Simple cameras (Page 2): Exactly what structures and mechanisms within the camera do you think a stills only model would eliminate? So far as I know video capability is provided by the...

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

HRBIEL wrote:

Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)

Exactly what structures and mechanisms within the camera do you think a stills only model would eliminate? So far as I know video capability is provided by the camera's firmware and simply uses the available capabilities the camera. I know of no components that are dedicated to video alone. If anything, a stills only model of any particular camera would cost more.

Salo Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I also could do without all the video enhancements in today's cameras. In fact, when I do get the urge to capture a video of something enjoyable like the grandkids playing, I usually whip out my cellphone for that. It doesn't produce cinematic 4k masterpieces, but it does let me see and remember spending a happy or an interesting time, and those reminiscences are pleasant enough for me.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Haydon wrote:

It's retained it's selling price well throughout its lifetime.

That's because it's a purpose designed nostalgic collector piece. They are only in demand to the older, film era set. Few younger people care about an overpriced digital camera designed to look and feel and function like something from the 1970's.
The Df is expensive not because it is a superior camera. It's because it sells to a very specific limited market. Low demand equates to higher cost.
If you wasn't an inexpensive stills digital camera, buy a D3400 or something like that and just don't use the video functions.
No company is going to design and build an inexpensive digital camera that has limited functionality just for a small audience; it's not financially logical.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Bobspez wrote:

I have a Nikon D200. Very nice stills camera, no video, no live view, though you can see shots on the lcd screen after they are taken. Can buy one for less than $200 on ebay. Not light weight though.

I still have a D80- great pix, no video, not too simple nor complicated

joelbolden

The Pentax K-20D had no video capablility. Great camera; I had one until I dropped it into a river. Been meaning to get a new(used) one, they can be found at the usual sites.

Haydon

rmorrison1116 wrote:

That's because it's a purpose designed nostalgic c... (show quote)

It has another merit to it. It possesses the D4 sensor which I'm sure is another factor in value to this expensive niche camera. It's also a great low light monster.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

HRBIEL wrote:

Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)

This has been discussed hundreds of times here and elsewhere. The difference in cost and reduction in size or weight would be marginal at best if video functionality was removed from any stills camera today.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

HRBIEL wrote:

Marketing a camera with no video capabilities could probably cost less, maybe weigh less, have a smaller form factor, and be less complicated to operate.

The circuitry components required for video capability amount to about the size of a fingernail and weigh less than an ounce. Leaving them out will have virtually no impact on weight and size of the camera. Nor would it cut manufacturing costs to any significant amount. The components are not all that expensive, and the mass-produced circuit board is printed. And video bloggers, a rapidly growing market, certainly wouldn't want to buy such a camera - which means fewer sales for that model.

Don't press the video record button, and you won't need to deal with the video aspect of your camera at all. Simple enough!

I have a DSLR without video capability - the Nikon D40. Although I generally do not record videos, there have been a few situations over the years that I wished the D40 could record video.

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

rmorrison1116 wrote:

That's because it's a purpose designed nostalgic c... (show quote)

If the Df was a 1k camera, I bet they would sell a lot more (I would love one). So I think the price is only for nostalgic/niche reasons, it is great camera regardless of controls and looks.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

mwsilvers wrote:

This has been discussed hundreds of times here and elsewhere. The difference in cost and reduction in size or weight would be marginal at best if video functionality was removed from any stills camera today.

What difference does it make how many times its been discussed!? Do you believe every UHH member participates in every conversation? Do you believe that every new UHH member searches the archives to see what has already been discussed? If you don't like it when a topic is discussed more than once, just skip over it. It's like television, if you don't care for what's on a channel, change to another channel.

BebuLamar

So don't feel bad if you don't use all the features on your cameras. You didn't waste money by having them and not using them. You're actually saving money by accepting features you don't need.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rmorrison1116 wrote:

What difference does it make how many times its been discussed!? Do you believe every UHH member participates in every conversation? Do you believe that every new UHH member searches the archives to see what has already been discussed? If you don't like it when a topic is discussed more than once, just skip over it. It's like television, if you don't care for what's on a channel, change to another channel.

You misconstrued the meaning of my post. I was not being critical of the OP, nor did I suggest he should have searched anywhere before posting. I was merely giving him an historical perspective of the subject. Was I being inaccurate? If it sounded critical it was unintentional.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

HRBIEL wrote:

Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)

For me the issue is comparatively moot. No disrespect intended, but it is clear that the video capabilities of some dSLR/T and mirrorless cameras are, in relative terms, either inferior or superior to their respective still image capabilities and that these differences are largely known to the prospective buyer.

In my case, I don’t really mind that none of my five Sony digital ILCs has 4k video capability and I’ve become accustomed to not thinking of my two Sony a6000 cameras as doing video, given the most clumsily-placed button for activating video mode.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

mwsilvers wrote:

You misconstrued the meaning of my post. I was not being critical of the OP, nor did I suggest he should have searched anywhere before posting. I was merely giving him an historical perspective of the subject. Was I being inaccurate? If it sounded critical it was unintentional.

I believe you. It can be exhausting to defend oneself as to the nature and tone of what one writes. I can see how your previous post could be misconstrued, though. I’m not being rhetorical when I ponder here whether there exists some short "catch-all" phrase that one is simply being factual without any innuendo intended.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

BebuLamar wrote:

So don't feel bad if you don't use all the features on your cameras. You didn't waste money by having them and not using them. You're actually saving money by accepting features you don't need.