[StiffLegged]

I hope you're joking. I'm old enough to remember when Koyaanisqatsi was released, and there was no digital video, and certainly no artificial intelligence back then.

Of course I am. The remark was prompted by a YouTuber getting ChatGTP to write an alternative last chapter for the last Harry Potter book - the result, to quote one comment, was “turgid tripe” with more plot holes than Emmental, so I don’t dare ask my daughter (a noted Potter fan) to read it. I remember Koyannisqatsi from years back and it bored me stiff. Still haven’t watched it through either.

[northcoastgreg]

If there's a single theme virtually every leader in the industry can agree on, it's that video is a significant growth driver for the market.

I suspect this could be categorized as true but misleading. The market nowadays has shrunken in part because quite a few serious hobbyists are content with what they have and are not upgrading. So the market is increasingly confined to professionals (who if busy wear out their cameras in a few years) and the technophile crowd, who wants to use the latest gear regardless of actual need. Video is important to both groups, especially professionals, who are being asked to do more and more video by their customers. So of course video is important to the market as it's currently constituted. Where I suspect all this emphasis on video might be a bit misleading is that there's likely a very definite ceiling on how many people out there will buy an ILC for their video needs as opposed to those who will just use their phone or perhaps a speciality vlogging camera. There's only so many technophiles and professionals buying new cameras every three or four years, so if the camera industry believes they can jump start ILC sales with video, they may wind up bitterly disappointed.

[Neuse River Sailor]

I remember Koyannisqatsi from years back and it bored me stiff. Still haven’t watched it through either.

Some friends and I saw it when it first came out and thought it was the most amazing thing we had ever seen. Of course, we were under the influence of some sort of controlled substance...I preferred it to Eraserhead, though that one had a better story line.

[StiffLegged]

... Of course, we were under the influence of some sort of controlled substance...

I remember thinking that might have helped during the weirder bits of Kubrick's 2001!

[clackers]

Like many here, I only have a passing interest in making videos

I think that's true of nearly everyone and camera companies actually know that, it just doesn't suit their marketing.

Sometimes on the internet I've encountered someone talking about video being indispensable in this day and age and asked them to link to videos they've made, and no one had the conviction to do that.

We see people put up stills pics all the time.

Privately, I think it's much easier to make a still photo that captures a moment of interest than to make a video someone has to sit through and retain interest, there are lots more skills involved. IMHO, it's not enough to have a good subject, the motion in the scene must be good too, it's 'moving pictures'.

I of course don't mean snap stills or videos like the sort taken with a phone, they're everywhere, I do 'em too, more than use my 'real' cameras.

[Rondec]

I do take video -- usually with a camcorder, sometimes with me phone, sometimes even with my SLRs. They are family videos and I don't do a bunch of editing to them. They just live on hard drives and my kids watch them sometimes.

The thing is that no one except someone who knows us would be interested in them. The lighting isn't great, the sound isn't wonderful, and the clips are too long. I think a lot of hobbyists are like me in the way they use video. Conceptually it is great to think about sitting down with Adobe Premiere and making a slick, 25 minute video encapsulating your 12 year old's life, but the time and energy just aren't there for it.

[Lord Lucan]

I think it's much easier to make a still photo that captures a moment of interest than to make a video someone has to sit through and retain interest, there are lots more skills involved.

Agreed. My parents and some of their friends went in for the Super-8 video craze (was it the 1970s?). The results that I saw were dull and boring, and the craze seemed to die a death soon enough.

There is a much wider gap between an unskilled video and a skilled one (both in terms of the skill required and the results obtained) than there is between a casual snapshot and and a still photo with artistic merit. As an amateur I can feel I can at least try to take artistically good still photos, but I would not dream of attempting to make a good video beyond the most functional sort*, and have immense admiration of those who can - which are mostly professional feature film makers.

* For example I posted a video (taken with my K-1) of my motor mower's throttle mechanism working/malfunctioning on a lawnmower forum, seeking technical advice. I won't get an Oscar

[TaoMaas]

I think that our mere presence in this forum kind of says that video isn't that important to us, doesn't it? I mean, is there another camera brand who cares less about video than Pentax? So we're kind of bad people to ask about this subject. I suspect that the responses to the article might be quite different over on a Sony or Lumix forum.

[Lord Lucan]

is there another camera brand who cares less about video than Pentax?

Linhof? Cambo?

[Rondec]

I think that our mere presence in this forum kind of says that video isn't that important to us, doesn't it? I mean, is there another camera brand who cares less about video than Pentax? So we're kind of bad people to ask about this subject. I suspect that the responses to the article might be quite different over on a Sony or Lumix forum.

Phase One, Leica and Hasselblad don't seem very videocentric.

[UncleVanya]

I think that our mere presence in this forum kind of says that video isn't that important to us, doesn't it? I mean, is there another camera brand who cares less about video than Pentax? So we're kind of bad people to ask about this subject. I suspect that the responses to the article might be quite different over on a Sony or Lumix forum.

To be fair my FF gear is Sony. I feel about video the same with both brands.

[clackers]

I think that our mere presence in this forum kind of says that video isn't that important to us, doesn't it? I mean, is there another camera brand who cares less about video than Pentax? So we're kind of bad people to ask about this subject. I suspect that the responses to the article might be quite different over on a Sony or Lumix forum.

I can tell you none of my Sony owning friends do video. One of my Panny friends does video - more than stills, really.

So, I'm not so sure.

[beholder3]

I can tell you none of my Sony owning friends do video. One of my Panny friends does video - more than stills, really.

So, I'm not so sure.

I just believe photo and video are quite different hobbies and many people choose their hobby with some IQ and intention involved.

If there were new "Transformer"-Cars which could also turn into two-wheeled things I do not believe either the motorcycle fan majority would immediately jump on it nor the car fans.

I rather believe the camera companies are grabbing straws here to extend their buyers.

[texandrews]

I just believe photo and video are quite different hobbies and many people choose their hobby with some IQ and intention involved.

If there were new "Transformer"-Cars which could also turn into two-wheeled things I do not believe either the motorcycle fan majority would immediately jump on it nor the car fans.

I rather believe the camera companies are grabbing straws here to extend their buyers.

I have a friend who has been doing stills and video for colleges for years---beginning with the Canon 5D. We do it at our museum. It's a marketing thing---for SM both are useful/valuable. Even for my department, Exhibits, having stills and video/timelapses of installs and de-installs is very helpful, and now that the museum's DAMS handles all files, it's easy to store them.


So, some of this is pro driven. Note also that the 2 big drivers of stills and video are Canon and Sony, both of which have video in their DNA (as does Panny). And now that top cameras cost what they do (although, less than what they did a decade or more ago) I think it's pros and semi pros who are moving the market more.

[Rondec]

The problem is that none of this is a big driver of new sales. If 52 percent of the people purchasing new ILCs say that they are most interested in video, then this statement is true. On the other hand, the market has tanked. In 2012, there were 16.2 million SLRs shipped. Supposedly there were around 5.9 million ILCs shipped last year. It is hard to spin a situation where the overall market is down to 36 percent of what it was 10 years ago as a good thing.

In this thread a number of things have been identified. First, most photographers don't need to change cameras any more because of obsolescence -- sensor tech isn't changing that fast and auto focus and frame rate are good enough on cameras that are four or five years old that the big reason to buy a new camera is because your old one has stopped working.

Second, camera brands have really emphasized video -- they are now releasing 8K models. I don't think they are doing this because everyone is clamoring for 8K video, but it is the "next thing" just like increasing megapixels or frame rate is. I've said before, but to me, the big issue with video isn't the resolution -- it is the story, the plot, the editing, and the sound design that make something watchable. Unfortunately, there are many Hollywood movies that look great, but are hardly watchable, much less re-watchable.

Third, the biggest enemy of new camera sales is the used market. If all you need is a moderate frame rate (say 8 fps), can be satisfied with 100 auto focus points, decent tracking auto focus, and 4K video, you can get a very nice camera on the used market. You can buy a Sony A7r II for 500 dollars with a Tamron lens on ebay right now. A7r III goes for 900 to 1000 dollars. The presence of this used market with cameras that still are capable of taking excellent images, means that brands end up selling against themselves.

My feeling is simply that we are in a holding pattern. Brands that can adjust to lower level of sales are going to be in it for the long haul. Those who expect to launch new models every six months and have them sell out, are going to find that their overall sales are steady, even though they exert a lot of effort to bring in new customers.