I you want to shoot video, buy a video camera.

I own 2 D-SLR's. Cameras 1 the is the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W200 12.1-Megapixel Pocket Camera. And the other is the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50 Black Digital Camera I love them both.

I prefer to have 2 seprate cameras for still and video. I am not in favor of an all in one.

I would much rather have more still features for the price rather than video capture. The video capture isn't that great anyway. I will use my video camera if I want to record video.

Having used my D90 for several months now, I have never used the video capabilities. I doubt that I will.

I recently purchased a Canon 5D mark II to use as a still camera only I have a video camera for shooting videos the camera has limited shooting time which requires more editing time plus it uses a lot of memory cards. But as a still camera I'm in love

As an amateur photographer who started with a NIKKORMAT FT in 1967 struggling with F-stops, apertures and manual focusing, digital photography, while revolutionary, has taken away some of the challenge and satisfaction that I used to derive from "the hunt". To me, photography is still photography and I have little use for video. It is time-consuming to watch and it becomes voluminous to store.

Save the video for the point and shoots. If i am going to buy a D-SLR, still photos are what I'm after.

Put the money, for better quality elswhere in the camera.

With the addition of video clips for stock imaging, I see a great advantage to having this feature on my DSLR.

For the purchase my first DSLR a couple of months ago, my wife was glad to see the feature when I bought a Nikon D-90. But I bought the camera b/c I thought its other features would make a great step up between amateur and potential professional. (But I still won't stop taking pictures and videos of our kiddoes on outings though!)

This technology adds unnecessary cost and possible weight to a camera - a big detraction in my opinion.

This is not a yes or no question. It depends on your position in photography. For the casual photographer it may be a nice addition. As a working pro whose only business is aerial photography I no need for it. However, it will not be a suprise if it works it's way in my world in the future.

I do not and will not buy a camera with "built-in-video". If I want a video camera , I'll buy one- separately !

Don't waste my money & resources on viedo. If I want to shoot viedo I'll buy a veido camera. All thest useless features are costing me money that I'd rather not spend.

I take photographs, I have no need of the video feature.

Not much interested in video in my D-SLR. I like to have the correct tool for the job at hand, if it requires video I will use that camera.

I prefer quality over convenience. Therefore, I use a video camera for video and D-SLR for photos.

I will choose my next D-SLR (soon) based on whether it also takes video. Presently I carry a 2nd pocket-sized compact digital camera for its video capabilities. I don't use the feature regularly, but want the feature available when the situation presents itself.

I chose to be a photographer, not a videographer.

I would probably do the opposite - shy away from a camera that has video. The last thing I need is another post-production workflow sequence to worry about.

For me, video in a D-SLR smacks too much of sales candy. I'd prefer my still camera without gimmicks but with great glass and ergonomics.

I wouldn't avoid a DLSR with video capability, but in all probability it would not get used.

I shoot Canon and would wish they would not include it in their system and reduce the price of the camera.

A DSLR with video capability would steer me away from choosing that camera. I'm a still photographer. If I wanted to do video I'd purchase a video camera. I don't like having a lot of features I will never use packed into a camera that I use for a particular purpose. I feel this detracts rather than adds to the camera's functionality and I don't like having to pay for features I don't want. This goes for other features such as GPS as well.

If i want to take video, i would use a video camera. It provides longer filming time and better picture quality.

If it is a good feature, you wouldn't have to buy an expensive video camera.

I don't want to pay more for a more complex product than I need. I want maximum quality still images in my DSLR's.

For me other factors are much more important than video such as widening the density range that camera can take or improving the signal/noise ratio in high ISO settings.

I think this is a gimmick to get people that would not otherwise buy a DSLR to jump into the market.