Comments on: Video on a DSLR – Would You Use It?

By: Stratman

Stratman — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:07:20 +0000

Darren, thanks for the very thought provoking article and an excellent one at that too!

I’m a traditionalist when it comes to dSLR cameras. Some people might find dSLR cameras with movie capability useful, but I’m unfortunately not one of them.

Everyone knows that dedicated video cams are never shaped like dSLRs for a reason – ergonomics.
You might want to try out your heavy L-series lenses on your Canon 5D Mk II for example, but soon enough the camera would be heavy and tricky to handle compared to a real video cam.

Having said that, I do own a Canon PowerShot S3is and a ultra-compact Sony Cyber-shot with movie recording capability, but I very seldom use the movie function on either camera. Even if I did, I usually record no longer than three minutes’ worth per clip. They’re light enough for one handed operation, but image quality wise nothing beats a proper video cam (whether analog Hi-8 or Digital Video format).

On the contrary, modern digital video cams also have still picture taking capability but the image quality is usually sub-par compared to a dedicated digital still camera. It’s for the sake of convenience in the absence of a proper digicam or dSLR. I doubt if a wedding video cameraman would use the still picture function to take pics – that’s why we have wedding photographers! ;-)

Even with the latest, HD capable EOS 500D (albeit at a sluggish 20fps), movie clips suffer from the “rolling shutter” effect which is absent in dedicated CCD based video cams. I would have bought the EOS 500D instead of the 450D if not for the substantial price difference (at least for me as a first-time dSLR user).

What I admired about the new EOS 500D is its new DiGiC 4 processor, Face Detection Live View, Creative Auto mode, multi-level Highlight Tone Priority and the ultra-sharp 920k pixel LCD screen (absent in the EOS 450D) but thought absolutely nothing of the EOS 500D’s video recording function.

I still have my old Sony Handicam TRV-23E from 1998 and very seldom used it for the past 11 years. I am not skilled at video recording and have no interest in the tedium of post editing movies. I found out that I am much better at still photography to video recording because I like to take my time in composing my shots. I don’t think I will buy another video cam again but will consider upgrading my dSLR body.

Lastly, I do wonder if Canon didn’t incorporate the movie function into the EOS 500D, it would have been priced more affordably than it is now.

Just my two pixels’ worth. I’ll get off my soap box now. :-)

By: njck

njck — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:42:40 +0000

what kind of elitist dslr moron thinks video doesn’t belong on a camera , only a meat head would limit your opitions ………… ps vote republican

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:08:05 +0000

I can see why having video in the low end begginner SLR’s is attractive to the amature photographer who woudlnt mind decent video so it saves the hassle of carrying around an SLR and camcorder. But i dont see why they’d want to put it into a semi professional or professional body. The Canon 5D MKII had full HD 1080p video but surly someone whos willing to spend that sort of money on a camera will be using that as a camera and will have enough money to buy a camcorder anyway? In my eyes all its doing is raising the price of the cameras which are already quite expencive for a feature most people will hardly use. This money could be put into development and research on improving sensors so we can get better quality stills from our cameras.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 04:35:26 +0000

I could be way off base, but all of you people who sound so offended by the idea of video on a DSLR remind me of the dinosaurs who 15 years ago said film will never die (of course there is still film, but it is gone from any meaninful mass market).

By: lesley

lesley — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:32:38 +0000

no photographer should find it strange to shoot a video on their dslr camera– in fact, it should feel completely natural. after all, you don’t have to get used to new equipment or technology– the only adjustment you make is getting used to working with motion. when i shot my first super 8 film, i wished i was shooting with my dslr– the camera i was using was heavy and foreign; the viewfinder was too small and i had no idea if it would turn out. to all photographers making the shift into filmmaking, being able to shoot video on your own familiar dslr camera is ideal. we all know that to be good at shooting a moving image, you have to be good at shooting a still one– most of the great cinematgraphers started out in still photography. the video quality may not be extraordinarily superb, but it is great for everyone who isn’t a professional.

(remember that technology grows at an exponential rate–a year from now video quality on a dslr could be quite astonishing).

By: kem

kem — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:38:37 +0000

I to do not think that a dslr is the place video. I say if you want to have video buy a P&S or a video camera. I for one want to see the DSLR stay the way they are. pure! they have come down in price now just about everyone is out buying one. so now P&S buyers want video on dslr. my mother bought one and does not understand any thing about one. she even trys to hold it like a P&S! I think that there are enough P&S people buying that the big three will do what the most want. it won’t matter what us die hard’s say in the end.

By: Rian Prestwich

Rian Prestwich — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:57:20 +0000

I believe that it defeats the purpose of having a DSLR if it has video compatability.
A DSLR is a still camera, if you want a video camera buy one. If you want something with both than you will either buy two or fork out heaps for a dual non dslr.

It would ruin the DSLR’s everywhere to have it..

By: TedB

TedB — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:14:51 +0000

The Dmovie mode on the Nikon D90 is one of the reasons I am planning on buying it over anything else in the market. It will be my first DSLR camera and combining the ability to shoot video is just to handy to pass up. The Canon 5D MK II would be my first choice. Its movie mode is much more functional but I don’t have that kind of coin. If the D90 did not have its video capability I would probably be buying another point and shoot. I picture myself wildlife shooting (Whitetail Deer in KS.) with the Nikon D90 and the 80-400 lense getting the snaps I want then switching to movie mode to capture some video for my website. Awesome!!

By: Rico

Rico — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:31:46 +0000

Not many years ago those who suggested video on a DSLR were laughed at and considered crass. Of course its a good idea, though I’m surprised Nikon and Canon have taken the lead considering many of their customers are rather conservative.

As far as I can tell, the only reason not to have video on a DSLR is to protect some feeling of superiority among those who like to consider themselves elite consumers (if not photographers). Those people should go back to their film SLRs, where they will be safe, and eventually cool again.

By: Bob Stein

Bob Stein — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:19:06 +0000

First of all, I am an amateur photographer. I don’t even own a DSLR, yet. I use a Sony DscH5. I supose you guys would call it a point n shoot. It makes a 7.1 megapixel photo and it shoots video. I just rolled over 10,500 pictures and videos. Each video counts as 1. So I have racked up quite a few shots with it. But I am still learning, that’s why I am here. I anticipate getting a DSLR in the near future. I don’t own a camcorder, so my trusty H5 has to record my grandchildren speaking in plays at school and church. I don’t plan on sending these movies to u-tube or selling them to anybody, but someday when one of them reaches the top some news organization is going to want to see how they started out and hear their voices and see them move. Packing a camcorder in one holster and a DSLR in the other might look good in a cowboy movie, but I sometimes feel a little overloaded dragging my camera case, camera, tripod or monopod into a school or church. A camera is a machine. It records history or a piece of art or useless junk. It sounds like some of the folks on this forum would be in heaven if they could drive around in a horse pulled wagon with a two-foot box with detachable lenses and a few hundred pounds of poisonous chemicals to develop their works of art. Technology marches on. In a few years I expect we will have small wrist watches that do all the functions of cell-phones, camcorders, DSLRs and who knows what else and keeps time too. Right now I intend to learn more about the current technology which is trying to overwhelm this old man. Nuff said, my wife says I talk too much.