Why video in a DSLR

Maybe I’m missing something, but why do people buy, basically, a still camera and complain that the video sucks. Wouldn’t buying a video camera make more sense if you are mostly shooting video?

Guess it depends on the camera you are talking about. Commercial video has been shot on "DSLRs" all the way back to the early version of the Canon 5D - and people were amazed at what they can do. Today there are very capable "still" cameras that do amazing work in video, and in some genres like weddings, they are the majority of cameras used to capture video. Now Canon pushing the resulution limits enabling 8k, and Sony with the 7IIIS - only the most demanding projects need to be shot on cameras like the RED.

Bottom ilne... Cost. Being able to shoot raw in digital, and have the wide array of lenses and in camera controls... there is little reason to not shoot with a DSLR. Still a few issues.... things like rolling shutter and the like. But honestly I've used my iPhone on a gamble, and Im not sure why for general stuff... its not good enough.

In my opinion.... and thats about all its worth... consumer video camera are a dying breed. Newer video cameras are good enough for more. Many support external mics, video displays and data capture. The bit rates are getting way up there... not sure I would bother buying a video camera unless I was buying a dedicated pro grade video camera....

eddieb1 wrote in post #19176958
Maybe I’m missing something, but why do people buy, basically, a still camera and complain that the video sucks. Wouldn’t buying a video camera make more sense if you are mostly shooting video?

Having video in a SLR has been debated since it's introduction and I think most now agree, it's a good think. As to why people complain, I believe it's more that Canon has a nasty habit of dumbing things down or crippling the camera in some way. For instance, over heating has been know about since the very first iteration so why does Canon not get it fixed or why the 1.7 crop in 4k?

I understand what you guys are saying. My thinking is if DSLRs are not delivering what you need, and your livelihood depends on quality video, and everyone knows about Canon dumbing down features, why wouldn’t you buy a dedicated video camera and wait until issues are resolved to go back to one body. I never do video and I couldn’t care less about the feature, but if my business depended on my equipment, I would be investing in quality gear that can produce the final results I’m after.

I think the issue is that you are getting some tainted views. Video is not photo, and visa versa. The skills are not the same. But there is some amazing work being produced out there via dlsr cameras. know he is trendy and all but check out Peter McKinnon on Youtube, one of the leading "content contributor". His site will lead you to other content creators out there.

https://www.youtube.co​m/c/PeterMcKinnon/vide​os

Give it a try and see what you think. Its not the gear in my opinion... its the people. You got to know how you use it.

How much does a full fledged video with interchangeable lenses cost versus a DSLR with an established and mostly inexpensive lens lineup?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19177450
How much does a full fledged video with interchangeable lenses cost versus a DSLR with an established and mostly inexpensive lens lineup?

And a large image sensor.

eddieb1 wrote in post #19177282
.
I understand what you guys are saying. My thinking is if DSLRs are not delivering what you need, and your livelihood depends on quality video, and everyone knows about Canon dumbing down features, why wouldn’t you buy a dedicated video camera and wait until issues are resolved to go back to one body. I never do video and I couldn’t care less about the feature, but if my business depended on my equipment, I would be investing in quality gear that can produce the final results I’m after.
.

.
A huge percentage of people who make income shooting video do not make full time income at it. . They make a small, but necessary, percentage of their income shooting video.

Maybe they have a YouTube channel that they shoot video for, and that YouTube channel accounts for 15 or 20 percent of their overall income. . Or maybe they submit video clips to stock agencies like Getty or Adobe or Shutterstock, and get 10 to 15 percent of their overall annual income from the royalties they are paid. . Maybe they are hired out on a freelance basis to shoot video for clients, and do it on the side, for some additional income.

A vast majority of the people making income from shooting video are not doing it full time, but rather as a way to supplement their income. . They need to shoot professional level video footage, but they cannot pay top dollar for top equipment, because they will never make full time income at it. . This is the majority of the video market, not just a subset of it. . So, the majority of people who need to shoot video for work cannot justify paying $50,000+ for a professional level video camera, plus thousands more for lenses, because they will only be grossing $5,000 to $15,000 per year on their video sales and/or royalties.

This is the reality of the professional video shooting marketplace, and DSLR manufacturers need to cater to these people by offering them an affordable alternative that is just good enough for their needs, but yet not so good that they interfere with sales of their much more expensive dedicated pro video cameras. . With manufacturers walking such a fine line between what is just barely good enough to get the sales, but not good enough to cannibalize their much more expensive video lines, is it really any wonder why the DSLR-for-video consumers are so frustrated?


.

It was the 5D Mark II that introduced video to DSLRs, capitalizing on the technology Canon developed for the first DSLR with "Live view" the 1D Mark III.

What the 5D Mark II offered that had not been available before from even much more costly "affordable" pro video rigs, (still costing 5-10x as much) was video recording on a full frame sensor similar in size (actually 50% larger than) the 35mm film cameras used for cinema. To get that at the time one needed to rent a camera, or have six figures to own one.
Instead, most video cameras of the time had tiny grainy sensors with no possibility for a "cinema like " look. Even from many huge studio cameras as used in television. Go back and look at a show like "Married with Children" and see how bad TV video had been.
In the case of the 5D Mark II the image quality positively blew away Canon's own pro video equipment, the XL series.

And then there were the lenses. Readily available affordable and good. Camcorders relied on small format. smaller than APS-C zooms. Suddenly one could shoot video with ultra fast primes on a huge gorgeous sensor and pay LESS to do it!

Cine lenses cost easily 10X SLR lenses at the time.

Two companies changed all that Canon and Red.
It is the Canon 5D that gets the prize as the game-changing camera of the decade.
The rise of the video DSLR has not only totally changed our expectations of what video cameras can and should cost but also changed the way we think of and use cameras.

As to the feeling that the video was subpar, this could not be farther from the truth at the time. It was in fact the best video you could get for under 10K. And it was immediately put to use by the full spectrum from budding amateurs to full on professionals.
The truth was that this was a revolutionary step in video imaging that was superior and affordable.

Pandoras box was open, the die was cast, and now this feature would never be omitted again.

Those that today are complaining about any given brands lack of a video feature, are not in fact talking about image quality. They are complaining about specmanship. Why doesn't brand x offer the same feature that brand y invented last month yet, etc. The bar just keeps moving, by the time anyone can catch up and put 1080P at whatever speed is preferred this month, they want 4K instead. etc.

The timing of all this was perfect. As Tom wrote above, video has input itself into our lives at rapid pace. Wedding Photographers used to take photos. Now those that can't include video are a dieing breed. Everything is video. All the photo hosting sites are dieing, and YouTube and other video platforms have only just started.

You don't have to like it, but it is the world we live in.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19177450
How much does a full fledged video with interchangeable lenses cost versus a DSLR with an established and mostly inexpensive lens lineup?

Not sure what your asking.... are you asking what a Canon C300 mk III with lens.... $11,000 to 15,000. Sony FX6..... $8k. Sony A7S III.... $7K. Red 6k.. $8K....

Then you add digital recorders... the audio setup.... you can get a decent setup for under 5K, to spending $50k. Some more portable, some intended for studio use only.

A few years ago I worked out of Austin, TX and I got into photographing the music scene there. A lot of the light run and gun pros used DSLRs for their work, either 1Ds, 5Ds, or Sony Mirrorless. We shot some marketing stuff for GE's next gen engines with DSLRs that was used professionally. A lot of work at trade shows is done with DSLRs. We've covered weddings... that has largely gone DSLR type shooting.

There are a load of "other" brands not mentioned. ZCam, Panasonic, Black Magic....

I think the numbers here can be a bit confusing. Yes, there are a lot more amateur part time videographers out there that pros. But the pay gap is huge. Just like with photographers. In my varying roles, I have made over a weekend a couple hundred dollars, up to some contract jobs where I have made up to 5K over a week. Were really talking different things. Different jobs. Different skills. Different equipment. Different expectations of final product. A buddy of mine has a friend who works out of West Yellowstone who's prints sell for several thousands dollars each. The gear he shoots with would blow most peoples minds on this site. I could probably get .50 cents. And my gear much more affordable. And yes, people here have produced fantastic images.

So I don't know the answer here. If you want ceni quality output capable of being projected on theatre sized screens... yeah, your 80D might come up short. But the 1D will get you closer. If you are going to show it on a 4k tv... the 80D probably can do the job. It just depends.

.
My friend shoots video professionally, and he spends $50,000 on the camera alone - and that's at a special bargain price that the manufacturer extends to him. . If I remember what he told me correctly, the camera he uses has a debut price of $70,000, but the manufacturer asks him a year or two ahed of time if he would be willing to pre-order and pre-pay, which he does, at a reduced price of $50,000.

From what you wrote, it looks like there are cheaper cameras out there, but if someone is a top professional who shoots video for their sole livelihood, they are probably looking for the flagship Red model, or something of similar quality. . I mean, when Toyota or Reebok or Budweiser, etc., hire someone to shoot a TV commercial for them, I think the video camera, lenses, tripods, fluid heads, and lighting they show up to shoot with are going to be well over $100,000, collectively. . Double that if there are two cameras. . My friend shoots commercials for these types of corporations, and he has several video lenses that cost over $30,000 a piece, along with many less expensive ones.


.

Croasdail wrote in post #19178534
Not sure what your asking.... are you asking what a Canon C300 mk III with lens.... $11,000 to 15,000. Sony FX6..... $8k. Sony A7S III.... $7K. Red 6k.. $8K....

Then you add digital recorders... the audio setup.... you can get a decent setup for under 5K, to spending $50k. Some more portable, some intended for studio use only.

A few years ago I worked out of Austin, TX and I got into photographing the music scene there. A lot of the light run and gun pros used DSLRs for their work, either 1Ds, 5Ds, or Sony Mirrorless. We shot some marketing stuff for GE's next gen engines with DSLRs that was used professionally. A lot of work at trade shows is done with DSLRs. We've covered weddings... that has largely gone DSLR type shooting.

There are a load of "other" brands not mentioned. ZCam, Panasonic, Black Magic....

And your answer to my question answers the opening post...

eddieb1 wrote in post #19176958
Maybe I’m missing something, but why do people buy, basically, a still camera and complain that the video sucks. Wouldn’t buying a video camera make more sense if you are mostly shooting video?

People have a right to buy gear on a budget to perform some needed activities, then complain about shortcomings, we have been doing that for 20 years of digital photography since the Canon 10D. If we only ever say good things about gear, how would manufacturers know what to do next to take our money at the next product cycle?

I forget the first movie to use a DSLR and I am no videographer. However, I recall everyone was super impressed with the shallow DOF and artistic quality of DSLR shot video. There are probably still threads buried on this site with that information.

Apparently getting that sort of control either wasn't easy or wasn't possible with video cameras at the time.

I love having video in my camera..........I also like it on my phone. But I buy camera's based on their still capabilities, not video features. I view video as an added bonus. One day the tables may turn.

HKGuns wrote in post #19178584
I forget the first movie to use a DSLR and I am no videographer. However, I recall everyone was super impressed with the shallow DOF and artistic quality of DSLR shot video. There are probably still threads buried on this site with that information.

Apparently getting that sort of control either wasn't easy or wasn't possible with video cameras at the time.

I love having video in my camera..........I also like it on my phone. But I buy camera's based on their still capabilities, not video features. I view video as an added bonus. One day the tables may turn.

I remember one of the news highlights back in the day regarding Canon DSLRs and video! I can't remember names and faces and places, but I can remember useless info like this.

https://petapixel.com …ly-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/