Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Jan 10, 2017.
Yup... if it's got video, I ain't buyin' it.
Since you have resurrected this thread I’ll add a further comment.
Last July I bought a Nikon D4, which has video capability. A necessary addition is live view and that is an absolute pain because the button is easily pressed by clothing when carrying the camera on a strap. As a result I spent a fair part of its first outing switching back to the viewfinder, having only one battery at the time the effect on battery life was also unwelcome.
When we got home I fashioned a cover for the live view button from a piece of film case and attached it with double sided tape. The video button has been reassigned as ISO. Given the ease with which live view can be inadvertently activated the button really needs either a lock or the ability to reassign/deactivate it via the menu.
More recently I discovered that the Nikon 1J5 has rather good (4K) video capability, I leant it to a friend who is very keen on video and he was impressed with it, though not with the sound.
So in answer to the question “does video capability detract from the stills functionality” my response has to be yes it does.
To expand on my original reply: a camera having video won't stop me buying it. Sometimes it's useful.
No - I never use digital cameras for video.
Once upon a time 'home movies' were expensive to make using film.
Buying the film, processing the film, owning a projector and screen...
So fortunately for viewers, however painful they were to watch, they were usually very short.
Separate names with a comma.