HRBIEL wrote:
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?
Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (
show quote)
HR, I have never tried shooting video with digital (never did with film, either), even though my cameras can do it. Even the little Kodak point and shoot I got long ago did video on its little sensor, and now I use a Canon 650 which of course can do video. Frankly, I think video is a different craft and ideally it takes a well organized and trained staff to compete with Hollywood.
Roger Ebert, the great film critic, said he did not consider motion pictures art. He explained what he meant--it is the product of an industrial complex involving many stages and products, many skills and arts (such as writing, acting, musical composition and performance, fashion design, set design and construction, experts in period history, etc.) as well as business expertise in finance, distribution, marketing, catering, and so forth. Of course some directors have been consummate artists in film, as have been many actors and cinematographers. But the motion picture is a vast enterprise costing many millions (even hundreds of millions) combining all the elements of a highly articulated industrial complex. Giving me a movie camera would be like giving uncle Clarence an 11x14 view camera after he had used a Brownie.
People who are growing up with video cameras (cell phones) may see all this differently. Great pictures were made with Kodak Brownies (Google it if you don't know this), and I am sure that great videos are made with cell phones (probably in the same proportion).
Not long ago I got a second hand Hasselblad HD2 (finally affordable for me with a bargain price), and the quality is everything I dreamed it would be. But it does not do videos. (I think later HD models do, as do other Hasselblad models).
A similar question is--why not a digital that is just black and white? Yes, Leica makes one for about $8000. Not counting lenses. Thing is, by sticking to black and white, the digital technology can be far superior in terms of most quality standards (think about it). Of course I can do black and white using a color digital camera, but the technology is already vastly compromised in the color design, so that is why if I want b/w I just use 4x5 film. Or dig out a Mamiya twin lens for roll film. In fact, when I first tried digital, I used it for color because color does not have to be so good, and used film for serious things (black and white).