« on: May 14, 2012, 04:25:48 AM »
But video does hinder a camera's ability. Canon has $X to put towards new product development. Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features. We'd have variable ISO across the sensor, inbuilt ND grads, GPS, Bluetooth, WIFI connectivity, inbuilt ST-E3 functionality, inbuilt IR autofocus assist, improved weathersealing and durability, carbon fibre camera bodies, increased processing power, buffers, longer lasting batteries etc etc. They'd also have the money to develop an adapter for EX speedlites that provides wireless connectivity with the ST-E3 and 600EX. They'd even have money to develop a longer camera strap. But instead Canon has chosen to develop DSLR video features.
I'm not saying that Canon (or any other manufacturer) is wrong with this. Clearly, the market has spoken and we've said that we value video more. last year, I even went out and bought a camera specifically because I wanted to take videos with a DSLR. But to answer the initial question, cameras could be improved from a pure photographic perspective if video development resources were allocated to other areas. But I think Canon has their priorities right in developing video. My only concern is how much people have to pay to get top image quality (especially if they decide to discontinue the 5Dii).