To answer your question, "why would you fly a drone with a camera?", the answer is simple: To see what you are recording.
Indeed, or composing photos . . .
I tend to watch the drone when taking of or landing, other than that it's pretty much
all screen time.
VLOS (the spirit of the rule) is about looking up and being able to see your drone if you need to . . . an aircraft or helicopter sound in the distance, people coming into the area, analyse where these might be in conflict, react accordingly.
BVLOS is beyond where you can safely reconcile the 2 conflicts, not being able to relate where the drone is to the source of the manned aircraft sound (altitude, distance between, direction of flights, etc, or where it might be a potential danger to pedestrians etc.
Strobes can really be great to find you drone quickly when on the verge of VLOS (when eyeballing the drone constantly), where you have the drone 'disappear' against the sky or other background.
Really though, beyond this even with strobes visible out to whatever distance, that is not the spirit of the rule.
I've flown out 1km, once I recall, probably another 1 or 2 flights in my 5 years or so owning drones.
Alt has been pretty much on the deck, no higher than 20m (65') or so, and very remote inland Australia, where planes pretty much don't go, helis for a very rare rescue, and never that low.
I'm not in one sense bothered about bending this rule in these few cases, and neither is CASA, having given one of their drone reps the scenarios and having then say that's not what they're worried about. At all.
Yes, there is in all aspects of human life. Why should UAS be any different?
Should we shut down vehicle travel because of non-involved deaths? Commercial or GA air travel? Bicycles?
Almost all deaths are tragic. But we can't let a zero fatality requirement rule an industry. No where else is that done or even possible. Regulators requiring that for unmanned aircraft are asking for the impossible.
Of course in every aspect of life there is a risk, get out of bed, or stay in bed, you could slip and hit your head, or you could die of heart failure terribly obese in short time.
The rules are of course all about risk mitigation, no one can truly expect a zero, but so far so good for the drone industry / hobby !!
If current rules are followed, there is less risk of drone incident, just like rules to drive on the road.
Unfortunately, most rules are blanket made, to cover all levels of skills, and still don't always cover the lower ranges of people concerned, but they exist to make whatever we do is more safe.
Yes, some people are very capable drivers, or drone pilots, but authorities generally can't take those factors into account easily . . . I guess having part 107, or A2CofC, or RePL supposedly gives authorities a basic ground level of a pilots competence, but that's not totally a given either.
And for sure, sometimes authorities go overboard on rules, or have too many rules, almost same rules, true.
Like driving on the road, new safety tech comes out now and then, who remembers seat belt introduction in motor vehicles ?
Our annual road toll was around 30 per 100k people in 1970, now it's more like 4 to 5 per 100k.
In the years since, safety features like ABS, traction control, better tyre tech, AIR BAGS !!, accident avoidance braking, and a host of warning sensors . . . all can probably be compared to the great tech we have in consumer drones now, then we have tech like RID coming on line, to more or less be like radar, speed cameras, of the sky to force rules on blatantly unsafe drivers / pilots, those that can't help breaking the rules in ways that endanger others.
We can't get out of speeding fines on the road easily, but I bet you would be able to argue your flight case to FAA, or CAA, or CASA, and get a fair hearing on just how you considered this or that in the cause of some minor transgression.