BebuLamar

The current price is exactly the same as the introduction price the price has never been changed since Nov 2013.

User ID

Pretty stiff :-(

Did you check for open box or refurbs ?

User ID

What way was it expensive ? At under $4K it should have been flying out the door. When you build what everybody desperately wants or needs, its sticker price should be of no concern. Better a sticker than a stickee. Ask your lawyer.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Really! I did not know Olympus Cameras were in the habit of hailing Canon Cameras. Thanks for letting me know!

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

No, I'm going to steal it.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

People still buy Nikon stock. I think a nice mutual fund is a better idea right now.

(Though Nikon did go up 50% from early January to now. But, then again it is less than half its value from January 2018)

BebuLamar

That is why they don't make one. You asked for one but not willing to pay for it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have and use several regularly.
--Bob

Helge Loc: Sarnia, ON, Canada

You'll probably go back to using a Film Camera, if it is available you'll probably pay big bucks for a digital camera with no video mode. Even Hasselblads have video. Just get one that excels in still functions. In the near future you won't be able to buy a non-self driving vehicle. Suppose they call it "progress".

blackest Loc: Ireland

The Nikon DF was not made for video but as you can see it can do it, although it is stuck with overlays, with current firmware. It would not be a huge task for Nikon to turn that off. It's liveview is 1080p 30 fps which is about the standard of the day. I have an accsoon cineeye which is a hdmi video transmitter (it supports up to 4 smart phones simultaneously and a range of 300 feet) it includes focus peaking false colours , zebras and even luts and recording. while it would be better with a clean feed you can record video from a Nikon DF.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I think we went through this concept of "why do I have to pay for video" a while ago.
The introduction of video into a Nikon first. But most of all the Canon DSLR that created making good video
to create short videos. This created an enormous surge of indie video creators that I think led to youtube and our video society. Sony created the a7 camera's which could be used matched up to quality camcorders as 2nd camera or B camera. Weddings were not stills anymore most of video production.
Camera work or art is about visual imagery. And I use mine for video and stills.

anotherview Loc: California

So far, the shills for video capability in a digital camera claim two things. One, it would prove not cost effective to produce a stills-only digital camera. Two, it doesn't cost that much to implement video function in a camera given its resident electronics.

I say "claims" because I've seen no numbers that support their arguments.

Putting video capability in a a digital camera may or may not affect its cost.

For sure, though, video in a digital camera presents a starting point to promote videography as another money-making market. Recall the intense advertising that accompanied the introduction of video in digital cameras. This sell-job seemed to appear everywhere, expense be damned. A cameraman just had to own video equipment to stay in the field of photography, and especially so because now clients would demand video. Etc.

Still photographers almost overnight became relegated to the status of has-beens by typists. They hailed the new video era. Etc.

To my knowledge, nobody has examined the matter of still photographers who fell for the hoopla over video and expended big dollars to ride the wave only soon to learn that video required not just more dollars but a shelf full of accessories, to say nothing of the new skill-set necessary to produce worthy videos. Likely, their video gear gathers dust or they sold it.

Since video recording became possible in camera, I have done maybe half a dozen video clips. Videography generates no appeal for me. Blissfully, I take one photograph at a time.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

There had been. Older models as you say. But both still and video features have improved. For Nikon Df has no video. Pentax K-20 and earlier have no video. Likely all still only models would only be had used. Oh, a high end Leica may be still only, check. But $$$$!

ItsJim

Buy a Nikon D700 (The Legend). I've picked up one in the last year. Old yes, and at 12 megapixels not a lot of resolution if you're a peeper, but you can find them aplenty at bargain basement prices. Get one with as little wear as you can find for $400-700. They still work like a charm and like me, couldn't less about video. If I wanted video I'd buy a dedicated video camera. But that's just me.

BebuLamar

We don't pay for video. We have to pay if we want still only camera.