druthven wrote:
As far as video, or movie in still cameras is concerned can you tell me if having that adds any size or weight to the camera?
No additional size, no additional weight, other than a tiny cooling fan in a few higher end models.
If, like me, you do both stills and video work for the same projects, you don't have to carry two camera systems! So you get one learning curve, half the bulk and weight, better control familiarity, one muscle memory, and all kinds of other ergonomic benefits.
I started using SLRs when I was 13. So a decade or so later, when I used my first video camera, I found the form factor incredibly awkward, and I still do. I would much rather use an SLR-like mirrorless digital camera form factor. It is easier to hold steady, especially with built-in stabilization features. All the controls for stills work the same as for video.
My entire stills and video kit fits in a backpack. Camera, four lenses (two zooms, a macro, and a portrait lens), plus wireless microphones, shotgun mic, shoe mount flash, batteries, cables, two small video lights, filters, chargers, cleaning supplies, computer and charger, cables... The backpack fits under a standard airline seat.
IMHO, there is quite literally no credible argument for NOT having video and stills capabilities in the same camera. The functions are complementary. Most of the video functions are in the camera firmware, and use the same camera hardware.
A modern digital camera IS a video camera. In fact, digital video evolved into digital still photography, because the chips were capable of decent standard definition video long before they were capable of decent still photos.