Please Nikon a high end DLSR without video (Page 5): I totally agree. The 5d m3 is being announced and it is heavy on video and a new price tag. I just want an improvement to the still...

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

R Dubs wrote:

The same goes for Canon.

I totally agree.
The 5d m3 is being announced and it is heavy on video and a new price tag. I just want an improvement to the still in my current 5d M2

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

thegrover wrote:

Okay thanks for all the input. I guess I will get a coffee maker with wifi and an LCD screen.
It is just I work so hard at trying to be a good photographer I do not want add learning how to make a good video.

I think there's an "Ignore" button on the new cameras. Press it and you are under no obligation to shoot videos. Now, if they would only put a "None of the Above" option on voting machines ballots, I'd be a happy man.

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

I didn't get the D7000 for video, or order a D800 for video. As mentioned by others, this feature didn't add much recurring cost since the image sensor, autofocus and color sensors, lens interface, recording interface, battery, display and camera housing are all needed for the DSLR......and then basically free for video.

I just used the video for the first time and played it back on a HDTV. All I can say is wow!! The sound quality is very good too (I did manual focus). In fact the video mode is so good I just ordered a remote mike and bracket......and lighting!!

Please if you have video on your camaera. Shoot some and play back on an HDTV, you will be suprised!!!

AlaskaTom08 Loc: Fairbanks, Alaska

I'm with you on that. I have a D300 that I dearly love, but it won't last forever and all the Nikon higher end digital SLRs now have video capability.

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

Brucej67 wrote:

I agree and with the race to the top of the Megapixels ladder that all the manufacturers are doing, I would rather see them build in 2 more color channels to make it 16 channels like the medium format cameras have.

Mongoose wrote:

I agree. But, I would like to see camera makers put the money spent on video and use it to improve the still photo capabilities.

Couldn't agree more, Bruce!

DougW Loc: SoCal

Well while we pick about it; How bout getting rid of all the program, av,tv and all the oter extranious bells and whistles
I vote for a full frame manual camera. ;) Painted black of course. :D

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

DougW wrote:

Well while we pick about it; How bout getting rid of all the program, av,tv and all the oter extranious bells and whistles
I vote for a full frame manual camera. ;)

I second that.

kschwegl Loc: Orangeburg, NY

What's wrong with having video capabilities? I shoot a lot of races, and I love being able to shoot a video of a pit stop without having to switch to a camcorder.
Ken .

Picdude Loc: Ohio

sinatraman wrote:

its all software the video doesn't add to the cost but drives sales. now i would never use video features because to paraphrase Dr Lenord "Bones" McCoy " Damit Jim Im a photographer not a cinematographer!!!" its bad enough have to compete with ansel adams, now the camera manufactureres want me to compete with steven spielberg too? lol

LOL!!!!!! :thumbup:

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

You are probably right; however instead of increasing Megapixels increasing the color channels to match the full format digital would be a huge advantage. Think about it from a practical point of view, even at ten grand for the body of a Nikon, Canon or Sony to have a chip and processor that handles 16 channels would put an end to $36,000 for a Mamiya RB digital or $45,000 for a Hassy.

RMM wrote:

Brucej67 wrote:

I agree and with the race to the top of the Megapixels ladder that all the manufacturers are doing, I would rather see them build in 2 more color channels to make it 16 channels like the medium format cameras have.

Adding color channels would mean changing the sensor, and that's the most critical and costly component in the camera body. That would probably be a lot more expensive than any possible savings from dumping video capabilities.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

It could be interesting research to find out how many still photo features have been enhanced by the need to improve video and how many benefits we are reaping in a DSLR camera because of the video features incorporated. I rarely use the video feature but it has proven nice on occasion. I also never thought I would use the continuous shooting mode by holding down the shutter button until I actually had it to use.

I say go ahead and incorporate both functions and let them drive each other for an overall improved device. I'll use whatever functions out of it I want.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

thegrover wrote:

I would love to have a D7000 or D800 that was still photo only. Does anyone else feel the same way?
Simpler menu, lower price, focus on photo features.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

davpal Loc: long island

If you a can take a single frame out of the vido there can be a chance to get
a picture not avilble in the normal way that the camera works.
it seems if one camera manfucter puts a feature in
to a camera the rest must follow or lose the selling edge of the market for the product

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

sinatraman wrote:

its all software the video doesn't add to the cost but drives sales. now i would never use video features because to paraphrase Dr Lenord "Bones" McCoy " Damit Jim Im a photographer not a cinematographer!!!" its bad enough have to compete with ansel adams, now the camera manufactureres want me to compete with steven spielberg too? lol

sinatraman, I don't often disagree with you, but the software for firmware is exponentialy harder to write. Adding the firmware for video would add extensively to the cost. It's like new pharmaceuticals on the market. They have to make the cost on r&d as soon as possible, therefore the cost of a non-video camera would be significantly lower. I haven't written any firmware in a number of years, but we once had to write it in assembly language, which is very difficult. We would then have to run it through an emulator which, itself, had to be written in assembly language. It's not like writing in a 4gl language or C++ or Python.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

thank you. the point i was trying to make in a very clumsy way was that most of the cost for a dslr with or without video would be nearly the same. adding video didn't add to the mechanical equipment side of the camera. with or without video, a d-800 lets say will still have a mirror, lens mount ,sensor, af system metering system hot shoe etc. if you opened up a video dslr and put it next to the same model without video you couldn't tell them apart. not a computer person, so i bow to your expertise on how costly writing the firmware would be. my long winded point is you wouldn't save much money, and people would still spend the extra for all the bells and whistles. look at new cars there is a reason you can hardly find a stripped down basic sedan on the lot, people say they want em but wind up buying the loaded vehicle instead for just a little more.