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.

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

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.”

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).

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.

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.

Almost every time a camera maker announces a new model, I spot a few comments that follow a familiar script: someone sees the price, winces, and declares the company “greedy.”

It’s not just cameras. The same charge gets thrown at smartphone makers, appliance manufacturers, and even app developers who choose to charge a subscription. I see it far more often today than I did ten years ago, and in most cases, I think it’s misguided.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand sticker shock, and I feel it too. My colleague Richard Butler has done a great job explaining why your sense of camera prices might be out of date and why launch prices always seem high. Even with that perspective, though, we still feel the sting of higher prices. But a price that makes us cringe isn’t evidence of greed.

Mitchell Clark

Few people start a business to give something away, and camera companies aren’t charities. Like most companies, their goal is to make money, ideally as much as they can. That’s not wrong – it’s business.

Consider what that means. Camera makers want the highest price they can get today. But they wanted the same thing five years ago, and ten years before that. Their appetite for profit didn’t suddenly appear when prices went up, and that appetite always has to be tempered by what people are willing or able to pay. What has changed is what it costs to design and build a camera, and what we’re comparing new prices against.

In fact, it can be in our interest for camera companies to be profitable. Profit keeps them in business and pays for R&D. And let’s be honest – making cameras isn’t exactly a gold mine. Olympus sold off its camera business, and Samsung walked away from the market entirely, just as it was emerging as a more serious player.

Additionally, we always want more. I’ve never seen a camera launch where everyone said, “That’s it. This camera is perfect. It’s all we’ll ever need.” There’s always a “but.” But if it only had this one feature… The catch is that nobody agrees on what that feature is, so manufacturers have to keep developing. That requires money.

Am I suggesting that manufacturers never overreach? Of course not. We’ve all seen a company swing for the fences on price, sometimes to the point of being laughable. As Richard pointed out, launch prices in particular are essentially an opening bid, the most a company will ever get for a product, and they’re often optimistic.

However, consumers have power too: we can choose not to buy. If a camera sits on shelves, its price will come down. It almost always does. And if it sells out at full price, that tells us something too, even if we don’t like what it says.

Richard Butler

Is the system perfect? No. A handful of brands dominate the camera market, and once you’re invested in a system, switching is neither easy nor inexpensive. Companies do have real leverage over pricing, and it tends to show up where you’re locked in: proprietary batteries, pricey accessories, or even mounts that restrict the use of third-party lenses. Those are fair targets for criticism. But it’s a much more specific complaint than “this camera costs more than I want to pay, so the manufacturer must be greedy.” And when it comes to the cameras themselves, you have alternatives.

The next time a new camera’s price makes you cringe, try asking a different question. Instead of “why are they so greedy?”, ask “is this worth it to me?” If the answer is no, don’t buy it. It’s the most effective message a camera buyer can send.

That message has its limits, though. Holding off on buying might bring an optimistic launch price down, but it can’t make a camera cheaper to manufacture. If enough people decide the answer is yes, that price may simply be the new normal. If enough decide it’s no, we’re more likely to get a cheaper camera than the same camera for less.