Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

HR, I have never tried shooting video with digital (never did with film, either), even though my cameras can do it. Even the little Kodak point and shoot I got long ago did video on its little sensor, and now I use a Canon 650 which of course can do video. Frankly, I think video is a different craft and ideally it takes a well organized and trained staff to compete with Hollywood.

Roger Ebert, the great film critic, said he did not consider motion pictures art. He explained what he meant--it is the product of an industrial complex involving many stages and products, many skills and arts (such as writing, acting, musical composition and performance, fashion design, set design and construction, experts in period history, etc.) as well as business expertise in finance, distribution, marketing, catering, and so forth. Of course some directors have been consummate artists in film, as have been many actors and cinematographers. But the motion picture is a vast enterprise costing many millions (even hundreds of millions) combining all the elements of a highly articulated industrial complex. Giving me a movie camera would be like giving uncle Clarence an 11x14 view camera after he had used a Brownie.

People who are growing up with video cameras (cell phones) may see all this differently. Great pictures were made with Kodak Brownies (Google it if you don't know this), and I am sure that great videos are made with cell phones (probably in the same proportion).

Not long ago I got a second hand Hasselblad HD2 (finally affordable for me with a bargain price), and the quality is everything I dreamed it would be. But it does not do videos. (I think later HD models do, as do other Hasselblad models).

A similar question is--why not a digital that is just black and white? Yes, Leica makes one for about $8000. Not counting lenses. Thing is, by sticking to black and white, the digital technology can be far superior in terms of most quality standards (think about it). Of course I can do black and white using a color digital camera, but the technology is already vastly compromised in the color design, so that is why if I want b/w I just use 4x5 film. Or dig out a Mamiya twin lens for roll film. In fact, when I first tried digital, I used it for color because color does not have to be so good, and used film for serious things (black and white).

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

I would love to find a camera that only does stills! I loath the video function of my otherwise great D7500 - it is awkward, extremely difficult to find focus, and frequently stops recording after a few seconds. I never use it and we recently bought a small Sony video camera.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

No manufacturer is going to do that, because the great majority of buyers want the video capability. Here's the solution: go to ebay, and buy an old DSLR like my Sony a350. No video none of the time. I also have a Sony HD dedicated video camera which I use for production.

LMurray Loc: North Orange County, CA

You're absolutely right, contrary to what a lot of people think, film is better than digital. I went to digital in 09 with a Nikon d300 then a D800E both take great pictures but I primarily use digital because it's cheap and fast. If I'm serious I use a 35mm film or 120mm film, but it's much costlier and processing is a pain, all the pro-labs in this area are gone.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Not sure that's an ideal solution, Alan ... I think I'd rather HAVE video capability when I need it, than NOT have it, at a time I find I need it ...

I'm kinda like that, with built-in flash, too ...

I suspect most of us - want it all ... when it comes down to it. Wonder how many Dfs Nikon sells ...

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

I've never used the video on my D750. I just ignore it and never even think about it. I think some people may be overthinking this.

My girlfriend just came up with a good point, if we are going to make cameras for a specific purpose only let's go all out. For people that only take landscapes we can have a camera that only has features that are needed for landscapes. You don't need fast shutter speeds, continuous shutter, wide open apertures. For people that only do wildlife we can have a camera that only does high shutter speeds, wide apertures, 10 fps! You could have night photography cameras that have great high ISO and very slow shutter speeds and small apertures, but nothing else.

Ok, I'm kidding, but I think there is a point there. If there are features on a camera that you don't use then just don't use them. It is better to have more than you need than not enough.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Exactly my point, Splat ...

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

For some reason that reminded me of an old joke--I think it was Alan King on an Ed Sullivan show. When he checked out of a hotel, there was a charge for the pillow mints, and he told the clerk he didn't even eat them. "Still, they were there if you wanted them." King replied that the $100 charge for sleeping with his wife was not deducted from the bill, and the clerk said, "But Sir, I did no such thing!" "Ah, but she was there if you wanted her."

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Nikon already produces that camera and even has video:D3400 and D3500, cost less than $400, easy to operate, weighs less than 1 lb w/o lens, smaller body than D7200/7500, shoots 5fps, has same sensor/processor as D7200 and has built in guide to help answer questions. Cost half as much as my D50 I purchased in 2005 which had no video, 6mp sensor and 2gb max sd cards. Cameras today are bargains compared to a decade ago with better price, performance and smaller size.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes. At least for B-roll footage, and sometimes more. Sometimes, a LOT MORE.

Network and local TV news producers, ad agencies, professional bloggers, in-house video producers in corporations, independent film makers, wedding videographers, and many others making videos for a living have used dSLRs and mirrorless cameras for over a decade.

Some of us grew up with SLRs and migrated to video. We absolutely HATED the traditional camcorder form factor. I own four and used several others. To me, they all suck rotten eggs compared to my mirrorless hybrid camera. It’s just more comfortable in my hands. Since I often create the same content in video and print media, it’s absolutely fantastic to use one kit instead of two, as I used to do.

You probably won’t see many of them on a major motion picture costing tens of millions of dollars, but they are pro grade tools and will continue to play a role in many smaller productions. You really would be surprised...

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Isn't the HDMI used for live feed when using a camera tethered to a monitor for still shots?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It can be. But mostly it is used for high(er) end video recording on something like an Atomos Ninja. The Lumix GH5 can do some amazing things when you record externally instead of using the SDXC card in the camera.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Like ... Bill?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Chris, I believe this is one of the few times I agree with you 100%.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, thanks, Mark ... good to know ...