Video vs. Stills

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
I shot this about a year ago with the RX10 IV, having no basic idea what I was doing.

DP Review rates it as pretty capable for both stills and video.


I certainly enjoy using it and look forward to learning more about the video capabilities.

Cheers, Jock
 

agentlossing

Top Veteran
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I've never wanted video from my cameras, I feel like a lot of camera design comes down to heat management and the inclusion of (especially 4k) video means compromises are made to potential stills performance. I'd rather most cameras had sensors more like the Foveon that are high-bitrate, slow to move data, virtually no continuous shot speed, but incredibly high resolution and big, fat RAW files. That's just me, though.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I feel like a lot of camera design comes down to heat management and the inclusion of (especially 4k) video means compromises are made to potential stills performance.
Yes.

The whole Leica M240 case for example; supposedly for video they needed to fatten the camera up for better heat management. People didn't like it. Unlike other companies, Leica took this to heart and M10 is a slim camera sans video, once again.

Something good also came out from this ordeal-- years later I could snatch a M240 that doesn't break the bank. The M240s depreciated a little bit faster due to undesirability.

Many cameras have still and video in same package and I don't mind it.

But for example when Fuji decided to go for a fully articulating screen to appease videographers I start to hate the world a little bit more.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom