JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

But plenty of vloggers and UTubers using hybrids, and still photographers who have only occasional use for video.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

The answer to your question is very simple. Because 1) it is profitable, and 2) they can.

End of story!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The Fujifilm S3 was a "pre-video dSLR". 2006 is pretty much ancient history as digital devices go... After briefly testing an S3 in my studio, it became the camera that sent me running, kicking and screaming, to Nikons and Canons.

The classic Nikon Df was made without video for a reason: It was supposed to simulate older film Nikons for photographers who didn't want much more than a film camera with a digital sensor and chips in it.

Those of us who followed the evolution of computers from the mid-1970s forward, as well as the evolution of SLRs and dSLRs and MILCs, sort of laughed at the quaintness of the Df. But it IS a damned good camera. I drooled over it for a time, since I have an FTn and an F3 and used Nikkormats, FMs, FM2s, and more F3s back in my youth.

Video remains controversial in what looks like a still camera. However, for certain segments of the market, a hybrid camera that emphasizes stills and video about equally is the ONLY thing that makes sense! That is certainly the case in my circumstances. I have used SLRs, dSLRs, and dSLR-like MILCs since 1968, so that is my favorite camera form factor. I got my first video camera in 1983, and hated the way it was designed. I hated all six of the next ones I've used, too. So having a Lumix GH4 hybrid is a godsend to me. Yes, it is a compromise on all fronts. But it is a damned good, livable compromise.

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

What happens if you straddle it? . . .

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Why not?

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Perhaps part of the problem is that when a camera has more features, it means that there are more things to scroll through to get to what you want at a particular time. Many folks don' t mind doing this because they might occasionally use a feature that the OP could live without.
Here is an interesting thought. If we were to construct a camera from the ground up, what would we include and what would we leave out? Many of us would leave out more than others would. And there would be many of us who would want to add even more features. There could be some interesting discussions about why a particular feature could be left out vs why it should be included.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

"Do you have a sensible question?" Hmm, "RWR, do you have a polite one?"

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Thanks! Nice to be regarded as an independent thinker.

DICK32

Burkphoto: Well said. I shoot both photos and video with a D850. The high definition for both makes processing the photos and video easier and better. It is also great to be able to take video and photos that can enhance the images of the event.

bobfitz Loc: Kendall-Miami, Florida

I have to believe the cell phone market is driving a lot of it. The SLRs do a better job but how many average snap shooters find that their cell phone is more than adequate for their needs and cell phone photo and video capability has grown very quickly with no end in sight. I hate to say it but I think the future of SLRs will be limited to serious professionals or amateurs with very deep pockets. All good things come to an end. I was a film shooter for 35 years. I would love to be wrong on this one.

Bob

Craigdca Loc: California

The comments in favor of including video on a DSLR are okay with me as long as it doesn’t increase the cost much.
Could designing cameras to accommodate video capabilities slow the development of still photo cameras? For example, what if there are reasonable-cost CMOS sensors already in labs for stills with film-like clarity and amazing dynamic range that are held back for not meeting the requirements for recording smooth motion?
If anyone is or knows a specialist in this field it would be great to hear their thoughts.

BebuLamar

Actually research on video helps on developing still camera as well. So there is really no price on the video.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I'm a professional videographer and have shot full prime time documentaries with dslr and mirrorless cameras. Until recently, there were no full-frame dedicated video cameras, so many filmmakers used FF still cameras. In many documentary situations, small cameras are preferable for being less conspicuous. While it is true that dedicated video cams have some distinct advantages, especially in recording audio, modern mirrorless cameras are capable of recording raw or 10 bit 4:2:2 log video internally, which is absolutely grade able and adequate for the most demanding situations.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

The biggest problems are data transfer speeds and overheating, but when you get to that level you are dealing with the very high end of mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7SllI, A1 and the Canon R5. People who don't need those capabilities can buy cheaper mirrorless cameras with perfectly adequate sensors. Worth pointing out that those high end cameras also serve stills photographers with very high burst rates and capacities.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

I'm with you on this. I never use the video function on my Z6 even though it is much easier to operate than a regular DSLR. I have the Z6 for stills and we have a dedicated Sony digital camcorder for videos.