Stills Only Camerae

M

Myky-D

Messages
10
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello, everyone - I hope you are well during these strange times, etc.

I am looking to upgrade from my 15yo Canon 450d - preferably to a full-frame body.

My issue is that I only do stills - portraiture, architecture, landscape, and art-y nonsense I think looks nice. Increasingly people are offering me money for for prints - hence my interest in possibly upgrading.

I'm not interested in nor inclined to do video.

So I figured it would be best for me to upgrade to a camera where all the tech goes into stills, but the market seems to be geared increasingly exclusively towards video, and I don't want that.

Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should look for? I'd probably rather stick with Canon, as my 100mm and (I think) 50mm should still be compatible with an upgrade to FF.
 
Hi and welcome to TP

If you are after Full Frame where stills are king.................then IMO the 6Dmk2 might be one to aim for, though the shift in tech is towards mirrorless and as you say 'they' are adding more video features into what is afteral 'still' cameras.

Just my 2p's worth.
 
They do not add tech to do video, it is entirely a software use of the stills technology. Look for a camera that does what you want to do at a price you can afford and ignore the video button .
 
Box Brownie said:
Hi and welcome to TP

If you are after Full Frame where stills are king.................then IMO the 6Dmk2 might be one to aim for, though the shift in tech is towards mirrorless and as you say 'they' are adding more video features into what is afteral 'still' cameras.

Just my 2p's worth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this - my BiL has the 6D Mk II, and recommends it - but I thought I'd ask the grown-ups just in case. Interesting to hear it echoed.

I'm not quite sure I understand mirrorless - personally I like to have some heft to the body and mechanism, and mirrorless strikes me as contrary to that.
 
LeeRatters said:
I don't think you'll really find something that doesn't do video so just concentrate on the stills side of things that meet your requirements.
Click to expand...


Would you agree with the 6D Mk II recommendation, then? I'd be interested to see if that was the only sensible option, or if there are other recommendations.
 
john.margetts said:
They do not add tech to do video, it is entirely a software use of the stills technology. Look for a camera that does what you want to do at a price you can afford and ignore the video button .
Click to expand...

That's interesting - so the video tech is just the digital equivalent of a flip-book, then? I got the impression with all the reels and manipulation I've seen on the web that increasingly the market and thus the tech is shifting towards that.
 
The tech seems to be moving towards still and video convergence but honestly you can just ignore the video features and then they're just cameras.

I suppose what to go for hinges on how big you want to print, the image quality you expect and if things like dynamic range and high ISO performance are factors.

If they're not go for a Canon FF DSLR, anything from the original 5D and up. That original 12mp 5D is ancient tech now but at the time I thought it was all the camera I'd ever need.

If this was me I'd bite the bullet and go mirrorless as mirrorless offers real advantages such as being able to focus anywhere in the frame with face/eye detect and the compositional freedom that brings. These facture may exist in a DSLR in live view mode but may be comparatively clunky.
 
Myky-D said:
That's interesting - so the video tech is just the digital equivalent of a flip-book, then? I got the impression with all the reels and manipulation I've seen on the web that increasingly the market and thus the tech is shifting towards that.
Click to expand...
The lens is the same for still or video, the shutter is the same, the sensor is the same, the rest is software.
 
Myky-D said:
Would you agree with the 6D Mk II recommendation, then? I'd be interested to see if that was the only sensible option, or if there are other recommendations.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the 6D2 specs sorry but if you want full frame and want to stay with Canon, then yes. It's probably the best option. I went from 450D to 5D2 to Sony A7.
 
woof woof said:
The tech seems to be moving towards still and video convergence but honestly you can just ignore the video features and then they're just cameras.

I suppose what to go for hinges on how big you want to print, the image quality you expect and if things like dynamic range and high ISO performance are factors.

If they're not go for a Canon FF DSLR, anything from the original 5D and up. That original 12mp 5D is ancient tech now but at the time I thought it was all the camera I'd ever need.

If this was me I'd bite the bullet and go mirrorless as mirrorless offers real advantages such as being able to focus anywhere in the frame with face/eye detect and the compositional freedom that brings. These facture may exist in a DSLR in live view mode but may be comparatively clunky.
Click to expand...

That's quite a compelling point regarding focus-anywhere, but how does the viewfinder work? Is it digital? If so, isn't there lag?
 
john.margetts said:
The lens is the same for still or video, the shutter is the same, the sensor is the same, the rest is software.
Click to expand...

Yer - I'd rather that software focused exclusively on the stills production - whether that's noise reduction, false sharpening or whatever.
 
LeeRatters said:
I'm not sure of the 6D2 specs sorry but if you want full frame and want to stay with Canon, then yes. It's probably the best option. I went from 450D to 5D2 to Sony A7.
Click to expand...

Fair - that's a similar curve to that which I was expecting.
 
Myky-D said:
That's quite a compelling point regarding focus-anywhere, but how does the viewfinder work? Is it digital? If so, isn't there lag?
Click to expand...

Yes, mirrorless cameras have EVF's with just a few exceptions.

There's always going to be some lag as the image has to captured by the sensor, sent to the display and displayed. This will be the case if you're looking at a mirrorless cameras EVF or back screen or a DSLR's back screen. In reality though I've never found it to be a real world issue. Maybe it was an issue years ago but not now with recent cameras. I don't do birds in flight or try to capture bullets in flight as others might do but thrown snowballs are no problem :D

I find face/eye detect to be real game changers as they allow me to frame the shot how I want and concentrate on the framing and capturing the moment. There's no moving the focus point or having to stay within the central area where DSLR's tend to have their focus points.

Another couple of points to maybe ponder is that mirrorless focus is generally accurate and consistent with no back/front focus alignment issues to worry about as the focus is taken off the sensor that records the image.
 
john.margetts said:
The lens is the same for still or video, the shutter is the same, the sensor is the same, the rest is software.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely the case as some lenses are far more suited to video and stills use than others which would be problematic if used for video because of for example focus breathing, aperture clicks or focus motor noise.
 
woof woof said:
Yes, mirrorless cameras have EVF's with just a few exceptions.

There's always going to be some lag as the image has to captured by the sensor, sent to the display and displayed. This will be the case if you're looking at a mirrorless cameras EVF or back screen or a DSLR's back screen. In reality though I've never found it to be a real world issue. Maybe it was an issue years ago but not now with recent cameras. I don't do birds in flight or try to capture bullets in flight as others might do but thrown snowballs are no problem :D

I find face/eye detect to be real game changers as they allow me to frame the shot how I want and concentrate on the framing and capturing the moment. There's no moving the focus point or having to stay within the central area where DSLR's tend to have their focus points.

Another couple of points to maybe ponder is that mirrorless focus is generally accurate and consistent with no back/front focus alignment issues to worry about as the focus is taken off the sensor that records the image.
Click to expand...

Hm - all interesting points to ponder. I find myself reacting to EVF - I don't like the thought of it, but arguably that's me being stubborn. I understand that certain manual effects can't be done with them such as zoombursts - is that still true?
 
Myky-D said:
So I figured it would be best for me to upgrade to a camera where all the tech goes into stills, but the market seems to be geared increasingly exclusively towards video, and I don't want that.
Click to expand...

The only mirrorless camera without video that I can think of is the Sigma SD Quattro.

It's a bit of an acquired taste.

I suspect a lot of us pretty much ignore the vide features on our cameras. It's probably difficult for a mainstream manufacturer to seel a stills only camera in enough volume these days so the video comes as part of the standard features thse days.

Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should look for? I'd probably rather stick with Canon, as my 100mm and (I think) 50mm should still be compatible with an upgrade to FF.
Click to expand...

The obvious route is to stick with Canon on the basis of carrying over lens compatibility and some familiarity in terms of the handling.

However you could view it as an opportunity to change if you wanted. I don't think there are any bad products on the market (I'll call the Sigma SD Quattro - "different" or "specialised"!).[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Myky-D said:
Hm - all interesting points to ponder. I find myself reacting to EVF - I don't like the thought of it, but arguably that's me being stubborn. I understand that certain manual effects can't be done with them such as zoombursts - is that still true?
Click to expand...

You can do a zoomburst with any camera, if it's what I think it is. It's a while since I bothered but I think I did this (if I understand) with my Canon DSLR's. With a mirrorless it should be just the same as it relies on the shutter speed and zooming with the shutter open.

EVF's are not OVF's but if you can get used to them they do offer advantages, such as being able to see detail invisible with an unaided optical system, plus they offer magnified view, in view histogram, level and peaking, real time exposure and depth of field and I suppose stuff I haven't thought to list there.
 
I think the only way to get a camera that doesn't do video is to use cameras over 10 years old.
A film SLR wouldn't do more than a slow burst and my 5x4 monorails use singles sheets of film loaded for each picture, so are even less video orientated.
In the digital world my antique Pentax K100d & Sigma SD14s are incapable of shooting video. (both were released in 2006).

Video is available on all the digital cameras I have that were released after 2008, but I have hardly ever used it. The number of days I've deliberately shot video in my lifetime could be counted on the fingers of one hand. I suspect the times I've accident pressed the video record button on my GF2 probably out number the deliberate videos but even then they are rare :)

Just because a camera has a feature it doesn't mean you have to use it. Taking the feature away would cost a lot of money compared to simply selling a stock camera designed for general use.
 
woof woof said:
EVF's are not OVF's but if you can get used to them they do offer advantages, such as being able to see detail invisible with an unaided optical system, plus they offer magnified view, in view histogram, level and peaking, real time exposure and depth of field and I suppose stuff I haven't thought to list there.
Click to expand...

This has caused me to realise that my Fuji has more manual focus aids than I had realised.

I can now frame, move focus point to where I want it with joystick, then press rear wheel to magnify the focus point. All with a few flicks of the thumb.

When using an old manual focus 50mm f1.4 in low light, it's an absolute game changer.

Cheers.
 
Myky-D said:
Hm - all interesting points to ponder. I find myself reacting to EVF - I don't like the thought of it, but arguably that's me being stubborn. I understand that certain manual effects can't be done with them such as zoombursts - is that still true?
Click to expand...
You will like it, believe me. For me it was a revelation to be able to see the changes you make in the viewfinder in real time.
 
simon ess said:
This has caused me to realise that my Fuji has more manual focus aids than I had realised.

I can now frame, move focus point to where I want it with joystick, then press rear wheel to magnify the focus point. All with a few flicks of the thumb.

When using an old manual focus 50mm f1.4 in low light, it's an absolute game changer.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Doom Patrol said:
You will like it, believe me. For me it was a revelation to be able to see the changes you make in the viewfinder in real time.
Click to expand...

I swapped to the A7 many years ago for the manual focus and lens adaption benefits compared to the 5D2.

I've not looked back since.
 
simon ess said:
This has caused me to realise that my Fuji has more manual focus aids than I had realised.

I can now frame, move focus point to where I want it with joystick, then press rear wheel to magnify the focus point. All with a few flicks of the thumb.

When using an old manual focus 50mm f1.4 in low light, it's an absolute game changer.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
You don't even have to use the joystick. Change the LED screen to focus area and just touch the area you want to focus on. Then you can do your focus check before zooming out again.
 
Doom Patrol said:
Change the LED screen to focus area and just touch the area you want to focus on.
Click to expand...

I just can't get on with the touch screen sadly. I might have another go with it, although I do like doing everything without moving my eye from the viewfinder.

Thanks for the thought though.
 
simon ess said:
I just can't get on with the touch screen sadly. I might have another go with it, although I do like doing everything without moving my eye from the viewfinder.

Thanks for the thought though.
Click to expand...
It's a piece of cake Simon. See that little grey box in the top right. Tap it until it says focus area and Bob is closely related to you. You must be using the screen to navigate with the joystick anyway.
 
Doom Patrol said:
It's a piece of cake Simon. See that little grey box in the top right. Tap it until it says focus area and Bob is closely related to you. You must be using the screen to navigate with the joystick anyway.
Click to expand...


:) Yes I know how it works. I just tend to be a bit clumsy with it. It's very easy to use the joystick while looking through the EVF.
 
@Myky-D

As you can see there is plenty of good advice..............

My route through modern digital started with the Canon 350D, then the 40D, the 7D and next the 5Dmk3

I did in a very limited way make use of the video function on the 5D3 but as it did not focus during video it was IMO more of a novelty. NB I was and still am, by degrees, of the opinion that if I want a video camera I will get one again but the lines are blurring to the point where some have 4k video and a function promoted for that is that you can extract individual frames to make prints from!!! Note ~ my Olympus when needed can capture a sequence stills at 60fps.........but that feature is not a video ;)

I now use Olympus cameras and the video is something I have used a couple of times and it is better, not too surprisingly, than the 5D3.

Now, Olympus with their firmware updates have improved both stills functions and video as well

Only you can decide whether or when to use all the functions on a modern digital camera. This is only a guess but maybe the only ones that don't bother with video are the Leica brand ones, though they (all???) are based on Panasonic technology so video might indeed be included.

Frankly, if you are looking for stills only to the exclusion of video you have missed the boat, so to speak.
 
Myky-D said:
Yer - I'd rather that software focused exclusively on the stills production - whether that's noise reduction, false sharpening or whatever.
Click to expand...
The stills software does. (y)

But a real stills photographer won't use the in-camera noise reduction etc. ;)
 
Myky-D said:
My issue is that I only do stills - portraiture, architecture, landscape, and art-y nonsense I think looks nice. Increasingly people are offering me money for for prints - hence my interest in possibly upgrading.

I'm not interested in nor inclined to do video.

So I figured it would be best for me to upgrade to a camera where all the tech goes into stills, but the market seems to be geared increasingly exclusively towards video, and I don't want that.
Click to expand...

I felt much the same as you Myky-D. I've never used the video on my camera. It's not something I'm particularly interested in. Although, I can see why people do find it useful. I wouldn't get hung up on it. Your camera will have it, and it's there if you want it. But other than that just forget all about it. Because it doesn't detract from the quality of your photos in any way. It would be a shame if that stopped you choosing a perfectly good camera.
 
simon ess said:
This has caused me to realise that my Fuji has more manual focus aids than I had realised.

I can now frame, move focus point to where I want it with joystick, then press rear wheel to magnify the focus point. All with a few flicks of the thumb.

When using an old manual focus 50mm f1.4 in low light, it's an absolute game changer.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I use manual lenses a lot, both old film era ones and new ones too. I don't know if this is photography as such... :D but it's just something I've sort of fallen into as I like reading about and finding old lenses to use and compare and see the different looks they give. I think it's a bit of photography and a bit of gear fondling :D

I did originally just intend to use old lenses to fill the lesser used gaps in my focal length line up but it all sort of took on a life of its own really.
 
Thanks for all the responses, folks - it's given me real food for thought.

Also, I have now added the term "gear fondling" to my lexicon.
 
I fully accept that, just as most mirrorless cameras have very good video functions, the stills aspect can benefit from this technology. But what peeves me somewhat is that increasingly many reviews major on the video aspect and stills photography is often only mentioned in passing. Someday soon we will have most cameras marketed as video cameras with a side function of taking still photos. (End of grumpy old man rant)
 
Stephen L said:
I fully accept that, just as most mirrorless cameras have very good video functions, the stills aspect can benefit from this technology. But what peeves me somewhat is that increasingly many reviews major on the video aspect and stills photography is often only mentioned in passing. Someday soon we will have most cameras marketed as video cameras with a side function of taking still photos. (End of grumpy old man rant)
Click to expand...

Who knows. I suspect one day phones, cameras, computers, personal assistants, will all be merged into one device that never leaves our side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top