A long time ago, I was told that, if I keep at it, someday my photography could be half as good as Ansel Adams. No has ever dared to compare me to Spielberg, Lucas, et al.

Recently bought a camera with this feature and I considered it a toy-an add-on I will likely never use.

If I want to shot video I will buy a video camera, keep the 2 seperate!

Combinations rarely, if at all, live up to a stand alone componant.

I'd rather the money and design considerations be allocated solely to stills. If i wanted to do video I'd buy a video camera.

Video and phone service should be left off DSLR cameras of quality. It is good to have nine- or ten-frame exposures that capture limited motion -- in separate clear stills! -- but anything more makes no sense.

I don't do video, and I don't use my phone to take pictures. We need to reexamine what it is we need our toys to do.

What do an SLR and a video camera have in common? When do still photographers need a video camera?

I would much prefer the engineering and cost be put to improving the photo capabilities of a camera rather than adding video. I am not anti-video, but I would buy a video camera for that. I want the best quality and features for my camera for taking photographs.

If I wanted a movie camera I would but one! Combos almost always compromise on some features, either give me a camera or a movie (video) camera.

I've done both film and stills. It's two different arts, requiring two different mindsets and philosophies.

Still capture image quality is #1 for me. Low noise in low light is also more important to me than video. Video is a nice bonus and will probably continue to be added to more and more Digital cameras in the near future.

Still Photography is still phptography and video is moving picture. It would seem if a person was into one or the other more than he/she would have a camera or a video camera. Just my opinion.

If I wanted video, I'd buy a HD capable video camera. I choose to use my Nikon only for digital still photos, nothing more.

Price is a consideration but not video. It does not work very well anyway. I have a separate video camera for that purpose.

35mm is camera is a camera not Video camera, I could understand a video camera being able to take single shots but leave the 35mm camera alone !!!!!

Most still photographers I know do not shoot videos, and I know that if I ever became interested in video, I would not compromise; I would buy a decent single purpose video camera.

Not for me. Adds complexity which usually affects reliability and performance. I still believe in the KISS priciple.

I don't need video. That expence should go to the still DSLR.

Yes, because I am a filmmaker AND a photographer. It would be great to use the same high quality lenses for both kinds of shooting. It's also VERY expensive and difficult to get high quality, shallow depth of field images in HD video with regular HD cameras and their tiny sensors. DSLRs with HD represent an amazing breakthrough in quality for filmmakers. I shoot Pentax and am ready to buy a Pentax K7 because of the HD shooting. I only wish DSLR makers would fix two things -- solve the "rolling shutter" issue and provide switchable 24-frames-per-second and 30-frames-per-second video. Real film making is done at 24-frames-per-second.

I feel camera (D-SLR) manufacturers should concentrate on high quality still images! They should not search for features for the sake of more features.

If I want video I use my camcorder. I want a reasonably priced camera that has features that will allow me to take better photos.

I have the new 5D MarkII and have yet to see how to use this feature.

I want a camera that takes good stills. If I want to do video I will get a dedicated video camera.

By the way...the expression is "I COULDN'T care less...!" But anyway, if I want to shoot movies then I'll get a camcorder. I'm a photographer, that means I take photos!

After abandoning my broken S1IS, I quickly bought the new XSi, which I sold after 9 months to get the new T1i, to get HDMI along with HDvideo. HDMI allows stunning slide shows and I can use the same camera for video.

I really don't care about mixing video with still. I think each is designed for specific purpose. Combining video and still photography is seemingly a sales gimic and won't give the best of either. No one camera can do it all as no one lens can do it all.

I prefer more power in the DSLR. If I need video I would use a cam-corder of some type. Simpler is better!!!!

I would rather the companies concentrate on expanding dynamic range, lowering noise without losing sharpness, and other general performance upgrades. If I want video, I'll bring my HD video camera along. I have alot more control with it.

I can photograph some things that can only be truly appreciated by using video, so I can imagine using it sometimes. Most things can be better appreciated by being captured at a moment of time stilled by a photograph for further inspection of detail. The only thing most people hate more than having their photo taken is to appear in a video.