Michael Johnston — The Online Photographer — has a point when he says, rather tongue-in-cheek, I suspect, that he is fed up with camcorders oppressing cameras. Pity the poor old stills photographer, encumbered with useless features…
Photographers who take photographs are now more or less obliged to accept a growing array of video tricks in their cameras. Often, it is the video that gets most of the TLC and is a major part of a model upgraded tempting owners to open their wallets. We are constantly advised that this or that camera has now become the “perfect vlogging device”.
Compromises
There is perhaps a suspicion that compromises are being made in the interest of creating an all-round recording device when concentration on stills photography could make life easier. And, perhaps, excluding video options could bring down the price of dedicated stills cameras. Some even believe that adding video capabilities increases weight and volume, although I doubt this.
Leica is perhaps less video obsessed than most manufacturers these days, but the company’s mirrorless cameras are still cluttered with features that a stills photographer might never use. The M rangefinder remains a paragon of stillness in an increasing movie-centric world.
Smartphone
As a very occasional video user, and for purely ad hoc personal purposes, I’m usually content with my smartphone, which does all I need and produces remarkable results with zero talent required. As a result, I never explore the video capabilities of cameras such as the Q2 or SL2. So I would welcome the opportunity to buy a camera dedicated to stills photography. You may disagree…
Read Michael Johnston’s comments, which were spurred by the latest developments at Sony, and tell us what you think.
Your view
Do you like to have a video capability in your (primarily) stills camera? Or would you relish the lack of complication that comes with a dedicated camera?
Join the Macfilos subscriber mailing list
Our thrice-a-week email service has been polished up and improved. Why not subscribe, using the button below to add yourself to the mailing list? You will never miss a Macfilos post again. Emails are sent on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 8 pm GMT. Macfilos is a non-commercial site and your address will be used only for communications from the editorial team. We will never sell or allow third parties to use the list. Furthermore, you can unsubscribe at any time simply by clicking a button on any email.
Not a videographer here. Got lots of digital cameras but I’ve never shot a second of video in my life. Oh, wait! I once had a little Panasonic Something pocket camera with the video feature and I did try it out for less than a minute to see if it worked. It did so I turned it off and never used it again. Actually, I don’t even like online videos much. Especially vlogs. Too much of an investment in time for an old guy like me who doesn’t have that much time left anyway. Most video blogs could say in three to five sentences what a 10-minute video is saying if the vlogger was literate enough to write coherently–but obviously they aren’t.
I’m a photographer. I take pictures. Stills. Mostly failed pictures but still pictures nevertheless. I would be very happy not to have a video feature in my cameras. Also very happy never to have to use an EVF again since it’s an outgrowth of video cameras and it annoys me considerably.
Well said. I recall something that Galen Rowell said about choosing to focus on photography instead of cinematography, about how photographs are more similar to the way the brain recalls memories. He was also a very good writer. It would be nice if there was still more equipment with only the functions for those that choose to dedicate their creative efforts to photography.
I generally lean toward the concept of separate dedicated cameras for still and motion picture. But I can understand some liking the versatility of having both capabilities. Some cameras such as the Leica SL2-S and Fujifilm X-T4 manage to include some very nice capabilities and features for motion picture recording.
One of the annoyances with having both functions are the overly large and complex menus. Leica has managed to simplify this somewhat in the SL2-S with separate menus and settings displays for “picture/photo” mode and “video” mode.
But I find it more appealing to pick up a camera and have fewer menus to go through and more controls dedicated to the desired task. This is where Leica M and Sigma Foveon cameras are really nice.
.
It’s not just that some cameras can shoot stills and that some can also provide “motion picture recording” ..it’s not just movement, but it’s also sound which is recorded along with video. So one camera may shoot both silent, still pictures, but also moving pictures with sound! as well.
Sony’s menus are usually a mish-mash of settings, some of which do apply to stills and some to movies ..Sony’ve tried distinguishing between those by adding an icon of distant hills (!) identifying ‘stills’ options and a film-frame to identify ‘movie’ options ..but they’re still hopelessly intermingled with each other ..unlike, say, the Sigma ‘fp’ camera’s big switch for choosing either stills options or movie options.
HOWEVER, I find that – even though people always used to complain about the sheer number of options in camera menus – especially Olympus menus – once you’ve been through the menus and set up the camera as you want it, then its hardly ever necessary to go ‘menu diving’ to make adjustments on the fly, as most cameras have sufficient dedicated buttons to set whatever you want as you need it.
So (a) having lots of menu items doesn’t faze me; (b) having mixtures of stills and movie menu options doesn’t faze me – as long as they’re easily distinguishable; (c) it’s convenient for me to have both silent stills and audio-inclusive movies available for capture with just the one camera. [Does having two separate cameras mean there’s a need for two separate sets of lenses as well?]
I like, for example, the Sony A7S (even with its silly undifferentiated mixed-up menus with settings for both stills and movies intermingled with each other!) because, if I want, I can entirely ignore the movie settings, and use this tiny camera for just stills shooting ..in almost no light at all, if that’s the situation!.. or I can just turn the ‘Mode’ dial and use the same camera for shooting movies WITH SOUND! even in light as low as inside a museum, a church or a mosque, with ISOs up to 409,600 (!) ..although for best quality it’s best to go no higher than 102,400 for stills, I find.
When I don’t want stills, I ignore the stills settings ..and when I don’t want movies, I ignore the movie settings. Simples.
It’s like my car, which has a ‘Reverse’ position on its gearstick. Most of the time I want to go ahead (..or to left or right..) so I ignore the ‘R’ setting. I don’t complain that it’s got a hardly-used Reverse setting, and that it really spoils my experience of going forward to have an ‘R’ on the gearstick.
I do sometimes want to go backwards, and that’s when I use the ‘R’ setting ..but I don’t then complain that when I’m going in reverse it’s annoying by having a ‘forwards’ setting on the gearstick! ..Nor do I have two cars: one for going forwards and one for going backwards!
So what’s the matter with camera users, that so many – it seems – have such angst about their camera’s capacity (..though you’re not compelled to use it!..) to shoot moving, as well as static, pictures? It seems to me that people are ‘mourning’ the loss of yesteryear’s simplicity – or, you could say, restrictions! – and fancy themselves to be ‘purists’, who cannot bear to see their camera ‘sullied’ by having the facility to shoot moving pictures.
Are these complainers, I wonder, also shooting only with a monochrome camera, as they can’t bear to sully their pictures with that new-fangled thing called ‘colour’? ..And are they railing against those viewfinders which show upright, laterally-correct images, instead of putting a dark cloth over their head to view a dim, upside-down preview image of what their camera will record (..preferably at a slow shutter speed and on one-shot glass plates which they’ve just personally wetted by dousing in blue-only-sensitive collodion?)
It’s like being a train driver, and complaining that car drivers can go anywhere, without having to stick to the rails. Or like moaning that a new pair of shoes lets you move left and right and go up and down stairs! instead of just going straight ahead on level ground!
(I realise that Michael Johnston has his Patreon supporters, and that he may feel obliged, therefore, to publish new articles as often as he can, and so sometimes it may possibly be necessary to write fluff, drivel and filler (..haven’t we all?..) to offer at least something to his readers. But the notion of camcorders oppressing cameras is, to me, just utterly daft.)
I think perhaps the automobile drive and reverse and more like film advance and rewind.
It will be valued differently by different people, but I think there is a lot to be appreciate in a purist approach to cameras. This is one reason for the continued success of the Leica M series.
It also depends upon what you want to accomplish with the cameras. As someone mentioned above, motion picture cameras have very different cooling and processing requirements. There is a reason cinema cameras and lenses are so much more expensive than still cameras and lenses. Sometimes a dedicated motion picture camera is the right tool; otherwise Sony wouldn’t sell any FX6, FX9, or Venice.
Yup, usually a dedicated motion picture camera is the right tool for shooting a movie.
But then again, to quote ‘engadget’, “A small-budget thriller called ‘The Possession of Hannah Grace’ is the first Sony Pictures film to be shot on a full-frame mirrorless camera. Sony said that the film was primarily shot on its own A7S II, a consumer camera that costs a mere $2,000. “The smaller camera’s ability to see beautiful under low light conditions, the LED lighting technology, and the [eco-friendly] methods we used in set construction made this whole production a case study in how to be efficient and still tell a great story with a fantastic look,” said producer Glenn S. Gainor.”
So there’s a Sony Pictures cinema release shot with a Sony SLR-style A7S MkII.
And on Sony’s own movie-makers’ page.. sony.co.uk/electronics/filmmaking-equipment#cameras ..Sony offers “HOT PRODUCTS FOR MOVIE”: namely, the little Sony A6300, the SLR-style A7S MkII and the A7R MkII ..along with Sony’s dedicated video-only FS5 and FS7.
Sony are suggesting that low-budget video shooters should actually use Sony’s little pocketable APS A6300, or a couple of their mirrorless ‘consumer’ SLR-style ‘stills’ A7 series ..they’re offering three ‘stills’ cameras along with just two specifically-video cameras. On the same page they’re also offering E-mount (..that’s lenses for the A7 series..) ‘POWER ZOOM LENSES FOR MOVIE’.
So Sony does actually recognise that sometimes a smaller ‘amateur’ or ‘stills’ camera may be the best choice for shooting mainstream (low-budget) cinema or TV movies.
(I shot a bit of a UK Channel 4 TV programme with a little pocketable JVC miniDV camcorder a few years ago – and don’t forget that ‘Tangerine’ ..the cinema release.. was shot with just a few iPhones.)
It’s not just my weirdness to suggest that ‘stills’ cameras can advantageously be used for shooting video or making movies; it’s clearly Sony’s marketing policy, too.
Yes, nevertheless, it is just nice to have only the relevant controls ready at hand and purpose built construction.
But again, I can understand some people liking to have more flexibility in one camera; particularly if they only occasionally use one of the capabilities.
I do wish, when it comes to the hybrid cameras, that more would take the approach of Leica SL2-S and Sigma fp, with separate modes and menus for still/picture/photo and cine/movie/video. That goes a long way to adding to usability.
I just realized I am daft – I am an electronics engineer and retired high tech executive and realize that there is a lot of cost for video in the cameras that I buy and do not use but I should pay for this feature for others. And I am a whiner. I guess I should be more open minded.
You’re very generous-hearted and altruistic for subsidising video capabilities which you don’t use, so that others may, indeed, use them.
Thank you for your generosity, Brian! That’s not daftness, Brian; that’s open-heartedness towards others!
Though I would like to ignore the video capability it’s not so easy when the video button is positioned so close to the shutter button on the X Vario. I don’t know about the other Leica models but on the X Vario it’s very easy to accidentally start a video recording.
Exactly. The X Vario was the first camera where I noticed this problem. I lost count of the times I started a recording when I thought I was taking a picture. Not good for the battery, apart from the annoyance. Things have improved and, on later Leicas, it has been possible to disable the button. And the new segregated menu on current cameras is a big improvement.
Never felt the need of video capabilities. itadds to the price of the camera and I wish they’d go bak to 2 models, one without video capabilities (cheaper) and one with them.
Substitute one word and this is why camera manufacturers are struggling and feel the need to pack every possible feature into the same box in order to attract potential customers…
“As a very occasional CAMERA user, and for purely ad hoc personal purposes, I’m usually content with my smartphone, which does all I need and produces remarkable results with zero talent required.”
Very true! John Shingleton and I are currently concocting an article on that very theme.
Hi there Mike. I personally haven’t picked up a “proper” camera in 3+ years. It is remarkable what a smartphone + some basic editing in Snapseed can achieve – all on the phone!
And here’s me imaging you at the G7, Leica in one hand and pasty in the other!
I always have time for a pasty!
I think the manufacturers are obliged to offer video for sales purposes rather than for purely practical reasons. A customer walks into a store. “Does the Leica SL## have video?”. Salesperson “No”. Customer “Oh; what about the Canon?”. Salesperson “Yes”. Will the customer definitely need video? Who knows? It may be useful so why not? Will they buy the Canon or the Leica? That decision may not rest purely on having the video but the Leica would appear to be at a disadvantage from the start. And iterations in the quality of the video give reasons for new models at higher prices. I suppose the next ‘arms race’ will be in the use of in-camera AI. But until then?
If I had one camera, then I can see wanting to have both features. For me personally, I use a Leica M10 for photography and a Panasonic GH5 for video. When doing video there can be so many other differences/requirements such as time coding, audio monitoring, etc.
It is a matter of having a Swiss Army knife or dedicated tools.
The first digital camera with video that I owned was a Panasonic GF2 and that was about 2011. Since then, I’ve used Fuji, Olympus and Leica cameras, all with video capabilities.
I doubt that I’ve recorded more than 10 minutes in all of “experimental” video, solely to satisfy curiosity about how it works.
My interest is, and always has been, solely in film and digital stills photography, and I would be more than happy with cameras that offered only that. For me, video is unnecessary and unwanted clutter, and, if by removing it, stills features could be enhanced or expanded, it would only be good.
My steering towards the Df is in part owing to it being a dedicated stills shooter. I do not use video in my cameras unless I have that annoying X typ 113 button accident.
If I want video I use my smartphone for those funny little vignettes in life. That at best get sent to the kids by WhatsApp.
There should always be a model option for stills only, in my humblest of opinion.
Main reason I bought my x1s and X2sNO VIDEO!! No use for it in cameras or phones. That another reason Df so appealing no video.
I never understood why some pursue better and better video out of a 35mm (digital) camera? Seems every year or new model, some want to know the improvements in video. All the time there are video cameras already out there that will walk circles around most of the still cameras with that feature.
If you want video, just go by a good video camera, its that simple.
Next we’re going to hear buyers want good still shots out of the video cameras wanted.
“..I never understood why some pursue better and better video out of a 35mm (digital) camera..” ..here’s why, Robert:
I’ve a terrific pro hi-def Canon XL H1 video camera which takes interchangeable lenses with an up to 20x zoom, and it can also take normal ‘stills’-camera Canon EF lenses ..so it should give the best of all possible (video) worlds. But it has ..it’s an old-ish model.. three small CCD sensors. Because they’re small, any EF ‘stills’ lenses I put on it have their focal length effectively multiplied by 7x – because just the centre of the lens delivers a picture onto the video camera’s small-size sensors – so a 50mm ‘stills’ lens becomes, effectively, a 350mm telephoto lens!
(I do have a 3.4mm-20.4mm wide-angle zoom for the video camera, and that 3.4mm wide-angle delivers the equivalent of what a 7×3.4mm lens would give on a normal stills camera; effectively a 23.8mm equivalent.)
35mm stills (film or digital) cameras have a sensor which is 36mm wide by 24mm tall. The sensors in the XL H1 are what are called ⅓″ (one third inch) sensors (..the size of those used in an Apple iPhone..) and are 4.8mm wide by 3.6mm high. (That means that the ‘full frame’ sensor in a 35mm stills camera is 50x bigger!)
Because there’s a huge number of various different wide-angle lenses for 35mm cameras – such as Leitz and Voigtländer 21mm lenses, the Leica 16-18-21mm ‘zoom’, Voigtländer 15mm, 12mm and 9mm wide angles, etc, one can shoot -w-i-d-e- hi-def video easily when using a 35mm ‘stills’ camera which does shoot video, rather than trying to fit super-wide adaptors (which generally introduce awful distortion and aberrations) onto a normal small-chip purpose-made video camera. (Now there are, of course, purpose-built video cameras which do have 35mm-sized chips (sensors) inside, but they cost far more than 35mm stills cameras which offer video.)
If I want a huge telephoto effect from a video camera, I can put a – preferably stabilised – 200mm lens on the XL H1, and that’ll give the equivalent of a 7x200mm = 1,400mm lens!
But if I want a really wide-angle video shot (think Terrry Gilliam’s film ‘Brazil’ taken inside a power-station’s cooling tower) I’ll never find a lens wide enough for a small-sensor video camera, but I can easily find a 9mm or 12mm lens for shooting similar video with a stills camera!
A video-shooting ‘stills’ camera generally costs much less than a dedicated video camera which has the same size of sensor, and can take a wider range of cheaper ‘stills’ lenses, and can often give video which may be indistinguishable from that shot using a dedicated “bells-&-whistles” purpose-built video camera.
It’s all getting a bit technical for me now. I wish I’d never started it…
I have a SL2 and a Q2 (and did some time with an M10P, which I loved, but my eyes have failed me). Never used the video, and doubt I could turn it on. And if I could, the thought of editing a huge video file gives me fits (time sink). But I understand there are probably many who do use it (well, maybe once), and those who need it. That’s fine by me. But coming from the electronics world, I would bet that a sizable chunk of change is wrapped up in the video. Pushing a 4K ~ 8K video rate is a ton of bits per second, which means heat and batteries and processors (more heat). There has to be extensive heat sink efforts, which is no small task (Canon knows this well). And while on heat, don’t use it in the sun. The marketing visual preoccupation with ‘black bodies’ and lenses is heat death. I go for silver bodies and lenses (M) as a token effort to keep camera temps down in the summer (the ‘ol sensor noise vs heat problem). When I was in the Canon world, it was white lenses for me- much cooler, less aberrations in the sun. Then there’s the video software development. I’m sure the cost of that dwarfs everything else, bar none. It is an enormous and costly effort.
But, video is the buzz. If you are a pundant, aperture, shutter speed and ISO gets old. Now the lexicon is spiffed up with shutter angles, follow focus, waveforms, 8K card speeds, LUTs, and, of course, overheating. Lots more to talk about!
And to the gentleman with folding wing mirrors- I use them all the time. Those pesky cement columns around ATM machines have lots of scars. It was either that, or grow longer arms…
While I agree with the sentiment that far too many options clutter the still shooters camera – and especially when it’s a question of the Sony menus — I still like the video capacity. As an architectural photographer and teacher, I appreciate the ability to switch from a still of a facade, and to turn around in video mode to exhibit the context – the square or the street – something that few art histories of buildings do very well. Especially for student architects, the scale, movement through spaces and perspective in motion are important lessons that can only be taught remotely – that is without visiting the object – through a mix of still and video. I use the SL2-S and the Sony A6600 alternately for this reason.
On my previous car – a Subaru – I could disengage the 4-wheel drive by pulling out a fuse under the bonnet (hood). I tried it once, and got fewer miles per gallon, so I put it back and never used that facility again.
Just because a camera ..let’s say a stills camera.. has a facility for shooting video you are not obliged to use it! No-one’s going to send the video police around to check that you really are using its video capabilities: if you don’t want it, here’s some good advice; just leave it alone and stop whingeing!
I just discovered – last week! – that my (present) car (..I’ve had it since 2007..) can ‘park’ its wing-mirrors. But I don’t need or want that capability ..so I just – ready for this? – ignore it!
Why do people get all hot and bothered just because their camera – or car, or bike, or boat – has some facility which they’re not interested in using? Who cares? Just ignore it!
(I’m thinking of complaining to the manufacturer that I don’t need the ‘run’ facility in my legs any more ..I’m only walking nowadays. Ought I to make a fuss, d’you think, because I’ve got an extra option which I nowadays don’t need?)
I actually do use the video capability in some cameras, because – unlike traditional ‘camcorders’ or the video capability of my phone – ‘stills’ cameras like Sony’s A7 series, or Canon’s ‘full-frame’ cameras, can shoot video with their 35mm-sized sensors ..which are twice as large as traditional 35mm movie film frames! ..That means that they easily deliver movies with more ‘bokeh’ (out-of-focus background) than the hugely expensive proper cinema cameras of yore could do ..and certainly far better foreground/background separation than any ‘camcorder’ – with its teeny sensor(s) – could ever deliver!
If you don’t want video, just don’t set your camera to video! Why be distressed by it? ..Erm, what was it they used to say in the sixties..? “Chill, man”.
I really do appreciate that capability ..I can shoot great slo-mo with my little Sony RX100MkVI, I can shoot great low-light video – by moonlight! – with that A7S.
(My car also has a ‘Sports’ mode ..but whatever that is, I’ve never used it. But quick; I’d better write to the makers and complain for putting it in!)
I often wonder how many people are really using the video part of their camera. Most people I know, just use their phone to shoot a short video of their kid. Then there are people who use a camera that is optimized for video and a separate camera for stills. Also, high megapixel cameras are not ideal for video which is ironic in the video equipped megapixel wars. We often get cameras that are jack of all trades and master of none. Video features also have a cost and impact on lens design.
It seems that product management just want a camera to have the most specs possible rather than really understanding what most buyers want in a camera. I would like the design budget focussed on the stills camera and eliminate all the video baggage which would allow cameras to be smaller and simpler. We need camera models that are pure stills cameras and they would also be less costly.