There have been many very critical threads in the past few months regarding the new technologies showing up in the upcoming generation of dslrs. While I can see that some would never use some of the features, it just seems rather ridiculous to disregard a camera as inferior just because it has a few extra features. In a digital world stills and video are exactly the same thing except for the fact that one is a series of the other stored in a single file. Canon's 50D announcement with its addition of face recognition also met harsh criticism. Why would it be a bad thing for a camera to be able to recognize certain patterns and apply a preset set of settings? You could very easily customize this to your liking which could be a significant advantage in certain settings: instead of changing the the camera mode to one of your own presets, you could just point your camera and it could do it for you instantly. It would not even have to be limited to faces, you could say if you see this pattern within these limits, then apply settings X. This could also lead to variable iso across the sensor. I don't think anyone is arguing that these features will be perfect the first round through, but they have to start somewhere. Maybe the video will be glitchy in the D90, maybe the face detection will only be fully auto in the 50D, but in the D120, or the 70D, you may be able to do amazing things with these seemingly useless features. It seems to be a very similar debate to autofocus which is now widely accepted and crucial to many applications. I believe the only reason that these technologies came out on P&S style cameras first is that they are less precise and therefore do not need to as reliable. Face detection requires a lot of computing power, video requires sensors manufactured to a much higher standard. These are much easier on small sensors where the user has very limited manual settings. You can write a code that never needs external input which vastly limits the variables. The physical size of the sensor makes heat management much easier. What is next? Maybe an audio processor? Maybe vector images? Maybe super high variable iso with a dynamic range greater than the human eye? All that is certain is that as technology increases, more devices can and will be combined. If you are a professional photographer that has a camera that is capable of taking crystal clear gigapixel images with a full dynamic range at 1000fps, why not add video and audio capabilities to the same device? Every aspect of computer technology is increasing, so it will only be a matter of time until this is all possible. Those who refuse to accept such technologies will only end up limiting themselves as the next generation grows up embracing them. Good luck getting a future job in photojournalism or in sports photography when you refuse to use that video feature that just runs in the background because it is a gimmicky feature that no professional would ever want.