starShoot wrote:
Well now, what we are both missing is the research and development budgets of the camera manufacturers. However, I do concede on the need to be competitive. But my contention that a more capable still camera would have been less costly, or your projection that such cameras would have become expensive niche cameras are both beliefs, contentions and theories, unlikely to be post facto tested. Finally, the comment to which I responded today, appeared on my phone today. Actually, I ignore well in excess of 99.9% of issues on this, and other websites. I also never critize others for their views on photography equipment choices, including subject matter or style. So, while I am not going to lambast you as wrong, mistaken or out-of-touch, I will remind you that the same option to simply not respond is open to you. Again, I am pleased that mirrorless cameras are causing DSLR cameras to be less expensive. That, sir, is a bottom and satisfying line FOR ME. I do hope you are enjoying the photography equipment of YOUR choice.
Well now, what we are both missing is the research... (
show quote)
I’m not criticizing your choice of equipment, just stating why you won’t see a modern mirrorless camera without video capability. I’m not saying that there might not be a cost saving in manufacturing a camera without video, but any savings would be a pittance since the differences would be largely firmware related. And even if slightly cheaper to build still not cost effective for a product that wouldn’t be in demand. Also your contention that money spent on video development could have gone too better still camera development also doesn’t make sense. No video development as causing less development for still photo capability.