80% of Photography Video?

I kick myself for not having saved the URL. Instead, I’m going by memory that I think is reasonably correct. One of the articles in my morning newsfeed today discussed the upcoming Canon R52. Part of what the author said was highly likely, like the current R5, is that it will arrive in two versions. Again, IIRC, he speculated that one of two would be a very high rez and the other specialty video like the C is today. Up to then, I liked the article because I have almost no interest and less skill with video.

However, at that point, the article went on to say that something like 80% of all camera use today is video because most folks using cameras are doing so in hopes of becoming YouTube stars. Can this be true? People are buying Z9s, R3s and Sony A1s (among others) primarily to shoot videos? This implies until the video/YouTube craze dies down, or maybe even afterward, still camera capacity is somewhat of a rump feature.

I’ll admit to having enjoyed my time editing/grading videos using DaVinci Resolve but my creative drive is wholly stills. Today three or more hours in PS is identically therapeutic as the same or more time I used to spend in one of my makeshift darkrooms. However, if the still side of camera development is really just 20% while the overwhelming drive is video, I doubt we’ll continue to see much of any improvement in stills while video runs away with the industry.

Was this article just gas or is it true that camera use today is mostly video and stills are now an afterthought?

Why do you believe that the video craze will die down?

I would question that statistic. I’ve nothing to back up my stance, just a gut instinct. It just doesn’t feel right.

I would question its exactitude, but not the trend it’s indicative of.

Questioning really isn't a stance, it's seeking more information, and I am 100% with you. How would they even measure it?

I mean, it would make sense that the economics of these cameras drive their use. You don't buy a car just to park it. I wouldn't be surprised that most people looking at video options reach for a DSLR of some sort first because it offers video and more. People still have the notion of size and professionalism, despite what your modern Iphone can do with it's CPU attached.

If you needed video, what would your first choice be today? A camcorder that cost just as much or more, that has less features?

May we agree .... that on a yearly base...
... on average 99% of the time > this car is parked somewhere ??

99,9% for a $1.5 million Ferrari
97,2% for $15k Ford

Based on that I can extrapolate some facts:
- cheaper cars are more used than expensive ones

( when you go to the grocery store you need to park your car on the street )

😂😁😂😁😂😁😂

I still do a lot of still photography, but I've pretty much turned to video when I go on trips and shoot to record my experience. I just find that video seems to bring me back to the moment in a way that stills don't. It's still nice to shoot stills when the opportunity to capture a really nice scene presents itself, but I now shoot way more video on trips than stills.

I have no aspirations to YouTube stardom, though. The closest I've ever gotten to that is a train videothat I shot for myself and posted because I thought it would be of interest to certain train enthusiasts. It's gotten almost 200K views, 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more than anything else I've posted.

I will go with the random statistic thingy....LOL. They cant know if it is 80% without knowing how many stills we shoot.

Personally I shoot 100% stills and 0% video.

But I know I’m weird 😂

I’m the OP.

The article was short and now I doubly kick myself for not saving the URL. I read the piece and then moved on only finding it bothered me as the morning went on thus my post.

As to me saying the YouTube video presentation is a craze, I maintain that because people aren’t doing it for self-satisfaction or as an art form but rather to make money. We’re at the entry point of any new trend with many participants. As time wears on there will be a consolidation with a very few winners compared to the many losers.

As to the 80% usage figure, I don’t remember the article citing the source but based on context I believe that was from marketing data. That is, it is derived from data manufacturers use to design their future cameras.

This video in still cameras has been bothering me for years now. I used to live in area where many feature films and commercials were shot. I was surprised to see that just about the time I bought my Canon 5D2 I saw the identical body (but not lenses) being used on these shooting sites. Canon ran with it which to me, a still shooter, was a loss since I figured every video feature included meant a still one neglected.

OK, I’m a poor videographer and a bit hostile to it anyway but I don’t understand the entire direction Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony and the rest are taking here. Why keep the 35mm form but add pro features such as with the Canon R5C? Why not make a real video camera form but add the RF mount?

The little video I have done with a true video camera (XA60) was enormously easier than trying to use my 35mm form camera to shoot movies. Why does a thing like a R5C even exist?

"One of the most significant things that I’ve been told by Canon’s reps is that video users are 90% of the market these days."

That's from: www.thephoblographer.com/2023/05/16/the-canon-eos-r5-ii-might-give-photographers-all-they-want/

Just another social symptom that won't be cured; like seeing yet another lovely bit of farmland rent asunder for apartment complexes..

I guess us old still photographers are a dying breed. ☹️ I never liked shooting super 8 or 16 mil, and don’t like shooting video. To my mind, video is really a completely different set of skills.

Absolutely!

The article was making up an imaginary future camera and making up imaginary usage statistics. Why get upset about it?

Personally, I don’t think R5 is a camera people buy for video unless they want some very basic 8K video. Otherwise, the R6 II is every bit as good for video, and there are many other less expensive cameras which are great for video.

And there are pro video camera which are much better for video as well.

I think you should ignore the article and the stuff it made up.

It is, but it ain't and in the next 10+ years, the two will probably be indistinguishable. We've already got video cameras making 12k raw video images. Why not just film and pick a frame at that point, especially if it's client work where time = money and you're always running late. 3D, 360 environments at the click of a mouse button....heck of a lot more economical than going to and setting up a real location. Are you aware of what Lytro was trying to do with their 3D camera stuff? It failed, but you can see the bones of those ideas in what Disney is actively doing. Ever seen a 360 photobooth? The tech is already here.

Part of why I started getting into 4x5 was because of how dying of a breed that sorta stuff is. Analog film, strangely, might be the only "real" photography of the future because digital technology is just going to keep doing more and more.