Video editing, although fun, is a killer time consumer. With photography it's just a still, with editing it's lots of stills with lots of "rolls" to add together. The processing power required is also a lot more, as is importing the footage in the first place so it takes a lot of time.
I don't have a lot of free time.
Actually getting to it, the biggest time killer is acquiring the image/footage in the first place. Taking a snap is an instantaneous thing, very unobtrusive, you can jump in and jump out. Filming means a sequence. It means removing yourself permanently from the event to capture it, it means getting in the way (in that you are constantly stood in the way of the subjects) and out of the way (in that you can't interact), both of which can be difficult for a family event, i.e. "Just help hold this" kind of thing. This is one of the main reasons why we have thousands of photos of Mouse's first year, but hardly any video footage.
And it's possible to take lots of shots and pick one good one, but with a video sequence, one bad moment can ruin the whole thing, and the moment could be lost forever (or lots of tricky editing).
After all the editing for video, you've then likely got a long encode time to get to distribution. With a photo (especially if digital, there it is). Immediately viewable. And the great thing is, is that it doesn't take long for someone to view your work, and for that reason more people are likely to look at it. With Video you need to set time aside to watch it, it's also more intrusive because of the audio (i.e. watching a video at work, vs looking at photos).
Equipment expense. Oh boy the expense. On a comparable level: consumer; prosumer; pro; - video is far, far more expensive than photography. In the price of camera vs video camera, in the price of hardware required to edit with it, in the price of hardware required to store video footage vs photos. Really, that is what finally nailed the lid on the coffin of my video editing. My camera still works and I have hours and hours of backlog of footage to edit, but my computer is broken enough that I can't edit video (and can't afford to repair), but for photos - no problem.
To date, I've never had an interest in Photography, although that's probably because the only cameras I've seen or used have been really basic film point and shoots. Not exactly much you can do with them, i.e. no settings to twiddle with.
Being more geeky than artistic I probably didn't feel I belonged there either. So as it turned out I got into video editing first, especially because of skateboarding, and also because digital video was really there before digital photography. And there it was, I had an iMac DV, so it'd be stupid not to get a video camera (it's only money afterall - and I already had the cable to connect it and a good excuse of going on a skateboarding trip to Barcelona - shame I smashed the camera on the first day). So I did and that was that. I was hooked on video editing (more than filming - there was a certain technical geeky element to editing that appealed to me, over the more artistic requirements of filming).
The biggy I guess though is that video editing captures more than a photo ever can. It has audio. Video without audio is nothing, but audio on it's own also isn't as good. It's the combination that is the winner. I.e. filming your kids babbling away as babies. Filming special events that, ok you might not watch often, but that it is really great to be able to do, like weddings and birthdays and first christmasses.
For me, video offers more creativity than photography, especially via video editing. With photography re-touching, etc, although skilful, can be frowned upon, in video there is more than can be done than just re-touch (it's a whole presentation package) and re-touching, if you are up to it, just helps.
However, flickr has got me hooked on photography - and I only started using flickr since it was an easy solution to sharing photos online - and that's it really, bye bye video editing. (For now).