I don’t know if it’s just the algorithms giving me a skewed perspective, but it seems almost every camera launched these days is a hybrid and often a video-first camera (hello Panasonic). And for lenses, every other launch seems to be a cine lens.
I don’t see too much of a problem with cameras being hybrids, and it probably doesn’t add too much to the manufacturing cost to add video capabilities. But any photography-first body seems to get criticized for having poor video capabilities. And as for compact cameras, the majority seem to be primarily vlogging cameras for content creators.
And I’m just left wondering whether this truly reflects the market. I know TikTok and similar sites are hugely popular with the younger generations but I imagine the humble smartphone is fine for all of those needs. Are high-end video capabilities really that sought after?
I would have thought photography is by far the more popular pastime because of how accessible it is and the ease of displaying your finished work. I have dabbled in video myself, but I very soon realized that editing video is very time consuming, and there are far fewer opportunities to watch and enjoy the finished work. You can’t just hang a video on your wall or use it as your desktop wallpaper, for example.
So, are content creators driving the market these days? Why does there seem to be such a focus on video? I would have thought there was a huge market for the pure photographers or at least those that only need video once in a while. And why do companies like Sony seem to think that all of their compacts need to be an FX or ZV vlogging camera?!
It’s one of those situations where I’m not sure if the trends are driving the products or the products are driving the trends.
I think it seems this way because, for the most part, still image stuff is pretty amazing, to the point that there isn’t a lot of places left for stills to go. Yes, more dynamic range, more megapixels, more speed for burst shooting is always good, but it sort of feels like we’re peaking in terms of that too. So from a marketing perspective, video is all new/improving features.
Same as above, from the major manufactures, the still image oriented lenses are pretty complete, aren’t they?
It probably costs the most in producing and testing the firmware. If I could shave off a few hundred bucks and not have any video stuff on a few of my cameras, I’d totally take it.
No way! The GR III (and probably IV too) have horrible video!!
I think there are a lot of people spending money and the segment is likely growing. The photography stuff is well established and judging by sales of bodies, is not growing, so it makes sense to try and expand the market.
Yes, you’re right, but I feel the ergonomics of photography is taking a back seat. I realize there are shifting trends here, but an EVF/OVF seems to be often overlooked these days, whereas it’s often a deal breaker among photographers. Canon’s latest compacts have dedicated video buttons, which I would happily reprogram. And woe betide a camera has rolling shutter!
I feel like the Ricoh GR series is a rare example of a photography-first compact camera and doesn’t care. It’s one of the reasons I’m seriously considering it as my next purchase. Everything about it has been designed for pocketability and easy one-handed shooting. But a lot of the compacts from Fuji, Canon and Sony are either vlogging cameras or serious hybrids that give equal weight to video.
You’re right, of course, it’s a growth market, and manufacturers need specs and features to sell their latest bodies. Video offers this growth, for now. I just wish they looked for innovations in photography too. Fuji is doing this fairly well with its recent GFX and X-Half cameras. But I wish they produced a real rival to the GR. The X-M5 and X100 aren’t it!
I personally would be fine without any video features on my current cameras. Though I know if you took them all away suddenly I’d be interested in video
For me the benefit would mainly be one or more less buttons, one or more less modes on the dial, and less option menus.
But I don’t think there’s really anything photo-centric that could be added in place of video features, so it doesn’t bother me much to have them there.
Why does Fuji need to rival Ricoh/Pentax when the format is so well done already? Everyone who owns a GR barely has any criticism that could be improved by another manufacturer. Pentax isn’t going after Fuji either in other areas
Yeah, exactly. Most photo focused bodies are also sold to markets where they make money, either GFX for studio, architecture etc, or very fast cameras for sports/wildlife.
–
For me video is important to have. It’s always good to quickly swap to it and film some things when the timing is just right. Moving pictures have a magic in their own right and completely blow photography out of the water when employed correctly.You don’t need to spent a lot of time editing to get decent results to store to watch later.
My X-T3 still has great video capabilities but it’s still a photo camera first, and so is the X-T5. The only thing they changed was the metering dial into a “Still - Movie” dial.
Competition! I want options. If I want a truly pocketable APS-C camera, I have one option - the GR.
And each manufacturer can put their own spin and features on the format. Sony can absolutely improve Ricoh’s AF, Fuji can add their OVF/EVF hybrid. Canon could probably do something too, although not sure what. I don’t think the GR is perfect. Do you?
I think the problem here is that by adding some features, you take away what makes it what it is. For example, adding an OVF would definitely increase its size and probably make it harder to pocket. Autofocus is also limited by the lens design, by making it faster you will most likely increase the lens size and prevent it from receding into the body. The X100 lens besides sticking out a little still has slower AF (not slow tho) compared to its XF lens version, even with phase detect.
In my opinion it’s one of those things where if you start changing it you will undoubtedly change it’s nature and it won’t even be in the same product category anymore.
tbh … it doesnt harm if the camera has video capability now does it?
also keep in mind … the biggest competition for our cameras are smart phones. the product would lose even more appeal if it would be a photo only camera.
I dont think there are any recent camera releases that didnt have some video capabilities.
I can see why Ricoh doesn’t want to mess with the GR design. But we’re also talking about other manufacturers, and I think some variations on the format could be very interesting. Sony’s RX100 has a pop-up EVF, which I think is really cool. I would also take a m4/3 sensor or even 1" to get an OVF/EVF, so that could be another way to keep size down. I’ve also seen a lot of reviewers wish for a tilt screen in the GR, which might not take up much room. They complain about shooting blind for some shots, and that’s a very specific style of shooting.
I may get the GRIV but I’d like to see more options.
No it doesn’t, and I said as much in the original post. I’m not so much complaining about video features as wondering if the market for video really is that huge. And if I do have a complaint, it’s that a lot of the compact cameras launching recently are being marketed as vlogging cameras, with video features either prioritized or given equal weight to photography (Sony FX/ZV, Canon’s new PowerShots, Fuji X-M5…).
I’m just wondering if the market is aimed at influencers these days, because they are the ones always reviewing cameras and wanting great video features (because they need them for their content).
I think you are putting too much interpretation into that. there are plenty of photography focused reviewers too. but isnt it always nice to know that if you are in a pinch what are the restrictions of my camera when it comes to video. lets say a friend asks you tomorrow do a short video for them.
and then you can put all the things you learned for photography and use them on moving pictures. including your nice glass in front of the camera.
p.s.: want to guess what my webcam is nowadays? hint: I dont need fake background blur
Yep, no argument from me there. I have no issue at all with influencers checking out the video capabilities of cameras and reporting on them. Petapixel always do a good job of this and giving more time to Chris or Jordan depending on the camera’s target market.
But the question remains, is the market for video as big as it is for photography? Are manufacturers adding in all these video features because everyone wants them, or because brand X has those features and they don’t want it to look like theirs is an inferior product? Just musings…
what would be if people are actually using those features and then go to the vendor like “I am quite happy with your video features but the other vendors have X, could you add it?”
heck mirrorless photocameras are used on TV or even Hollywood regularly. Often in space constraint situations. or gimble/steady cam work when the larger cameras might not work so well.
in the next sequel of 28 days later they are even using iphones. and not to mention many small videographers might actually get quite some milage out of a mirrorless camera/dslr for their video work.
that’s why the 5D Mark II or was it III was such a big deal back in the day.
or look for how many people something like a GH-[456] was a workhorse.
I think the lines are blurred for years now. and the package size you get with many of those cameras is good enough for a lot of people.
Same here, other than not having bought half a dozen cameras since. I’ve never really had the urge to shoot video…until a few weeks ago when I was watching/shooting waves go up a long rock channel, and after I got home I realized how much of the effect was missing in still shots.
I got married a couple years ago and exactly zero photographers did not at least offer videography. Most social media priortizes video and I see more and more video (maybe just gifs?) in commercial photography, so advertising seems to be going that way too.
It would make sense that camera makers are adding more video features if “professional” (ie make a living) photographers are engaging in videography more and more.
Even a terrible phone video of my children when they were toddlers is infinitely more expressive than any amount of beautiful photos I take
I do not know how to take good videos, I do not know what to do with the videos I take, it seems daunting to even consider learning all that stuff
From a camera manufacturing perspective, the problem is probably scale. In order to benefit from economies of scale, as many cameras as possible need to use the same internals. Hence video features will necessarily be available in all of them. We’ve seen various manufacturers taking different approaches to this: Canon for a long time limited some features to certain tiers of cameras, while e.g. Fujifilm famously shipped full-featured firmware on all models, and merely differentiated by bodies and controls.
The Ricoh GR (and perhaps Leica M?) is the odd one out, as it’s the only manufacturer not actively selling an equivalent video camera. At the same time, part of its appeal is the laser-focus on snapshot usability. It is such a finely honed experience, perhaps akin to a sports car or dedicated offroad vehicle. In a world of SUV-everythings, such a specialization feels, well, special. I want more of that in my life.
I keep thinking that perhaps Apple was on to something with their “live photos” or whatever they were called. If I had the option of recording a short snipped of sacrificial low-bitrate video with some of my photos, I probably would. Best of both worlds, for a photographer like me.
have you tried the MotionCam app on your telephone for that purpose? i think they provide some excellent options for short burst video and record raw video. i’d sometimes do this (i have a gpu decoder for the format so the data is workable and doesn’t feel so much like defeat as a mobile phone video would otherwise).
