What is the point of a DSLR

[zenpmd]

for video?

 

Simple question. But it seems to me that there are better quality options, but also more practical options.

 

Like with mirrorless cameras vs dslr, using a dslr as a video camera, while could be the best of borth worlds, may also be the worst of both?

[someguy]

I reject the premise of your question.

[jax_rox]

Of course - there are and always have been better and more practical options. But certainly not at a price:feature point that many will accept!

 

You can purchase a handycam, or even a prosumer cam but you get a tiny sensor (deep DOF) and limited dynamic range. You could buy a cinema camera, but then you're spending a lot of money!

 

DSLRs have become the de facto entry level video camera because they are cheap and give an image that's closer to what many might call cinematic out of the box. That and the fact that you can do video and photo on the one machine, which means you don't need to take two cameras.

[andy lee]

mirrorless with a great EVF is the way to go , Panasonic or Sony are the best right now

 

I dont ever use my Canon DSLRs for video any more just for stills

 

DSLRs are dead for video for me -

 

no peaking -

 

glass optical viewfinders not working because you have to put the mirror up for video is a no no !!

so you are just stuck with the rear screen that always has to be on ....so it eats battery

 

Mirrorless with and EVF lets you see exactly what you get and your focus is spot on with peaking too

I rarely use the rear screen ....so battery life is huge with just the EVF on

[zenpmd]

I find focus peaking unreliable. The issue for me is that I want seriously good quality, but also ease of use. That's why ideally the 5dmk4 will have amazing follow focus. That would be my dream! MF is a faff for what I want it for (dog photography)

[richg101]

I find focus peaking unreliable. The issue for me is that I want seriously good quality, but also ease of use. That's why ideally the 5dmk4 will have amazing follow focus. That would be my dream! MF is a faff for what I want it for (dog photography)

 

full frame dof + dog videos?  nah.  grab something with deep dof so they're in focus.  seriously good quality video will not be included in the mk4 canon since it would then devalue their cinema eos range.

[leeys]

I find focus peaking unreliable. The issue for me is that I want seriously good quality, but also ease of use. That's why ideally the 5dmk4 will have amazing follow focus. That would be my dream! MF is a faff for what I want it for (dog photography)

I will add to what richg has said: The 5DIV will not having amazing video because Canon will want to protect the Cinema EOS line. Why sell you a camera for 3k with a 2k gross profit when they can sell it at 9k with a 6k gross profit?

[SleepyWill]

I find focus peaking unreliable. The issue for me is that I want seriously good quality, but also ease of use. That's why ideally the 5dmk4 will have amazing follow focus. That would be my dream! MF is a faff for what I want it for (dog photography)

 

The venn diagram of video cameras would give you an overlap of seriously good quality and ease of use but it would be encompassed by the large "expensive" circle. Unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at your camera, you are going to have compromises, and ease of use is a selling point reserved for really expensive cameras.

 

Of course ease of use is subjective and one mans sony tri controls is another mans C100 ergonomics.

[Quirky]

What is the point of a DSLR for video?

 

There is no point. It's a contradiction in terms. It's a result of an ironic, (un)lucky accident. The only reason we have video capable DSLR's in the first place is because Canikon only do DSLR's for the mainstream market, and Canikon (still) rule the mainstream market. A MILC is obviously a more natural form factor for a video capable camera, but that doesn't really matter. For now. 

Fortunately there are other options, too. There is not much point in a DSLR for video, but no one is forced to buy a DSLR for shooting video. That's about it. 

[andy lee]

once everyone who uses a Canon or Nikon DSLR for video gets round to using an EVF mirrorless camera

they will see that staring at the screen on the back of the camera is a thing of the past

 

once you get used to an OLED EVF you will never look back

 

- I could not work without an EVF ever again.

 

It is critical for focus and makes life so much easier - also I can rig the camera on a shoulder rig and use the evf like an ENG camera

this is my main way of working. My eye never comes off the camera now.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

It's a complicated matter. There's no point of DSLRs for an exclusive video shooter. But remember that mirrorless just very recently bettered DSLRs for video so many still haven't adapted, you'll start seeing the mirrorless transition from now on, but it takes a lot of time, everybody is shooting with 5D/7D/t2i until this point. Changing the reputation of mirrorless to a brighter one will take time.

Everything being equal, a mirrorless camera is much better for video shooting.

-They can be made smaller and lighter
-They have and EVF
-They can adapt to any lens, including PL.
-Though not technically exclusive for mirrorless the ones on the market have Zebras, Peaking, and focus/exposure as
asist features not avilable on any DSLRs

When you throw in the need for a high end photographic ability besides the video factor, DSLRs absolutely have a point. And it depends on how high-end of stills you require, as a mirrorless will probably be sufficient for most enthusiast photographers. But DSLRs have many benefits, Optical viewfinders, larger and much stronger bodies, significantly longer battery time, and generally better image quality overall, and of course the biggest one is Autofocus compatability with the Nikon and Canon lenses which professional photographer rely on. The fact that they can also shoot great video (especially the Nikon ones and the 5D mk III) also adds to their advantages.

So to answer the question yes DSLRs have a point for people who need their exclusive advantages, just because I don't doesn't mean they're not important. For an exclusive video shooter, shooting on a NX1 makes a far better propsition than a 7D mk II. Mirrorless is the future for video, and the future for mass photography too, especially as technology marches on and all these DSLR advantages show up in the mirrorless world, and I predict that a small number of professional photographers will keep using DSLRs in the future for the lenses and build. But mirrorless will take over the masses. Canon and Nikon must start offering competitive mirrorless options otherwise they will soon lose their largest market base (rebels and d3100s users).

Canon made the big splash with the 5D mk II and t2i that's why their reputation in the video scene is unrivaled, they practically started the whole thing and stayed on top of it for 3-4 years, they were offering a video shooting s35 camera with interchangeable lenses and 24p and log profile for 500$ when nobody else was close, they built a reputation on that and, being more widely used Canom DSLRs found their way into the hands of the most talented DPs and colourists, therefore people to this point associate better quality with them over mirrorless which are not widely used, that's why they're still being used by everyone. That will change very soon, the last nail in the coffin was the GH4 and A7s and the Nx1 now.

[hmcindie]

Everything being equal, a mirrorless camera is much better for video shooting.

-They can be made smaller and lighter
-They have and EVF
-They can adapt to any lens, including PL.
-Though not technically exclusive for mirrorless the ones on the market have Zebras, Peaking, and focus/exposure as
asist features not avilable on any DSLRs
 

 

1: a7s is too small, I much prefer the 5d size and ergonomics to the a7s (for video shooting)

2: But the brightness is all wonky, 5d has a better back lcd in terms of color accuracy and for assessment of exposure. On the a7s it's way more difficult to see when something is underexposed. Histogram is pretty much a must have. Using the EVF means going handheld which means shaky shit.

3: Adapting any lenses is a great plus.

4: Magic Lantern and suddenly you have even more on your DSLR.

 

I'm not buying this mirrorless craze except for cameras in the size of the Sony a5100 (those are great cams because you can almost fit them into a pocket with a pancake lens)

[jax_rox]

1: a7s is too small, I much prefer the 5d size and ergonomics to the a7s (for video shooting)
2: But the brightness is all wonky, 5d has a better back lcd in terms of color accuracy and for assessment of exposure. On the a7s it's way more difficult to see when something is underexposed. Histogram is pretty much a must have. Using the EVF means going handheld which means shaky shit.
3: Adapting any lenses is a great plus.
4: Magic Lantern and suddenly you have even more on your DSLR.
 
I'm not buying this mirrorless craze except for cameras in the size of the Sony a5100 (those are great cams because you can almost fit them into a pocket with a pancake lens)

The fact that you don't like the size/ergonomics and brightness of the EVF is totally viable and indeed you should make up your mind based on your own needs.

But it doesn't make the A7s, or mirrorless cameras in general a bad camera or bad choice. It's different to work with, sure - and if you're used to Canon then it will take a bit of getting used to.

But that doesn't make it a bad camera.

I think the C300 has the worst ergonomics of a video camera ever made, and the image is barely better than anSLR. I would never use it - but many do and have made great things with it. The fact that I don't like it does not mean it is an awful camera, or that the electronics inside it are bad. It just means it doesn't suit my needs and what I want from a camera.

[johnnymossville]

No EVF, I won't buy it.  Plain and simple.   Shooting outside with a DSLR using just the Live View is pretty bad.  actually, it's really bad. 

[Andrew Reid]

I can't manually focus any of my lenses through the optical viewfinder of a DSLR.

 

I need an EVF for that.

 

I just switched from the 5D Mark III for all my stills work to an X-T1 and not regretting it. They are dead.

[leeys]

Maybe it's time to rename the site. :P

[Andrew Reid]

Maybe it's time to rename the site. :P

 

Why? Can't see the word 'DSLR' in it and E stands for electrical, O for optical and S for system. Sounds pretty relevant to me.

[zenpmd]

The canon retains much more detail at high ISO, and has such good noise performance in general in my mind. And of course an XT1 cant do this, especially as ISO 12800 I reckon. I say this as a previous owner of X Pro 1, Xe2, xt1 and x100s...! http://postimg.org/image/95jhq1sa1/

 

[FilmBrute]

The point of the DSLR for video, is similar to why people use non professional LCD screens for color grading. Its "good enough". The day a DSLR is unable to capture beauty or emotion is when it will be obsolete for video.

[ken]

Canon has cameras designed for video: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras