[Teqy1]

I know that this is a little off the spectrum of what we are interested in but it is still in the same realm.

This article is about a digital video camera that is comparable to film.
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera

[BobEdens]

That's actually pretty cool.  I don't know how many of you guys have talked "geek" with a videofile but what at first seems a "gray area" between video and still photography is actually a huge gray area with white and black spots everywhere.

[Ed Farmer]

I have been saying for years that this was coming.  It will not be that long before we don't shoot seven or eight images of a bridal party pose.  We will shoot eight or ten seconds of video and then grab the still where everyone is looking and noone's eyes are closed.  We will take the 10Meg still into PhotoShop to work on.

Ed

[Ginnypenny]

Oh man, can you imagine the post production on that?  Yikes.  Instead of a couple hundred or even a thousand images to sort from you would have a billion stills.... yuck. 
Also, how do you set exposure/settings.  Video cameras work way different than cameras that way.  I didn't read the article so forgive me if I sound ignorant.

[BobEdens]

nutshell its a movie camera, each frame is a 4mpx image.

how cool is that !!

[jkleb]

I have been saying for years that this was coming.  It will not be that long before we don't shoot seven or eight images of a bridal party pose.  We will shoot eight or ten seconds of video and then grab the still where everyone is looking and noone's eyes are closed.  We will take the 10Meg still into PhotoShop to work on.

The problem I see with that, is that everything will have to be done with hot lights. Face melting hot lights. Also some lensbaby type shots are going to be hard to re-create. Fast glass is expensive on a camera, but even more so on a video camera. I think that there will be a place for video capture in the future; but that a true professional and artist photographer will still have a big role to play.

[Teqy1]

I have been saying for years that this was coming.  It will not be that long before we don't shoot seven or eight images of a bridal party pose.  We will shoot eight or ten seconds of video and then grab the still where everyone is looking and noone's eyes are closed.  We will take the 10Meg still into PhotoShop to work on.

The problem I see with that, is that everything will have to be done with hot lights. Face melting hot lights. Also some lensbaby type shots are going to be hard to re-create. Fast glass is expensive on a camera, but even more so on a video camera. I think that there will be a place for video capture in the future; but that a true professional and artist photographer will still have a big role to play.

If they are used to film they will have no problem adapting to this and should already have most of that equipment.  It would be the amateurs that will have to adjust.

[Ginnypenny]

I have studio lights, but not hot lights.  I don't know many photographers that do... 

[BobEdens]

I have studio lights, but not hot lights.  I don't know many photographers that do... 

Hot light is way cheaper than strobes and today's cameras don't need the insane power that shooting in years past required. I shoot with both hot has the advantage of showing you exactly what its going to look like. The big problem with hot light is the amount of heat they actually put out.

[Aqualuna]

Not very realted, but somewhat...

The new D90 will support video, at 1280x720.. thats roughly 1MP, not that far from the other cam, except the d90 will cost $1000 for body...

The cool thing is you get an interchangable lens video camera pretty cheap, you can do all kind of effects you see on higher end video cameras, like low light recording, macros, narrow DOF, etc.

[Mike Hodgson]

D90,booooooooooooooooooooooooo, let a DSLR be as such, and let a video camera be as such.

I DON"T LIKE marketing GIMMICS, both from Canon and Nikon, what a crock.

[Ryan]

I'm with Ed on this one.  Video and still are going to merge eventually.  They just seem like too similar of technologies. 

I'd like to have a camera that would fill both the still and video with one piece of equipment, and more importantly one set of accessories.  Frame rate would just be another setting.  Heck, some higher end dSLRs are already shooting at 10fps. It's not out of bounds to think that they'll be able to make the jump before too long. 

Besides, DVD NTSC is 720x480px.  That's 1/3 of a megapixel. 

[Travis Minnig]

Well, just to cause problems, I'm with Mike.  I guess technology could advance, but I don't see one replacing the other.  There are intricate differences in each that make them unique.  But maybe I'm just sentimental and don't want to see the two merge into one.

Travis

[Ginnypenny]

Ironically I am with all of you.  I think the technology is similar and that the two pieces of equipment certainly have the potential to merge.  And if something has the potential in the technology field someone will find away.  I think a video camera/still camera is so much more obvious than a camera phone that plays music and surfs the internet and that's already here.
BUT - I think the two art forms of video and photography are vastly different.  I have a friend that's a talented and succesful videographer in my area, yet he is baffled by still photography as much as I am baffled by videography.  I am not saying that an artist can't do both.  There are plenty of musicians that are photographers, but you can really only do one at a time, I think...  Maybe I am wrong but I still think professionals will specialize in one or the other regardless of what equipment is available. 

[Aqualuna]

D90,booooooooooooooooooooooooo, let a DSLR be as such, and let a video camera be as such.

I DON"T LIKE marketing GIMMICS, both from Canon and Nikon, what a crock.

Video is a freebie... no much extra technology needed to capture video in a DSLR anyways...