[Leica] Good stills AND videos?

[hlritter at bex.net (Howard Ritter)]

OT, but maybe of general interest, and maybe answerable by someone  
with more knowledge than I.

I like to shoot both still and video targets of opportunity that I may  
encounter in daily life. For this purpose I have two very nice  
pocketable digital cameras that I like to carry with me or keep in the  
car, a Canon G9 still camera and a Sony HDR-TG1 miniature HDTV  
camcorder. Both are about the same size and weight, of comparably high  
quality, autoeverything digital point-and-shoot, recording to a memory  
card, and if both were manufactured by Canon in the same quantities as  
the G9, both would cost about the same. Much the same thing can be  
said for any of a few dozen other digital still P&S cameras and at  
least a couple of miniature camcorders.

The G9 takes excellent still pictures and as a bonus takes video. The  
video, while serviceable, is comparatively crude and suitable only for  
amusement and last resorts, not as the intentional permanent record of  
important events.

The TG-1 takes excellent high-def video and as a bonus takes stills.  
The stills, while serviceable, are comparatively crude and suitable  
only for amusement and last resorts, not as the intentional permanent  
record of important events.

WHY?

Why doesn't anyone produce a camera of comparable size that will take  
stills of the quality of the G9's and HD videos of the quality of the  
TG-1's? Admittedly the sensor chips are much different, 12 Mpix v.  
about 2 Mpix, and the larger chip of the G9 can't readily be read out  
at the 30 fps demanded by video. However, a central 16:9 rectangle of  
the G9's 4:3 chip, comprising about 8.3 Mpix and extending very nearly  
the full width of the chip, could be "binned" 2x2 for readout, in  
order to give it functionally the 2,073,600 pixels of the HDTV  
picture. This seemingly can't be beyond the limits of affordable  
technology, so why isn't it being done? It's logical and do-able, and  
would be a boon to people like me.

Surely the big mfrs aren't so crass as not to make dual-purpose  
cameras simply because this would dent their sales...instead offering  
cameras that do one thing well and the other thing not so well,  
because everyone else's camera does, but not well enough to deter  
purchases of the other type of camera by those who need to do the  
other thing well also, thereby preserving profits?

Never mind.

--howard