Reading mode: Light Dark

Seriously..what's the point of video on Dslr

Go to last post
Digital Click said:
Thanks for the input here. What kind of videos to you film using the DSLR? Need to get a HDMi cable now to hook up the camera to tv

Tan
Click to expand...
I have 2 little ones at home, so I'm always either taking pictures or making videos of them. I've done some family events and family weddings, etc. Nothing where stress was involved.

I do not have an HDMI cable for the camera. I have a home theater computer with a media server that I store my pictures and videos on. I can watch them on my HDTV via the computer, or my Playstation 3.

There's some very amazing videos that amateur DSLR film makers have put on youtube, if you're interested. It really is fun to use the video function, I enjoy it a great deal.

-Cheers
 
Video seriously done uses MF, especially if you really want to make use of shallow DoF available with the larger sensor. Just this past week I saw two groups of people shooting video on the Berkeley campus, both used dslrs, with the support gear and all. For everyday family shooting, the small sensored V1 works perfectly, including AF (but DoF is much wider).
 
Seriously, what's the point of a thread like this?

I have shot with most every video camera known to man and have made documentaries and narrative features. I love a good, dedicated video camera, but I have sold all of mine.

I remember buying a Letus adapter for one of my Sonys so that I could use MF 35mm lenses. Why? Depth of field and good old glass.

Aside from that one thing - which makes a huge difference - the convenience of carrying just one - or a pair - of DSLRs to cover all of my needs is a no-brainer.

There are many people buying DSLRs SOLELY for video. They do not shoot stills. Why would Nikon not put resources into building a product that satisfies the needs of two different consumer niches? And why would they not try to compete with Canon, who really has the market covered on video DSLR?

So, to quickly sum up this pithy thumbnail rant: quality, features, convenience on out end - smart business on Nikon's end? Why on earth would you ask this question? Perhaps you should do as I do every once in a while. I'll pull out my F3 and some film and reminisce. When I'm shooting and living in the modern world, though, I don't waste my time on this. In fact, there's even a modern world solution for you - the DF!
 
Hi , while I have never shot a second of video although owning 3 cameras that will do it I like the idea of having it if I ever want to use it. What I see as a problem is when a company tries to do it all in a fairly cheap package and ends up with a seriously compromised product i.e. the Canon 70D. Marketed primarily as a still camera with great video capabilities Canon has made it's ability to nail focus in low light situations a very iffy prospect unless you take the time to do a two button setup on each and every image shot to lock on a specific focus point. The camera has by default a group area set of focus points that will lock onto the subject with the most contrast which may not be the one you want to focus on. Having to push two buttons on every shot to lock the focus point renders it unusable in any type of action shooting. This seriously limits the cameras usefulness.

I don't think we are to the point of having a truly capable still and video camera yet that satisfies all of the parameters of both processes. I believe the technologies might exist to make such a camera but it wouldn't be affordable for most people. Look at what truly high end video cameras cost and then what the consumer market will bear for a dual action camera. We aren't' there yet,
 
Seriously Paul...get a life.

there has been some very useful replies here and we do not need an egotistical rant like yours..."I have used every video camera known to man" etc.... Guess you like making fantasies in your head.

PaulV said:
Seriously, what's the point of a thread like this?

I have shot with most every video camera known to man and have made documentaries and narrative features. I love a good, dedicated video camera, but I have sold all of mine.

I remember buying a Letus adapter for one of my Sonys so that I could use MF 35mm lenses. Why? Depth of field and good old glass.

Aside from that one thing - which makes a huge difference - the convenience of carrying just one - or a pair - of DSLRs to cover all of my needs is a no-brainer.

There are many people buying DSLRs SOLELY for video. They do not shoot stills. Why would Nikon not put resources into building a product that satisfies the needs of two different consumer niches? And why would they not try to compete with Canon, who really has the market covered on video DSLR?

So, to quickly sum up this pithy thumbnail rant: quality, features, convenience on out end - smart business on Nikon's end? Why on earth would you ask this question? Perhaps you should do as I do every once in a while. I'll pull out my F3 and some film and reminisce. When I'm shooting and living in the modern world, though, I don't waste my time on this. In fact, there's even a modern world solution for you - the DF!

--
Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived.
Click to expand...
 
ormdig said:
Hi , while I have never shot a second of video although owning 3 cameras that will do it I like the idea of having it if I ever want to use it. What I see as a problem is when a company tries to do it all in a fairly cheap package and ends up with a seriously compromised product i.e. the Canon 70D. Marketed primarily as a still camera with great video capabilities Canon has made it's ability to nail focus in low light situations a very iffy prospect unless you take the time to do a two button setup on each and every image shot to lock on a specific focus point. The camera has by default a group area set of focus points that will lock onto the subject with the most contrast which may not be the one you want to focus on. Having to push two buttons on every shot to lock the focus point renders it unusable in any type of action shooting. This seriously limits the cameras usefulness.

I don't think we are to the point of having a truly capable still and video camera yet that satisfies all of the parameters of both processes. I believe the technologies might exist to make such a camera but it wouldn't be affordable for most people. Look at what truly high end video cameras cost and then what the consumer market will bear for a dual action camera. We aren't' there yet,
Click to expand...
 
Digital Click said:
Seriously Paul...get a life.

there has been some very useful replies here and we do not need an egotistical rant like yours..."I have used every video camera known to man" etc.... Guess you like making fantasies in your head.
Click to expand...
Seriously, Mr Click, stop taking yourself so seriously.

Yes, I have not shot literally every camera known to man, but I have been shooting video, making movies about the history of video, and writing about video since the mid-80's, so I think I am entitled to engage in some hyperbole for the sake of furthering the debate here.

Instead of engaging in an ad-hominem attack on me based on one phrase and then saying "etc," you should perhaps discuss the other points I brought up.

You probably won't need to for my sake, though, as I will not revisit this thread.

Get yourself a life outside of DPReview.
 
Digital Click said:
Hi all

Just got my d750 a recently with 24-120. Love the camera and sold d3s for it. Many years back I used to shoot video with panasonic 3 chip compact video camera and made short documentaries with it. Loved it with great video quality and really smooth zoom and continuous focus.

So now trying out video on d750 and what a pain! The focus zoom hunts a lot and noisy it gets picked up on footage. Zoom is damn hard to use smoothly. The experience is not very good. Or is it just me getting old? My ten year old plus video camera was easier to use and handheld with image stabiliser produced easily acceptable results. With DSLR, I think you need a tripod all the time. Do you 'enjoy' using your dlsr for video?
Click to expand...
Not serious enough, because I use my DSLR for family and vacation photos, nothing professional, so I expect everything from my camera...

I don't 'enjoy' carrying things, so if I carry a DSLR then it better be able to take videos as well. You are dismissing the use case simply because Nikon did not implement it properly, not because it makes no sense... Cell phones are for making phone calls, yet they are decimating point and shoot cameras in sales, and to be honest host a better experience taking videos than a DSLR or dedicated video cam.

A little bit of determination (R&D) a few dollars per product (Bill of materials) is all it will take on their part to get proper live view implementation for on-chip phase detect for faster more accurate focus, and a proper lens focus motor design that is actually silent. A powered zoom function would also be needed. Of course, one would want to be able to control aperture as well. Basically, the reason Nikon's DSLR video implementation is poor, is because their focus has been on maintain legacy lens support. And "DLSR is for Photos only" types of users.

Seems like the easiest fix would be to make an all electronic lens (zoom motor, silent focus, electronically controlled aperture), add a bunch of more pins to the F-mount to drive these lenses and feature the mount on the new cameras going forward.... people who like their old stuff can go get a DF

Nikon makes great cameras and there is no reason why they should not be great at taking videos, if they were, then people would use them for this and no one would say "it makes no sense". I say, throw in LTE connectivity and a headphone jack so that I can make calls and listen to music off my camera too... no cell phone is yet one less thing I would have to carry around.

--
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
-Harlan Ellison
 
Last edited:
Wellllll it has its uses. I ride BMX and sometimes I need a shot of myself in mid-air. This is something that even most people have problems nailing the shot, so I set up my DSLR on a tripod, put it on 1080/60 and just shoot video of myself in mid-air. I then extract the frame from Adobe Premiere and voila! I got a good shot.

Also, the 60p is pretty cool for making slow-mo of action shots.
 
The point is someone can use it to take some video if they want to. and seriously, it actually works. I don't shoot video, only during vacation with family or friends gathering parties and things like that I will shoot a few just for fun, but it doesn't mean other people don't shoot or can't shoot video with their DSLRs, . I mainly shoot landscape and I don't use AF much, but it doesn't mean they should stop making better AF system just because I don't need it.
 
Last edited:
If you will shoot with a f4 zoom on the D750, you should consider the Panasonic GH4 which can shoot 4k video to a card. The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 lenses are both small/compact and superb optically. To further make up for the smaller sensor, they have many f1.4 or 1.8 prime lens.
 
Marketing Dept., convincing the feeble it is something of Value. I wish DSLRs were sold without it, might lower the cost if it wasn't there. If you wanna do video, go buy a camcorder.
 
jimofcan said:
Marketing Dept., convincing the feeble it is something of Value. I wish DSLRs were sold without it, might lower the cost if it wasn't there. If you wanna do video, go buy a camcorder.
Click to expand...
...couldn't agree more.
 
Well I realize that we have a greater group here of Non Video Enthusiasts. So let me clear up a couple things I see stated here that are misunderstood.

The main reason you have seen video implemented in to DSLR's is because you can shoot superior video with them compared to many dedicated camcorders Why, because of the sensors!

Especially, FF sensors, and APS-C are also excellent with the same advantage. Most of your camcorders have either 1 or 3 sensors in them, with the biggest being 3/4" and many at 1/2". Your more expensive Camcorders have 3 sensors, one each for RGB, and even those sensors are never above 3/4".There are also many other features in them that are more dedicated to the Pro video market. Most camcorders suffer from shooting in Low light, because of the small sensors that many use, especially 1/2". When Canon put video in to there DSLRS, they ignited and created a huge market and demand for DSLR Video Cameras. The FF sensors are so much better in low light, even the very early Canon 5D MII. Since that camera they have improved the Low Light specs by at least 3 times better than the 5D MII.

So with a DSLR you get superior Low light video, Super fast Lens's F1.2, 1.4, 1.8 in prime glass, and even some zooms, Tokinas 11-16mm is a hugely popular lens in the DSLR world of video.

You all so get greater control over depth of field, a very desirable feature in cinematography, and you also get a major benefit in focus, and sharpness, due to the wide choice of many lens's and adapters. Then there is the cost, If you keep things simple, (Invest wisely) you can gain a far superior shot quality compared to many camcorders, hence, why we now have so many budding videographers, using DSLR's. Powered Zooms on camcorders is very different compared to a few powerd zoom Len's that we are seeing coming out for the DSLR's, because on a camcorder, once you know the subject, and set your shot, you zoom all the way in on your subject, focus, and then you can zoom in and out in the complete zoom range and be in focus, as long as your subject does not move in towards or beyond the original focus set point. It's called Par-focal.

With a DSLR lens you have to set focus and continue to set focus, (Pull-Focus) as you shoot. Of course this all depends on your camera movement, and your subjects movement.

There's no mistaking the difference between shooting video with a DSLR, it's work, and can be a real challenge. But, the rewards are pretty significant when you do.

I have been a stills shooter, mostly Landscape, for many years, Yes I'm an old fart, But I fell in love with shooting video on a DSLR, I love creating video landscapes, I have a video that I'm working on now that is a compilation of different river and stream shots that I will use to play back on my 60" TV when I have guest's over or just for my family's enjoyment. I have found that my stills experience has been so rewarding in learning to shoot good video.

There are so many more things to think about, very challenging. Now I still love shooting stills, capturing a special moment in time. For me It has been a challenge trying to find a DSLR that can give me great features and the latest tech to allow me to capture great images, and still print them at a decent size, Bigger than 11x14. And, still give me many of the Video features that I want.

So far my research has me really looking pretty hard at getting a Nikon D750, The specs look very nice, and I know that there is plenty of great glass available. This might just be the Camera that I have been looking for. I know there will always be better cameras coming, but I have been through a number of different sensors and cameras, so I think that I can settle in on this Nikon D750. I'm going to rent one next month and give it a trial.

In general, Nikon has been behind the times compared to Canon in the video specs of there DSLR's, but I think they are now getting it. They would be crazy not to, it's a low cost feature set to gain a larger market selling the same gear.

In closing let me say this, video is a lot of fun shooting on a DSLR I can capture a moment in time, and a sequence of moments in time. OH yeah, then there is the post world!
 
olyflyer said:
I don't think that such camera exists. Especially if we add EVF, manual focus and manual zoom abilities as well. IQ may depend on your requirements, because if you only shoot in bright light then it may not be an issue whatever camera you are using, but in low light the full size image sensor is a real blessing.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are several cameras like this. The Canon XA-10 is an example that even takes professional XLR microphones that need phantom power. It has earphone monitoring, built-in neutral density filter, and a 10-1 fixed fast zoom lens. The native 1/2" sensor resolution is 1920 x 1080, so there's no downsampling, moire, or aliasing.

I own this camera, and it shoots very excellent quality video in both bright and dim lighting conditions. The autofocus is much superior to an SLR, and with it's electronic viewfinder and touch screen, the ergonomics are much better, too.

But I also shoot video with a D810. The lens choice is wider, it's easier to isolate a subject with shallower deep of field, and manual focus is not usually a problem. It isn't good for casual run-and-gun shooting, however. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
gskolenda said:
I will use to play back on my 60" TV when I have guest's over or just for my family's enjoyment.
Click to expand...
can you tell me how this is done if I cannot connect my computer to my tv with cable?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
well one thing is true for me..i always thought of the video as a gimmick and not something to be taken seriously,,,but now I have seen a whole new side of things and am going to be doing some serious video,,,any recommendations as to editing software?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top