My 'Video' Camera

Just as a finishing touch to the stills-versus-video posts last week, I should mention again that my main "real work" camera today (I have three cameras in the rotation and mostly use two of them) is primarily a video camera. I've never used it to shoot video. The Sigma fp is available in two resolutions, 24 MP and 61 MP (the fp-L). Mine is the former. Most of its functionality and a lot of its features are aimed squarely at video. It was evidently intended to be the core of elaborate video rigs with other video equipment (microphones, hard drives, monitors etc.) hung on the cage. It doesn't even have a physical shutter, nor does it have a real built-in eyepiece viewfinder. It has only limited features and rudimentary capabilities for stills photography.

The thought has crossed my mind that maybe that might be part of the reason I like it. I want my camera to be basic and simple and my fp is rather basic and simple...when used for stills. Stills photography was probably an afterthought—surely secondary—during its design, included only because why not.

I suppose I could parse this suspicion with a deeper dive into its feature sets for video and stills, followed by a detailed comparison with competing cameras. But I don't have the interest. I'd rather spend my energy describing the features I use and how I have them set up, which I will do someday. Suffice to say that I have it set up, and use it, as a stills-only, B&W-only camera. In my mind, I think of it as a digital 4x5 loaded with HP5+. The results are similar, and, like 4x5, it rewards careful, thoughtful and deliberate work. It isn't very good for quick reactive shots, candids, or note-taking. For those I use the iPhone. For portraits I used the Fuji X-T1. (My son inherited my X-H1.)

I had the fp converted to B&W-only by having its CFA (color filter array) removed. I had already paid for this expensive modification when a generous reader volunteered to cover the cost. Shortly thereafter, because the Universe likes to taunt me like that (okay, I kid, but only sorta), Pentax came out with the K3 III Monochrome. What are the odds? If the timing had been different I would have bought the Pentax and lived happily ever after. But I'm actually okay with the fact that it didn't happen that way, because I love my modded Sigma. I even love that it's so odd and quirky. I love that it's probably possible to fit all the photographers in the world who use it like I use mine into one living room, probably with room left over. The viewfinder I have (and love) is a chimney magnifier turned sideways that enlarges the viewing screen on the back of the camera. It has to be carefully capped off when not in use because sunlight through the magnifier could damage the viewing screen. My camera (not the fp itself, but mine) is...a contraption. And I like that about it.

I'm still surprised that 80% of all real cameras aren't made for either stills or video but not both, with dual-purpose cameras that do both comprising maybe 20% of the market's offerings and sold at a premium. That's not the way things evolved. I'm surprised by a lot of other things in current culture too, not just the conventions around cameras.

If I were advising anyone else who wanted a B&W camera, though, I would simply say to go for the Pentax, or consider one of the B&W Leicas if you can afford them and they appeal to you. They are popular and well regarded.

Although I'm surprisingly happy with where I ended up, it's important to note that I'm still a refugee. I've "made do" with something not really designed or intended to be what it is I'm after. In an ideal world (I'm an idealist by personality type), things would be different. That doesn't mean I'm any less grateful. I'm extremely happy with my camera, which itself is strange given my history. I'm very fortunate to have found such a good workaround. I'm already worrying about when it gets old and breaks.

So, yes, I know you can buy a hybrid camera and just ignore the video functionality. It's what I do, in spades.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Kye Wood: "There are so many analogue/digital and simple/feature-packed correlations in the tools needed for other endeavours. Last night I bought the simplest guitar amplifier I could find. Not the cheapest. Of the smallest. And, as with the Sigma fp, there are compromises to be made in order to be blessed with such simplicity. But you get to enjoy the process—without the cognitive noise of other features trying to cut in, to steal the dance of enjoyment.

"P.S. Quality woodworking tools do one thing, properly. You put one down, to pick up another, to do a different task. Which imbues the end result with a glow of satisfaction that lives long past the end of the task."

Bear.: "Apart from fine art photography shot for only for printing, most professional photographers require hybrid cameras—photojournalists are compelled to produce video or vlogs to go with print/photo pieces; video journalists vice versa; my brother in law is a radio journalist but is required to produce corresponding print / video reports for every story; wedding photographers are required also to supply video footage; medical / science/ police photographers all ditto. So I don’t think it’s surprising at all that most serious still cameras in the market cater, to a greater or lesser extent, to video. And vice versa for serious video cameras. The market for wholly specialised equipment is just too small. Face it,Mike, we’re just dinosaurs soon to be extinct…."

Pak-Ming Wan: "This happily-ever-after feeling is real when you've found the right tool for what you want to do. I didn't think I would like B&W as much as I did, mostly influenced by reading this blog and Luminous Landscape in the 2000s, where I went through the whole time-compressed experience of learning how to shoot with B&W film then the transition to digital, and finally with B&W digital."

Comments

[Globules]

For a number of years I've been interested in infrared photography. Because it lacks a color filter array (e.g. Bayer filter) the Pentax K-3 Mark III Monochrome seems like it would be ideal for conversion to infrared. Has anyone here tried this? If so, what has your experience been?

[Thom Hogan]

I suppose you'd also be surprised that 55%+ of the US market for vehicles is crossover/SUV. Neither car nor truck.

If you spend a lot on something, you tend to want "utility". You wouldn't want to buy a Miata and then discover you have the need to move a bale of hay once every two weeks.

[alan Sailer]

Just wanted to remind you about another possibility. I checked the local Craigslist (SoCal) and found three old style (minimum electronics) washing machines for 200$ or less.

I have a decades old Maytag that just keeps chugging along. If it fails before me I intend to buy a used unit. The new electronics loaded machines are an abomination and I will not buy into them. Ditto modern cars.

Cheers.

[robert e]

Interesting to recall that most compact consumer digicams were based on video technology. Those hybrids were ubiquitous, once, though in retrospect it seems like only for an instant before they gave way to the larger CMOS sensors developed for still imaging.

In a way, though, they echoed the original 35mm compact film cameras, which similarly adapted movie technology for still photography. Meanwhile, those big-sensor cameras went through a mirror-image (no pun intended) evolution toward hybriditude. And now here we are, some of us using video-centric cameras evolved from those hybrids to shoot stills. What next? Imax in my pocket?

[Bruce Bordner]

I know that I have video on my camera, but I forget to use it. My whole work is "hey, look at that!". With video, it's more "what was that?". I keep looking for something to snap out of reality so I can look at it. I just feel sneaky.

[David Wilson]

I have the Sigma fp which I use for stills only and I love the files it produces - colour RAW and square B/W JPEGs.
It’s quirky but, aside from the absence of any stability assistance, meets all my needs, except for grandkids’ football.

[Bob G.]

I agree that included video capabilities in a camera can be useful, even though I rarely use it. I once used the video on my Olympus c5060 at the time to get both my parents in talking action, and now, because of that, it’s the only moving image I have to remember them by.

[Patrick Perez]

Mike wrote 'If I were advising anyone else who wanted a B&W camera, though, I would simply say to go for the Pentax, or consider one of the B&W Leicas if you can afford them and they appeal to you. They are popular and well regarded.'

I would amend that good advice to say that before buying ANY monochrome camera, thoroughly evaluate the monochrome conversion software options and confirm hardware offers results unachievable with a current color capable camera.

[James W Mersereau]

As someone still shooting HP5 (all formats including 4X5), I've dreamed of a Monochrome for years as in "wouldn't it just be easier to skip some of film's labors of Hercules?" Drooled over a Leica Mono, but there's the pocketbook and I'm not really a rangefinder guy anyway (though some of my fav shots came from one or two). Think often of converting my Fuji XT-4 'cause I use it all the time and digital converted files just don't do B&W justice with the extra kick that true monochromes have IMHO, but that probably awaits an upgrade to a Fuji XT-6 or something even later down the road. That said, as a Mamiya fan still shooting an RB67, I love the RB look you've got. Just hesitate over acquiring a new basket of lenses (says the guy with too many). Ditto for the Pentax M... though I drool over that, too. Maybe with all this drooling, I need to visit my dentist?