Simple cameras
Jun 2, 2019 13:19:35 #
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre digital) personal cameras registered images on film but they didn't record video on film. Today, almost any personal camera you can buy can shoot stills as well as record video. I wonder if there would be a market for photographers who only shoot stills and would buy a camera that had no video capability? 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. I know I would be interested in such a camera as I'm not interested in video. Any thoughts from hoggers?
Jun 2, 2019 13:24:11 #
I agree. However, that won't happen. That statement is based on manufacturing processes and procedures.
--Bob
--Bob
HRBIEL wrote:
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)
Jun 2, 2019 13:27:27 #
I thought just like you, for a number of years. I bought a D7100 And decided to play with the video just for the heck of it, just because I had it. I probably only use it in a video fashion about 3 times a year, even though I use the camera itself on a weekly basis. It is not something even today that I would have demanded as part of the camera's repertoire. But for those few times when I use it, I am very pleased and very happy that it is part of the camera's capabilities. So while I really understand your position, I am also ambivalent in terms of taking a stance one way or the other.
Jun 2, 2019 13:31:33 #
I would love to have a digital camera with no video or Wi-Fi. Menu would probably be two pages and manual maybe 20. Have dials for speed, ISO and exposure comp. Lenses with an aperture ring. Huge viewfinder, monitor for playback. Maybe a dial for color or b&w. Ah well, dream on. Will never happen.
Jun 2, 2019 13:32:53 #
Many people will look at it as "I can shoot stills and video".
(I do 99.98% stills, BUT, I can do video if I decide to do so.)
(I do 99.98% stills, BUT, I can do video if I decide to do so.)
Jun 2, 2019 13:34:23 #
HRBIEL wrote:
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)
The Nikon Df has no video. It is smaller and lighter than most full frame DSLRs, but runs about $2750.
Jun 2, 2019 13:37:01 #
HRBIEL wrote:
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)
There are a few that do that but they don't cost less. Making a camera that can only shoots still doesn't save that much money in the production but it would lose a lot of sales. Thus making up for the R&D, toolings cost and lost of sales they have to be sold for a higher price. So there are simpler cameras but not for saving money. Examples are the Nikon Df, the Leica M10-D. So forget about saving money.
Jun 2, 2019 13:49:51 #
HRBIEL wrote:
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)
I'd be very interested in purchasing a Fujifilm X-E type/size, w/o video capability; but I'd want to keep the 8-10 frames of burst, and I wonder if that uses the same "machinery" as video ~ making my desired "stills" camera no simpler (but, it might cull out some of the menu items).
Jun 2, 2019 13:52:08 #
le boecere wrote:
I'd be very interested in purchasing a Fujifilm X-E type/size, w/o video capability; but I'd want to keep the 8-10 frames of burst, and I wonder if that uses the same "machinery" as video ~ making my desired "stills" camera no simpler (but, it might cull out some of the menu items).
Are you willing to pay more? Don't dream about a simpler camera if you are not willing to pay more.
Jun 2, 2019 13:52:34 #
HRBIEL wrote:
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)
I believe the Nikon DF is that camera but the removal of video won't amount to a price reduction.
Jun 2, 2019 13:53:25 #
Haydon wrote:
I believe the Nikon DF is that camera :)
The only problem is that the OP was looking to pay less than one that shoot video.
Jun 2, 2019 13:55:00 #
BebuLamar wrote:
The only problem is that the OP was looking to pay less than one that shoot video.
Thanks should have taken that into account. Paying less in photography seems to be a misnomer nowadays:)
Jun 2, 2019 13:56:55 #
Haydon wrote:
Thanks should have taken that into account. Paying less in photography seems to be a misnomer nowadays:)
And as you can see in the entire Nikon lineup only the D5 is significantly more expensive than the Df. The D850 and Z7 are more expensive but not by much. They are both only $50 more than the Df. Nikon even throw in the FTZ with the Z7.
Jun 2, 2019 13:57:46 #
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.
Jun 2, 2019 13:58:28 #
BebuLamar wrote:
And as you can see in the entire Nikon lineup only the D5 is significantly more expensive than the Df. The D850 and Z7 are more expensive but not by much.
It's retained it's selling price well throughout its lifetime.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.