My 5 cents: There is no question that video adds several dimensions to imaging that still photography typically lacks (time, sound, narration etc). I actually came to photography from film, many years ago. I assume it is still fair to say that the material (incl $$) and time effort to obtain a semi-professional product is many orders of magnitude higher for video than for still photography, especially in the areas of nature and travel videography. Good sound recording alone requires lots of experience and attention, and a dedicated person to handle it on location. I believe video has to be done on a professional full-time level to get satisfactory results which is quite different for still photography. Considering that many photographers, especially in the landscape/architecture/travel field, are perfectionists who won't accept the typcially home-video quality, I can't see a large migration from still photography to video in these areas. News reporting/sports/event photographers will certainly benefit from these merging technologies and drive hardware development as they have in the past.
