patriot wrote:
Well, maybe I misunderstood you? You said "Unfortunately, Fuji is no match for Sony or Canon in the lens department" followed by "most of their highly regarded glass was not optimal for video...".
What immediately occurred to me was these two statements were connected: Fuji premium lenses are "no match" for Sony and Canon because they are not optimized for video. Which lead to the immediate conclusion: why would they be?
The X-T's are cameras, so their premium lenses would of course be optimized for photography. Right?
Expecting Fuji's premium camera lenses to be optimized for video is like expecting a manufacturer of camcorders to design their camcorder lenses to be optimized for photography instead of video. Videographers would immediately scoff at such a notion, and rightfully so.
You mention the X-T3 is a "hybrid", which by definition implies compromise. Do you think Fuji intended to compromise the X-T3's photography functions and capabilities to accommodate video? If so, how much? I'd say no, and none. On the X-T4, I'd say yes, and very little. I've owned both.
"Hybrid" is one of those words we use that's original meaning is old and very different to how we use it today. And today we are not very consistent in how we use it. Does it mean equally good at too different functions? Or does it mean a product designed for one function, has some limited functionality of another added in?
In cars, "hybrid" brings to mind a Prius. It is a clear compromise between a gas and electric car. No one would say it is equally as good in either mode as a car designed - and optimized - for gas or electric. Except for miles per gallon.
Is the X-T3 a Prius? I'd say no. I have now a Sony a7R III. It also has video capability. It's not a Prius either. It out performs my X-T4 in just about everything.
So, IMHO, cameras like X-TX's and a7 series are hybrids in the sense that are cameras first and foremost, designed for photography, with some video functionality added in. Just as camcorders are first and foremost for video, with some photography functionality.
Now that I think of this, maybe what you meant was, you would like to see Fuji offer a few lens options optimized, i.e. as good as some of their premium photography lenses, for video?
Edit: I see you are in Niagara on the Lake? Beautiful town and area! Have been there many times, as well as Queenston Heights, Lewiston, etc. I lived in Kenmore, just outside Buffalo, for 3+ years when my wife and I first got married in 1987. Our first house. We used to always take friends and family to that area when they visited, always did the Canadian side of the falls too. Very fond memories! ...Show more →
Niagara on the Lake is a beautiful area—been enjoying it now for the last 3 years!
I didn't know about all the additions to Creative Style. Being able to control so many extra options for processing looks to kind of be nearing what Fuji can do with their simulations. This might make for some really nice ability to quickly pull stylized jpegs right from the camera. I don't know if this is something they added into the a7SIII and a1?
Atlasman2 wrote:
Hybrid by definition—and in the context of photography—means a multi-functional system that can capture stills and motion. There's no provision in this definition for compromise. When I think of hybrid, I don't associate compromise—this is your perception. The notion that hybrids are designed for photography is wishful thinking on your part: Canon back in the late 90's introduced the Optura mini digital video camera and labeled it as a "hybrid"—it was mostly a video cam with the ability to capture basic photos. I know this because I purchased one back in the day (and still own it).
Video, whether you like it or not—is just as important—if not more so!...Show more →
Interesting ... I never knew such a concrete definition existed. A search on "definition of hybrid in photography" does not yield such conclusiveness at all. All I see are a myriad of different opinions. None saying by definition a hybrid is not a compromise.
So your proposition, that a "hybrid", in photographic equipment, somehow does not involve compromises, while it does everywhere else in the real world, is ... unique. I think all engineers would really like to work in your reality ... quite a bit! Never having to compromise! I have never been involved in the development of a product in nearly 35 years that has not been an exercise in compromise.
How that word is used by marketers is another matter, ! (I know, I'm one of those, but not of course in this business. But my products are regulated a bit more, there are clear definitions on product attributes, and use of those terms have to be substantiated in advance.) I'd say the ones that do use this term in cameras can do so because there is NOT a clear definition.
"Hybrids are designed for photography"? Isn't a camcorder, which is a camera designed for video, also a hybrid, if photography functionality is included? I think I've pointed that out ... twice. So clearly I have not said "hybrid" only applies to cameras designed for photography.
But since you bring up what I don't like, here's one: people who shoot video, demanding manufactures re-engineer their camera models and corresponding lenses, i.e. the ones designed for specifically for photography, to "optimize" them for video... regardless of how that compromises their use for photography ... when at the same time these people have access to an entire world of video equipment, and all kinds of outstanding camcorders and video gear.
I respect video, and videographers, and would never be so arrogant as to make the same kind of demand on the video side and camcorders. I don't see any other photographers doing that either.
Duowing wrote:
I didn't know about all the additions to Creative Style. Being able to control so many extra options for processing looks to kind of be nearing what Fuji can do with their simulations. This might make for some really nice ability to quickly pull stylized jpegs right from the camera. I don't know if this is something they added into the a7SIII and a1?
I think it's the same in A1 from what I saw in that video on A7IV...
Atlasman2 wrote:
Video, whether you like it or not—is just as important—if not more so!
important to whom?
you most certainly do not speak for me.
why is the statement "I just shoot stills and I don't want video" still being made and often?
do all video only shooters enjoy to pay extra for a camera body to have highly capable stills capture?
video shooters are paying extra for stills features not wanted or needed and stills shooters are paying extra for video features not wanted or needed.
both camps are paying extra for things they do not want and never asked for and, more importantly, have continually asked not to have.
does the camp whom want a camera with both still/video capabilities outnumber the two others or is it the manufactures are simply profiting more by up-selling their products with features no one wants or asked for.
i can't get a/c in a new car without also paying for tilt steering and cruise control. I can't get a CD/MP3 player without the $4000 Nav 'package' upgrade. I can't get power seats without leather upholstery upgrade. I can't get channel 32 without paying for the other 8 channels in 'the package'. Makes more economical sense (profit) for manufactures to offer "packages". It's all a package scam.
Camera manufacturers are following suit because we are letting them.
whom are the majority of these video only shooters?
these "Content Creators" of late.
these content creators, largely, are folks very new to video equipment and don't have much of a clue about any of it anyhow.
There is a very large number of these content creators customers now and many manufactures have re-tooled their business to cash in these folks.
Can't blame the manufactures...times are tough, right?
This windfall will largely end once the pandemic is over. These content creators will no longer have an audience stuck at home and glued to the youtube for 16 hours a day watching the content creators eat breakfast, do an arm curl, or smash a PS5. How much effort are manufacturers going to spend to extend this windfall as long as possible?
The manufactures are simply ignoring their long term and loyal customers for quick cash.
Paul_100A wrote:
important to whom?
you most certainly do not speak for me.
why is the statement "I just shoot stills and I don't want video" still being made and often?
do all video only shooters enjoy to pay extra for a camera body to have highly capable stills capture?
video shooters are paying extra for stills features not wanted or needed and stills shooters are paying extra for video features not wanted or needed.
both camps are paying extra for things they do not want and never asked for and, more importantly, have continually asked not to have.
does the camp whom want a camera with both still/video capabilities outnumber the two others or is it the manufactures are simply profiting more by up-selling their products with features no one wants or asked for.
i can't get a/c in a new car without also paying for tilt steering and cruise control. I can't get a CD/MP3 player without the $4000 Nav 'package' upgrade. I can't get power seats without leather upholstery upgrade. I can't get channel 32 without paying for the other 8 channels in 'the package'. Makes more economical sense (profit) for manufactures to offer "packages". It's all a package scam.
Camera manufacturers are following suit because we are letting them.
whom are the majority of these video only shooters?
these "Content Creators" of late.
these content creators, largely, are folks very new to video equipment and don't have much of a clue about any of it anyhow.
There is a very large number of these content creators customers now and many manufactures have re-tooled their business to cash in these folks.
Can't blame the manufactures...times are tough, right?
This windfall will largely end once the pandemic is over. These content creators will no longer have an audience stuck at home and glued to the youtube for 16 hours a day watching the content creators eat breakfast, do an arm curl, or smash a PS5. How much effort are manufacturers going to spend to extend this windfall as long as possible?
The manufactures are simply ignoring their long term and loyal customers for quick cash....Show more →
Atlasman2 wrote:
The manufacturers are following the money.
I personally would not buy a stills only camera going forward. I don’t take much video, but it’s handy when the occasion arises like videoing the chaotic traffic in Vietnam which portrayed the chaos a lot better than a still image would ever do…including all the honking horns.
onthebeam wrote:
Which “stills only” camera are you referring to?
Thank god there aren't any...but all the bitching about video infused into still cameras makes it sound like some would want a still only camera. And if you think a stills only camera will be cheaper...think again. It would be a niche camera and such cameras are more expensive.
chez wrote:
Thank god there aren't any...but all the bitching about video infused into still cameras makes it sound like some would want a still only camera. And if you think a stills only camera will be cheaper...think again. It would be a niche camera and such cameras are more expensive.
you state that there are no stills only cameras and you then add that stills only cameras are more expensive than 'hybird' cameras.
you are using 'what' data to support your nonsense?
which camera manufacturing company do you own/operate?
if manufactures chose to make a stills only, or video only, camera, thus removing the undesired and unneeded hardware/firmware components related to the unwanted features...and charged the same, or more, for each of those two very different camera as they would for a hybrid, i suspect most customers would perceive that as flat out contempt and thievery.
I love shooting stills just as much as capturing motion. And like you said, there are times when video will do a better job.
chez wrote:
I personally would not buy a stills only camera going forward. I don’t take much video, but it’s handy when the occasion arises like videoing the chaotic traffic in Vietnam which portrayed the chaos a lot better than a still image would ever do…including all the honking horns.
chez wrote:
Thank god there aren't any...but all the bitching about video infused into still cameras makes it sound like some would want a still only camera. And if you think a stills only camera will be cheaper...think again. It would be a niche camera and such cameras are more expensive.
I'm not sure it's so much photographers not wanting any video capability in their cameras, as much as it not wanting those video enhancements to a camera to come at the expense photographic functionality.
The flippy selfie screen seems to be the most contentious video enhancement to photography cameras so far, especially as those continue to expand in new camera models.
Personally I don't care if a camera has video capability or not. And if it does, I don't care if it's just "OK", or fantastically executed. As long as it does not come at the expense of photographic functionality, or excellence, as we expect in higher end cameras.
If a rear LCD can still tilt without having to swivel out to the side, but can ALSO flip out for video selfies, so be it. I believe there are a few examples out there.
Yet we see some videographers who seem unwilling to accept that an LCD that cannot tilt is a detraction from the camera's functionality for photographers. They insist it must swivel out, period, arrogantly disregarding photographers... this on a photographer's camera no less. Our turf, so to speak.
Look at this from a photographer's POV: we are not "bitching" about camcorders not having more photography functionality, right? Or insisting that a camcorder's photographic capability should should be optimized over video capability.
A photographic camera's basic design - its form factor - is not optimized for video. A camcorder is. The so-called hybrid shooter likes the convenience to shoot video when engaged in photography, vs video.
No problem. We all get that video as a medium is increasing, while photography is declining. As this takes place, it makes sense manufacturer's will do more video enhancements to photographic camera, compared to them adding photographic functions to camcorders. So I think we all except we will have go give more on that front as this progresses.
But the part that I think starts arguments is when some videographers arrogantly insist ALL photographic cameras be optimized, bodies and now even lenses, for video. That simply by adding some level of video capability to any camera means it must be not just added in a way that does not detract from it's photography functionality ... it MUST be OPTIMIZED for video in every way.
THAT's what I would not buy: a camera that is not the best at photography.
I think the a7 IV, the line's general purpose photographic camera, will continue to evolve into more video capability, meaning video becoming more of a full-fledged functionality in it's roll as an all-around.
Beyond that, for those who want a dedicated, purpose built camera for video, why not, instead of insisting the a7r, a9, and a1 be completely re-engineered into camcorders, just use a high end camcorder?
Paul_100A wrote:
you state that there are no stills only cameras and you then add that stills only cameras are more expensive than 'hybird' cameras.
you are using 'what' data to support your nonsense?
which camera manufacturing company do you own/operate?
if manufactures chose to make a stills only, or video only, camera, thus removing the undesired and unneeded hardware/firmware components related to the unwanted features...and charged the same, or more, for each of those two very different camera as they would for a hybrid, i suspect most customers would perceive that as flat out contempt and thievery.
I use my knowledge about sales volume and its impact on price per item. Niche products don't sell much so their cost per item is high...thus manufactures need to charge more in order to meet revenue and profit goals. Since there is very little special hardware dedicated for video in today's cameras...you really don't save any cost by removing video from your camera...thus the higher price for the niche stills only camera.
What's your logic that a stills only camera would be cheaper than today's cameras? Rather than put down my logic...lay your logic out.
patriot wrote:
I'm not sure it's so much photographers not wanting any video capability in their cameras, as much as it not wanting those video enhancements to a camera to come at the expense photographic functionality.
The flippy selfie screen seems to be the most contentious video enhancement to photography cameras so far, especially as those continue to expand in new camera models.
Personally I don't care if a camera has video capability or not. And if it does, I don't care if it's just "OK", or fantastically executed. As long as it does not come at the expense of photographic functionality, or excellence, as we expect in higher end cameras.
If a rear LCD can still tilt without having to swivel out to the side, but can ALSO flip out for video selfies, so be it. I believe there are a few examples out there.
Yet we see some videographers who seem unwilling to accept that an LCD that cannot tilt is a detraction from the camera's functionality for photographers. They insist it must swivel out, period, arrogantly disregarding photographers... this on a photographer's camera no less. Our turf, so to speak.
Look at this from a photographer's POV: we are not "bitching" about camcorders not having more photography functionality, right? Or insisting that a camcorder's photographic capability should should be optimized over video capability.
A photographic camera's basic design - its form factor - is not optimized for video. A camcorder is. The so-called hybrid shooter likes the convenience to shoot video when engaged in photography, vs video.
No problem. We all get that video as a medium is increasing, while photography is declining. As this takes place, it makes sense manufacturer's will do more video enhancements to photographic camera, compared to them adding photographic functions to camcorders. So I think we all except we will have go give more on that front as this progresses.
But the part that I think starts arguments is when some videographers arrogantly insist ALL photographic cameras be optimized, bodies and now even lenses, for video. That simply by adding some level of video capability to any camera means it must be not just added in a way that does not detract from it's photography functionality ... it MUST be OPTIMIZED for video in every way.
THAT's what I would not buy: a camera that is not the best at photography.
I think the a7 IV, the line's general purpose photographic camera, will continue to evolve into more video capability, meaning video becoming more of a full-fledged functionality in it's roll as an all-around.
Beyond that, for those who want a dedicated, purpose built camera for video, why not, instead of insisting the a7r, a9, and a1 be completely re-engineered into camcorders, just use a high end camcorder?
Where is anyone saying all cameras MUST be optimized for video? Who is wanting their A1 to be re-engineered to make it more usable for video? I think you are over reacting a little bit.
chez wrote:
Where is anyone saying all cameras MUST be optimized for video? Who is wanting their A1 to be re-engineered to make it more usable for video? I think you are over reacting a little bit.
Really? Here's a question: can the same high-end lens optimized for photography, be equally optimized for high-end video? How about a lens designed for FF photography, and is regarded as absolutely stellar in every way ... could that be re-engineered to be just as stellar for video, with out any compromise from its current photography-optimized version?
Could the a1 or a9, outstanding cameras optimized for photography, that also have video functionality, be re-engineered to be equally optimized for video, without any compromise to their current outstanding functionality as photographic cameras? That would mean they perform, function, and handle equally as well as whatever their equivalent level professional camcorder does. Right up front, that is impossible because of the form factor.
Yet both have been suggested in this very thread, for any "hybrid" photography camera systems. Note, this seems to not be necessary for video camera systems.
I think you are ignoring what you know to be true: some, maybe much, of the "bitching" from photographers about the encroachment of video functionality into photographic cameras is driven by the arrogance of some video shooters who "bitch" for more of this, regardless of how these changes might compromise these cameras for photographers.
chez wrote:
Thank god there aren't any...but all the bitching about video infused into still cameras makes it sound like some would want a still only camera. And if you think a stills only camera will be cheaper...think again. It would be a niche camera and such cameras are more expensive.
"And if you think a stills only camera will be cheaper...think again"
So the ability to shoot 8k on the A1 was free I guess? No additional processing or hardware/heat management needed. Just like the ability to shoot 4k 60 on the A7iv which has the heat management system of the A7siii. For sure that was a free throw in as well and added no cost to the A7iv, right? I know I use the HDMI ports all the time for stills! Same with Mic in and headphone out jacks etc... Active image stabilization and the gyroscope, more free stuff. I can't wait to get an A7iv because all my Sony cameras up to this point would over heat shooting stills on hot days Yes, of course they "could" make a stills focused camera that is cheaper. Do I mind having video functionality on my camera, nope. But once it starts to directly change the way I shoot stills then it's a problem for me. Example : flip screen. That's when they are shoving something down your throat and it is not just something you can choose not to use. It changes the whole way people use the equipment. At the end of the day Sony seems to forget no matter how much "video" appears to be growing. Still photographers still out number videographers by over 1000 to 1. Probably way more actually. Sony seems to confuse people "watching videos" (which is a huge number) with the amount of people actually producing videos. I'm talking about people that "need" 4k60, 120 10 bit and all that crap. It's a very small market that requires those things. Let's not kid ourselves.
chez wrote:
I use my knowledge about sales volume and its impact on price per item. Niche products don't sell much so their cost per item is high...thus manufactures need to charge more in order to meet revenue and profit goals. Since there is very little special hardware dedicated for video in today's cameras...you really don't save any cost by removing video from your camera...thus the higher price for the niche stills only camera.
What's your logic that a stills only camera would be cheaper than today's cameras? Rather than put down my logic...lay your logic out.
you guess because you have no knowledge of sales volumes for modern stills only cameras since there aren't any.
i never claimed a stills only camera would be cheaper than a hybrid...but since you ask...
Olympus cameras have been referred to as niche products for years, No?
Olympus cameras are, and have always been, much less expensive than their FF counter parts. No?
How do you figure that?
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Sony seems to forget no matter how much "video" appears to be growing. Still photographers still out number videographers by over 1000 to 1. Probably way more actually. Sony seems to confuse people "watching videos" (which is a huge number) with the amount of people actually producing videos. I'm talking about people that "need" 4k60, 120 10 bit and all that crap. It's a very small market that requires those things. Let's not kid ourselves.
unfortunately Sony, all the other camera manufactures, software editing app (Adobe) makers, et all, are not 'forgetting' about stills shooters. They simply have better things to do(easier market group to fleece). They all coined the term "Content Creators", which sounds great, legit, relevant, and refers to every imaginable walk of life. they are now selling to that new market, the one they created and raised from infancy, while they can. Thanks to these great hybrid/video centric camera's, we all have no shortage of content creators' youtubes instructing us how to; tie our shoes, eat fish, walk our dog, apply mascara, buy their top choice of camera, etc. etc.. These content creators are in higher numbers than other consumer groups right now and since most of them don't have a clue about any camera...they'll buy whatever they are told to. All whom created the Content Creator market will nurture and suckle at that teet as long they possibly can.
I have preordered the A7 IV. I bought a A7R II a few years ago, and use it for a lot of documentation and misc freelance work. When I bought the A7R II, I thought it was interesting that it was capable of 4K video, but didn’t think much of it. I bought it purely for stills photography.
But lately, I have been shooting more and more video. Often with projects that used to be stills-only, I have clients asking if I can get some video as well. This is fine by me as I can charge more for this, but I also don’t want to cart around a large video camera, second tripod, etc. so actually I am glad to be able to use one camera and set of lenses for both stills and video.
I am not saying this is for everyone. I prefer the simple up-down tilt screen for photography (though I love that you can turn this screen around and protect it when not in use!). The A7S III or FX3 would have been better choices for video but they cost $6000 USD new in my country, so it was out of my budget to buy one of those and a separate stills camera. This is why I’m really excited about the hybrid aspects of the A7 IV. And if I can eventually afford something bigger in the future, maybe even a FX6, I can still use the lenses and have a backup/small B cam. This is why it makes sense for me.
Pianisimo wrote:
I have preordered the A7 IV. I bought a A7R II a few years ago, and use it for a lot of documentation and misc freelance work. When I bought the A7R II, I thought it was interesting that it was capable of 4K video, but didn’t think much of it. I bought it purely for stills photography.
But lately, I have been shooting more and more video. Often with projects that used to be stills-only, I have clients asking if I can get some video as well. This is fine by me as I can charge more for this, but I also don’t want to cart around a large video camera, second tripod, etc. so actually I am glad to be able to use one camera and set of lenses for both stills and video.
I am not saying this is for everyone. I prefer the simple up-down tilt screen for photography (though I love that you can turn this screen around and protect it when not in use!). The A7S III or FX3 would have been better choices for video but they cost $6000 USD new in my country, so it was out of my budget to buy one of those and a separate stills camera. This is why I’m really excited about the hybrid aspects of the A7 IV. And if I can eventually afford something bigger in the future, maybe even a FX6, I can still use the lenses and have a backup/small B cam. This is why it makes sense for me....Show more →
! (I know, I'm one of those, but not of course in this business. But my products are regulated a bit more, there are clear definitions on product attributes, and use of those terms have to be substantiated in advance.) I'd say the ones that do use this term in cameras can do so because there is NOT a clear definition. 
Yes, of course they "could" make a stills focused camera that is cheaper. Do I mind having video functionality on my camera, nope. But once it starts to directly change the way I shoot stills then it's a problem for me. Example : flip screen. That's when they are shoving something down your throat and it is not just something you can choose not to use. It changes the whole way people use the equipment. At the end of the day Sony seems to forget no matter how much "video" appears to be growing. Still photographers still out number videographers by over 1000 to 1. Probably way more actually. Sony seems to confuse people "watching videos" (which is a huge number) with the amount of people actually producing videos. I'm talking about people that "need" 4k60, 120 10 bit and all that crap. It's a very small market that requires those things. Let's not kid ourselves.