Tracht3

In every field technology advances but in the end we bring knowledge and imagination. 90 percent of the people want to point and shoot. Even with a dslr. We shoot and control the moment, they shoot and sometimes the camera gets lucky. LOL

josie horne Loc: new orleans LA

You are right. There are so many people doing it ,it's not funny.

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

No. why would it. Both modes are distinctly separately. Duh.

Tom47 Loc: Gettysburg, PA

I love my Df no flash no video it does what a SLR was meant to do. I wanted to shoot video I would buy a video camera.

MW

No. Next question?

steve03 Loc: long Lsland

Have a Visio camera in my bag and almost never use

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

It would have a great effect. With HD video, you are lucky if you can get a a 2 Meg still off video. If you read the article, that has now been upped to 19 Meg. It really never has been separate mediums to those that use it.. I have often run a camcorder and taken stills from it. The problem has been in resolution of the still being poor. This will now be bridged.

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

Of course, the question is being asked to the wrong people.

Still and motion photography are two different things suitable for different purposes.

SNicker317 Loc: North NJ

Just try hanging a framed video on the wall... I can't even see why they put video capability in a still camera.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Unlike so many others here, I do find here is a place for videos and I do occasionally shoot one with my camera. On occasions I've taken videos to pan across a beautiful landscape that was just too big to capture with a still photo and sometimes there is some action that I want to catch - such as the street musicians I recorded in Quebec or the glacier calving I witnessed in Alaska.

But no matter how good cameras get at capturing video I feel certain that still photos will always be better quality. Moreover, a good video takes more care and effort than a good still photo; handheld videos will always suffer from annoying camera shake and if you want to capture sound as well that introduces a big collection of its own problems.

But for me, the end product for most of my photography has the form of a slide show, produced as a video. Sometimes I do include an actual video along with the still slides but there has to be a good reason for me to accept the reduced quality. Still, the illusion of video is often there, introduced in the editing process by zooming in or panning across a still photo or in a few instances having an art effect dissolve into the original photo.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

I have it on my D7100, but only used it briefy for the grandkids. Still photos can frequently convey drama and beauty that motion loses, because it captures THE single, poignant moment. Video has a purpose, but will not replace still photograpy.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I think this is the core of the question being asked.

Certainly there are many circumstances where all that is required is single shots (posed, still life, landscape, etc.). But for fast action sports or BIF, how great would it be to shoot at 30 fps or 60 fps, instead of the present world-class 10 or 11 fps?

Video will not replace stills any more than cars replaced boats. But 6k video capable cameras may replace high burst-rate cameras.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

No!

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Somehow this brings back to me a visit I made to an art museum about a year ago. In one room of the museum there were (of course) framed paintings (and a photograph or two) and a fairly startling sculpture in the center of the room. Still, most of the visitors seemed fascinated by one particular framed picture that took up much of one wall. After looking it that particular picture for a moment or two I realized it was neither a painting nor a photograph but actually a video with very slow action that was hard not to watch to see what would happen.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Only if you enjoy shooting lots of video footage. Not for me though.