WaltA wrote in post #9815999
OK - let me make my point more clearly.
1 - People are saying that to develop, implement and support video on cameras like the 5Dmk2 costs nothing.
2 - I am saying that in the technology world - there is a cost to any new features.
There is no speculating at all. I am simply saying that there is a cost (time, effort, money etc) to developing and supporting this new functionality. And when you make that functionality part of an existing technology (DSLR) you run the risk of having to decide which is more
critical to the lifecycle of the product - still photographs or video. Sometime you can't do both - and one or the other loses out.
but that's the thing, it isn't that simple. it isn't a matter of canon deciding between still photography or video. they made a decision to market the video aspect because it makes it more attractive to a wider array of consumers. keep in mind that they also doubled the megapixels which made studio photographers happy and increase high ISO performance which made event/wedding photographers happy. who's to say better autofocus would have made still frame photographers happier? hell, some of the best glass out there for studio is manual focus only.
you claim there isn't speculation in the very premise of your point, but there is. from what i've gathered, in your mind, you believe something more useful to you (ie: improved autofocus) was passed up in terms of opportunity cost in the development of video. considering the inclusion of such would remove one of the major differences between the 5D series and the 1Ds series, what's the say canon wouldn't have left the autofocus the way it was even without the inclusion of video? none of us knows the answer.. therefore, any claim we could make would be speculation. do you get what i'm saying?