This is a great idea for the public good, but unfortunately there just isn't much economic imperative for the camera companies to invest in it. Security-sensitive filmmakers and journalists represent a vanishingly small niche, not a meaningful market. For the rest of users, photos taken on stand-alone cameras are generally meant to be shared, not strongly protected, meaning encryption is at best a "nice to have" not a "need to have" or perhaps even a "want to have". And that means that if it comes at the price of even a tiny degree of inconvenience, consumers will refuse it.
Having said that, it's not inconceivable that camera makers can solve this problem (a) cheaply and (b) in a way that is "off by default" for most consumers but available if needed. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think it's far more likely that we'll see the quality of phone photo/video quality become "good enough" for security-sensitive users to abandon standalone cameras entirely than that we'll see camera encryption catch up in the other direction.
Having said that, it's not inconceivable that camera makers can solve this problem (a) cheaply and (b) in a way that is "off by default" for most consumers but available if needed. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think it's far more likely that we'll see the quality of phone photo/video quality become "good enough" for security-sensitive users to abandon standalone cameras entirely than that we'll see camera encryption catch up in the other direction.