katbandit Loc: new york city

i never ever used the video on any of my dslr cameras either..if i want to do videos i would rather have it separate and not use up the memory card on my still camera to shoot clips of videos..

rcl285

What you are looking at are the incredible advances in large scale integrated circuits. At one time, the electronics were a major cost driver in cameras, computers, etc. As the integrated circuits became cheaper and more powerful, it became less expensive to design all the features you might need into the chip, and only activate (through software) only those features that you needed for the price point of the camera (or computer) you were selling. In many cases, the same chip would be used in an entire range of appliance you were selling, with features progressively added at each higher price point. By using the same chip for all levels, the design cost is amortized over a much larger volume and the per unit chip cost became less.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I am kind of confused about loving not having something. And the Canon would still be over 3K without video. Having a camera that can do many things is good. The video capability on the D800 series does not get in the way.
Now let's talk Sony a7,a7r,a7s. a7 great camera good price $1700. a7r better specs as D800. $2200. a7s a work of genius
great video it looks so good. And cinematic. Low light best ever created in SLR format. Low 12mp great for video. And to the critics surprise great stills. a7s $2500. No mirror and you can mount many, many lens with a cheap adaptors My nikon lens
are manual but work great on it. Solid metal, small size makes
holding it with their 70-200 G lens a pleasure. Recently a GM commercial was shot with this little camera and a 500m lens.
Now if you love to mostly shoot nature (and I admire the photo
graphy on this site) with a tripod then it really does'nt matter.
But my last comment is resale or trade in when you wan't new gear without video will hurt big time. And a video camera
that can do what the full frame a7s can do with cinema lens
Sony, Nikon or Canon lens would cost big bucks.
That's why these camera's are a revolution in availability
of creative pro tools for affordable prices. Good shooting.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I missed the point.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

While I like the availability to do video if I ever have 'the urge', I've never used it on my Canon 60D, and only once on a Canon P&S about 6 years ago. I understand the main difference between the 60D and 70D was a "improvement" in the video feature; I certainly wouldn't spend extra money or replace the camera to get that improvement.

edstubbs Loc: East Coast; 1st state, Delaware

I am not sure if any of those items would be cheaper but some of those items could be cheaper. Because you have options. Examples: a computer with or without a monitor, the CPU speed or the options you want on your scanner. The size of the hard drive (which YOU choose). Modems or phones, once again you have options to choose from. And even the lowly calculator plain or a multi complicated business calculator. Once again, you choose your options and pay accordingly.

If I bought a calculator with options that I never use, it would still be my choice and not because I had no other options. Heck, if it adds, subtracts and multiplies but I only needed it to add, that still my choice. But if I brought a business calculator for the same purpose, than that is my decision, stupid, smart or just because I can. But is still a choice, an option, my decision. And that is all I want.

And as far as cost, like most items, if the demand goes up, production may increase and with added competition, the price may just go down.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

I agree! It seems to me that both stills and video suffer from improvements when they are combined. I would like to know the percentage of DSLR users that actually use the video capabilities of their DSLRs. I would guess it is a very low percentage. If I were serious about video I would purchase a professional video camera. The following are some of the Nikon camera bodies I have owned: D100, D200, D300, D2x, D4, D800, D810. Those that are capable of shooting video, never have.

Hando Rei Loc: Long Island New York

I never use video ! Cameras would be cheaper if there we're two separate systems…still and video .

skiman Loc: Ventura, CA

Agree except if you are shooting sports and you need 11fps. Then the D4 is what you need.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In my humble opinion combining video and still photography has been a great idea. Why use two different camcorders when one will do the work of both?
I admit it is very convenient to be able to shoot still and then at a given moment go to video without the need of using separate tools.

anotherview Loc: California

I do still photography, period. Having no interest in learning how to shoot video, apart from my taking the occasional video clip for personal reasons, I would welcome a separation of still and motion photography in my cameras.

Shooting video has its own learning curve which I have no interest in undergoing.

This preference for still photography has a cost angle to it as well. After all, I might likely pay less for the camera manufacturer not having to devise and support video capability and then to spend perhaps millions advertising and marketing the video function, assuming these expenditures written into the camera cost.

Offering video capability in a camera seems more like a marketing ploy to increase sales. Recall the swarm of advertising for video when all the camera makers offered it, as if the latest, greatest thing, of which no serious photographer could do without? In lockstep, as usual, the shills for the manufacturers echoed the party line.

The camera manufacturers now try to produce the conclusion that doing both still and motion photography has become a must for the professional (moneymaking) photographer.

No thanks.

This cameraman will stick with still photography.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I keep my still cameras in 1 bag and my video cameras in a separate bag. That's how I keep them separate. I am truly sorry. But the temptation was impossible for me to resist.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

I agree with the convenience point. However, why add the convenience when the vast majority of DSLR users never utilize the video half of the DSLR! In a recent study 66% of DSLR owners used their DSLR as a point-and-shoot camera. To me, it is a total waste of money and technology. I personally would prefer added still features (easy to use and set up Wi-Fi, GPS, etc.) than video capabilities that I will rarely if ever use.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

:~)

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

I consider my Jitterbug high tech :thumbup: :D