My most modern camera purchase was a Canon G10. Before that, I had a Canon 40D. I never really used video on the latter because the video capabilities sort of sucked. And I never used the video capabilities on the former, because the video capabilities were sort of nonexistant.
But then, a few years later, I started seeing that HD video was sort of starting to become "the next big thing" on entry level DSLRs. And I actually looked at some viedeos that people shot with some of those cameras and thought, "wow...that actually looks pretty freaking good."
Then for a while, I was sort of thinking of upgrading, with HD video being one of my criteria (after all, I'd like to try out a DSLR's video capabilities). But then, I looked at my bank account and had to slap some sense into me. And I ultimately decided..."yeah, TRYING HD video capture with my DSLR might be cool. For a little while. But I'm having a hard enough time as it is getting the 'still picture' thing down, and am not the least bit ready to venture into 'motion picture' territory. And realistically...how much would I ever use that feature anyway?"
So...my questions for the people here who have cameras that are capable of decent video capture...
1) How does the quality compare to a device which is dedicated for capturing "motion picture" as opposed to "still pictures"?
2) Compared to the still photography capabilities of the cameras, just how much do you actually USE the video capabilities?
3) IF you primarily do still photography instead of video, then WHY? Is it due to interest (as in, if you wanted a video camera, then you would have bought one) Or is it more due to SKILL (as in, you would LIKE to try doing video, but you're still not confident about your still-photography skills and aren't yet ready to devote too much time to video right now)? Or, is it for some other reason entirely?
4) Exactly how difficult is it to make the transition from still photography to motion pictures?