Thread: DSLR as a video camera?

On our last crossing of the Simpson Desert and then a week on the Rubicon Trail i used 1 GoPro combined with DSLR for extra video and stills.
The only thing i would change would get an extra GoPro, the DSLR really work a treat in video mode.

Hope this helps

David

It seems that DSLR video may be getting better than "dedicated" video cameras. Canon 5D is used to capture professional action eg the TV show "House" is videoed with a 5D mark ll.

The reason seems to be that there is a far better choice of lenses and exposure control. The down side is that focus is not dynamic unless you change it manually. Although some digital cameras eg Sony and the newer Canon (and others I'm sure) have overcome this.

I would not be buying a video camera. A DSLR does it better, provided you get one with the capability.

Scroll down on this page and check the videos: Nikon D800 D-SLR Camera | High Dynamic Range Camera

I have a canon 5D mk III that I purchased just for still images but omg the video it produces is simply outstanding. If your bank balance can handle the hit and you have a few nice lenses then grab the the mk III and prepare to be impressed

This was made for a client of mine, pretty much entirely made on DSLRs.

[ame="http://vimeo.com/18037401"]Dream Of Dakar on Vimeo[/ame]

I have a cousin who is a film maker and uses a Canon 5DMkII for all his work.

Seriously though, having access to a DSLR and a library of quality lenses allows pretty much ANYTHING to be filmed where it would have cost a good chunk of a house to film 20 years ago. No longer does cost prohibit clever people from making good stuff. Submersible housings, clever vehicle mounts and so on are all accessible now.

It also means that anyone can now make terrible home movies in HD.

DSLR's as video cameras are a good thing if you have a non-critical eye for the finished product. I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here, but many viewers simply do not know the difference between good video and bad.

The main difference comes down to the sensor in the camera. If a video camera is designed to have a 1920 x 1280 pixel output, then its sensor will be (in layman's terms) 1920 x 1280 pixels in size. A DSLR sensor is designed to take photos and the pixel count in the sensor is many times more than in a video camera sensor. For example, a 12 megapixel camera could have 4000 x 3000 pixels. So, when a DSLR camera is taking video, millions of pixels are not required. Manufacturers can use different methods to achieve a video format output. They can either: "Crop" the image, using just the area of the sensor required, or they can use algorithms to "combine" pixels together. Most cameras use the latter. Either way, this is where quality issues arise.

I won't go into many of the other differences, but I 'll list a few:

• Rolling shutter. Video and still cameras use this technique, but it is how it is applied that can make a difference.

• Dynamic focusing. Already mentioned, so I wont go into it.

• Sample rates. This is different from frame rates. The higher the sample rate of a camera, the better the ability to do things like colour correction in post-production. Dedicated video cameras are better at this.

• Clip length, storage and how it is used. My dedicated video camera can record just over an hour of HD footage and then switch to a second card and do it all over again. Meantime I can "hot swap" the first card out and put another in, allowing for continuous shooting. My Canon 7D can film 12 minutes of HD video before it has to have a rest. (Not my idea, Canon's.) I won't go into why, it is just one of the differences that people need to be aware of.

• Shake. The design ergonomics of video cameras makes them easier to hold without shaking too much as you shoot. Try it with a DSLR! DSLR's and tripods are a must for decent, shake-free footage.

The footage on TV's "House" is shot in very controlled conditions and looks fine. Try and set up those conditions for your "shoot" and see how you go. If you want to do serious video work, get a video camera. If you're an enthusiastic amateur, consider the DSLR.

Remember, the money you spend on a halfway decent DSLR camera body will also buy a halfway decent video camera. Many people have the mind-set where they will happily spend a couple of grand on a DSLR but then baulk at spending a grand on a video camera. You get what you pay for. It's the results that you want that count in the end.

Cheers

The other huge upside of using a DSLR is committing to a lens system. Too many people talk pixels but overlook the lens, especially it's speed or ability in low light. Have a great DSLR and crappy lenses (under $500) and you'll get what you pay for—and this goes for video cameras too.

The ability for a camera to work in low light is a critical issue, as is the performance of the lens (it's ability to pull colour together with good detail, including those wanting to use HUGE zooms...). I don't understand why it's always about the back of the camera and never about how a camera really performs its first function... light passing through glass. For all of the cameras I have, but talking SLR, there is still one thing I can use from 15 years ago... the lens. DSLR supports that investment. Spend any extra cash on this, you'll have one less thing to worry about in the future and possibly a friend for life.

Hey, you can use a DSLR and get good reults, but this is what I had to do to get mine to really sing.



Good luck..

Ian