"To make matters worse, often times the video functions spell disaster in terms of accidental activation and battery consumption, as well as compromises that result in bad ergonomics for still photography. It also can make the cameras and lenses more expensive because of additional design work, additional buttons dials and electronics, additional software, more expensive focusing or zoom motors for video, etc."
NOt sure I get this as Mark seems to use the most expensive cameras available. A couple of extra batteries should not be too much of a problem. Not all of us can afford top of the line Leicas and five digit expense medium format backs for expensive mf bodies. If not for the video capability of my Canon 5D MKII, I would not have my first film and now I'm making another with my GH3. It allows me to shoot stills and video with a minimum of extra stuff. My lenses are no more expensive for video than they are for stills. I've been getting paid for photography since 1963 and video has opened a new door for me and many others. These so-called hybrid cameras allow us to have options without having to have multiple systems. From what I've read Canon added video to the 5D because it was not an expensive thing to do. Seems to me the expense for these cameras is in the sensor, not in some additional software or firmware, motors in zoom lenses, or a few buttons and dials. Simplicity was in those first Nikons and Leicas, shooting film with no metering, autofocus, or film advance. Not many of us want to go back there. Simplicity today is a Cambo, Phase One or an Alpa with a back that costs more than some luxury autos. Some people on this site have those cameras, and monochrome Leicas but most of us don't. These wonderful tools today give us image quality that could not have been imagined in film days. And if I had a Nex that turned itself on in my bag, I'd get rid of it! Rant over!
