But you can shoot lower quality for a 20 minute clip? That sounds more like a file size issue.
I don't know what the 5 minute limit reason is but soon it's going to be difficult for the broadcast companies to control the rights to major events, especially sporting events like the Olympics and world games where only "still" cameras are allowed on the grounds.
This and I assume other cameras like it are going to open up complete new territory and probably pose a whole lot of issues in regards to rights, fees, liscensing, etc.
Right now nobody is going to shoot a news broadcast or television spot with this camera, (well maybe not) but soon I would imagine all dslrs, pro and semi-pro will have some kind of video function and eventually far surpass anything that can be transmitted on hdv.
At one point I really did believe that convergence will be commonplace on the web, where video and still imagery will share equal space, maybe titled more towards the video side.
Lately I've come to adjust that thought as we really are living in the 4 to 10 second world.
Maybe stills, or moving stills will have more visual power on the web than actual traditional moving footage.
Time will tell.
Of course so will bandwidth.
One thing I am sure of is compelling imagery, more than ever, takes creativity, planning and money, especially for commerce.
The camera, whether it is a $900 dslr or a $50,000 Red, a gazillion dollar panaflex will make little difference if the story, the imagery and final result is not worth watching.
This camera does have some interesting applications, but I don't believe it will change things that much, at least not today.
A few years ago the Seinfeld American Express commercials were shot with a SD xl1.
As interesting as this was, it really didn't change or impact the production, including costs.
At this level, cost of the camera is almost not noticed on the estimate form.