MW

I never use it either. It just clutters up the menu system for me.

Two alternative suggestions for camera makers:

1-Add a menu selection that give three options- show only video relate to menu items, only still photography, or both

2-Include all the different functionalities you can squeeze into the firmware but lock down (make inaccessible) all but the minimum basic still functionalities. Reduce the price substantially. Sell unlock codes via download to add functions and features. Result is customer gets and pays for only what they want/need. If a customer really wants ALL the bells and whistles the total price will be greater than the one size fits all price we see today. (This scheme works well in some industries such as communication equipment. Sometimes called Disneyland pricing)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Clutters up the menu system? How so? Don't know what camera system your using, but on Canon DSLRs most video related functions are in video specific menus.

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

I don't understand that at all.

First to the clutter. My D7100 requires me to press the MENU button, select SHOOTING MENU and then, finally, select MOVIE SETTINGS. I guess that all DSLRs with video capability are similar. Other than that, and the LIVE VIEW selector and the START/STOP button, there is nothing else.

Then you want the manufacturer to build in all the capabilities but only charge for some. I can hear the grumbling already: "It's it my camera -why do I have to pay more to use it?"

I wonder if you feel the same way about your smart phone. Should you be able to select which features you pay for or pay less because making them all the same is cheaper for the manufacturer and for the consumer.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I tend to agree with you. The menus seem completely manageable with Canon, and although much more sophisticated and extensive than they used to be in cameras like the T90 from 1986, it's still based on the same system. Even adding non Canon capabilities such as Magic Lantern doesn't clutter the menus, it really just adds a new set of layers that only show up when selected.

As for having cameras like smartphones, with "app" purchases etc. I question whether the market would be big enough to make it cost effective for a company like Canon or Nikon, so it probably wouldn't make camera equipment cheaper. Possibly the opposite. The enterprise telco example given is a very different business model from the consumer/pro-sumer/professional DSLR market.

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

I agree. The economy of scale makes it less costly to build a large number of identical items than to build some number of similar models with different features, even if the total number built is the same.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Never used the video feature on any of my cameras. Good video requires a different skill set and a lot more work. I'm not prepared to commit the time, effort and additional expense to do it right and I won't make a half-assed attempt.

Wheelman Loc: Indiana

My Canon sx20 is not DSLR so I may get hammered for chiming in here but I get great video the church uses when reporting on mission trips. Plus the stills. And I only have to carry one camera.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I've gotten good video on a Fujifilm HS10 bridge camera. I had to use a separate audio recorder, sync it to the camera audio in the editor, then mute the camera audio in the editor because the motor sounds of the autofocus and auto-aperture changes ruined the audio. But the edited video was very good.
Bob

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Thank you for being honest and not blaming everything on the camera manufacturers.