with EOS lenses? Plus the fact that cinema primes and zooms are being made in EOS and now F mounts that the demand for video DSLRs is growing. Lets not forget that none of these take away or hinder DSLRs producing still images and its highly doubtful that it adds any more to the price of the camera since this technology already exist.
What I dont like however is the implementation of HDR in their newer bodies. Those resources could have been allocated for something awesome like a built-in intervalometer or something else useful. But then again, if I dont use it I just ignore it....Show more →
The fact is so many of the little things they leave out would take soooo little development time to implement and when you see they sometimes even backtrack and take out code alrady written (no MFA for 60D) it's pretty clear that it's nothing to do with lack of resources but marketing say no-no-no we must save that and that and that little thing for the one tier higher up or for the next model in two years.
I mean for crying out loud they still haven't trickled out a working AutoISO for stills for below 1 series now after slowly adding a touch more to it now for over a decade! Gimme a break! It's like a something ANYONE on this board could program themselves given a day of training even if they never programmed before in their life. On ethe 5D3 it could probably be fixed by changing a SINGLE NUMBER, or at worst, just adding a few more numbers to a list.
p.10 #11 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
That said video surely did have some development costs and time, they had to pay for codec I'd think and there is certainly some complex coding needing to be done even if they have some chip that does most of the tricky compression all for them. I have a feeling that it made the 5D2 sell soooo many more copies though that it more than more than paid for itself the last go round, this time, hard to say, I don't think it will bring in a cash cow compared to cost to produce it, especially since they tiered things up so much this time, then again they also added so little to the DSLR video in terms of features the coding couldn't have cost much development at all, the main things I'd think would be how much costs in development to add new features to digic 5 for video or to get the sensor to read fast enough and in the proper modes and such, that may have some costs to develop beyond just basic liveview. The new 5D3 doe sno lien skipping so it seems it must do some early binning or something. They didn't seem to make it fast enough to read it all and then downsample from the full frame at once as I had thought they might have by now, but I guess that still needs too much speed.
p.10 #12 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
skibum5 wrote:
That said video surely did have some development costs and time, they had to pay for codec I'd think and there is certainly some complex coding needing to be done even if they have some chip that does most of the tricky compression all for them. I have a feeling that it made the 5D2 sell soooo many more copies though that it more than more than paid for itself the last go round, this time, hard to say, I don't think it will bring in a cash cow compared to cost to produce it, especially since they tiered things up so much this time, then again they also added so little to the DSLR video in terms of features the coding couldn't have cost much development at all, the main things I'd think would be how much costs in development to add new features to digic 5 for video or to get the sensor to read fast enough and in the proper modes and such, that may have some costs to develop beyond just basic liveview. The new 5D3 doe sno lien skipping so it seems it must do some early binning or something. They didn't seem to make it fast enough to read it all and then downsample from the full frame at once as I had thought they might have by now, but I guess that still needs too much speed. ...Show more →
I doubt there was much that went into it. Canon had been making camcorders for quite some time already, and all they did was roll over that tech to the cameras. I sold off my HD camcorder once I got the 5D2 since the quality was much much better, and manual focusing wasnt hard to do. I use it maybe a dozen times a year, and when I do, I get great results. Wont purchase a DSLR without the capability.
p.10 #13 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Aside from the special case of the 20Da, LV was introduced in 2007Q1 but it only took Canon till 2008Q4 to introduce the "official" record button. Once Canon had programmed the DSP sections to take the sensor readout and process it to LiveView, not too much work additional programming was needed to process it for recording - of course those working on it at Canon were paid, so there was some cost. The point here is that it wasn't a large cost - especially if they had touched base with the camcorder division. The implementation waited for the next suitable model - Canon is not know for frequently using a firmware update to give older models the capability of the more recent ones.
Shortly after that, out came an opensource video recording program that will allow recording of movies from Canon Live View cameras that didn't have that capability built in by Canon. Retrofitting the record functionality was obviously not too hugely expensive - and that is free. The opensource hack showed that no additional hardware needed to be fitted to the earlier cameras to record video. As noted above, Canon didn't seem to be aware of how popular the capability would be and didn't rush it out as soon as they had got LV running.
Being able to use LV and ignore the Video record button is a bit like being able to take stills but ignore the Direct Print button. There it seemed to be the effort of dedicating a button to, rather than the direct printing capability itself. (It should have been a mirror-lockup button - but that complaint went away when LiveView became the mirror-lockup function) You take them or leave them. Some users use them, others don't. Like much of the "picture styles" software that was developed, but no-one complained about. The question of whether video is useful is a personal one, obviously. Whining about its presence, however, and how much it cost to add, is like whining about AF, AE P Tv, Av etc. by someone who "hates" auto anything. Canon obviously found enough people who wanted them and who use them to put them in the cameras they sell. If they had gone the other way - a complete a la carte build-it-yourself, select the features you want business model, does anyone really think that would have been cheaper than one set of features for each camera model - where you get some features you never use but the volume is sufficiently high to keep production costs (and therefore to some extent, at least, prices) down?
p.10 #14 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
jamesf99 wrote:
Why people have this idea is puzzling, but I've never seen, or been involved with any high tech product (and there have been many) that follows your scenario.
No technology, capability, functionality, or any way you want to describe it gets added at "zero" cost. If there's a development budget and you add video, speakers, new body design, or anything to support it, that "cost" is factored in the budget. This means something else is cut (such as still features like improved (i.e., working) AF, buffer size, VF size, you name it) to make room for it, or the cost of the development goes up and the product cost to the customer goes up. It's a zero-sum game; add to one area, take away from another. The 5d2 is a classic example of this.
Of course over time new features are simply built in and you no longer have the chance to remove them (e.g. new logic built in to chip design) but if you can tell us where and how to get a free lunch, I'm sure we'd all like to know. It would revolutionize manufacturing. ...Show more →
Ah, yes the development cost might increase, but the target market the camera is aimed at has greatly increased, thus the development cost can be spread over many more units...therefore reducing development cost per unit.
Development projects are looked at from a profitablility standpoint. If increasing the development budget by 25% to add video also increases the projected profit from this camera by 50%.... then the extra R&D funding will be made available.
The 5d2 was a cash cow for Canon and a lot of that cash came from people using it for both it's still and video features. It would have NOT been such a success without video.
p.10 #15 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
skibum5 wrote:
The fact is so many of the little things they leave out would take soooo little development time to implement and when you see they sometimes even backtrack and take out code alrady written (no MFA for 60D) it's pretty clear that it's nothing to do with lack of resources but marketing say no-no-no we must save that and that and that little thing for the one tier higher up or for the next model in two years.
I mean for crying out loud they still haven't trickled out a working AutoISO for stills for below 1 series now after slowly adding a touch more to it now for over a decade! Gimme a break! It's like a something ANYONE on this board could program themselves given a day of training even if they never programmed before in their life. On ethe 5D3 it could probably be fixed by changing a SINGLE NUMBER, or at worst, just adding a few more numbers to a list. ...Show more →
This striation of features by product line is what product marketing is all about. Blowing your load of features on a low end camera is not a very successful plan as people like you and me will not even look towards upgrades if we have everything in our low cost cameras.
Surely the Toyota Corolla could have that nice leather wrapped steering wheel the Accord has...but if you want the luxury, you need to upgrade. No different in the camera market.
p.10 #16 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Good points, especially by AJSJones and Chez.
I do think there is a small, but experienced, contingent that grudgingly accepts that they can't go back to full manual film imaging, not in a practical or commercial sense. I see this retro-activism very strongly in some of the Alt forum threads. It seems that digital imaging is okay with the "retros", metering is accepted, but AF is somewhat suspect. LV, video, lens optimizing firmware, IS, those are just beyond the Pale. . . a line has been drawn in the sand by some, and they get cranky when pushed near that line.
I wasn't so far removed from these views myself. When Canon went EF EOS, I was angry and wanted my FD investment to be supported. I was into manual everything, except metering and auto-aperture indexing. I was still manual exposure and self-bracketing when I shifted to the EF bodies for slide film. And going into the digital bodies, I was strictly using Manual mode until three or four years ago (I finally tested Program mode within the last couple years! It worked pretty good for events, but I'm still mostly Manual with flash.). So, I do have an affinity and understanding of manual focus and manual exposure, but it's just a heck of a lot easier to use a mode like Av and keep an eye on the shutter speeds, or shift the +/- exp. compensation for daylight shooting.
It is a lot to learn, using video. But the results speak for themselves -- an APS-C sensor is impressive compared to a little HD camcorder, and full frame -- forget about it -- it's awe inspiring visual quality. I accept that many people don't have the need or desire, just like I don't use all the Modes and Styles, and many other features and custom functions -- multiple AF points? Say what?
Now I'm on-board to get more improvements to the in-camera processors and sensor MP. Video use will help drive these improvements, so naturally I'm all for that.
p.10 #17 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
It would be good if Canon could produce a basic professional camera that did not have a million fps, video, super high ISO and have low ISO instead, etc Because not everybody needs all of those features. Maybe a new version of what the 'old' F1n was.
p.10 #18 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
John -- Since it would be a specialized model with limited appeal, would you feel comfortable paying more than a comparable 5D3 or 1DX model? I doubt it.
There are still tons of used bodies around from the original 1D to today's models. Just buy a few of the more basic pro models with less MP and have fun.
p.10 #19 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
chez wrote:
This striation of features by product line is what product marketing is all about. Blowing your load of features on a low end camera is not a very successful plan as people like you and me will not even look towards upgrades if we have everything in our low cost cameras.
Surely the Toyota Corolla could have that nice leather wrapped steering wheel the Accord has...but if you want the luxury, you need to upgrade. No different in the camera market.
It's not a successful plan when there are many players well established in the higher price ranges and when you created a new market that you took by storm and then give it back by letting marketing go crazy. 5D2 flew off shelves to video/movie people, revelation, wow. 5D3 got meh alright but after three years that is all they could do for the features don't get the impression it is flying off the shelves like the 5D2 get the impression many are eyeing all sorts of other options....
and come on some of the stuff they left out is absurdly basic
and the autoiso thing is utterly pathetic, every other maker has bad it working in even their cheap stuff for years,
and name me a single person who bought thenext canon upgrade because it added yet only more fraction of what might autoios work? name one person who spent $$$ on a giant 1 series brick to get a working autoiso? so what the heck are they gaining by such silly games over such a relatively minor feature in the end anyway
p.10 #20 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Gunzorro wrote:
John -- Since it would be a specialized model with limited appeal, would you feel comfortable paying more than a comparable 5D3 or 1DX model? I doubt it.
There are still tons of used bodies around from the original 1D to today's models. Just buy a few of the more basic pro models with less MP and have fun.
I actually require more MP for my clients as they produce big prints with lots of detail for the architectural awards. So lower models do not really suit. I already have 5D and two Mark II's. Hoping the high MP model being rumoured is not a 1 Series camera as the cost is silly in Australia being over $11000.00 for previous 1Ds series.
don't get the impression it is flying off the shelves like the 5D2 get the impression many are eyeing all sorts of other options....