I reckon that to start with, adding this functionality to a regular DSLR will give us something that's like a dog walking on two legs - the marvel is that is not that it's being done well, but that it's being done at all.
It's the same with any new technology - remember when cameras were first added to mobile phones? The quality of images was poor, the resolution was very low - people paid extra money for a phone that took what were essentially pretty poor quality pictures, and they still had to take a regular camera on holiday with them to take decent pictures.
If I was choosing a camera, and I was offered the choice of paying an extra £50 to be able to take low-quality video sequences, there's no way I'd be parting with extra cash, because if I went on holiday or to some special event I'd still have to take a regular video camera to get decent quality stuff.
Give it a few years, until it's possible to shoot good quality video on a dslr, and then I might just be interested in reducing the amount of stuff I have to take on holiday with me. Until then, I'll stick to using my dslr to take stills.
Live view, on the other hand... I'd love that. I don't mind that I don't have it most of the time, because I like the "traditional" approach to framing a shot through the viewfinder and knowing what I'm doing with aperture and shutter speed, instead of just fiddling until the picture on the screen looks right, but every now and again - like when I'm trying to take shots of something by holding the camera up above my head - live view would just be fabulous.
|