Originally posted by Maxington Well I can understand it, I do still photography, not video, and I really have no desire to pay for a video mode I don't use, nor want a camera brand I might buy from pour R&D time and money into a video mode to keep up with the competiton.
Would you rather your camera had better AF and a brilliant clear image at high ISO, or a video camcorder function?
But that's not the way the world works.
I hear this argument every so often - why are we using any resources at ... better deodorant, faster cars or movie mode in SLR cameras, when there are still people dying from hunger, aids or suffering from diabetes. There's a very simple reason: People are not legos and do not have interchangeable skills.
I'm not saying we allocate and distribute our resources in an efficient manner, but I very much doubt that Cnon not using resources on movie mode would have resulted in any of those things you want, or saved anything meaningful on the final price.
Most of the technology was probably already developed for P&S cameras, and those techies that added it to the D5ii probably specializes in movie codecs and would probably have been sitting idle/gotten fired/wasted time learning something new, if they hadn't worked on movie mode for the D5ii. They probably know nothing about making a better AF or how to optimize a chip for less high ISO noise.
In the same way as you can't take a random auto-engineer and ask him to make a vaccine for AIDS.
Besides, going from "fast AF" to "extremely fast and outstanding AF" probably takes tons and tons of work and expensive high(er) precision hardware (or they would all do it), while going from "no movie" to "no frills movie" is probably comparatively easy (and can probably be done totally in software, adding no extra hardware cost).
As for me. I would love to have a movie mode in my SLR. Sometimes I carry my P&S around, beside the SLR, just so that I can take small movies. Mostly of the kids.
Last edited by tcdk; 09-17-2008 at 08:56 AM.