AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I have often voiced the OP's sentiment. I have used the video on my compact camera, but never on my FF cameras. If I wanted to do video, I'd get a video camera. I think if Canon and Nikon knew how few people used that capability, they might do something. But frankly, I don't think they care enough to find out. They are more interested in proving how much engineering they can put into a camera box with no concern about whether it will actually be used or if the target market wants that capability. I'd pay extra for the eye-controlled focus they were so famous for!

chfrus

I do both. I can switch back and forth. When I shoot video I use my Nikon 7200. The camera does not attract attention as a video camera would especially in countries like China..

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

I use mine for grandkids mostly, but not much...if it wasnt there i would not miss it...

tonybear

I agree that the Video capture feature is probably one of the lesser used features of most modern DSLRS, mirrorless cameras, or even so called "Bridge" cameras. With 4K capture the current high resolution video standard, it allows even dyed-in-the-wool digital photographers the capability to record stunning high quality video which can be enjoyed on the latest 4K TVs.
Most serious digital cinema photographers, ie. the ones that use high-end professional DSLRS/Mirrorless digital cameras, etc. primarily FOR the video feature, have various work-arounds to conquer the "gotchas" of using such cameras. Chief among these hidden "gotchas" are the ergonomics of the camera itself- the layout of controls, and ways to stabilize such cameras when hand-holding. Many third-party manufacturers have stepped up to the bat with so-called "cages" or "frames" that are designed to stabilize such cameras and allow full control of the cameras without having to actually touch the camera. This is significant, because nothing ruins a video shot faster than an unstable or jerky camera. Sound is another issue as well, as most digital cameras leave the recording of sound up to their low-quality inernal microphones, and use automatic gain control, or AGC. AGC is exactly OPPOSITE to what is required for high quality sound capture. Manual gain control is the requirement here. Again, third party sound accessory companies now offer a wide range of "pre-amps" with manual gain that accept a wide variety of professional external microphones to feed into your digital camera. These provide much higher quality recorded sound, and the ability to monitor it professionally.
If you are serious about capturing high-quality video and sound from your late model DSLR/mirrorless camera, you could easily invest an equal amount in these third party accessories. But in view, it's worth the investment.

brent46 Loc: Grand Island, NY

I use video on my D7100 frequently to record bands and like it. I use a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens in manual focus to eliminate noise from the focus motor. I also use an external stereo mic. The results are excellent.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

While it seems not many use the video extensively, it appears enough do to justify the small cost of a mechanical switch and some firmware to enable video.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Just because you don't use video doesn't mean it isn't a popular feature on still cameras. That's why Canon and Nikon have made it a standard feature. The fact that it hardly adds anything to the cost of the cameras just makes it make more sense from a marketing standpoint. Where do you get the idea that very few people use it? Lots of the videos on YouTube were shot with DSLRs.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Bruce, this whine comes up a lot here, at least every six weeks or so. Here's the skinny on video in dSLRs and mirrorless interchangeable lens, electronic viewfinder cameras:

They would not, and could not, exist if they were not FIRST video cameras!

Video is one of those "you might as well put it in there, because all digital cameras really ARE video cameras anyway" technologies. You can buy one dSLR that I know of without video in it. It's the $2750 Nikon Df. Nikon is charging you MORE for the privilege of owning a piece of nostalgia with a digital chip in it.

The first major commercial use of digital sensors was in video cameras. That was before HD came along. It was relatively easy to build a 640x480 pixel sensor, whether a single CCD or a triple CCD design. Since plain old NTSC or PAL video was of comparatively low resolution, those chips would perform okay.

In the mid-1990s, Kodak and others started putting those chips in SLR bodies and bolting a box of electronics on the bottom of the SLR. For $30,000.00 or so, you got a 1.2 MP camera that took blurry stills with weird color and moire. There were a few military and industrial applications, and limited photojournalistic applications, but it would be years before suitable, higher density sensors were available. But the important takeaway is that the addition of the shutter and mirror to the video camera (and a few processor modifications) is what made the dSLR.

Once resolutions and processing engines were fast enough and sufficient enough to reduce moire and generate an HD video signal, the engineers realized that they could create a camera from a dSLR that would produce better video than many of the Super 35 format video cameras available for thousands more. We would have better bokeh, shallower depth of field, and low light capabilities, too.

It all took off when Canon stuck video features in the 5D Mark II. Hollywood and network TV videographers discovered how useful they were, and the trend of hybrid cameras was born. The producers of Saturday Night Live were among the first to use a 5D II for their intro scenes of the actors in dimly lit areas on streets, in bars, and in clubs of New York.

Over a decade later, almost all dSLRs and EV/MILC cameras have at least some video features. 4K has become commonplace. But here's the thing — Those video features really don't add more than a few dollars to the price of your camera, because 90% of what's necessary has to be there, anyway! And for those of us who do both kinds of photography — stills and video — they are enormously useful.

While the traditional film and video communities still prefer dedicated, old-school form factor video cameras, those of us who started our hobbies and careers in the still photography world actually prefer the dSLR and EV/MILC camera form factors! Various cages, rail systems, and cine lenses have been adapted to them to turn them into full-fledged studio and location cameras. It's even possible to mount a $30,000 anamorphic lens on a $1600 MILC.

Electronic Viewfinder, Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Cameras have become the preferred tools for hybrid video creatives* in the last few years. The Panasonic GHx series cameras were/are the leaders there. I use a GH4 to create training content (stills for manuals and video for many purposes). It has dramatically improved my workflow and reduced the time it takes to create content.

Now Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus, Canon, and Nikon all have serious mirrorless offerings, and Panasonic has two more coming out in early April.

*Hybrid creatives are those who work in multiple media — text, narrated audio, music, still photos, graphics, and video, with DVD/Blu-Ray, print, PDF, and Internet streaming distribution.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

How much do you think it would lower the price? My guess is that it would not. By including the relative low cost of adding video the market increases. If you can sell more units, the price can drop. So, if you remove the video, the cost might actually increase.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Something I haven't seen mentioned here is that with 4k video you can capture a high def 8k still which can be shot at up to 120 frames per second (fps), depending on the camera, which can then be upsized to print huge if desired.

There's a lot to be said for shooting action at 120 fps with a $1000 camera as opposed to the top of the line Canon and Nikon cameras that shoot 14 or 16 fps and cost up to as much $20,000+ with lens.

It's kinda stupid not to use it if you have it if shooting fast action is your gig unless you just like to toss cash around needlessly. 8k video is around the corner and will double captured "stills" to 16 megapixels capability immediately.

But for the rugged and weatherproofed nature of the pro level d? from Nikon and 1dx? from Canon, at 14 to 16 fps, there'll be no need for those two cameras when a spectator in the stands at a sporting event has the capability to get equivalent or better shots as the pros in the press dugout for a fraction of the cost, notwithstanding point of view.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There are several good points here! Many UHH members are part of a demographic with few serious viewers of YouTube. If you're not YouTube users, folks, go see what's there! You can learn to do *millions* of things by watching videos.

Just the other day, I watched this extremely detailed and well-produced video showing exactly how to change the high voltage battery in a 2004-2009 Toyota Prius. It was made by 'Chris Fix,' a random guy who makes car-related videos for fun and profit (from Google ads). https://youtu.be/Q3RCdrh666w This video has been viewed over 2.9 MILLION times! I would be perfectly comfortable changing out my own Prius battery pack by watching this video while doing it.

William Bennett Loc: Il

Have not used it my Mk4 But use the video on my sx60

William Bennett Loc: Il

The zoom on the sx 60 works really works good at the race track for video

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Same here. I used my older Canon camera for a few videos so I'm glad it's there if I need it. Oh, I do remember using it on my 5D IV when I went to Bosque del Apache to see the Sandhill Cranes and all the Snow Geese. I had some trouble getting it to video the Geese as they all lifted off at the same time. What a sight to see but difficult to capture on video in an interesting way.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

And how much did you save by not having video.