Difficult to answer, as I have only one interchangeable lens camera with video capability I rarely find myself in a position where it could any impact.

I would go for the one without video

 

I have found on more than one occasion that my Panny G3 is recording video when I try to take my still picture - though this may be one of those issues where the button is badly placed on a camera that is rather small. So far I haven't managed to trip the video accidentally on my D5000.

If absolutely identical in every way then I probably would buy the non-video version. Since I have no interest in video I see no point in having it when I don't want it.

 

Probably not a serious problem, but an occasional minor irritation for example if the camera has accidentally got switched into video mode, and I'm trying to work out what's wrong. This has, on rare occasions, led to missed shots.

I would buy the one without video - in fact, lack of video was one factor in my choice of new camera I bought a few years ago. I would probably be prepared to pay slightly more (say 2-5% of total price) for NOT having video.

A feature that I would pay extra for, which I've been waiting for for a long time, is automatic hyperfocal focus.

 

Sure, I'd love to have video recording ability, because no digital camera I have ever used has ever had enough buttons or menus!

From my review of the M (Type 240), which has video, from the point of an M9 user (M9s have no video) in American Photo magazine:

The more I used the Leica M, the more I thought of the analogy of a Range Rover. The original 1970 Range Rover was basically a deluxe version of the classic Series Land Rover—a big, solid, simple, off-road vehicle. As it became more complex and luxurious, it started to appeal to a different market: people who might never need, or even really care about, the limits of the Range Rover’s off-road performance. On rough going, with the right wheels and tires, today’s Range Rovers are as capable as the originals, and they are a good deal more forgiving of inexperienced drivers. But they’re not the same.

Cheers,

R.

 

Can't understand this apparent aversion to video.

It's increasingly used in place of stills on the newspaper web sites etc, while what a joy to be able to record the first steps of your children or grandchildren etc. My first love remains stills, but I'm not closing my mind to the movies.

I wouldn't consider a camera without it. However, at present, I don't feel the need to shell out for the latest technology.

 

Nope

 

I buy my kit with the aim of taking still photographs. I've no great aversion to video, in fact I was watching a video about a young lady using an unusual method to convince her teacher to give her a better score on a test yesterday evening, so that proves I'm not biased.

The video features haven't had any significant influence on my decision to buy a particular camera, however I suppose it's nice to know that they're there and I might get around to having a play with them one day.

Cheers, Jeff

 

I bought a movie camera in 2000. In spite of being an enthusiastic still photographer I just could not become C B Demille and it has been dormant for 8 years.

 

It is not an aversion to video, it is an acceptance that Video and Stills are different disciplines. As such many people will want to keep them apart which is, in my book, not unreasonable.

 

Exactly. I want a camera that is optimized for stills not one that is optimised for neither through trying to be a jack of all trades.

 

Dear Geoff,

You mean that you are still willing to buy a camera so hopelessly under specified that it does not incorporate an alarm clock and a rotisserie? Luddite!

Cheers,

R.

 

Guilty as charged Roger! Not that I have ever had the need for a rotisserie but I did once use the data back (MF23) on an F4 as an alarm clock.

 

I’d go for the one with the video mode. I bought my D800 4 years ago, and had only tried the video function to see which memory cards would support it, until November 2015, in New Zealand, we were captivated by seal pups playing in a rock pool, and I decided a still photo wouldn’t do them justice. I took more video of one in a clear freshwater stream pool nearby. Ironically my Panasonic LX100 is probably a better video camera, but for the rock pool video I wanted my telephoto lens, and for the freshwater video I wanted the D800’s mid-range zoom’s polarizing filter to see through the water’s surface.

I haven’t used the video function since, and don’t think I’ve ever used it on my LX100, but having the extra video button causes very little trouble (although I’d probably reassign it to something I’d use more often if I could).

If there was a non-video version of the camera with significant advantages, I’d manage without the video. If it was a matter of choosing between otherwise virtually identical cameras, I’d pay a little extra to have the video option “in case”.


Chris

 

Nope, No, Nada. Never used it on my current camera. The button is wasted on me.

 

It is interesting that some people (myself included) who made super 8 movies 40/50 years ago now show very little interest in video on their current cameras. I am wondering what the reason is - is it because the capabilities of modern kit is now so high that we feel that an advanced skill set is needed to do that kit justice, are we just growing old or what?

 

I'll bite.

1. I've only knowingly used two cameras with a video function, the Sony a7r and a7rii. In both cases, turning the mode on and off is so difficult (for me) that accidental recording isn't an issue. I have on rare occasions used it, but don't see it as a must have feature.

2. I have no need or desire for "stills shooting functions" other than the ability to alter shutter speed and aperture; and very few digital cameras make this as easy and intuitive as film ones. What might sway me is the thought that as the video recording makes the sensor hot, a camera with a video mode might have better sensor cooling and hence less noise. But in reality, I wouldn't buy either camera hypothetically offered. I don't own a digital camera (although apparently my phone has one) and I'm certainly not the target market for the mass market makers of cameras.

 

Fair comment, but not everyone can afford the luxury of a dedicated video camera. Like many, I guess, I bought a stills camera, then discovered it had video capability, and was blown away by the ease of use and quality of the resulting output. It has therefore become a must have feature in any new purchase.

 

I see your point, however, I wouldn't buy a dedicated video camera having no interest in the medium. I have a Nikon 1 with video capability and I consider one camera with a facility that is never used is adequate.

I did dabble with cine back in the 1970s but I was never that interested in it. Doing it well required planning and fore thought to produce a watchable result and I just didn't have the enthusiasm to get involved in all that so I stopped. Video likewise requires some planning and I am still lacking the enthusiasm to do that. Sound recording on the other hand I quite enjoy but nobody offers a camera with a 32 channel digital mixing desk built in so I will have to stick with using dedicated kit.

 

It's handy but not a deal breaker as far as I am concerned.

 

No! In any case, I'm satisfied with what I've got.

Lynn