DSLR video as an add-on: Here's a thought. I'd buy a DSLR that uses an add-on to provide video. I never use video. Theoretically (there's that word), it could (and that other word) be...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Here's a thought. I'd buy a DSLR that uses an add-on to provide video. I never use video. Theoretically (there's that word), it could (and that other word) be cheaper than a DSLR that has both. Devoted videographers use devoted video equipment. Why should devoted still photographers have to buy a camera that does both just because it can? We have interchangeable lenses and other accessories. Video could be just another accessorie.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

gvarner wrote:

Here's a thought. I'd buy a DSLR that uses an add-on to provide video. I never use video. Theoretically (there's that word), it could (and that other word) be cheaper than a DSLR that has both. Devoted videographers use devoted video equipment. Why should devoted still photographers have to buy a camera that does both just because it can? We have interchangeable lenses and other accessories. Video could be just another accessorie.

The Nikon Df is a full frame DSLR that does not have video.

BebuLamar

Mac wrote:

The Nikon Df is a full frame DSLR that does not have video.

And yet it's more expensive than most in the line up. At one time you can get the D810 for less than the Df. So removing the video doesn't make it less expensive. If you want to save money just ignore the features that you don't want. Cameras that have fewer features tend to cost more.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Great idea! Now me, I never shoot jpgs, so I'm gonna insist that my next DSLR shoots only RAWs...

BebuLamar

kymarto wrote:

Great idea! Now me, I never shoot jpgs, so I'm gonna insist that my next DSLR shoots only RAWs...

That would save you a lot of money. Check out the Leica M Edition "Leica 60". It only shoot DNG.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Video doesn't add much to the cost of a DSLR, so camera manufacturers usually add it in for those who do want it. It would probably cost them more to make a separate version without video as there wouldn't be as much demand for it.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Theoretically, it could be that a camera is cheaper with video tools built in because of higher total sales volumes. IMHO, the majority of DSLRs do a bad job of incorporating video capability.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

BebuLamar wrote:

And yet it's more expensive than most in the line up. At one time you can get the D810 for less than the Df. So removing the video doesn't make it less expensive. If you want to save money just ignore the features that you don't want. Cameras that have fewer features tend to cost more.

Perhaps you could provide a link to prove this assertion?

BebuLamar

MT Shooter wrote:

Perhaps you could provide a link to prove this assertion?

What assertion?

BebuLamar

BebuLamar wrote:

What assertion?

Camera that have fewer features tend to cost more?
Yes a link here https://www.engadget.com/2014/09/16/leica-m-edition-60/

Compare it to other Leica's it has fewer features and cost more.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

BebuLamar wrote:

Camera that have fewer features tend to cost more?
Yes a link here https://www.engadget.com/2014/09/16/leica-m-edition-60/

Compare it to other Leica's it has fewer features and cost more.

And what does that have to do with your statement of the D810 costing less than the Df?
Can't back up the statement? I thought not.

BebuLamar

MT Shooter wrote:

And what does that have to do with your statement of the D810 costing less than the Df?
Can't back up the statement? I thought not.

A Couple of month ago the D810 cost only $2500 new with the battery grip thrown in. I said at one time. And it was I think a couple of month ago. It was in Nov of 2016.
Since the price has gone back up since January no store would have the price. But I can link a discussion post from photo.net discussing the sale.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-usa-200-off-for-d500-body-only-and-more.512645/

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Anyone who thinks that having two identical models save for one with and one without video would make the one without video cheaper, has never worked in manufacturing.

The video feature is virtually all programming. Having to produce two versions just raises the cost of inventory, advertising, manuals, etc.

Jesus, just don't use it.

BebuLamar

CaptainC wrote:

Anyone who thinks that having two identical models save for one with and one without video would make the one without video cheaper, has never worked in manufacturing.

The video feature is virtually all programming. Having to produce two versions just raises the cost of inventory, advertising, manuals, etc.

Jesus, just don't use it.

That's what I said all along! If you are picky and want your camera in a certain way then prepare to pay for it. If you want to save money just take what's available and ignore what you don't need or want.

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

I shoot video of my grandson playing ice hockey and lacrosse. I don't like using a DSLR for video work. I have a Canon 7D MK II that would take video, but I never use it. Old fashion, I guess.