TOP is running a poll on views of the merge of video and stills capability - gauging reaction in the great "convergence" debate.
Meanwhile I read the posts on the subject over at Drew Gardner's blog (linked at LuLa). 2 really interesting bits caught my eye.
from a Canon preview event
The audience was mainly press photographers from what was formally known as 'Fleet Street'and from Photokina
Some of the comments I heard on the night....
'What a disaster! Canon have messed it it up again'
'Good camera apart from the video facility, why the F**** do I need that?'
'21 mega pixels? I wanted 14! at 10 frames a second!
'Canon have missed an open goal, video is for people who have no imagination'
The Canon 5d mk2, along with the remarkable Vincent Laforet video, which was running on a loop in the centre of the Canon stand (so few people seemed to be paying any attention to this, sometimes I,m baffled)So with the poll results and these comments I glean this big fact: the buying public just aren't very interested in, leaning towards hostile to, the idea of yet another useless function being added to their camera. I think Drew Gardner has completely misjudged the reactions he saw (he would, he's a fan of convergence).
Effectively the audience for the 5DmkII is saying: we want a better stills camera, with a load of other improvements, please. Video just doesn't interest us. And I see their point. If this is supposed to be a PJ tool, why has it got resolution and responsiveness more in line with landscape work, and if it is aimed at landscape (much like its predecessor seemed to be), why on earth the video at all?
So many commenters on digital cameras are crying out for stills improvements (dynamic range seems to be top of the current list). I think video is becoming an apology for not fixing the stills cameras, a distraction from the fact that the underlying device isn't actually getting any better.