Why shoot stills?

[mjh]

We shoot both and I just find shooting stills more to my taste. As far as video for capturing stills give it another decade. Here is one video camera that will do it all, if you have $50,000 or so

RED / Index

 

[Charlie99]

I love photography, but my skills are still rather lacking. I also love watching/making movies.

Watching movies, particularly home movies, requires a level of dedication/attention/committment that looking at still photographs doesn't require.

People can casually wander over and glance at a wall or shelf full of pix or even flip through the pages of an album. Sitting down and watching a movie is a dedicated specific event.

To summarize in a more crude fashion, my wife barely glances at my fish photos, and I'd never be able to get her to look at any underwater video.

 

[Kingpatzer]

High end video can produce stills that rival even the best 35mm set ups (digital still doesn't quite compete in quality compared to good film in a top end camera). But not many of us can afford an IMAX camera, nor do we care to carry it around.

Still photography has it's place -- both for publication as well as for art.

But if you view all your media through a low-resolution device (like a computer screen) then there is no advantage to shooting stills over shooting video.