FYI, monkey, the 30D did not have video, it didn't even have live view feature. That being said, i remember many moons ago when the 50D was announced and released... It was a stills only camera... and not only did it have a sizable jump in resolution, it also sported the live view (but not video). Many arm chair pundits and reviewers bashed it because it had the video technology but no video. Software companies like magic lantern even took it upon themselves to try to unlock the video. Feed. Shortly after, the 5d2 came out, Drum Roll Please...with video. Now it's been debated, upon here and throughout the interwebs, how much of a difference, if any, would there be if they released a camera with no video. It was agreed that there likely would not be any additional advances in that camera vs a camera with video, and as long as it had live view, it likely wouldn't be cheaper either. So as far as a "Jack of all trades" mentality, i think your going to be disappointed by my response, but if you want a stills only camera, feel free to buy a older camera, a film camera, or medium format if you wish. Most DSLR's are aimed primarily as a stills camera with video functionality built in, with the exception of the C series of cameras. If you dont like video, dont use it. In the event you ever need it, a kids birthday, some other event, then you got it. But hoping that you can get a stills only camera that perhaps have better features (stills wise) than the current cameras with video, is a foolhardy proposition. You may have a case about it being slightly cheaper, but that likely wouldn't happen either... So in the meantime, dont let video slow you down or discourage you from shooting and enjoy what you got right now.