Pixiq

Good article. Great points. But I disagree. I think the most important thing to remember is that DSLR video is not meant for videographers. It’s an added bonus for photographers. The primary reason for buying a DSLR with video is not for shooting films. It’s for shooting photographs. Why not get a DSLR with video if you’re already in the market for a DSLR anyways?

Think of an average person just starting off with photography. She wants a new DSLR because she’s going on a two week excursion to Africa. The only video camera she has at the moment is the one her parents used 10 years ago. Or maybe she doesn’t even have one at all. So why not go for a DSLR that has video as an added bonus? One device, two purposes, completely affordable. She comes back from Africa with great photos (her primary goal) and also some nice videos as well. Everyone wins.

I think THAT is DSLR-with-video’s main target market. Not professional videographers or even people looking to start a film career. Just my two cents.

Dave: Makes a lot of sense to me. And if that is the case, I ain’t saying nothing – and yet, an amateur shooting occasional video doesn’t need all the extra gubbins, right?

I think there’s a place for video on DSLRs; but that the videographers who are jumping up-and-down in excitement are doing so prematurely. The truly exciting products are still to come :)

This is totally in agreement with what I believe. As a professional, my reputation is built doing what I do very well – taking quality still images. When people ask me if I “do” video I always answer a vehement NO! I leave that to the video pros. It is not simply an extension of still photography, it is a completely different art-form.

Granted, for the consumer market, it’s nice to have but for me it’s a distraction and I’ve so far avoided buying a DSLR with video functionality.

In first place, I’ve a Canon 500D with video feature, but I don’t really use it.
I think it’s only a distraction, for common people, to buy this kind of cameras.
All days I meet new people who want to buy this cameras only for home photos, because they can film in high quality. Bull shit for me, only a good move for promotion.

This sounds like listening to apple fanboys raving about something that quite literally is not all its cracked up to be.
Yes is has a big sensor and shoots great DOP (which is obvious because all those cats on YouTube look like that these days.
The simple fact is 99% of you can't acheive what is being done on DSLR's because your not videographers. You love touting your great gear but can't use it. You need to spend thousands to simulate what essential features are required for shooting (oh sorry most people don't, they don't even know how to really shoot).
These devices mainly serve a purpose for Video/Stills Journos that get the best of both worlds.
If you are a pro videogrpaher or wwant to learn the art of videography your first mistake is to buy a stills camera.
I want to learn to ride a motorbike? Should i buy a car? They both do very similar things but both are suited to doing certain things a certain way which neither can replicate properly.

"multiple CCD makes sense to get better colour reproduction"

I just wanted to point out this isn't why 3ccd cameras have multiple ccds. It's because with a single ccd, you have to filter the red, green and blue pixels into clusters on the ccd so you can capture all three colors with one sensor, since ccds only measure amplitude and not wavelength. As a result of this, you are left with one third of the available photosites on the ccd dedicated to each color. (Actually, you end up with 50% green, 25% red and 25% blue, because that mimics the arrangement and relative density of cones on the human retina.)

This color filter and interpolation is called a Bayer Filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter)

Assuming you're shooting 1080p video, you have 1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels of video information. If your sensor is 1080p native that means each color channel is much lower than full resolution and the camera must interpolate the channels to generate a full resolution signal. This interpolation obviously comes with a cost, and that cost is lower image quality.

By putting a ccd in the camera for each color channel, and then splitting the incoming light and sending each color to its own sensor, you obviate the need for bayer interpolation and end up with 2,073,600 pixels of information for each color channel. As you would expect the resulting image is much higher quality, despite being the same resolution.

The objective here isn't to "improve color reproduction" but rather to increase the sharpness and amount of detail present in your video, and to avoid having to upscale each color channel artificially.

Come on this is obviouse link bait. And Im going to bite ( slaps self on the wrist )

The down sides are no diffrent than on a 'real' videocamera you still need to stablise them to get good quility shots shake reduction only gets you so far. The only down side with HDSLR's is the moire.

You dont just pick up a Red One, Epic or an Arri Alexa and start running and gunning. The thing that Videographers were creaming over was the DOF and image quility you could get on a cheap camera IE that didnt cost £10k for just the camera body.

Heres the new Sony F3 setup for use it has rails as well for follow focus and mat box etc. The extra gubbins is used by videographers no matter what the camera is so they can use follow focus and other features that are needed to make quility video.

http://library.creativecow.net/kobler_helmut/Band-Pro/2

The question becomes, "what is purpose built equipment", and does it really matter? I'f a DSLR allows someone who hasn't the budget to enter the field or indeed learn then it is purpose built. One of the biggest myths propagated by the frenzy created by video capable DSLR's is that you can do it all by yourself. Sure you can make beautiful 3 minute ditties, something people like Phillip Bloom is great at, but can you make something of substance? Sure, if you have good ideas. Having the equipment doesn't guarantee it but working within a team will further your chances. Hardly any notable media product is made alone. But the myth is propagated by those wanting to sell peripherals together with the self appointed and subsequently anointed (by the resellers) to assist in feeding the frenzy. And why not, business is business aint it? Ultimately, great art has been made with much less and this will continue to be the case. But all this is an aside to what is continuing in the commercial world where professionals working with expensive, state of the art purpose built tools are continuing to make commercial product. And they do this in teams. Just look at the credits of any commercial film or TV series. Things haven't changed all that much but the DSLR phenomenon may allow hopefuls to enter a field where before the opportunities didn't exist. In this way a DSLR is as good as it gets. And you can take great pics to boot.

This is actually a pretty unenlightened article. I’m particularly tickled by the caption on the Redrock Micro DSLR support kit which either confirms or implies that the author has never seen an actual cinema camera.

Additional captions support this and at least imply that he thinks that the form factor of camcorder technology was somehow good or didn’t have its own signature problem and the entire article ignores one of the biggest contributions DSLRs have given to video and digital filmmaking enthusiasts everywhere that has nothing to do with interchangeable lenses: tape is dead, and long overdue.

DSLR technology for moving pictures has evolved either by coincidence or in reaction to the stagnation in video technology development from traditional “video” companies who neither understand or seemed to care about the needs and wants of professionals and consumers interested in more than merely documenting a school play or birthday party, which is who this article appears to be aimed at or intends to provoke along with still photographers intimidated or resentful of a feature nobody is forcing them to use.

I’ll go search now for scathing critiques mentioning the mere presence of full-auto, program or other shutterbug, snippy-snap modes being present on DSLR technology. I’m sure there’s got to be someone out there incensed by the hypocrisy of these “features.”

Well then, you're crazy, and you're missing out. Firstly, MiniDV is dead. It sucked, and it will forever suck. Secondly, if you're shooting digital, you can do more with one SLR than you can with most anything else out there available to the consumer right now.

To prove you wrong, on all fronts, I ask you to watch the latest video I shot and edited, shot entirely on 5d MK IIs and Nikon D7000s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQiZUJiPTc&feature=youtu.be

Sorry, but you're wrong.

PS> gobs of consumers, prosumers and wannabes buying things they don’t really understand and/or don’t need is what brings all technology prices down, providing choice and a lowering of costs across the board over time for consumer investment in technology. This is true for software as well as hardware.

This is why a seat of professional 3D animation software no longer costs $60,000-100,000, an average desktop computer no longer costs $5,000-7,000 and why a DSLR camera body costing under $2,000 can and will produce moving pictures truly superior to a camera like the Sony F900 CineAlta that cost around $110,000 for body only, less than ten years ago.

But you offer nothing more than a personal opinion disguised as newsworthy information.

If you don’t like shooting video on a DSLR (not an SLR as your title states, move along, nothing to see here.

Writing for “effect” on a well worn subject is just tiring.

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s unfinished technology, poorly implemented, and not fit for purpose… “…., then why comment at all?

Video is not for photographers. Video is for people who work in video.

The video on these looks great, and is great.

This is like a businessman writing a huge article on why he is upset that his android sprint phone comes with a NASCAR app.

K Brown: I appreciate your comment. In fact, I appreciate all comments; a lot of people have had some interesting viewpoints on this topic.

However, you’ll notice that this is my blog, and you don’t get to tell me what to post or not to post on it. Of course it is opinion; hell, it’s even categorised under ‘opinions and rants’. If you don’t like it, start your own blog :)

It’s simple, when baby takes first steps, you want video. No full time professional is immune to this, but a “prosumer” is 100% in this category.

As long a useful video technology does not degrade traditional photography in the body, it will be extremely useful. It’s no different from all the modes modern camera’s have. In the end, it’s just a bit of software.

As far as quality, sadly, most reasonably priced video camera’s are such crap that a modern DSL with a video mode easily matches or exceeds their quality.

I agree with Tony Coleby above.
Still photo and video are two different artforms.
If the manufacturers are integrating video in the low end cameras, that’s kind of OK from my point of view, but it feels really “cheap” when they are integrating video capabilities in the high-end, PRO cameras (Nikon D3s, Canon 5Dii, Canon 1Div, etc)

If you where a carpenter, would you feel professional if you had a top-of-the-line hammer with an mediocre paintbrush in the other end?
Or a hammer and saw combination?
Hammer and drill combo?

…

Or a leatherman… wait. :)

those hand-held rigs are used with real video cameras too, they were just adapted for dslr’s so ragging on the fact that dslr’s using them is really a point.

alot of those things are required either way, depending what you’re doing. so for a beginning professional, like me, it seems more cost effective to get a camera with so many choices for $2000 instead one with limited selection over lenses for $6000

On the other hand, I think that there might be a market for Nikon, Canon, etc. to develop dedicated HD-camera bodies that are compatible (uses) with their respective DSLR lenses.

dSLR camera video features do really produce quality video…..the time and memory limitation is what takes it back…

My opinion is this. Video cameras have a function in life. SLRs have a different function. I have the 5D MKII and while it did come with video capability, it is clumbsy and I never use it.

I have the Nikon D90, and purchased it as my first DSLR to primarily take photos, to replace my film-bases SLR. While on vacation overseas, I played a little with the video side of it. I became fascinated with the video, and now I am doing a videography course to go further with this craft. The D90 is a stills camera, aimed at for the serious enthusiast. I am very pleased with my D90 as a stills camera. I think it is lacking as a serious video camera, but having said that, I took some great video footage with it. It may well be very handy as a second camera when doing my video work. I am however in the market for a good semi pro video cam.
The D90 video component does lack in basic areas such as audio control, and has other problems, but if you do the type of video filming within its parameters of limitation, you can achieve some very nice pleasing results. I certainly did.
Just as you would not buy a video camera to take stills, I think any person who is primarily wanting to do video work should still stick to the idea of buying a proper viseo camera.
So, in summing up, I do praise Nikon for the D90, as it was the first, and has introduced many to the world of video. And after all that, I still retain a wonderful stills camera. I say “well done Nikon”.

hahahaha…i like the dslr with some case for the video gear..im using canon 7d and im engaging video right now..I love those gear in the dslr..thanks for sharing this one..im very impress for the huge of it and inspired to buy on it soon..thanks again for sharing this one…clap! clap!

I kind of agree with you man… But honestly, that’s just how technology is. It’s always evolving and the exciting stuff is always coming in 12 months. It’s not necessarily the gear that makes a good photographer or videographer… People are too caught up on technology. The true genius is in the minds of the creators. Technology will always be changing.

ive seen alot of videographers using these now. for the price i dont think its going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree with you on that. I think it’s really silly to be carrying around a still picture camera to shoot video. I understand the advantages of lens and sensors, but the body is not made for shooting video. Getting all these ridiculous frames isn’t going to make it any better.
Tape is actually better for one reason: frames. You cannot do frame by frame editing with flash based video. It captures it differently. So if you are a serious video editor, you should use tape to keep all those individual frames.

DSLR video – love it. Through interchangeable lenses, filters, rigs, manual control etc you learn a lot more about filmmaking plus you are really making a film instead of shooting with a point and shoot.
What similar camera could you buy same price same sensor, and 50mm 1.2/lensbabies – no prosumer camera can beat that. Guess it’s a matter of opinion. But for me it’s simply learning how to use the camera. It’s a great camera for filmstudents as well, plus you get stills with it too!

I just purchased a Nikon D7000 as my second (moved up from a D60) DSLR and the video component was very important to me for the reasons you mentioned – mainly sensor size. It serves a pretty good function even though I don’t intend on making “movies” with it. I will use it in a semi professional way in real estate for video blogs and MAYBE for a video tour. MAYBE. I’m not sure they are that helpful in selling homes, but the actual quality is so much better and the new iterations are easier to use so I think they are here to stay at least on some level – even if they get their own category.

I’d recommend that anyone interested in the subject of DSLR video to take a look at the three part video called the Zacuto Great Camera Shootout 2010
Part 1 is at http://vimeo.com/11080239
It compares the output from two film cameras with a variety of DSLR’s. This was professionally done and the results were quite interesting. The bottom line was that DSLR’s right now can take great video in low light situations that film cameras can’t even approach (in a run and gun situation). And while film is still the standard for high resolution, it appears that much of the problem seems to more in the compression codec than in the native resolution of the sensors. So clearly as the processing power increases and the codecs get better, it is inevitable that film will become obsolete.
And that means that pro digital camcorders are going to have to increase the size of their sensors if they are going to stay in the game. Already we are seeing the still and camcorder technologies fusing. Most of the pros in the Zacuto videos were very hopeful about where this was all leading.