StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Personally, I couldn't be less interested in having video capability in my DSLR or mirrorless ILC camera. And I can't envision why someone to whom video is a priority would want to use a DSLR for that purpose as a dedicated video camera would, most likely, provide more video related features and capability. Since I did a lot of cost studies in my career, I tend to wonder about the incremental cost of features in the items I use. So, I thought I would ask the question here for the experts to educate me and possibly others - What is the incremental cost of the video feature in a DSLR? Or asked in another way, how much could a non-video person like me save on the purchase of a DSLR/MILC if the video capability was an optional feature? Is it cost effective for a manufacturer to produce DLSRs or MILCs with video or without video as the buyer desires?

Thank you for your time and information.

Stan

BebuLamar

It actually cost you more if you want a DSLR and especially MILC camera without video. The reason? The actual saving in manufacturing is very low and the cost of losing a lot of customers for a particular model is very high.

BebuLamar

I think without the video feature a camera would cost about %5 less to make at most but the manufacturer would stand to lose about 90% of their potential customers.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

I understand your point but you don't need video capability until you need it. (sounds like a Yogi Berra quote) What I mean is this day & age you never know what the next item you photograph. I will take 30-secs of video of a car chase over 30 still shots. Have showed up not planning video then someone starts singing or dancing - catch that on a still.

I shoot lots of video and stills and prefer one good camera over carrying/operating two. Today all video features are available in PP.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The cost, in 2018, is incremental. All the functions that make for a professional DSLR are there for video recording. Just whatever licensing fees are necessary for MP4 output and the addition of a button on the body.

Unless you're Quentin Tarantino or James Cameron, the majority of films are shot digitally on Canon, Red, Blackmagic or other specialized video cameras, which are not that far, technologically, than DSLRs. And a lot of establishing shots or "B" roll or commercials are shot on DSLRs.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Thank you, gentlemen. You have satisfied my curiosity.

Stan

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I couldn't comment on cost but if you don't want a camera capable of video, don't buy one. There's a whole lot of really nice older DSLR'S out there that don't have video capabilities.
Having video in the DSLR or MILC is a matter of conveniency and functionality. Why have two cameras when one will do everything.
If one is shooting only video then it would make sense to use a dedicated video camera. But, there are times when a DSLR is a better tool for video than a video camera.
One of the things I do with my 5D IV is shoot in 4K video and use frame capture, it's like simulated 30 frames per second.
There are times when I'm out taking photos and I encounter something I want more than a single still image of. I just press a button and shoot video.
With digital cameras, adding video is not a cost intensive issue, it mostly software so it's easy to do. It doesn't add weight to the camera, doesn't make it cost a lot more and it gives the manufacturers an additional characteristics to use as a selling point.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Personally, I don't use video on my DSLR and don't really care for it. I have used it a couple of times when Hurricane Irma hit Clearwater, Fl. However, that was an exception and was because the battery in my video camera was dead. Shows how often I deal with video... lol!
Anyway, I have a Nikon D610 and a Nikon D7100 (also the wife's D7000) and rarely (almost never) shoot video. If I could have gotten the cameras without it, I would have. However, it doesn't cost me anything, and it's there if I decide to use it. I just have to remember to set it back to regular shooting when I finish. LOL! Its really frustrating to have a really nice shot setup and have the camera go to video rather than take the image.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

This question comes up about once a month. A Panasonic rep told me this: It would cost far more to produce two versions of the same model, than to simply include the controls for video and stills in the same body.

A digital still camera IS a video camera! The sensor captures an analog video signal, digitizes it, and stores frames as stills or video. The software (in firmware) required to do that is sophisticated, but mostly works for both purposes. So WHY NOT put both capabilities in the same body?

Even my wife’s inexpensive Nikon D3300 records really decent HD video. That means she doesn’t have to buy a video camera to do her job (which includes developing web sites featuring stills and video of industrial ducting products).

I am a training content developer. I use a Lumix GH4 for about equal amounts of still and video photography.

I used to have a Canon EOS 50D and a Canon GL2 SD video camcorder. Using both was sequential and confusing and slow. Traveling with both was expensive! Excess baggage charges add up quickly.

Now, everything I need is in one bag that fits under an airplane seat. And if I record 4K, I can extract very nice stills from the video to use in printed and PDF manuals, so much of what I do takes half the time.

Since I grew up with an SLR in my hands, I actually PREFER that form factor for video. I had six different video cameras or camcorders from 1982 to 2012. For the work I do, I don’t miss the features of any.

Maybe if I were making Hollywood movies, an ARRI Alexa or a Red Epic would make sense, but for simple storytelling, documentaries, and film festival entries, my GH4 is fine.

If you don’t think professionals can do good work with cheap cameras, look up the film, *Sriracha*, by Griffin Hammond. It’s won several awards. It was filmed with a Lumix GH3.

BebuLamar

While there are only few responses in this thread but as I have seen in other threads, the majority of people won't buy a camera without video capability if it's only a little bit less expensive. This fact made it impossible to make and sell a still camera without video for a profit unless they make it a niche like the Nikon Df which the price is significantly higher.
So if you are like me who insist that their still camera doesn't have video then you have to pay the price. In the case of the OP, he wanted some savings and that's simply not possible.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Thanks to you all for the information and education on the video feature of DSLR/MILC cameras. I should probably look for opportunities to use the virtually free video feature of my cameras!


Stan

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The one area where dSLRs’ and some mirrorless cameras’ video features fall far short: AUDIO.

About 60% of what we perceive from most video is in the soundtrack. Yet most of these dSLR/MILC cameras have:

truly crappy microphones
no headphone jack
automatic gain control that can’t be defeated
no audio level controls
no level meters
no switchable limiters
no line input
unbalanced mic input
noisy mic preamps

Accordingly, to get around this, use an external digital recorder/mixer at 48KHz sample rate, along with external microphones. Then sync the sound in Final Cut Pro or Premiere, using (then muting) the scratch track from the camera to match wave forms in the timeline.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

In real terms, cameras have come down in price over time rather than gone up. If you adjust for inflation, look at any model line and compare the cost of the last camera without video, and the current iteration. Besides, in this day and age it would cost more to market a camera without video.

BebuLamar

If I ever do video I would certainly record my sound separately. With digital recorder that keep the speed with high precision it's not hard to synchronize sound to video even without SMPTE time code.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The key is to match the sampling frequency of the recorder to that of the camera. If they’re different, you’ll get “sync creep.”