I guess that is the benefit from computer science as well as internet.

My point is, for amateur photographer, it is a natural upgrade path for them to eventually go to 5D2. There is nothing wrong from tehm to use the 5D2 to shoot family portrait. One obvious benefit from this would be pictures for kids, or available light pictures at the party. Compact DCs, most of them anyway, are not suitable for this purpose.

One example on the other side is, the pros who suppose to use 1D/1Ds are now using 5D2, the semipro body, especially to shoot video.

Therefore I would think 5D2 is no black & white semipro level. It is a mix bag. You mentioned PJ. PJ wont be there if there is no digital camera (let it be iPhone or dSLR) and internet. Same for SLR, it is no longer for pros only.

For family or party video I wouldn’t use the DSLR unless I was really into editing video and amature movie making as a hobby. I sure dont pull out my DSLR to shoot family stuff most of the time. I have P&S’s for that. My guess is family/amature video should be optimised for youtube uploading, 720p is the most you need, but how many family dads and moms can edit 720p anyway? But it’s nice to have the option.

The 5D2 and 7D are not family targeted cameras. They are semipro or low end pro cameras, and in todays world HD video can add a lot of sales to those cameras.

Those wanting lower MP have the same problem because lens improvement is driven by increase in resolution. When the 1D came out at 4 MP the 16-35mm mark I was very usable, as the MP went up it was then found to be too soft and we got the much better 16-35mm mark II. Had Canon stopped at 10 MP like people suggest, lots of other improvements would not be made in lenses and such. Same is true of the 7D being APS-C and not APS-H, it motivates Canon to make better EF-S glass. People should be careful what they ask for because getting might mean losing elsewhere.

David, let me make myself more clear: I do NOT think it is the technology (in this case, the video function) makes the price higher or lower. Rather, technology serves for marketing purpose (from the manufacturer’s point of view). Putting the video into the camera does not cost money or cost very little money. But promoting the video function costs millions of dollars. Unfortunately that money will end up on the price tag for each camera. By promoting, I don’t mean just print out the 1080p on the poster. Marketing is way more complicated than just printing out the poster.

As for liveview photography, I hold the same view as the handheld video. It is awkward. I prefer the optical viewfinder, at least for now. :)

I doubt they will drop the mirror on DSLR’s. Video on the Liveview is one thing but shooting stills is way better when looking through the lens directly. Compact cameras make sense as you have to give up something to get the smaller size and the prism is an obvious choice. DSLR’s just dont need to get that small and I dont know any pros who’d want to trade direct looking through the lens for Liveview-only. It’s a both-and camera, still/video, SLR/Liveview ;)

with 5D2 and 7D, especially 7D poses a shadow on D300, I think Nikon will definitely do something quickly. Nikon gained a bit more market share since they act quickly rolling out D700 D300 D3 D40 etc. If I were Nikon marketing people, I will try my best to maintain this momentum. It is not just the product, it is the faith of the product line. Investing in dSLR is not just about the body. I think we can all agree on this. (my painful memory of switching from Minolta to Canon just hit me again :)

Personally, as an amateur photographer, I don’t think I will ever purchase a 1D/1Ds series camera. (Are you guys in this discussion all pros?) Therefore APS-C or FF, there will be room for better cameras. At this stage, I think FF 7D or 3D will be ideal. I agree that could threat the 1D cameras. But Canon is going to make the 1D4 much better, right? ;)

As for video part, I admire those using 5D2 to shoot pro grade video/movies, ON A TRIPOD. I just don’t see myself holding the heavy 5D2 + whatever L lens/Zeiss/Leica plus the adapter, to shoot video, handheld. Again, I am no pro, therefore if I am shooting video, it will be for my family or party, maybe. This purpose could be served better with a dedicated HD vidocam which could be a fraction of the 5D2+lens weight. Wont that be easier on your arm for, say, shooting 1 hour of the video clip? :)))

I have to make it clear that I did not think the extra cost was put there solely because the technology. Some of my friend argue that dSLRs are completely not necessary due to the liveview function. Yes, as long as the visibility and frame speed catch up, the optical viewfinder will be replaced one day. In that case, the cost of the reflex system will completely be removed. Though will that lower the price tag? I doubt it.

As you said, 5D MK I was ~ 1/3 more expensive than 5D2, do you think it is because 5D1 is more expensive to manufacture, or rather, it is because at that time, 5D was the king of the market? If there is no D3x no D700 no Sony A700/A900 (I lost track of the Sony models, sorry), will the 5D2 still stays beneath $3K? Or without D300, will the 7D price be “justified”? (yes I do think 7D’s $1600 price tag is justified)

Market, my friend, is the determine factor here, in terms of price. Technology, no matter how much we love it, is much less a factor in this world, sadly I must say.

You could even argue that the disabling the video is the part that will add cost, so the one without video should be more expensive.

The video recording is a function of Liveview, which developed from LCD screens on the back needing a live video feed to view the picture from. So if you’re really gonna ask Canon to save you a few bucks just turning off the menu feature for video is not going to do that. You’d need to eliminate Liveview, and hence the LCD screen, to save any money.