Should a camera manufacturer also release cameras without video functions?

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 11 May 2021 at 00:09  | reply

Nando, you write the following, among other things: 'However strange it may sound, manufacturers are expected to build it in.'
This doesn't seem right to me. What does the industry do, after all? They tell you hundreds of times that it is possible to start filming with a camera as well. How clever is that, huh? So what actually happens? A need is cultivated among consumers to want those devices. The developers have succeeded in forcing their inventions on consumers. It is not the case that just because something is possible, it necessarily has to be there.
You also notice it in reviews. They say that the manufacturer has improved the filming functions in certain models. You notice that, for example, with the Canon EOS R series and also, for example, with the Canon EOS 90D, because that is supposed to have better filming capabilities than the Canon EOS 80D.
I am a (hobby) photographer and I only want to take photos. I have an atrocious dislike of filming. I also categorically do not want to take photographs with a smartphone.
So as far as I'm concerned, that filming option can disappear from the camera, preferably as quickly as possible. Instead, let them put software or hardware in it that benefits photography, such as improved light metering, a Kelvin meter, etc.
So it is not the case that consumers are asking for it (perhaps they are now), a need was first cultivated by the industry and commerce, because that is how it works. When digital photography made its entrance, there was no consumer asking for a camera that also had to be able to film. When commerce told consumers that the camera could also happen to film, a need arose among consumers and the filming option became a selling point. Just like the number of megapixels, a selling point that makes no sense whatsoever. Can you see the difference between a photo taken with a 12MP camera and a 20MP camera? There is only one sector that benefits from the filming option on a camera, and that is the industry itself. They do not have to spend money developing and building film cameras separately for consumers. That is a huge cost saving.
Nando, I have all the respect for you and I am happy with your courses, but I do not always agree with you, and certainly not about the filming option in a camera.

The video functions don't make current cameras more expensive, but actually cheaper. The necessary hardware is already in there for photography, the video option costs nothing extra.

Manufacturers do save costs, though - 1 production line instead of 2 (pure photo cameras and separate photo/video cameras for which there is demand), 1 expensive marketing campaign instead of 2 (in which the difference between 2 models would have to be explained), etc.

It is also not entirely coincidental that an expensive niche brand like Leica is one of the few manufacturers that doesn't do video functions.

Apart from accidentally pressing that button (with the necessary swearing because I can't take photos for a moment), I've never used it in the almost 10 years it's been on my cameras

I really don't understand why some people are so negative about the video function on their camera. It's as if you were to say "why buy an expensive car, it's just as far by bike anyway". I use the video function on my Canon R5 very often and it works perfectly too. If you know your camera a little, then I don't understand how you can press the wrong button. I have set the buttons on my eos R5 completely to my liking and with just one press of a button I switch from photo to video function and vice versa.
What is actually the problem????
Nando, thanks again for your clear explanation.

Hi Nando,
Thanks for keeping your promise and taking the trouble to explore this item in more depth! The story is clear in any case - as we're used to from you! Now we just have to wait and see what the follow-up will be.
Warm regards: Toon

@Donald: when manufacturers have to make two versions of a camera (1 for photo purists like you and 1 for people who also want video), the cameras do indeed become more expensive. After all, they have to set up two separate production lines and, for example, launch two different marketing campaigns. So my reasoning is correct: all-in-one models are the cheapest option.

You cannot make a camera (or mobile phone) for everyone that only contains what they want or really need. Many cameras also have built-in black-and-white or sepia filters; should manufacturers then also start making separate versions without these filters for everyone who does not want to use them?

With the younger generations of YouTubers, vloggers, TikTokkers etc. there is simply a lot of demand for video capabilities. It makes sense that manufacturers are happy to encourage that - camera sales have been declining sharply for years and so they need a new market. They cannot survive on the group of older, more conservative consumers.

Finally: nobody is forcing you to make videos, just because your camera happens to be capable of doing so. I never do it myself either.

One of my hobbies is traveling. And during the winter months, short films are edited with still and moving images. Audio/video, that is. Some subjects are more suitable for photography, others more for video. Buildings and landscapes? Photo! But a dance group? Video.
It's just what you want...

martinphili wrote on Wednesday 12 May 2021 at 19:27  | reply

@ Donald Willemsen: as a user of a digital camera, you have the choice not to use the film option. And I have the idea that you are a bit mistaken when it comes to the quality of phone cameras.
I honestly don't understand what anyone is getting worked up about. Does anyone wonder whether a car manufacturer would be better off selling cars without air conditioning? Are there people who wonder whether a manufacturer would be better off not making paprika-flavored chips because they themselves don't like them?
Or should I start complaining that Canon should also make cameras without an automatic mode, simply because I never use it?
Come on.

Stefanie wrote on Wednesday 19 May 2021 at 14:30  | reply

If it really only made a difference of a few tens of euros, I would still buy the option with filming. The main thing for me is the photography capabilities, but I see filming as a nice extra option. On holiday, you quite often come across a situation where the filming option comes in handy, dance, music for example. And last winter I was busy with soap bubbles and at a certain point I filmed that too, so a nice extra. If it were really a big price difference, I would choose photography only and then I would film with my phone while on holiday