Pulling focus: a few new video features don’t mean camera makers gave up on photography

I keep reading comments, across various platforms, that “[cameramaker x] is only interested in video, now.” What I’ve found really interesting is that you can substitute almost any company name into that sentence and find someone convinced that ‘their’ camera maker has lost interest in photography entirely. And I just don’t think it’s true.

Every camera company has become interested in video in addition to photography, but that’s not the same thing as instead of it.

Yet it’s got to the point where some people react as if any little improvement in video is a rejection of photography. Or sometimes just changes that they personally interpret as favoring video.

For instance, the provision of a flip-out screen is not proof that camera companies don’t care about photography. We’re told by most manufacturers that there are as many photographers that like fully articulated screens as that don’t. And this is supported, anecdotally at least, by the comments we’ve read on our articles and forums over the years.

A fully articulating rear screen isn’t evidence of a manufacturer’s focus on video, just because the style isn’t to your taste. Plenty of stills-centric and stills-only models have had them. And have done so for decades. The Panasonic G1 shown here didn’t even shoot video.DPReview

Canon has been including fully-articulating screens on its enthusiast cameras for as long as this site has existed: the first camera we ever reviewed had one. Likewise its PowerShot G series, aimed at dedicated photographers long before stills/video hybrids became feasible, tended to have them. And it’s not just Canon that adopted fully-articulating screens (though I think I remember reading that it held a key patent, at one point) on its photo-focused models. Panasonic’s first Micro Four Thirds camera, the G1, had a fully articulating screen. But no video capability at all.

A question of optics

Yes, Nikon has bought the Red cinema camera company to further enhance its video credentials and, like its rivals, has introduced some explicitly video-focused models…Mitchell Clark

It’s not necessarily a question of manufacturers’ priorities that have led to video advances seeming more prevalent in recent releases.

Photographic features are relatively mature: sensors have been photographically excellent (and hard to improve on) for some time now, single-image processing is almost universally good and ergonomics, in many cases, are the culmination of decades of iterative improvements. It’s quite difficult to look at modern cameras and say “this camera lacks this important photo feature.”

…but it’s also the company that produces the Zf, a statement of commitment to its photo heritage in a language that even those of us born in the last century can understand.Richard Butler

Autofocus is probably the biggest area in which photographic improvements are being made, as all the major companies look to refine the relatively modern on-sensor phase detection-based focusing systems and expand the capabilities of the subject recognition systems they’ve been developing.

By comparison, there’s been much work to be done on the video side of things: 10-bit video to make Log more usable, the addition of features such as waveforms and false color and, more recently, the ability to capture 32-bit float audio (though it’s notable only the explicitly video-focused Nikon ZR that has all the hardware for this included in the cost of the camera body, so far).

The existence of video-specific models, and the absence of the more photo-focused models we wanted them to be, isn’t proof that camera makers aren’t interested in photography, too.DPReview

So it shouldn’t be surprising that each new model has more additional video features than its predecessor but not many radical advances on the photography side. It’s not that camera makers have lost interest in photography or photographers, it’s just that there’s more obvious room for improvement on the video site.

Also, a great many of the more photo-focused mainstream camera models have been updated relatively recently, so it’s the more niche products and varied attempts to address the vlogging/enthusiast video/cinema markets that are currently being released. Pause your focus on video for a moment and you’ll also see the likes of the Sony RX1R III, Ricoh GR IV, Sigma BF and Fujifilm X half being launched: none of which is particularly video focused.

A question of optics

It’s also true that every new lens announcement talks about minimized focus breathing, to make it work well for video. But this is usually mentioned in addition to all the exciting features that make it the best thing ever for photographers. Personally, I don’t give this any more credence than the ubiquitous press release claims that the number and shape of the aperture blades deliver attractive bokeh (at best they can help one aspect of bokeh quality).

It’s only when a lens has a smooth-rotating aperture ring or, worse still, a powered zoom, that I worry about video considerations having any real impact on its use for photography.

It’s rarely a zero-sum game

Adding video features to cameras rarely comes at the expense of photo capabilities. Or at cost to the users. Expanding the audience to include video users (and photographers that like to shoot video) subsidizes camera development. Omitting those features risks making a product uncompetitive or making it a niche proposition that then has to be sold at a higher price.

Oh no! Fujifilm has clearly given up on enthusiast cameras and will never make another APS-C model.Richard Butler

As someone who primarily thinks of themselves as a photographer but who has enjoyed dabbling in video when I’ve had the chance, I don’t understand why there’s so much angst about the addition of video features. Indeed it’s just as often I see requests for video features such as zebras, waveforms or support for LUTs to be expanded across to the photo side of the camera: features most of us wouldn’t have encountered, were it not for the expansion of video capabilities.

To me, the main thing worth complaining about is the recent trend for making the stills/video switch part of the ‘On’ switch. And that’s mainly because I’ve just spent a week shooting with the EOS R7 during which I repeatedly tried to grab a photo and found myself thinking “why is it 16:9?” just as the red frame appeared to tell me I hadn’t taken a photo but instead had just started recording a video clip.

If you want to protest that decision, you’ll find me at the barricades.