You thoughts on the big video-function craze?

Got it (5D Mk II), haven't used it, don't intend to.

I don't have it on my 40D, but the more and more my wife asks me about getting a video camera for our nieces birthday parties and our international travel the more I'm curious about it. I do agree that trying to be a still and video photographer at a wedding seems beyond daunting to the point of inane... but whatever the client wants is the motto of some.. Cheers!

For my work I could never get decent video and stills. The moments that I need stills from would be the same moments that I'd need video from. And with video I couldn't move around and take stills from different angles without missing something. AND to get decent video with a DSLR I'd need a better computer to edit the HD footage, I'd need some way to record the sound and I'd need to use a tripod or shoulder mount to stabilize the camera.
I'm sorry but it's a gimmick.

No video for me. I bought a Video camera 15 years ago, used it a couple of times and realized that I really, really suck at it. Haven't touched it since and I sure won't use it in any DSLR camera.

I never thought I would use the video function on my Nikon D90, but I used it once and fell in love with it. I am selling my camcorder. Being able to shoot video using high quality lens with shallow DOF (or extreme wide angle) with very little noise in low light is just wonderful. With the video I was able to capture so much expression of people and interesting moments that would have been lost had I just snap one picture. The video enriches your ability to capture your visual experience. By combining video and still into one camera, you have the freedom to use one or the other, depending on the circumstances. This is particularly true for those who do not usually carry a camcorder. I will not buy another camera that cannot shoot HD video.

Chang is right. If it is implemented well, it could be fun to have in a quality lens camera combo. You are on a trip, let's say. Joe Tourist trip. I think of the Amtrak Cascade run from Oakland to Portland. Sitting in the dome car, watching canyons and whisking at speed through tunnels blasted out of rock, sweeping by steep embankments that seem to make the train hang in space above the railroad bed. No still can capture that experience. Can it, are you sure?

I shot a batch of stills with my Konica Hexar on slide film and got a few keepers. Fleeting seconds of scenery flashing by. Even a 5 second clip can powerfully relive that experience if in motion . Does this diminish the 'perfect moment' represented by a still? I don't. Does video take a different mindset.... Probably. That will be my main effort then, the distillation of experience and versatility to choose. Bottom line=what's to lose? I like the convenience represened by a well designed convergence.For those certain visuals like the one I described. Am open to persuasion is all. -- PS. It might even be fun:-)

Interesting points, all!

And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications.

You "notice" wrong, or at least draw incorrect conclusions. The dividing line is not "where" the cameras fall in a manufacturer's line, but "when" they were released. The Canon 1Ds III, for example, launched in August of 2007, about a year before the November 2008 apearance of the video DSLRs. Nikon D3 was another August 2007 launch, positively stale by "V day". D3X was the only thing close, just on the edge...

In fact, video is refefining top-of-the-line product planning. Canon normally launches their flagships on a 3 year cycle.

• 1D III - Feb 2007
• 1D II - Jan 2004

They pulled the 1D IV ahead a quarter (three months) to October 2009, and launched with video. 1Ds is also on a 3 year cycle: 1Ds IV would normally launch in August or September 2010, but the word on the street is either a 2 or 3 quarter pullahead and a launch with video (and a pixel count higher than Leica S2).

Canon 5D was a well documented example of a failed product launch. It sold well below expectations: Canon set the record for the entire industry for both frequency and size of price reductions and incentive packages, and still had difficulty moving that camera. 5D II took off: Canon sold more of them in the first 6 months than they sold of the original 5D in the first two years.

Nikon D4 isn't due till late 2010, so Nikon grabbed some headlines with a D3s, with video (and better low light capability) at $5200.

And the last wedding I attended, still employed a still photographer and a videographer... two separate people with two separate jobs. I couldn't imagine the still photographer trying to integrate videos with his array of stills for presentation to his clients later. I sure wouldn't want to!

Can you imagine a small company that employs 2-4 shooters training them all for both video and still, so they can book events as photographer/videographer pairs, or just photographers, or just videographes, depending on what the customer whats?

I've read a couple articles now "informing" photographers that they need to embrace shooting videos along with their still work. And now, most all of the camera manufacturers are clamoring to include movie capability on their offerings.

Do you always write with such "sensationalism"? I don't recall articles "informing" photographers of what they "need", just what "could" help them expand their businesses. And the manufacturers aren't "clamoring", they're simply "doing".

Nikon D4 isn't due till late 2010, so Nikon grabbed some headlines with a D3s, with video (and better low light capability) at $5200.

Indeed. If I remember correctly, Nikon D90 was the first dSLR to offer video. D300 is the next line up, but because it came before D90, it does not have video. When it was time for the D300 to be refreshed, Nikon introduced D300s which has video. This allows Nikon to catch up with Canon who chose to first offer video to their up of the line pro cameras. D3 was the latest that was refreshed and the D3s now too has video. The D700 will be updated soon and video will sure to be added.

There were a few PJs posted in the Nikon forum to tell people that increasingly the News organizations that hire them are now requesting them to also shoot videos. This is particularly relevant to those newspapers that have an on line versions, and videos shot by dSLRs are more than enough to be satisfactory in terms of image quality. This saves them big money in hiring a separate videographer.

I'd rather Olympus create a photographers camera, like they did with the OM1.
I am teetering on the edge of buying an E-P2.
But something makes me wish they would have created a great stills camera where all the technology in the camera is for making the best still photography possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)

I think that the movie mode will replace continuous shooting mode sooner or later, or much sooner than we would imagine.

10 fps seems to be technical limit of SLR mechanism and you would need movie mode to realize faster frame rates. You can select fast shutter speeds in the movie mode to stop the motion in each frame, so it is virtually a continuous shooting mode with faster frame rates already. Nikon released a new software called PIXCLIPPER that extracts still images from the movie file taken with DSLR, which makes RED system for the pepple!

Currently, contiunous shooting mode is Achilles heel of m4/3 system, but the movie mode may change the situation before the manufacturers solve the problem of the "c" mode.

I'm not sure if my camera even has this feature or not. But it doesn't matter, I have never been interested in video anyway and if I have the capability, I won't use it.
I am a still photogerapher and should I ever find an interest in videography, I will get a video camera for that purpose. Like my father used to say, A device that "does it all" is a device that does a lot of things poorly! If video is what you like, buy a camera for that purpose.

Like my father used to say, A device that "does it all" is a device that does a lot of things poorly! If video is what you like, buy a camera for that purpose.

True, but that does not stop Swiss Army knife from being a very popular product. Many people will trade some compromises for convenience. With D90 or GH1, I do NOT need to carry two devices. Can you see what a wonderful thing this is? Furthermore, where are the compromises in the ability to take stills in these dSLRs and m3/4 cameras that are due to the implementation of video? Just look at the new Canon 7D and Nikon D3s. They are better in every way as a camera, better ISO performance, high frame rate, etc, and they will be sold at the same price as the model they replace, plus they have outstanding HD video. Speaking of HD video, the video qualities from these cameras are sooooo much better than the regular camcorders and having one of these dSLRs will save you from having to spend a bundle to get a HD larger sensor video camera.

It seems that DSLRs with a video feature will be used a lot more for videos than single frames will be used from dedicated video cameras.

Never have used video in-spite of having digicams with the option along-side my Olympus DSLR's.

If I buy any cameras in the future that have a video option, I'm most likely to get about as much use out of it as I have to date.

A response to Joseph Wisniewski:
Joseph, when I said "And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications," I was talking about the "current" offerings, not model production schedules. CURRENTLY, the D3x, the D700, the EOS 1 Ds Mark III, the E-3, and of course, the M9 do not offer video, which suits me just fine.
Your statement: "Can you imagine a small company that employs 2-4 shooters training them all for both video and still, so they can book events as photographer/videographer pairs, or just photographers, or just videographes, depending on what the customer whats?"
I believe you meant to say "wants," not "whats." At any rate, I don't get your point of what you are trying say here. I'm talking about the average wedding photographer (singular) trying to pull off a wedding promising both stills and videos from his DSLR. I've done hundreds of weddings, and I sure wouldn't even want to try such a thing! As Max Edin put it: "For my work I could never get decent video and stills. The moments that I need stills from would be the same moments that I'd need video from. And with video I couldn't move around and take stills from different angles without missing something. AND to get decent video with a DSLR I'd need a better computer to edit the HD footage, I'd need some way to record the sound and I'd need to use a tripod or shoulder mount to stabilize the camera.
I'm sorry but it's a gimmick."
But more power to you if you'd like to try.
Your statement: "Do you always write with such "sensationalism"? I don't recall articles "informing" photographers of what they "need", just what "could" help them expand their businesses. And the manufacturers aren't "clamoring", they're simply "doing".
I refer you to "Digital Photo Pro," July/August 2009, Pg. 78. The title of the article "Will Video Kill The Still Photography Star?" stongly intimates that pros (including wedding photogs) will have to integrate video into their still work. I get the feeling here that the manufacturers are telling us what we need, not just "helping" us to expand.
No, I still have to say the manufactures are clamoring. You suggest yourself that all forthcomig top-of-the-line cameras will include video. Personally, I remain in the camp that would prefer their camera be the way William White defines it: "But something makes me wish they would have created a great stills camera where all the technology in the camera is for making the best still photography possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)."
But, all would be solved if the manufacturers did it the way Panasonic currently does it with the G1 and the GH1. This gives the photographer a choice of what technologies he wants to put his money into, would it not?

CURRENTLY, the D3x, the D700, ...do not offer video, which suits me just fine.

I don't want to be argumentative, but this is quite unfair as I noted earlier that D700 is now an "old" model in Nikon's line up so it is due for replacement. D3x has very high pixel count and is intended as a studio camera for fine arts and other type of photography that requires very high resolution. It is a niche camera. The top of the line of Nikon FF camera is the D3, which has been replaced by D3s that has video.

trying to pull off a wedding promising both stills and videos from his DSLR. I've done hundreds of weddings, and I sure wouldn't even want to try such a thing!

I recently bought a pro Nikon lens from a pro wedding photographer. When I went to their web site, I found that they have added a D90 to their line up to offer short videos as a bonus or extra features. Soon more and more pro may do the same to compete with those that can only offer pictures.

Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)."

The D3s, D90, D300s from Nikon and Canon 7D all have the best screens, VF, and built quality in their class. Where are the compromises? Video = live view, which has long been integrated into these cameras so there is very little cost in making video a feature.

CC, I highly imagine you are right about the minimal cost for video circuitry.
Again, the operative word regarding the wedding photographer you mentioned is "their." Of course, if there's more than one of you, you can certainly pull off some videos. It would be most difficult for a single photog to pull off both at a wedding, and do it well.
It is interesting to see how everyone feels about this new "feature" though, don't you think?

It is interesting to see how everyone feels about this new "feature" though, don't you think?

Yes it is. I think this happens when a new technology is emerging and not yet mature — some see it as a new potential while others see it as a distraction. Not long ago we were debating whether P-mode was a good idea and whether AF was really necessary.

It's the new megapixel race. And honestly, it doesn't make much sense. You still need a second camera to take higher quality stills... and wouldn't a dedicated video camera that has dedicated video controls be a better way to video? Birthday party mom and dad would be far far better off with a cheaper still camera and a dedicated video camera any day.

IMO the video function in many cameras is still at an early stage. For the average photog (pro or semi pro included) the video is a waste of space, but once they get the kinks worked out of the video mode it will make life that much easier on the guy covering a wedding. I have used it exactly 5 times since the D90 was released (i bought mine 1 month after release). if and when they can perfect it, I can make video of the hiking trips along with my landscape images from one source instead of hauling around a camcorder to. IDK I do not use it much, but i can see the idea behind having it.

But something makes me wish they would have created a great stills camera where all the technology in the camera is for making the best still photography possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere?

For a camera like EP-2, not at all. It's an EVIL camera: it runs liveview full time, for composition, metering, and automatic focus. The things they do to it to make all that work well make video work well as a "side effect".

And when you go back and look at Nikon D90 (tied with Canon 5D II as the first) that's a totally minimalist effort. Nikon added as little as they could. They even used the same JPEG codec that they use to pipe liveview over teh USB port for tethered shooting as the "motion JPEG" codec for their video mode. The processor already had the audio input circuitry (it's a part they used acriss their P&S line, too) and they have the experience from making 10's of millions of P&S cameras to put a microphone in the D90 for, literally, pennies.

And then you look at Canon 5D II. You talk about money that "could have been spent elsewhere". R&D money is booked as a percentage of expected sales. The original 5D was a marketing failure (as I pointed out elsewhere), selling so far below expectations that Canon set the industry record for pice reductions and incentives trying to move them. When Canon did the market research on 5D II, they come up with numbers: how many people will buy a camera because of feature A, hoe many because of feature B, and that tells them what they can afford to spend developing each of those features. The video development mone couldn't have been "spend elsewhere", because that "elsewhere" would have had to get through market research and product planning.

Like my father used to say, A device that "does it all" is a device that does a lot of things poorly! If video is what you like, buy a camera for that purpose.

Mr. Dunbar, no insult to your father, but the video DSLRs (cinematographers are now referring to them as HDSLRs) don't do things "poorly". They do some things "crudely" (but they've only been in existance for 13 months, look at what video cameras were like for their first few years) but they do a lot of things much better than any video camera , and about equal to digital cinema cameras costing 10-40x more.

• There isn't anything that a photojournalist would consider to be a "video camera" than can match the low light ability of a Canon 5D II. Not professional 3 sensor, dockable video cameras costing 4x as much as a 5D II. And the amount you have to spend on an interchangeable lens video camera and lenses that can match Canon L glass is, again, 4x more. Some say it beats a $40,000 Red One (I don't have one around right now to compare).
• Even cameras like that Red One or the Panavision Genesis (about $100k, but you can only lease it) don't have sensors as large as the 5D II (believe it or not, the "Super 35" cinema format that most movies are shot on is only the size of a 1.6x crop APS DSLR sensor). So, the 24x36mm sensor Canon 5D II and Nikon D3s stand, right now, as the best cameras in the entire world for control of "cinematic" depth of field. The most DOF range (from deep to shallow) and the biggest lens range (from an 8mm full circular fisheye to an 800mm f4 Canon on a 2x teleconverter).
• And again, the movie mode DSLRs are the only things, outside of a $40,000 Red, that can make reasonable use of the $25,000 or so in Nikon lenses that I own.

Seriously, I shot some intepritive dance films on the 5D II with mostly my Nikon 85mm f1.4, and partially with a 35mm f2.8 shift lens, shifted, and the results were both beautiful, and quite literally impossible to achieve with any "video camera".

You still need a second camera to take higher quality stills... and wouldn't a dedicated video camera that has dedicated video controls be a better way to video?

There's two ways to answer that.

The first is, yes, for the time being, for a videographer. Provided that videographer doesn't need the low light ability or shallow DOF or color accuracy of a movie mode DSLR. A videographer will put up with more limited controls to get those things. But you consider that the average DSLR owner is creating bits of art. Most likely it's "personal art", but art non the less. And when that person starts to play with the video feature, he's doing "cinematography", not "videography". Not documenting moments but making "moving picture art". And that's a whole different game. Ever watched a cinematographer? It's all manual control, and very few controls.

The second way to answer the question "wouldn't a dedicated video camera that has dedicated video controls be a better way to video?" is "apparently not", because the most popular, hottest selling video camera in the US is the Pure "Flip", and that has virtually none of the conventional video camera controls. It looks more like a point and shoot still camera than a video camera. And it's selling in the millions. Other camcorder companies, caught with their pants down, are launching "Flip style" recorders this year.

Birthday party mom and dad would be far far better off with a cheaper still camera and a dedicated video camera any day.

Guess what the largest number of such "birthday party" videos are shot on today...

yup, cell phones.

When "mom and dad" have two cameras, one stays in the box. (Sometimes both stay in the box, hence the popularity of cell phones). P&S cameras are outselling camcorders some 10:1. Guess which one mom and dad are able to find on short notice, and which one has its battery charged. ;) The "swiss army knife" approach wins in that market. That's why, even with the introduction of HD (high definition) and HDD (hard disk drive) camcorders, and the popular "pocket recorder" segment spearheaded by Flip, the total unit camcorder market is flattening, while the P&S and DSLR markets continue to rise.

All it takes is working one recent press conference to understand the video inclusion. If you go to any kind of press event, photographers almost always carry two cameras. In the past, it was to have a long zoom and a short zoom. Now, for quite a few photographers, one of the cameras will have a microphone in the hot shoe and be used most of the time for video. Your media, batteries and lenses are all the same because the bodies are the same. Another advantage of this setup is that the still camera has a backup and can still be used with a different lens. For the sports thing I'm working all this week, there were three events already this week where video would be useful, and the big event tomorrow doesn't require video. Everyone will have a 24-70 on one camera and a 70-200 on another tomorrow and the audio will be in the bag.

The reason that this is acceptable is that most press video is consumed on the web now. You don't need hours of video, you don't need to be able to watch it on a 60 inch screen. It's going to run in a window on a web browser for a few minutes. And many outlets can't afford to pay for a second person with a video camera.

So right now, it's a big thing for pros. And you can't offer stuff to pros and not eventually have it filter down for consumer usage.

A response to Joseph Wisniewski :
Joseph, when I said "And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications," I was talking about the "current" offerings, not model production schedules. CURRENTLY, the D3x, the D700, the EOS 1 Ds Mark III, the E-3, and of course, the M9 do not offer video, which suits me just fine.

Yes, Michael, but you put that forth as "proof" of something, as a sign that it's all some sort of "conspiracy".

Could it be this whole thing is nothing more than hype on the manufacturers' part to convince consumers that they really "need" a video function on their SLR type of camera?"

The only thing one can infer from which models have video is when they were released. That's all, nothing else.

I appreciate your point, that video really isn't that useful to a single wedding shooter, trying to switch back and forth between video and stills during the course of the wedding. But that's not why the camera manufactures added that feature. They added it for folks with more time on their hands. Point and shoots had video first, partially because it's easier to do on those platforms (they've been liveview for a decade) and partially because that target demographic is exactly the sort of person who'd want to carry just one gadget on vacation or to a school play, or just to pull out of the closet for a kid's birthday party (thanks, Patrick, for that example). DSLRs have a huge number of markets

• product shooters aren't shooting video (but we love anything that makes the liveview work better, and there's a synergy with video)
• single wedding shooters don't care about video, but a team does.
• hobbyists, amateurs, whatever you want to call them, create "personal art". They experiment. Movies are just one more way to experiment, one more way to "have fun".

When it comes down to something like that Willie White quote of yours

"Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)."

There's no "maybe", he is wrong. He doesn't know product design and planning. If the market research convinces the product planners that a feature will sell X number of cameras, there's a budget allocated to that feature based on a percentage of X. Video is what transformed the spectacular failure of the Canon 5D into the success of 5D II. Do you think there was market research that said "a 'better screen' will make 5D II a success, let's do that instead of video".

But, all would be solved if the manufacturers did it the way Panasonic currently does it with the G1 and the GH1. This gives the photographer a choice of what technologies he wants to put his money into, would it not?

Then you're in luck. All the manufacturers have "solved" the problem exactly the way that Panasonic did with G1 and GH1.

GH1 came out 6 months after G1, and GH1 is replacing G1. They cost the same, $650, it's just hard to see that because the GH1 is normally sold as a $1499 bundle with a $849 14-140mm, and G1 is sold as $799 bundle with the $149 14-45mm. GH1 probably wouldn't have come out so close on the heals of G1 (just 6 months) if it weren't for video, the other GH1 features (better AF and AE modes, the neat "oversized" sensor that lets you shoot 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 aspect ratios with the same image diagonal) aren't that compelling and would likely have waited until G2 in another year. Video is the reason Panasonic added an "H" to the G1 so early in the cycle, just like it's the reason Nikon added an "s" to D3 and D300, and why Canon pulled 1D IV forward. Unless a company has some sort of general bias against video (Leica and Sony are two good examples) you can bet that any of their future cameras are going to launch with video.

The still only, DSLR without video is dead.

And coming back to this:

I've read a couple articles now "informing" photographers that they need to embrace shooting videos along with their still work.

If you've read "a couple of" articles that state (in your interpretation, anyway) an opinion that is contrary to that of the much larger number of articles that most of us are familiar with, I'd suggest, next time, putting the links with your original post, not several posts later after the thread gets hot. At this point, I'm pretty much unwound and cooled off from the heated discussion (in other words, "I'm done") and not much inclined to go read them.

Well, thank you for your in-depth explanatons and discussions Joseph. I know I learned some things from them!

Wow Joseph W. Thats a very in depth look at video in DSLR.

Michael and Johnathan, you're welcome. Glad you enjoyed.

yup, cell phones.

Exactly my point. They are NOT better off using a all-in-one device. The temptation here is that people will believe that they will be able to make these videos and then extract stills that are good enough to blow up as prints. It's bad enough today with people blowing up 3MP digital camera images to 8x10's.... most of those people would still be serviced better with a disposable film camera. Just go to any average (non photographer) persons house and look around at the pics on the walls and on the fridge. The pics that are a good 5 years old are sometimes absolutely stunning... just about everything newer than that is a pixelly, muddled, crappy mess. And people spending $1000 on an all-in-one camera are going to expect the video to be high enough quality to extract stills, and once again they will be screwed. Sorry to beat the dead horse here but I really honestly believe that companies putting out all of these low quality digital cameras are screwing their customers... basically making their customers pay for a decade of RND that wasn't ready for deployment. And this new trend of video DSLR is just another example.

Patrick, no reason to apologize for your position. The whole idea here is to express your opinions. Thanks for your input!

I think video in a still DSLR is a fantastic idea. But, the buyer does have to be made aware, or have an understanding, that when they switch to the video mode, they have to totally switch to video mode. Meaning, once the "video switch" goes on.....out come the external microphones, out come the steady-cams, out come the fluid head tripods. This is what all the marketting is not telling the customer. Luckily, photogs like Vicent Laforet were thoughtful enough to explain all this "extra" equipment in his blog that went along with his Canon sponsored short films. Kinda saved me from jumping in a little too early for my finances. The $3K or so for the cam and editting software is only the beginning......there's another $3K (easily) required to make it work to a quality production.

I think one of the next steps has to be a redesign of the actual body. Niether the camcorder body or the classic 35mm body shapes are ideal for both video and still. They have to break out of that century old mindset and give us something that works for both.

I was discussing this topic a few weeks ago with a fellow photog. he is a Canon guy where I am a Nikonian. His main complaint was the fact that they drilled holes into his camera body for moisture to get in. Now I have never torn apart my camera to see how the mic works but he well may have a valid point. specially on cameras that are supposed to be weather sealed. anyone have an idea how this is accomplished?

Jonathan, good point! I was also wondering how the "weather sealing" was achieved on these highest-end models. Nikon has already "drilled" holes for the microphone (for voice annotation) way before the video function was added (on D2 series), so there should be some sort of know-how.

I doubt that the mic implementation will be all that tough. Videographers that I have seen doing local commercials use an external mic and a whole crew to set up. The Panasonic GH-1, for a pittance compared to pro gear, sounds really fascinating. I look forward to seeing that clever optic with the silent motors. As the man says, 'we aint seen nuthin yet.' Just the beginning and it is exciting. I tingle in anticipation :-)

main complaint was the fact that they drilled holes into his camera body for moisture to get in

One issue would be where the holes are located. For the GH1, they are right on top of the built-in flash, a terrible place for the mic to be as it will be wide open to rain from above. The Nikon D90 mic I think is on the side of the camera, not facing the sky so it helps a great deal.

Not reading everything above, and from a different prospective, I shoot a 3-chip (2/3") video camera that has a (original valued) $25K lens on it. I had a discussion this last week with a partner I've worked with, and who I actually learned from years ago, and he's looking to move towards a full frame sensor Canon camera to produce commercials, DVD's etc. I also had a discussion this year with a retired National Geographic videographer who's also gone to a full frame Canon camera for personal/business video work. I consider both of these guys the leading edge of the pro market and I foresee alot of work being done with still cameras that shoot video. They won't replace 3 chip cameras for some applications but they will produce alot of content, so expect to see the video options upgraded in the future. I'm just waiting for a video option for my 4x5 Graphic. (^:

Well, I think the leading professionals are shooting video with RED system and extract necessary still images from the video files.

I just hope it isn't adding much to the cost of a camera or causing something more useful to be left out because I consider it a totally useless feature, for me. Also, "Live View" as implemented on my Nikon, is a once tried never used again feature.

It's very interesting hearing all your experiences and likes/dislikes. I wonder if the manufacturers are listening?!

Akira... and yet people still shoot stills on movie sets. Heck, some people still shoot B&W film stills on movie sets. I think the rationale is to provide a record that WASN'T captured by the main camera... which is my whole point with the birthday party. $1000 for one camera that makes OK videos and bad stills from the video is probably not as good an investment as a cheaper dedicated video camera with higher quality and a few disposable film cameras.

Patrick,
I think your assessment of current situation is very correct and fair, and I have nothing against that.

However, I think it is also true that virtually all of current consumer level videocams has still image function and more and more DSLRs incorporate video function, which should indicate a certain common direction for the (very near) future, even both functions can still be rather crude in terms of function and quality. I suppose that we are all sensing that this situation will eventually be changed as the technology develops. I would look at the RED system not only as the state-of-the-art professional image recording system but also as the forerunnner or even the "prototype" of the consumer level image capturing machine.

I think that the danger of new technology is that people adore too much of the "newness" more than the "quality" and are eventually getting accustomed to that "crude quality of new things". Remember that the ground-breaking Casio QV-10 was a 0.25MP camera. The image quality was nowhere near the acceptable level. But the easiness of capturing images, uploading them to the PC and sharing them on the net papered over the poor image quality. Eventually, people are accustomed to that and when 0.41MP, 0.68 or 1MP camera by other manufacturers followed , people were amazed by their "superior" image quality. I think the same thing is happening in the worlds of videocams and MP3 audio players.

I really like the current trend, because through the years I have used both analog and digital film/video/still cameras, and often end up regretting that I did not bring both on a trip. (I am not a professional photographer, and usually do not bring a boatload of equipment, even though my wife thinks so :-) I seriously doubt I will buy another video camera when my current DV camera packs up, I am just waiting for something in between the GH-1 and the E-P1 to come out, I want a small camera with full HD and image stabilization built in. A couple of more years will do the trick, I think.

As far as what pro photographers need to do, it's fairly clear that most pros who do weddings or journalism are expected to do video more and more. If you're at the top of your field, no, otherwise yes.

As far as camera design goes, it seems clear that the video functions aren't proving a major barrier to the evolution of the DSLR. Look at any extensive product line (i.e., not Leica, which is an extreme case) and the video capable DSLRs are priced right about where "this year's model" should be, with about as much improvement as can be expected for that price point in other areas, like low ISO performance.

As far as whether or not you need it, it's a personal preference. You don't have to be a good video photographer to get some benefit from the feature. Recently, I was photographing some gadgets, and shot a little video along with the stills to illustrate how the parts moved. Not great art, but useful. Also recently, I was at a friend's, after the party had officially ended and I was taking a few portrait shots of my friends and their kids, when suddenly the oldest daughter grabbed her mom and pulled her out into the living room floor to waltz around the room with the music. I had my Nikon D90 so I quickly flipped over to video and captured those few minutes where mother and daughter danced. A home movie subject, again not "art", but meaningful to that family, and better for having the music and motion in it than just a random still image.