Is there such a camera?

[ajax]

It looks to me like camera makers are trying hard to produce/sell multipurpose products which is understandable. However, an obvious consequence of this is that they become more complicated to use.

My interest in photography pertains to wanting to produce high quality still pictures suitable for making large size prints that can be framed and substitute for art such as paintings. I have NO need or desire to shoot videos. It occurs to me that the cameras I presently have may be sacrificing capability that applies to shooting still pictures in order to preserve the capability to shoot videos. For high quality video this may increase the sacrifice associated with still shots.

Even if engineers are able to produce products that maximize capabilities for both still and video shooting it looks pretty obvious that this adds significant complexity to operation of the camera.

Is it possible that there is such a thing as a camera that maximizes still shooting capability (i.e., professional quality) that does NOT bother trying to do videos? If so who makes/sells such cameras?

Just curious but do professional videographers actually use the cameras being made for professional still photographers? I'm thinking/guessing there is equipment made for shooting high quality video that wouldn't be used for still shooting and likely does NOT support such. At least NOT high quality still images. If so, maybe cameras for shooting still shots ought to do the same.

[Manfred M]

David - the reason that they add video capabilities to cameras is that it has NO negative impact on still image performance. I would have to suggest that pretty well everything you are concerned about are non-issues.

Adding video capabilities is effectively something that can be built into any still camera for little to no additional cost. The video processing algorithms and down-sampling / compression are added to the firmware and an extra button on the camera to start video recording is really the only "sacrifice".

Professional video cameras have functionality (usually in terms of time code and audio syncing) and a few other really technical points, especially in multi-camera work is where dedicated video cameras shine, but for most casual and non-professional use, a still camera will be sufficient. I had done a lot of video work up until 2012, where my video work almost completely dried up and I did shot with higher end Panasonic dedicated video cameras. The cameras I used did have a "still" mode and I could get single frames, but with a 1920 x 1080 resolution, why would I.

If you want a video-free camera, you are looking at the ultra-high end Phase One and Hasselblad medium format bodies are the only ones that I know of that do not have video capabilities. So far as I know, the FujiFilm and Leica medium format cameras have video mode.

I am a print maker. I generally go no more than 17" wide, but needed to make a couple of 33" x 44" prints for a show in a local photography gallery. I has used my rather long in the tooth D810 and a not super sharp Nikkor 28 - 300mm lens. The prints were super sharp. Good camera technique and good post-processing technique are going to have a far greater impact on print quality than having a camera that also shoots video....


I do not agree with what Ted wrote - he is not a print maker. I can 100% guarantee that full-frame or larger will give noticeably better print quality when doing medium sized prints (16" x 20" and larger) than a mFT or APS-C camera. I have printed from all three formats as well as a medium format FujiFilm GFX 100s. Bigger sensor size is better.

[xpatUSA]

I do not agree with what Ted wrote - he is not a print maker. I can 100% guarantee that full-frame or larger will give noticeably better print quality when doing medium sized prints (16" x 20" and larger) than a mFT or APS-C camera. I have printed from all three formats as well as a medium format FujiFilm GFX 100s. Bigger sensor size is better.

I deleted my post because it said nothing about printing other than the fact that I do not print and the OP did not mention sensor size or printing.

OOPS!!! The OP did mention printing large. My mistake.

you appear to be telling us that professionals only shoot full frame or bigger ... is that true?

[pnodrog]

.......

you appear to be telling us that professionals only shoot full frame or bigger ... is that true?

Manfred appears to be saying the larger the sensor the better large prints will be. Assuming the pixel count is similar or larger I would have to agree.

[Tronhard]

I tend to agree with Manfred that camera stills capability is not degraded by having video features - IMHO it does make them more expensive though... Still, if you really want a stills-only unit, the last time I came across a stills-only camera that is 35mm FF was with Nikon Df, which was released in 2016.

It was designed as a sort of love project by the designer who brought in such classics as the Nikon F3 and was his last effort before retiring. Initially, it was panned by those who frankly didn't get the point of the camera: a stills-only camera that has the same feel as a classic F-series pro camera of the 1970's. However, it became a bit of a slow burn and has now gained a lot of respect over the years from still photographers.

I have two of them, and can say that the 16MP sensor (tweaked for low-light from the flagship D4) is brilliant and has absolutely lovely tonal qualities. At 16MP, you should be able to print a 16x12 image in excellent quality at 300DPI - although, of course, much depends on the lenses you are using!

Disclaimer: I don't personally print large, Fine Art images, but a friend of mine does and has borrowed the Df for some shoots. He was frankly, in his own words: "gob-smacked at the quality of the images". He has offered to buy one of mine - I'm not selling.

As regards what one needs to get decent prints, FWIW you might find this article of interest:
http://www.photokaboom.com/photograp...g_distance.htm

Here is a link to a discussion about someone dealing with much the same issue (as regards print size), specifically in the context of the Df.

I took the following image, hand-held, in available light with the Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens: with the following settings:
120mm, f/4, 1/5sec, ISO-800

[ajax]

David - the reason that they add video capabilities to cameras is that it has NO negative impact on still image performance. I would have to suggest that pretty well everything you are concerned about are non-issues.

...

I wouldn't say this was a matter of concern but rather curiosity. If I had to place any bets on the answer I'd have guessed the answer to my question is NO.

Video isn't the only thing causing what for me is unnecessary complexity. As someone trying to maximize quality for resulting prints (importantly large ones) I don't see much, if any, need for all the different options aimed at customizing the camera developed (jpeg) photo. When it comes to camera developed photos a point and shoot or even a phone camera is good enough. When shooting raw the only need is for a good enough (camera developed) preview image to use for selecting which shots to spend time and effort on the post processing.

It kind of looks to me like limiting the available options to what is needed to capture the best possible raw file would be desirable. At least for me. While saving money would also be nice even at the same price I'd find simpler to be preferable. Would I be correct in assuming the capturing raw is limited to still photos? In that, raw is NOT used for video.

[pnodrog]

David the problem you face is that the manufactures have to meet the market (and reviewers) expectations. Whether the features are actually useful or not is more or less irrelevant. The next problem is that a stripped down versions market will be of such a low volume that it may indeed end up being more expensive to manufacture than the high volume model featuring all the bells and whistles.

The criticism Nikon received for only putting one memory card slot in the Z6 and Z7 was enormous. The fact is very few ever need two. If you are worried about absolute failsafe security you should be shooting with two cameras. The market rules not logic.

[royent]

The next thing to put on a camera will probably be a phone.

[DanK]

David,

I too almost never use video and would be happy to have a still-only camera, but it seems clear why that's not happening.

As Manfred pointed out, the costs of adding video functions are probably not large. The costs of having two separate versions, one with and one without video, probably would be considerable, all the way down the chain to the retailer, who would have two keep sufficient stock for twice as many cameras.

I just ignore the video functions. They don't get in the way, for the most part.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

Another factor could be reviews.

I remember when Sigma introduced the SD15 DSLR that there were howls of dismay at the lack of video to the point that sales could well have been affected IMHO ...

[Manfred M]

I deleted my post because it said nothing about printing other than the fact that I do not print and the OP did not mention sensor size or printing.

you appear to be telling us that professionals only shoot full frame or bigger ... is that true?

I am not Ted; I am telling people who print large format images to use large sensor cameras. You cannot get a clean, large format print without it (everyone has a different definition of "large" and here I am looking at print sizes where the shortest dimension is 2 ft / 24"). There is also a quality aspect involved and here I have spoken to the curator at a gallery that I have worked with to understand what they are looking for in print quality. Much like the comment about "large prints", there is no firm definition or consistency across the the spectrum. Smearing or ink splatter as well as detail resolution come into play in this evaluation.

This is not a new approach; look at the cameras used by the likes of Ansel Adams or Karsh used (with 8" x 10" negatives), even though smaller format cameras would have been available to them. When I was in my 20s and 30s virtually all the pros were shooting medium format. Commercial advertising photographers were shooting 4" x 5 up to 8" x 10" view and field cameras. 35mm film was relegated sport and newspaper photography although I do remember seeing a few Speed Graphic (large format) cameras around and in use into the early 1970s.

If you talk to current commercial photographers, for certain types of work, they will shoot the slightly larger format medium format sensors (53.4 × 40 mm ) in the Phase One and Hasselblad HD6-100/150 versus the "lower end" ones used in the Hasselblad V or FujiFilm GFX which use a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor size. I see more and more Fujifilm GFX and Hasselblad 907X cameras. These cameras are quite competitive with the high end offerings from Canon, Nikon and Sony full frame bodies.

As a rule of thumb, I find I can go up to a 24" wide print with a mFT sensor, a 36" wide print with a APS-C sensor and a 48" wide print with a FF sensor when the images are viewed on a stand alone basis. If I put a well prepared 17" x 21 inch print from a mFT, APS-C and FF sensor side by side, the difference in image quality is easy to spot, if your are pixel peeping.

[xpatUSA]

Video isn't the only thing causing what for me is unnecessary complexity. As someone trying to maximize quality for resulting prints (importantly large ones) I don't see much, if any, need for all the different options aimed at customizing the camera developed (jpeg) photo. When it comes to camera developed photos a point and shoot or even a phone camera is good enough. When shooting raw the only need is for a good enough (camera developed) preview image to use for selecting which shots to spend time and effort on the post processing.

It kind of looks to me like limiting the available options to what is needed to capture the best possible raw file would be desirable. At least for me. While saving money would also be nice even at the same price I'd find simpler to be preferable.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Compared to my Panasonic non-video DMC-G1 my stills+video DC-G9 is a nightmare. Getting it to even shoot a picture as intended is quite hard for this 82 year old. And I only use it about once a week. So, each time, at my age, it's like starting over.

On the other hand, my raw-only, minimal controls, no-video Sigma SD9 is no challenge at all when shot the old-fashioned way ...

Would I be correct in assuming the capturing raw is limited to still photos? In that, raw is NOT used for video.

I've read that some cameras can shoot DNG video.

https://jonnyelwyn.co.uk/film-video-...is-cinema-dng/

As you know, "DNG" is Adobe's attempt to take over the world of 'raw'.

[Manfred M]

I wouldn't say this was a matter of concern but rather curiosity. If I had to place any bets on the answer I'd have guessed the answer to my question is NO.

Video isn't the only thing causing what for me is unnecessary complexity. As someone trying to maximize quality for resulting prints (importantly large ones) I don't see much, if any, need for all the different options aimed at customizing the camera developed (jpeg) photo. When it comes to camera developed photos a point and shoot or even a phone camera is good enough. When shooting raw the only need is for a good enough (camera developed) preview image to use for selecting which shots to spend time and effort on the post processing.

It kind of looks to me like limiting the available options to what is needed to capture the best possible raw file would be desirable. At least for me. While saving money would also be nice even at the same price I'd find simpler to be preferable. Would I be correct in assuming the capturing raw is limited to still photos? In that, raw is NOT used for video.

First of all, there are a number of "pro" / "commercial" photography where JPEGs are commonly shot; sports photographers, event photographers, news photographers and wedding photographer (all areas of photography where fast turn-around is required) will shoot that way. They can and do use different (including custom) processing profiles for their JPEG output. Frankly this is no different than the built-in profiles in the raw converters.

Your camera absolutely needs onboard image processing to create the view you see on the camera's display. Raw is just data and an image format has to be produced in order for the viewer to see it. Your in-camera histograms are based on the JPEG image as well. I believe Leica does produce a digital camera with no external display, if you want to go that way.

Yes, there are cameras that have video raw formats, but those are only seen in the higher end gear as they need a fairly fast processing and data pipeline to push that much data to storage.

As others have said, the camera manufacturers build cameras to meet user needs. Just as with any other product on the market, there are options included that I am unlikely to ever use. I have never used some of the functions that came with my microwave, dishwasher, washing machine, clothes dryer and car. All products are built and sold that way.

[xpatUSA]

Yes, there are cameras that have video raw formats, but those are only seen in the higher end gear ...

... but not forgetting lower-end cameras that can do CinemaDNG. For example, a couple of grand can get you:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sig...itial-review/2
.

[DanK]

Except, of course, Cartier Bresson, who shot virtually his entire life's work with a 35mm Leica, I believe.

As a rule of thumb, I find I can go up to a 24" wide print with a mFT sensor, a 36" wide print with a APS-C sensor and a 48" wide print with a FF sensor when the images are viewed on a stand alone basis. If I put a well prepared 17" x 21 inch print from a mFT, APS-C and FF sensor side by side, the difference in image quality is easy to spot, if your are pixel peeping.

I think that is a good answer. I know almost no people who print more than 24" wide except on very rare occasions.

I have prints from MFT, APS-C, and FF bodies on my walls. One is a severe crop (lost about 40%) from a 12 MP MFT. It's true that if I put the larger ones side by side, I can in some instances see a difference, particularly in the case of the cropped MFT image. However, I don't print for people who are going to line up prints side by side to look for minute differences in detail (as I did for my recent post about using 300 and 600 dpi settings), and the number of viewers who have commented on differences in quality among these prints is exactly zero. Before I got booted out of the gallery where I showed prints because of insufficient sales, someone I know went to the gallery and looked through everything I had there, which was at the time perhaps a dozen prints, almost all taken with my 5D Mark IV. His favorite? The cropped MFT image.

For an interesting take on Nikon FF vs. Fuji APS-C by a professoinal landscape photographer, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEKlEghwpjY

All of this is not to say that larger sensors don't have advantages. Of course they do. But it is easy to overstate their practical importance, I think.

[xpatUSA]

Is it possible that there is such a thing as a camera that maximizes still shooting capability (i.e., professional quality) that does NOT bother trying to do videos? If so who makes/sells such cameras?

Leica, Fuji (X-Pro, X100), Sigma and others.

Good discussion here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4508226
.

[ajax]

David the problem you face is that the manufactures have to meet the market (and reviewers) expectations. Whether the features are actually useful or not is more or less irrelevant. The next problem is that a stripped down versions market will be of such a low volume that it may indeed end up being more expensive to manufacture than the high volume model featuring all the bells and whistles.

The criticism Nikon received for only putting one memory card slot in the Z6 and Z7 was enormous. The fact is very few ever need two. If you are worried about absolute failsafe security you should be shooting with two cameras. The market rules not logic.

Paul, what you say makes perfect sense and probably explains why I say if I had to bet I'd have said NO. However, truth is I wouldn't have wanted to bet because I'm pretty much a novice with very limited actual knowledge. At the same time, something that amazes me is the number of supposed different products offered by the same company. I happen to have ended up buying Canon cameras, which began mostly because of a great price on an entry level bundle. However, shopping for a camera is extremely confusing, at least for this novice, because there are so many features. What you end up getting, for a slight price increase, can be bewildering. My suspicion, following the same logic you've posed, is that there is very little added cost to produce the plethora of different models being sold but the market, as you say, allows increasing the price for things that might only involve turning something on in the firmware. Maybe?

[Manfred M]

I'm pretty much a novice with very limited actual knowledge.

Based on some of the things that you have written, I am not surprised that your knowledge is limited.

There are many things on my camera (and other things that I own; cars, washing machines, dishwashers, etc.) where I only use some of the features. I rarely use more than three burners on my stove, but it only came in 4 and 5 burner models.

Cameras are much the same way; they are targeted at a specific audience and the feature set is specified by the analysis of where in the product line the camera is to be positioned. The camera companies will do market research to determine the features that the target audience is looking for and will include those features. Video has long been viewed as a feature that most target audiences want, so the camera have that built in. As so many respondents have mentioned; this is a fairly inexpensive option to include, so they do. Yes, the purchaser does pay for it, but the cost of developing it will be amortized over a number of cameras, so other than the video button (which is a cost built into every camera).

[pschlute]

What you end up getting, for a slight price increase, can be bewildering. My suspicion, following the same logic you've posed, is that there is very little added cost to produce the plethora of different models being sold but the market, as you say, allows increasing the price for things that might only involve turning something on in the firmware. Maybe?

The costs of producing an entry level camera versus a Pro spec flagship are not going to be very different once all the R&D has been written off. This principle applies to most products.

I remember in the 1980's Honda produced a 400cc 4-cylinder as a cheaper alternative to their flagship 750cc classic. They sold all over the world in very large numbers, received critical acclaim, and everyone loved them...... except that is the accountants at Honda. The margins on the model were not enough and production ceased after a few years.

Back to cameras.... every model I have owned can be used in simple manual mode. You dont need to use all the bells and whistles.

ps. my tumble dryer has wifi !! No I have never had the desire to use it

[DanK]

my tumble dryer has wifi !!

So do two small room humidifiers I bought this winter. Seems to me that the major function of wireless on a device like this is to increase the risk of a data leak or having one's network breached. I have several friends who are automating as much of their homes as they can, using Alexa, Siri, or whatnot. I initially thought that this was solving a problem I don't have. then I realized that it would be worsening a problem we all do have. Particularly at the age some of us have reached, setting things up so that one can remain seated for even longer times is not exactly healthy. I do use ioT (internet of things) functions when they are useful, but otherwise, I avoid it.

But back to cameras: I think the most useful thing for a novice to do is to make a list, perhaps with help from someone who has more expertise, of the features that would be valuable for her or him, given what they photograph, and then try to avoid spending money on things that aren't helpful. Of course, there are only so many combinations available, so one inevitably buys features one won't use much, if at all.

As a concrete example: My 5D IV has quite good AF tracking, by DSLR standards of the day. I find this useful for a modest amount of what I do, but it is absolutely useless for macro.