Timeline for Does the convergence of video and photo technology in digital cameras have a negative impact on strictly photographic ability?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2012 at 8:00 | vote | accept | Drew | ||
| Feb 8, 2012 at 20:55 | history | edited | Imre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 443 characters in body
|
| Feb 8, 2012 at 20:26 | comment | added | Imre | @jrista the trend of cameras being introduced cheaper than predecessors is much older than video feature. The first Canon 1Ds was $8k in dollars of 2002. My point is that you're paying for features you don't need, while there are others that you would want, but don't get implemented as the focus is currently on conquering the videography market. Like the multishot resolution enhancement that is present on stills-only Hasselblad MF bodies. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 18:27 | comment | added | jrista | Again, I think the idea that video features increase cost is demonstrably wrong. The D4 is $5999, where as the D3 was $5500, however accounting for inflation the D3's price would be about $5960 today...overall, no change in cost. The 1D III listed for $7999 when it was released, and the 1D X is expected to list for $6800...adjusting for inflation, thats a HUGE drop in price, despite the addition of video features. When you adjust for inflation, modern cameras are no more expensive, and often less expensive, than their stills-only predecessors. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 12:17 | comment | added | coneslayer | @Andrew I think the third paragraph is, at best, a mixed argument. Yes, it costs money to develop video features. But the manufacturers do it because, in their judgment, it will help to sell more cameras. If they're right, the people who buy a camera based on its video capabilities are helping to pay the development costs of the whole camera, to the benefit of still photographers as well. If one device can serve two audiences well, both audiences can be better off. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 9:14 | comment | added | Drew | +1 - I think your third paragraph presents the strongest argument. Every R&D dollar that goes to video functionality is a dollar lost that could have improved still photography ability. There are crossover areas like bandwidth as mentioned in other answers, but there are definitely some strictly-video oriented features and functions. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 5:58 | comment | added | jrista | Good points, however none of them really actually impact a cameras ability to take still images. On the argument of cost, the initial list price of $6800 for the 1D X is cheaper than its predecessor, so cost did not factor in there (not sure about the D4 or D800). As for being more complicated, most DSLR's that I've played with that support video have ONE button to turn it on and off...ever so minimally more complicated...but not enough to impact the ability of the camera to take still photos. So good points, but I'd argue they don't actually apply to the question posed. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 5:26 | history | edited | Imre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 587 characters in body
|
| Feb 8, 2012 at 5:13 | history | answered | Imre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |