I find it very difficult to be out shooting stills and switch to video. To me its is one thing or the other. If it is video than I will use a video camera and leave the still camera behind.

I'm a still photographer, period. I don't want a DSLR with video.

I've been working more with video than stills recently, so HD video in my next DSLR is mandatory.

If I want a videocam, I'll buy a videocam. I don't need both in medocre format.

The more complex the become the more prone to failure. Improve "Live View" as Sony has and I would be happy, Nikon.

How much less would my D300 cost without video feature?

I have two video cameras which I hardly ever use. I have Nikon D90 but have never used the video option.

Super to have the option as we have had in compacts for years. Video is harder to do on D90 than camcorder but excellent results and it's right there in the camera!

Have a Canon 5d Mk II; never have used the video features, as I'm not interested. It takes great stills!

A DSLR is far too big and bulky to comfortably use as a video cam, especially with the short storage capacity they provide.

This is purely a prejudice, but it feels to me like any camera with video seems like a consumer toy. I would rather the maker put other features onboard, such as enhanced dynamic range.

The autofocus feature on my T1i has much to be desired. It is noisy and takes a longtime to focus properly.

I have used the video feature on all of my cameras. But, I did not buy these great DSLRs for their video capability. I am mostly a still shooter.

If I want to shoot video I'll buy a camcorder. Increase build quality or reduce the price of my DSLR.

I am a professional photographer and adding video to a DSLR is a total waste of effort and expense. If I want to shoot video I will purchase a video camera or as so many seem to do, use your cell phone.

Somehow a video camera with still photo capability makes more sense to me than the other way around. I would always prefer a high quality still camera.

Video is very far removed from still photography technically, esthetically, and philosophically. I have no interest in it.

Video in a point and shoot is a modest plus but a waste for me in a DSLR. How about something more creative like a B&W only DSLR?

I have had prosumer cameras that did video, but have never been interested in it. My new high end, full frame, 18 megapixel camera does not do video. In about 1947 I bought a Bolex 16mm movie camera. I was going to make great movies. I returned it the next day when I realized the amount of editing required to make interesting movies. Video is no different.

It's useful for 'emergencies' where video may portray a situation better that still, but we're not quite to the point of a full-featured video cam + full featured SLR in one unit. I believe we will be there in the next few years, though, where the line between video camera and SLR is insignificant. I'm going to wait a couple of years before my next big camera purchase to see where this trend goes.

I think video people own video cameras for their video work. How many pros shoot video with their DSLR?

I have no interest in video, and resent having to pay for that feature in a high end camera like my new Canon 5D Mark 2. Manufactures should offer the camera with or without video.

I use a broadcast 3 chip camera for video. I want my still camera to be a still camera. Two different animals, two different applications. Using one to do the job of the other is a tradeoff.

Often I am asked to take video AND photos. These new cameras, like the Canon 7D, offer the ability to take video AND a photo while doing it. And the HD quality, w/ the ability to choose formats, is just great. Plus, if the need arises, the ability to take video, w/o any additional equipment to lug along, is awesome! Too bad they didn't have this when I decided to buy my Rebel XSi back then.

I've been taking still photographs for fifty years and I just never had much interest in movies or video, but the new cameras make it very tempting to try. I will probably get a Canon 7D soon.

I bought a Canon 5D Mk II for its still features alone. I owned the camera nearly a year before I used the video feature which is great under the right circumstances but will never replace a full featured camcorder.

Learn one craft is an ongoing process. Learning two at the same time D-SLR & Video would result in a reduced quality for both.

A D-SLR does not need the interference of the video 'wiring' to create additional issues that can go wrong with the camera. Video needs to stay in the video camera realm, not end up as another gimic for the family photographer. This video function has to have some impact on the camera's actual purpose ... taking still shots. Of course this is just my humble opinion. How many professionals in the still photo biz ever use the video functions of their high dollar cameras on a daily basis?

If I wanted video I would concentrate my efforts on buying top notch video equipment. Since my interest is still cameras I want the best without wasting effort on video. I don't want a camera that will do many things, I want a camera that can deliver what my minds eye sees. That's why I recently bought a Nikon D700.

I would prefer the manufacturer's focus on improved image quality at higher ISO's, as well as other core functions of a still camera rather than trying to appeal to a larger customer base.