anotherview wrote:
So far, the shills for video capability in a digital camera claim two things. One, it would prove not cost effective to produce a stills-only digital camera. Two, it doesn't cost that much to implement video function in a camera given its resident electronics.
I say "claims" because I've seen no numbers that support their arguments.
Putting video capability in a a digital camera may or may not affect its cost.
For sure, though, video in a digital camera presents a starting point to promote videography as another money-making market. Recall the intense advertising that accompanied the introduction of video in digital cameras. This sell-job seemed to appear everywhere, expense be damned. A cameraman just had to own video equipment to stay in the field of photography, and especially so because now clients would demand video. Etc.
Still photographers almost overnight became relegated to the status of has-beens by typists. They hailed the new video era. Etc.
To my knowledge, nobody has examined the matter of still photographers who fell for the hoopla over video and expended big dollars to ride the wave only soon to learn that video required not just more dollars but a shelf full of accessories, to say nothing of the new skill-set necessary to produce worthy videos. Likely, their video gear gathers dust or they sold it.
Since video recording became possible in camera, I have done maybe half a dozen video clips. Videography generates no appeal for me. Blissfully, I take one photograph at a time.
So far, the shills for video capability in a digit... (
show quote)