As video recording started to gain prominence on DSLRs and compact system cameras, one particular comment would often appear in comments sections, on forums and on the letters pages of magazines. “If I want a camera that shoots video, I’ll buy a video camera” – or words to that effect.

Indeed, you still hear it now, although these days you’re just as likely to hear the exact opposite, something along the lines of a manufacturer’s failure to include 4K video on a new release renders them an out-of-touch dinosaur. It shows you how quickly things change – or at the very least, supports the maxim of not being able to please all of the people all of the time.

It’s hard to think of a feature that’s angered so many photographers, yet it’s easy to list a handful of others that are as deserving of this kind of scorn. Perhaps the most worthy recipient is the HDR capture mode, a feature which admittedly has a practical advantage if you want to work around the limitations of your camera, but is often used to create unreal monstrosities that go way beyond what many would agree a photo should be.

Just behind this are certain digital filters, and in particular those that reduce colourful images to black-and-white versions with just a single colour remaining, as though we all want to create our very own soulesss Ikea poster.

So why pick on video? The most common argument is based on the belief that a camera with video included is more expensive than one without, and that photographers who have no interest in recording video are therefore forced to pay for this whether they like it or not.

Is it right to assume video has an impact on price? It seems like it is, but quite how anyone can claim to know the extent to which this is the case is anyone's guess.

Clearly a manufacturer would have to be able to include that technology in a sufficient range of its products for any R&D investment to be worthwhile. This is separate to the costs of the hardware itself, which are likely to impact the asking price less than people imagine.

However, despite the fact that even cheaper cameras shoot 4K video, and thus proving that it certainly is possible for a manufacturer to release such a camera at that price, “4K video recording” doesn’t tell you much about how similarly one camera will record to another.

Nikon’s entry-level 1 J5 records 4K video, for example, but the fact that it’s capped at 15fps is telling. Exactly how a camera captures this footage – and this is where things like crop factors come in – will determine how much information the camera has to deal with – and with that, how long it is able to do so, and without overheating.

For more advanced models it becomes even more of a priority to dissipate heat, and because of that it may result in a slightly larger and/or heavier body. And clearly, not everyone wants that.

Of course, if a particular feature has value in the marketplace, it’s in the manufacturer’s interest to price that accordingly. In the case of 4K video recording, few people would reasonably expect a compact camera aimed at beginners to sport the technology, but leaving it out of an enthusiast DSLR or mirrorless camera becomes harder to defend when you consider the many cheaper models of the same kind manage to offer this.

It’s also likely that those who consider themselves to be photographic purists, only concerned with using a DSLR to capture images, also object to the proliferation of this technology. It wasn't even that long ago that photographers were praising Nikon for deliberately omitting video recording from its Df DSLR, at a time when manufacturers were increasing their focus on HD video recording.

There are, of course, other cameras that do not offer video apart from the Df. This could be because they don't suit that particular target market or because of technical complexities, such as with Sigma’s Foveon technology. It’s easy to miss out video for the reason that a camera is not aimed at that kind of user, but as soon as you do include it you’re likely to face some criticism if it’s not up to the current standard – and this explains why certain companies get more stick than others.

For some people, an aversion to video could be down to an unwillingness to adapt to technological changes. Someone who has spent years learning their craft, and has accustomed themselves to a reasonably decent DSLR, may well feel threatened by a novice user who can already produce decent-quality video with just a basic model.

But just imagine what it would be like if video wasn’t now a standard part of a DSLR or mirrorless camera’s feature set, if every phone and compact camera could shoot HD video at the very least, but interchangeable-lens cameras could not. It’s likely the arguments over why this is the case would be even louder.

Ultimately, most of us will never take advantage of the full wealth of features on our cameras, but if there’s so much about a camera that doesn't work for you then it’s probably not aimed at you anyway. Unless you’re a very wealthy person with the right connections, the likelihood of a camera being tailored specifically to your requirements is slim.

In any case, across compacts, mirrorless cameras and DSLRs, video recording isn’t going anywhere soon. Learning the basics at the very least is probably something worth thinking about; you never know when you might want, or need, to use it.

2017-7-5 03:00