The "convergence of still and vid" has already happened, but the two forms of image capture are different. Canon delivers a dSLR that is an evolution of a tried and true ergonomic design that works right for portraits, action, and wildlife.
The shape and controls of the dSLR simply don't work as well for handheld video, but Canon recognized before Nikon or Sony the market for a device that could catch supplemental video during a stills shoot, say at weddings and other events. Clever videographers saw the amazing potential that dSLR lenses brought to video and exploited them effectively.
Which led enthusiastic amateurs to think they had a cheaper, single device route to making great movies and take top quality stills too. A new industry formed to make brackets and counterbalances and other gadgets which work around the ergonomic limitations of the dSLR.
The car analogy isn't working for me. Maybe something with cooking? A conventional oven is great for baking and roasting. A microwave for quick heating, "cooking" a frozen dinner, maybe boiling water for tea or baby formula. Years ago a few manufacturers tried making microwaves that had browning elements (maybe there are still some being made). But most cooks, from occasional to professionals, understood that a microwave could never bake well, and an oven was too slow for frozen prepared meals. Which is why most kitchens have an oven and a microwave.
Wonderfully balanced, ergonomically superb video cameras with sensors, light meter, AF, and IS designed for videography are available in all price ranges. Same with stills cameras.
Ok, I'll play along with the vehicle analogy. Comparing brands of passenger vehicles doesn't make sense when, in fact, the OP is arguing that every car should be a pickup truck, and every pickup truck should be a car. Here in the USA we had a rare bird of a vehicle called an El Camino, a hybrid, a car with a bed and tailgate. It is now a curiosity, a collector's item.
The shape and controls of the dSLR simply don't work as well for handheld video, but Canon recognized before Nikon or Sony the market for a device that could catch supplemental video during a stills shoot, say at weddings and other events. Clever videographers saw the amazing potential that dSLR lenses brought to video and exploited them effectively.
Which led enthusiastic amateurs to think they had a cheaper, single device route to making great movies and take top quality stills too. A new industry formed to make brackets and counterbalances and other gadgets which work around the ergonomic limitations of the dSLR.
The car analogy isn't working for me. Maybe something with cooking? A conventional oven is great for baking and roasting. A microwave for quick heating, "cooking" a frozen dinner, maybe boiling water for tea or baby formula. Years ago a few manufacturers tried making microwaves that had browning elements (maybe there are still some being made). But most cooks, from occasional to professionals, understood that a microwave could never bake well, and an oven was too slow for frozen prepared meals. Which is why most kitchens have an oven and a microwave.
Wonderfully balanced, ergonomically superb video cameras with sensors, light meter, AF, and IS designed for videography are available in all price ranges. Same with stills cameras.
Ok, I'll play along with the vehicle analogy. Comparing brands of passenger vehicles doesn't make sense when, in fact, the OP is arguing that every car should be a pickup truck, and every pickup truck should be a car. Here in the USA we had a rare bird of a vehicle called an El Camino, a hybrid, a car with a bed and tailgate. It is now a curiosity, a collector's item.
Upvote
0
. Ergonomics is a tough topic. Vid cams are set up w/ thumb on bottom (right hand mostly I suspect) whereas stills are set up w/ thumb on top. Why? Perhaps it is the way we would use a handheld telescope? 
