Hm, the phrasing of the question makes it a bit hard to answer 100%. I wouldn’t buy a camera ONLY because it had video, but I would probably think twice about buying a point-and-shoot camera that didn’t have video in it, because I make use of the video capability regularly to shoot quick things that aren’t worth busting out a full-size vidcam for.
No. while it would be good that a still camera takes short videos, I would buy a still camera for single image capture. Don’t ask you device to do two things if it can only do one well.
As a photographer this is one of my biggest concerns now. I was all set to upgrade my DSLR a few months ago. I had the cash and the model picked out and then Canon mentioned something about the 5D MKII. So now I’m waiting for some good first hand professional reviews. It’s more expensive than my planned upgrade, but it looks like it’ll be worth it. My next camera will do video.
I guess I might be in the minority, but I don’t find video on a camera, point-and-shoot style or DSLR, as a necessity. Many of my cameras have the ability. I’ve used it exactly once.
I really didn’t care about it until a couple dSLRs came out that could. I understood and respected the reasons they didn’t offer it, but it seems like a lot of the reasons have been largely improved or disproven.
Given high quality cameras that can do videos and photos, allowing me to use the same lenses for both purposes, I am interested.
I personally don’t NEED video so convergence is not important. The issue I have is when I want to buy a new DSLR I don’t want to pay for the technology required to put HD video in my still camera. I’d much rather have the dollar value in still components in that camera.
I voted No, but it could be a tipping point. Looking a 2 still cameras at about the same price and features except for video. I would probably get the one with video. Might pay a little extra for it 5%?
My vote is NO!
Really the only time I have used the on camera video was when someone did something really stupid and I could not pass up the opportunity and when I was at a concert which stated “no video recording allowed” but I did anyway (right along with all the cell phones). Oh No here come the video police. The quality was bad and too much movement to justify the purchase of a camera just because of the video, of course except for the 5DMKII (good luck getting it past security!!)
Interesting dichotomy: to me, no. I’ve played around with the video on my Casio 4MP — but I don’t do much with them. I guess if I could revive the Super-8’s of my kids, it might be different. On the other hand, my younger son does video work in NYC. He thinks having HD video on the NIkon D90 is *h*u*g*e*. I asked about the sound; it wasn’t important to him. I attend a video/mm group meeting at the university where I work. Virtually *all* of the video folks there began as still photographers, and most continue shoot stills, as well. I bet, like my son, this would mean more to them.
Hm, the phrasing of the question makes it a bit hard to answer 100%. I wouldn’t buy a camera ONLY because it had video, but I would probably think twice about buying a point-and-shoot camera that didn’t have video in it, because I make use of the video capability regularly to shoot quick things that aren’t worth busting out a full-size vidcam for.
Sean C
November 18, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I believe so. For me i have always liked to switch to taking a small video. I dont believe i would buy a camera without a video function.
November 18, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I still have a cheap fixed lens zoom compact I bought 4 years ago – it does video.
What cameras don’t do video at this point?
November 18, 2008 at 12:54 pm
@Dan
It’s a long list…
Canon 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 5D, 1D, 1DS, 1DN, 1DS MK2, 1DN MKII, 1DS MK3, 1DS MKIII
Nikon D40, D700, D3, D200, D300, D60
I could go on but you get the point.
scottbourne
November 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm
No. while it would be good that a still camera takes short videos, I would buy a still camera for single image capture. Don’t ask you device to do two things if it can only do one well.
NJMoleman
November 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm
As a photographer this is one of my biggest concerns now. I was all set to upgrade my DSLR a few months ago. I had the cash and the model picked out and then Canon mentioned something about the 5D MKII. So now I’m waiting for some good first hand professional reviews. It’s more expensive than my planned upgrade, but it looks like it’ll be worth it. My next camera will do video.
November 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm
If it shot video like the 5D MkII most definitely, with it there would be no point in a dedicated video camera.
amused
November 18, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I guess I might be in the minority, but I don’t find video on a camera, point-and-shoot style or DSLR, as a necessity. Many of my cameras have the ability. I’ve used it exactly once.
November 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I really didn’t care about it until a couple dSLRs came out that could. I understood and respected the reasons they didn’t offer it, but it seems like a lot of the reasons have been largely improved or disproven.
Given high quality cameras that can do videos and photos, allowing me to use the same lenses for both purposes, I am interested.
Jeff
November 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I personally don’t NEED video so convergence is not important. The issue I have is when I want to buy a new DSLR I don’t want to pay for the technology required to put HD video in my still camera. I’d much rather have the dollar value in still components in that camera.
Carl L
November 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm
@Car L so I guess in your case it’s a no.
scottbourne
November 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I voted No, but it could be a tipping point. Looking a 2 still cameras at about the same price and features except for video. I would probably get the one with video. Might pay a little extra for it 5%?
Mogrith
November 18, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I want the best still camera possible. Video would be a bonus, but not a deal breaker.
mcb
November 18, 2008 at 8:23 pm
My vote is NO!
Really the only time I have used the on camera video was when someone did something really stupid and I could not pass up the opportunity and when I was at a concert which stated “no video recording allowed” but I did anyway (right along with all the cell phones). Oh No here come the video police. The quality was bad and too much movement to justify the purchase of a camera just because of the video, of course except for the 5DMKII (good luck getting it past security!!)
November 19, 2008 at 3:00 am
Interesting dichotomy: to me, no. I’ve played around with the video on my Casio 4MP — but I don’t do much with them. I guess if I could revive the Super-8’s of my kids, it might be different. On the other hand, my younger son does video work in NYC. He thinks having HD video on the NIkon D90 is *h*u*g*e*. I asked about the sound; it wasn’t important to him. I attend a video/mm group meeting at the university where I work. Virtually *all* of the video folks there began as still photographers, and most continue shoot stills, as well. I bet, like my son, this would mean more to them.
November 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm