Paul_100A wrote:
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
.
No they arent. Thats why the 12 megapixel a7S III is $3,500 and the 33 megapixel a7IV is only $2,500. Sony charges more for their video-centric cameras. Photographers are indeed paying a premium in these hybrid cameras for the video features found in more expensive cameras, not the other way around. Take the video features out of the a7IV and its a $1,500 camera at most. They really need to make a model like that for those of us who dont care about video. This is just one reason Ive been tempted to go MF, especially with the new GFX 50S II at only $3,999.
Apologize if this was posted already. But I thought this was a refreshing reality check about the A7iv. Nicely done video. Even though this camera isn't for me I think he makes some nice points about why this will be a great camera for many.
Hitting two markets with one camera increases volume thereby lowering the selling price.
Dexter75 wrote:
No they arent. Thats why the 12 megapixel a7S III is $3,500 and the 33 megapixel a7IV is only $2,500. Sony charges more for their video-centric cameras. Photographers are indeed paying a premium in these hybrid cameras for the video features found in more expensive cameras, not the other way around. Take the video features out of the a7IV and its a $1,500 camera at most. They really need to make a model like that for those of us who dont care about video. This is just one reason Ive been tempted to go MF, especially with the new GFX 50S II at only $3,999. ...Show more →
Dexter75 wrote:
No they arent. Thats why the 12 megapixel a7S III is $3,500 and the 33 megapixel a7IV is only $2,500. Sony charges more for their video-centric cameras. Photographers are indeed paying a premium in these hybrid cameras for the video features found in more expensive cameras, not the other way around. Take the video features out of the a7IV and its a $1,500 camera at most. They really need to make a model like that for those of us who dont care about video. This is just one reason Ive been tempted to go MF, especially with the new GFX 50S II at only $3,999. ...Show more →
Care to show us any proof or information on how much more video costs in today's cameras. Seems to me all you are doing is winging it and making yourself sound like you actually know. Where's the pudding?
chez wrote:
Care to show us any proof or information on how much more video costs in today's cameras. Seems to me all you are doing is winging it and making yourself sound like you actually know. Where's the pudding?
I already gave you the "pudding" which you are ignoring like usual when proven wrong. Still shooters don't need HDMI ports, Headphone jacks, mic jacks, CFexpress Type A card slots, gyroscopes, Active in body stabilization, flippy screens, dedicated record buttons, Heat management systems, connectivity/streaming capabilities, focus breathing compensation, Etc... All these things add cost to the camera not to mention take up space and still shooters are paying for them regardless of need. Camera's could be made smaller, battery life extended because of less internal processing needed. Chips and memory internally would not have to be as expensive if there was no video. It's not even a debatable topic. The fact video exists raises the price. Well, except in Chez world where Sony throws all these things in for free.
Atlasman2 wrote:
Hitting two markets with one camera increases volume thereby lowering the selling price.
Then why does the a7S line even exist? The a7S line is clearly the video-centric line. What Sony should do is keep the a7 series for photographers and put all the video stuff into the a7S line. Both sides are happy and neither is overpaying for features they dont want or need. I have no idea why Fuji and Hasselblad are the only companies who seem to gets this. The GFX and X1D cameras are 90% photography, video is an afterthought on them. I dont want or need video features, much less pay extra for them. Whoever figures it out between Sony, Canon and Nikon and puts out a FF mirrorless dedicated to PHOTOGRAPHY and priced around $1500 will have a goldmine on their hands. Unfortunately, they are too busy being greedy and putting out $3k+ cameras....As I said, medium format seems the way to go for photographers these days.
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
Dexter75 wrote:
Then why does the a7S line even exist? The a7S line is clearly the video-centric line. What Sony should do is keep the a7 series for photographers and put all the video stuff into the a7S line. Both sides are happy and neither is overpaying for features they dont want or need. I have no idea why Fuji and Hasselblad are the only companies who seem to gets this. The GFX and X1D cameras are 90% photography, video is an afterthought on them. I dont want or need video features, much less pay extra for them. Whoever figures it out between Sony, Canon and Nikon and puts out a FF mirrorless dedicated to PHOTOGRAPHY and priced around $1500 will have a goldmine on their hands. Unfortunately, they are too busy being greedy and putting out $3k+ cameras....As I said, medium format seems the way to go for photographers these days. ...Show more →
raminolta wrote:
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
raminolta wrote:
Sony will not listen to this kind of suggestion and will continue producing hybrid still/video cameras in their main mirrorless line. Those who are bothered by video features better find a manufacturer that produces still only cameras and/or get over it. Sony isn't that stupid to go that route and these people are just beating the dead horse here.
Anyway, A7s iii isn't $3500 because it is a video-centric camera. It is because it is a specialty camera targeting a limited audience. It's not a 'specialty camera' because it is a 'video camera' but because it is a 'special video camera'. The price is the reflection of the anticipated market demand and unit sales. The price tag of a camera may not have much to do with the actual cost of the production line (the sum of its parts including the video only parts such has HDMI, etc.). A still only camera will probably be priced similar to A7s iii because most people will buy the hybrid one.
Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500.
"Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500."
Funny part is Sony has gotten to be number one from nowhere with out ever having 4K60 or a flip screen. 90% of people on forums that "say" they need it don't. Just like 10 bit. Panasonic has had it for awhile and has it helped their sales? Nope! But that is the way Company's work now. They get lazy and just watch social media/ you tube and the loudest whinners are video guys that are too cheap to buy "actual" video equipment. Again people don't (at least I don't) care if I'm paying for these video features until it turns a photographic camera into a video camera. A flip screen does that. It's no longer a hybrid camera it's a video camera. The style of the (photography) camera body has been this way since the beginning of time. If Sony put features on video cameras like a tilt screen instead of the flip OMG all hell would break loose. Something that simple changes the whole usability of the tool for many (of course not all, someone will say they love it). There are plenty of options for video shooters. Sony doesn't have to ruin the experience for still shooters especially for a niche market. As I said previously there are still 1000+ to 1 more still shooters than video and it's not even close. We will see how things go. The A7c has certainly not been high in demand except the secondary market. Sony especially missed the demographic in my opinion on that one. I'd have kept mine if it just eliminated the flip screen. But again these are obviously my personal opinions. Nothing more.
Dexter75 wrote:
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
Maybe good at all trades, master of none is more like it. However its also not 6500.00 like the A1 or even 3500.00 like the A7RIV. I think for a lot of folks a "good at all trades" camera will be fine. An A9, A7RIV or A1 it's not nor is it an A7C. I think its price point is pretty on the spot. "A crippled camera" I do not think so. Folks can decide to buy it or not. I plan on adding one to my A9 and A7RIV but that's my choice and my money. The A7IV offers a couple of things my A9 and A7RIV don't have and a couple of things I want.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
"Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500."
Funny part is Sony has gotten to be number one from nowhere with out ever having 4K60 or a flip screen. 90% of people on forums that "say" they need it don't. Just like 10 bit. Panasonic has had it for awhile and has it helped their sales? Nope! But that is the way Company's work now. They get lazy and just watch social media/ you tube and the loudest whinners are video guys that are too cheap to buy "actual" video equipment. Again people don't (at least I don't) care if I'm paying for these video features until it turns a photographic camera into a video camera. A flip screen does that. It's no longer a hybrid camera it's a video camera. The style of the (photography) camera body has been this way since the beginning of time. If Sony put features on video cameras like a tilt screen instead of the flip OMG all hell would break loose. Something that simple changes the whole usability of the tool for many (of course not all, someone will say they love it). There are plenty of options for video shooters. Sony doesn't have to ruin the experience for still shooters especially for a niche market. As I said previously there are still 1000+ to 1 more still shooters than video and it's not even close. We will see how things go. The A7c has certainly not been high in demand except the secondary market. Sony especially missed the demographic in my opinion on that one. I'd have kept mine if it just eliminated the flip screen. But again these are obviously my personal opinions. Nothing more. ...Show more →
I don't need 10bit video, because all the compressed crap from these hybrid stills cameras is either good quality sooc, or breaks easily (wether it's 8 or 10 bit) when pushed in post.
4K60 though, that's important, if you need slow motion, which you will at some point, you don't want to be delivering or trying to upscale the 2010 720p or at best 1080p Sony gave us until recently.
Cropped 4K60 is better than nothing, but it's not ideal either.
To me the biggest video function is the automatic in-camera breathing correction. Thats a huge post production time saver, the crop is minimal too so that's great.
That’s because Panasonic AF is awful and the brand itself has no momentum, that takes a while to build.
Sony has figured out how to sell cameras, and they tested the market many times with items like the A7c, which I felt was overpriced, market says not so…. The A7iv will be substantially better and easily worth the 500. An A7c mark ii with A7iv internals world fly off the shelf.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
"Camera manufacturers have learned that if they implement video features in their still camera models, they can increase the sales. This benefits both them and the consumers because be increasing the production, the price per unit can be lower hence a hybrid A7 iv priced at $2500."
Funny part is Sony has gotten to be number one from nowhere with out ever having 4K60 or a flip screen. 90% of people on forums that "say" they need it don't. Just like 10 bit. Panasonic has had it for awhile and has it helped their sales? Nope! But that is the way Company's work now. They get lazy and just watch social media/ you tube and the loudest whinners are video guys that are too cheap to buy "actual" video equipment. Again people don't (at least I don't) care if I'm paying for these video features until it turns a photographic camera into a video camera. A flip screen does that. It's no longer a hybrid camera it's a video camera. The style of the (photography) camera body has been this way since the beginning of time. If Sony put features on video cameras like a tilt screen instead of the flip OMG all hell would break loose. Something that simple changes the whole usability of the tool for many (of course not all, someone will say they love it). There are plenty of options for video shooters. Sony doesn't have to ruin the experience for still shooters especially for a niche market. As I said previously there are still 1000+ to 1 more still shooters than video and it's not even close. We will see how things go. The A7c has certainly not been high in demand except the secondary market. Sony especially missed the demographic in my opinion on that one. I'd have kept mine if it just eliminated the flip screen. But again these are obviously my personal opinions. Nothing more. ...Show more →
Breathing correction is extremely limited, not many lenses get that feature
Bob_S wrote:
I don't need 10bit video, because all the compressed crap from these hybrid stills cameras is either good quality sooc, or breaks easily (wether it's 8 or 10 bit) when pushed in post.
4K60 though, that's important, if you need slow motion, which you will at some point, you don't want to be delivering or trying to upscale the 2010 720p or at best 1080p Sony gave us until recently.
Cropped 4K60 is better than nothing, but it's not ideal either.
To me the biggest video function is the automatic in-camera breathing correction. Thats a huge post production time saver, the crop is minimal too so that's great....Show more →
nhsonyshooter wrote:
"Hitting two markets with one camera increases volume thereby lowering the selling price."
Not if you alienating the 1000x larger market that got you to where you currently are.
Exactly what stills only camera got Sony to where they are today? Video has been part of every Sony camera so I don't know where this 1000x market you are talking about comes from. And what about that billions potential phone users that Sony is trying to lure over...how do you think they would feel if their camera did not have video incorporated into it...duh.
I guess every camera manufacturer just got it wrong and are all alienating this 1000x market...
Dexter75 wrote:
and its overpriced at $2500. It only shoots 5fps in RAW which angers photographers and it has a massive 1.5x crop in 4K 60p which angers video shooters. Its trying to be a bit of everything and it fails. Jack of all trades, master of none. They are doing it intentionally to protect their higher end cameras, so what's the point? You are paying $2500 for a crippled camera.
If you want a master camera...then open your wallet and lay down $6,500 for the A1 or $4,500 for the A7R4. If this A74 camera "angers" you so much...then get another camera...but stop your whining.
chez wrote:
Yep, niche / low volume implies expensive...general / high volume implies reduced price. Doesn't take a genius to see this.
and your genius opinion on Olympus' low pricing on their niche products was?
is Olympus not a niche product as has been stated so often and for so long.
chez wrote:
If you want a master camera...then open your wallet and lay down $6,500 for the A1 or $4,500 for the A7R4. If this A74 camera "angers" you so much...then get another camera...but stop your whining.
wow!!! i did not get the memo...are you the official boss or un-official boss of the forums?
i think the whole point of the discussion is that some folks seem not bothered to pay extra for something they do not want while some folks are indeed bothered to pay for something they do not want. i'm not aware of a 'master' stills only camera...are you? therefor i'm guessing then your term "master camera" means a body with high end stills and high end video capabilities. why did we stop using the catchy, new, and fresh term "hybrid camera"?
i think the evidence suggests that some folks indeed want a high end stills camera but prefer not to lay out large sums of money for a high end stills camera which includes an added premium for it's high end video capabilities.
seems like the discussion is going in going in circles don't it?
Paul_100A wrote:
and your genius opinion on Olympus' low pricing on their niche products was? or is Olympus not a niche product as had been stated so often for so long.
Oly's strategy of stills-centric cameras has got them where they are today: losing money and on the brink of death.
