chez wrote:
How has still photography suffered with the inclusion of video into our cameras?
And when I answered that question you changed the question
chez wrote:
You still have not mentioned one thing about video that stops you from making still photos.
Not entirely surprised at the change in direction, but still, the following is somewhat over the top...
chez wrote:
Well why don't you also bring up every other option or mode in your cameras that you never used. And what about those lenses you never bought...they must have spent many more resources on them.
All those lenses I never bought helped still photography. Now you are arguing the question you wished you had asked, not the one you did ask. But you make a valid observation along the way
chez wrote:
As far as resources go, I would bet the extra sales the cameras have by INCLUDING video far outweighs the resources required to add video.
Undoubtedly, but that may not have done anything to help still photography. It is a matter of incremental return on invested capital AND how this capital is then spent. If video produces positive ROI for Nikon but that is then used to justify more investment in video to the exclusion of investment in still then it helps Nikon as an ongoing concern while still hurting stills capability. Nobody other than the Nikon accountants has this level of detail, but the above scenario is quite common - businesses with limited resources routinely limit investment in lower return activities to fund higher return activities. Great strategy for the company and its shareholders, but it still hurts the consumers of the lower-return product... Which is where this argument started.
As long as we are discussing this we might as well ask whether the development of digital hurt or benefited continued progress in film. Any film afficionado knows the answer to this question. Tens of thousands of Kodak employees know the answer. Kodak bond holders have an inkling about it too
And before anyone else asks me where the direct print button or split focus screen are, let's remember the question we are discussing
How has still photography suffered with the inclusion of video into our cameras?
Whoever decides to skewer me, at least do so while answering that question.
GroovyGeek wrote:
Engineering resources that could have been used on improving the image processing ASIC, firmware, ergonomics, or other aspects of still photography have instead been "wasted" (as far as I am concerned ) on implementing video.
It's actually the opposite of your belief. Including video brings more sales. It is very important to a lot of people and Fuji gets more money by including competitive video modes. More money allows them to justify spending more on the R&D, hardware, software features,larger development team etc. We get more lenses, more accessories, more capabilities. It's not like they are only allowed x number of developers and now they are forced to split resources across the video side as well.
If Fuji wasn't including video, they might be out of business and they certainly would not have as many camera models to choose from and they would almost certainly not be at the current technical ability level even as a dedicated photo camera.
There's no example of a dedicated camera line that is progressing any faster than what Fuji is. It's safe to say including video is not harming the photography side at all.
GroovyGeek wroteAs long as we are discussing this we might as well ask whether the development of digital hurt or benefited continued progress in film. Any film afficionado knows the answer to this question. Tens of thousands of Kodak employees know the answer. Kodak bond holders have an inkling about it too
This has absolutely no parallels or anything to do with dispelling your claim that including video has hampered the photography side of our cameras. That was basically a format war with an obvious victor.
Steezus wrote:
This has absolutely no parallels or anything to do with dispelling your claim that including video has hampered the photography side of our cameras. That was basically a format war with an obvious victor.
So video vs still is not a format difference with an obvious victor 20 years from now? Do you really think that 20 years from now the video capabilities of any camera would not have extended dramatically while stills development will stagnate in no more than 5-10 years? Cell phones vs PCs development trajecotries may provide useful insight into this debate.
On a more serious note, thank you for the thoughtful response. To be clear, I agree that at this point not including video is likely an overall money-loosing proposition for camera makers that affects the overall health of the entire product line, including still photography. That does not mean that video is not sucking away attention and resources from stills. Where do you think the most skilled firmware engineers get deployed? Why do we no longer have a dedicated card format button shortcut on Z bodies but we still have a dedicated video on-off button AND a video/still DISP switch on Nikon cameras?
To be clear, these are all perfectly valid business decision for any camera company to make. I am (usually) not a ludite and appreciate the overall progress of the ecosystem. But that does not change my answer to the original question "How has still photography suffered with the inclusion of video into our cameras".
Everything will be captured as video in 20 years, probably a lot sooner. It already does this on some phone cameras right now which are the models that are dominating in picture quality. Software will pick out the sharpest frame or you can decide yourself. This is why your example doesn't really work in this case between film and digital. The digital sensor works for both stills and video and improvements in the sensor almost always yield improvements in both stills and video.
I would say that it is is basically indisputable that video will progress still images much faster than if the industry tried to keep them totally separate, which would only be done to milk the consumer.
