I fear the video aspect of a still camera will have as many shortcomings as the still photo aspect of a video camera. The price of very decent video camera is so low at this point I vote for separate entities for any one taking more than point and shoot photos.

I have a Nikon D90 and have never used the video option.

To me a photograph is capturing an image at a moment of time and being able to study it and enjoy it forever. If I want videos I would by a video camera designed to take only videos.

Put geotagging capability in instead - if you want video, use a camcorder.

Fascination for all the weekend warriors at weddings with above average cameras but in my opinion the video's "junk" video.

I am a Still Photographer. If I wish to take Video, I will use a Professional Video Camera. The added price for Video in a still camera, may steer me away from product.

I have always liked the "decisive moment" in terms of a creative process. Video hardly seems like creative photography to me.

Dump the video capability and lower the cost of the DSLRs or make the same model with and without video. Lower the cost of the model without video and let public have that choice.

When I go out on a shoot or I am taking photos for personal use, I will take anywhere from 800 to 1500 in about three days - I dont want video stealing space from my DSLR!

It is a feature that I would never use that only serves to drive up the initial cost of the camera.

Just don't care for the combination and it is a turn off for me. Would probably have the D-90 if it didn't have both.

The future of the digital image is not in the print, but in the multimedia presentation on the TV, wed, or phone. The brief video with slide presentation is a perfect melding of the digital image world of the future.

I am an amateur and would like the option of still or video without carrying two cameras.

Just a die-hard still camera buff. Those are two distinct fields and should remain separate.

Does not interest me at all.

I have a point and shoot Koday Z812IS with video and find it very convienent. I have been looking at D-SLR and must admit I like the video feature on some and it could effect my decision.

Never been interested in video. Still not. Better to target still cameras for still photography and video cameras for video.

The video just drives the price up for unwanted "features". I was set to buy a Nikon D90 last year but when the camera was introduced and had the video and a higher price than I wanted to pay I just decided to stick with my D70s. When will manufactures learn that a new model should be a significant up grade to the previous camera, not a place to load up on useless features. PS: I do not own a an iPod. My old Mackintosh sounds just great.

For the same reason I prefer a cell phone and an iPod as separate devices, I want my SLR and my video camera to be separate. I really want the manufacturers to focus on doing their primary job extremely well instead of tossing in additional functionality.

If I want video, I'll use a video camera. Adding video functionality only increases the price for a less than optimal capability.

I have a Canon 5D Mark II, which has the video. I doubt if I will ever use it. I got the camera because I'm interested in quality still pix.

Video is a plus but not the main feature; other camrea enhancements are much more important to me. If I wanted video, I buy a camcorder.

I would like manufactures to concentrate on making good still image cameras with less bells and whistles and better performance. Less megapixels, no video, weather proof, longer battery life, better low light performance, better dynamic range, durability, better autofocus. Those are things I want in my camera.

Continue making excellent SLR Cameras and Video Cameras but keep them separate.

If I wanted video I would purchase a video camera. I would rather have other features such as a mirror lock-up button ON my D-SLR instead.

I believe once perfected a video in an D-SLR would be great but as for now I'll wait for a better video system in my brand of camera. Cost is also a factor, too high and I'd rather go without.

I didn't buy my DSLR for a video camera. Its more crap added that is not needed for a DSLR.

Only reason to get this addition is to be a paparazzo and chase Britney Spears around town. It may be a great idea for tourist shots, but series shooters, I think, want serious equipment. It may help the paps who like to peddle their ambushes to stalker video outlets. The unsuspecting victims might only think they are being nabbed by a still camera. If they knew there was a videographer afoot, he would get a punch in the nose.

I do not want to pay for this feature. The D90 is so high because of this. Make the body stronger and more megabities. If I want viedo I will buy a viedo camera.

I would rather see a full frame DSLR in the 10-15MP range with low noise at higher ISOs for under $1000. If I wanted video I'd buy a video camera.