That film has been largely replaced by digital sensors was no surprise to me.  I shot film exclusively until June of 2007, but my darkroom went digital shortly after Adobe Photoshop version 4 was released.  The advantage of being able to guarantee quality and consistency in printing made all the difference to me.  I was no longer forced to breath in caustic fumes, or spend hours trying to achieve an effect that I was near impossible to reproduce (solarized color prints).  Best of all, I no longer squinted when in normally lit rooms.  My attitude and personality became more positive.  I became more interested in the artistic aspects of photography and the ways cameras tell lies.  But I digress from the topic.

Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc., are producing SLRs with video.  I find it a bit disturbing, but not because I don't like video.  I consider my camera to be an important tool towards making my artwork.  I buy lenses and bodies that enable me to create still images I enjoy.  To that end, I do not need to nor do I want to pay for a feature that reduces the quality of the sensor image output in order to accommodate a television screen.  If you think this will enable you to catch sports action better, it won't.  A frame rate of 1/30th of a second or even 1/60th of a second means that unless you are extremely precise with your timing, Murphy's Law will ensure that the most critical moment will occur during the blanking interval.  By knowing your camera's response time, observing the sport long enough to get a feel for the most dramatic moments, and a bit of the thing called luck (luck favors those who are prepared for it), you will get sots that are far better than most video camera frames.

I suspect that like cell phone manufacturers, these cameras are geared for the masses of consumers that like high tech gear, have money to burn, and aren't ever going to use the equipment to its max.  Adding in features to computer software costs very little, thus making enormous profit. Video output from the sensor in the camera required changes in software, and eats up memory cards.

I want my tools to perform their tasks well.  When I shoot video, I want to be able to shoot more than 5 minutes, I could use a cell phone to get that much time (granted, the quality would be reduced).  The point I am trying to make is, There are high end video cameras that can record for much longer, but the still images from them are not as high quality as a still camera.  It is better to buy the proper tools and do an excellent job.  Top chefs do not use Swiss Army Knives in their food preparations, television shows are not shot using Blackberries, and you won't see any hybrid cars running in the Indy 500.  My plea to camera manufacturers is to get on track and make improvements to your cameras, do not make the mistake of adding features that distract you from that goal!