DSLR over a camcorder?

[nickzou]

So there's this girl at work who apparently does a lot of video and is a hobby photographer but apparently doesn't seem to know a whole lot about equipment. She ended up going to Best Buy and getting a Sony camcorder for around 900 dollars. I suggested that she return it and get herself a T3i instead. The T3i has a swivel screen, can connect to an external mic, and I remember hearing that the last season of House was filmed completely on a Canon DSLR (probably not the T3i though, but she's not pro nor does she want become one, it's just some volunteer work that she is doing). But honestly, I don't know much about camcorders... did I just give some really bad advice?

 

[HalftoneStudio]

The main drawback I see to SLR videography is the lack of adequate auto focus when recording. I know one of the new Nikons have a limited live-view af functionality but have not experienced using it. Some Sony slr's may have some kind of af as well. I think that the first company that makes a SLR with a video af system that's comparable to what you get while shooting stills will win over the vast majority of users that want to shoot video with their SLR, but don't have the equipment or techniques to really pull focus with the very manual system that cameras have today. As for filming House, as with most cinema cameras, there are at least 2 people working each camera. One for composition, one for focus and/or zoom operations and possibly another rolling a dolly or such. Take a look on B&H to see all the DSLR accessories you can get to help you shoot better video. I'm not saying it can't be done without all that stuff, just that for someone with little equipment expertise it'd be hard for me to recommend a SLR as a camcorder replacement for everyday shooting.

 

[OrionsByte]

If they do more video than still photos, they'd be better off with a camcorder. DSLRs certainly have some nice video capabilities these days, but they're not going to replace dedicated video cameras any sooner than video cameras with still photo capabilities will replace DSLRs.

 

[Big Mike]

If I recall...It was the last episode of House...not the last season.

And yes, while the quality of video from a DSLR can be excellent...the usability still has a long way to go.

 

[table1349]

If you want to drive a nail into a piece of wood, don't buy a pair of pliers you buy a hammer. You can drive a nail with a pair of pliers, but a hammer is more efficient, getting the job done faster with less effort. Of course there are some folks that would prefer to buy the pair of pliers to drive nails with just in case by some remote chance they come across a nut that needs tightening. Me, I use a hammer for driving nails.

 

[Formatted]

Look. If your serious about video, get a video camera. They are cheap these days and the quality you'll get is much better!

 

[nickzou]

Oh I forgot to mention that she also recently dropped and broke her 30D. She is a hobby photographer as well, the other incentive was to kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Overread19 7]

If you want to drive a nail into a piece of wood, don't buy a pair of pliers you buy a hammer. You can drive a nail with a pair of pliers, but a hammer is more efficient, getting the job done faster with less effort. Of course there are some folks that would prefer to buy the pair of pliers to drive nails with just in case by some remote chance they come across a nut that needs tightening. Me, I use a hammer for driving nails.

But what if I redesign that pair of pliers so that they now have a free hammer attachment that does not impede the regular use of them, but also adds a good hammer function? Cause that is what the DSLR with video is - ok its not a video camera and most photographers are not great videographers on their first go (its a whole other world of skills and methods).

I think some play down the video in the DSLR much in the same way that liveview was also played down as being just a point and shoot gimmic added for the cheap masses (which is clearly not the case since it appeared first in the 5DM2). For someone who is primarily doing stills and needs video support (and who has limited budget and space); for someone on limited budget but needing versatility in a video recording device (DSLRs are popular with Indy film makers and major ones - both for cheap prices for the former and for the latter the small size).

 

[Tigertail]

It likely depends a lot on what type of filming she plans on doing. If your'e looking to film short/feature length type films where each action/movement is well thought out in advance, having the DSLR's "film look" may be well worth the drawbacks inherent to those cameras.

There are some videos shot on DSLR's (typically pros will use the 5Dii) that are amazing looking such as the one below. You could not replicate that feel without spending upwards of 5-10K if not significantly higher for most video cameras.



However, if she's not looking to put in that much effort for the shot or is planning on filming live events, having a true video camera is likely best.

I personally went with a Canon 60D because I love photography and also want to film several shorts with my film school friends and felt it would be perfect for me. Each person is different though.

 

[Tigertail]

Look. If your serious about video, get a video camera. They are cheap these days and the quality you'll get is much better!

That's not really accurate as many serious filmmakers have opted for DSLR's due to their high quality and features that would not be present without spending significant amounts of money on true video cameras.

 

[KmH]

If I recall...It was the last episode of House...not the last season.....
.

And the DSLR they used had about $8000 worth of needed video accessories attached to it, not counting the sound equipment and post processing facilities they used which was a couple of million more in gear.

Redrock for video DSLRs

 

[subscuck]

But what if I redesign that pair of pliers so that they now have a free hammer attachment that does not impede the regular use of them, but also adds a good hammer function?

What if I just wanna go buy a hammer, get it home and start smackin' me some nails? Maybe I don't want to attach it to the pliers and then spend x amount of time developing the skills and technique to use said attachment. I mean, I already know how to swing a hammer.

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to think a lot of people (read: first time dslr buyers) are lured in by the video option only to find it's not anywhere near as easy to shoot video with an slr as they thought. I'm sure a fairly high percentage of them then abandon the idea of shooting video with it. The first dslr with a viable af system for video will, however, be a game changer.

 

[Dao]

If the person shoot video for events, report or regular family functions, regular camcorder is good. If he/she looking for cinematic filming at a lower cost, DSLR is a better way to go.

 

[subscuck]

And the DSLR they used had about $8000 worth of needed video accessories attached to it, not counting the sound equipment and post processing facilities they used which was a couple of million more in gear.

Redrock for video DSLRs

Damn you, Keith, must you always confuse the issue with all of these pesky little facts?!?!

EDIT: Aw, ****, this was my thousandth post. I was hoping to do something epic with #1,000 and instead, I do this? :banghead:

 

[Tigertail]

If I recall...It was the last episode of House...not the last season.....
.

And the DSLR they used had about $8000 worth of needed video accessories attached to it, not counting the sound equipment and post processing facilities they used which was a couple of million more in gear.

Redrock for video DSLRs

Any video camera being used would have had all of that too...

But I know what you are saying. One thing to consider is you can get an image stabilization rig as well as a very decent external mic for about $1200-1500 in total. If you add that to about $1500 you're spending on the camera, it's really not that bad considering you could still spend roughly $5k on a camcorder to get something that wouldn't have the same DOF, low light capability, or interchangeable lenses.