« on: November 05, 2013, 10:27:11 AM »
A true test would be for CaNikon to sell say the 6D and D610 each in a video-enabled" "v"-version and a "p"- pure photography version with absolutely everything equal, including outer design, except video-capture/video out [not firmware hackable]. "p" version being sold at USD/€ 1500 and the "v" version at 2500. One grand more is still dirt cheap compared to purchase of both a video and a stills camera. THAT way, we would see, whether videographers are just cheapskates piggybacking on stills shooter's DSLRs or whether they are willing to pay at least for a portion of their desired dual-use cameras.
How can you miss the point? I'll put it simply:
Selling in volume reduces costs per camera. By a lot.
Thus if having video features increases sales a lot then that camera is /cheaper/ than if it didn't include video (and sold a lot less).
When you say the stills version should cost less you are being ignorant; a stills version would cost more than the 'dual use' version we have now simply because it wouldn't take advantage of the economies of scale in both manufacturing, distribution and retail.
The video guys aren't piggybacking on you; you're piggybacking on them!