Dslr or video camera

[joel222]

So I currently photograph weddings on a canon 6d, which I also use for making short personal videos of my kids taking part in sport etc. As I'm used to the wedding environment and enjoy working at weddings I thought I might try my hand at wedding videography, obviously not jump straight in but learn the trade so to speak. Now I already have a couple of dslr's which I was planning on using but have been told that I'd be better off with a purpose made video camera.

What are people's thoughts on this?
What kind of money would I need to spend on a purpose made camera?
Would I be able to use both and combine in post as I like the effects you can get using a dslr like shallow dof?

 

[RandomlySet]

TBH, from what I've seen online, stick with a DSLR more aimed towards video quality.

From everything I've seen on YouTube, folk are either on a DSLR or drop £100k+ on a Red camera lol

 

[paul.w]

Have a look at the Panasonic gh5, it's a 4k mirrorless micro4/3 system camera that costs around £1500/ £1700.
There is nothing on the market that compares with it, in terms of features for price. It records 4k video at 4:2:2 10bit internally to affordable sdxc cards, with no record limit, and in body stabilisation. It's in a league of its own.
...... oh my god, I sound like a Panasonic sales man, lol, but I can assure you I'm not.

 

[DemiLion]

... but have been told that I'd be better off with a purpose made video camera.

Actually he said camcorder, which would be complete and utter shoite for professional use.

 

[paul.w]

Actually he said camcorder, which would be complete and utter shoite for professional use.

Are you suggesting that camcorders are s***e for professional use? If so, there are going to be a lot of confused professionals out there, who've been running very successful businesses for years, with apparently s*** kit !!!

 

[myotis]

Actually he said camcorder, which would be complete and utter shoite for professional use.

It might be useful to have a look at the Camcorder section at CVP

Camcorders are the backbone of location and low to medium budget professional film making, and a far better choice than an adapted stills camera for weddings, assuming you can afford one.

 

[DemiLion]

Are you suggesting that camcorders are s***e for professional use? If so, there are going to be a lot of confused professionals out there, who've been running very successful businesses for years, with apparently s*** kit !!!

Camcorder to me equals a £250 Sony wonder job from Currys. So, yes.

 

[paul.w]

There are plenty of wedding videographers moving over to the Panasonic gh5, check out the Facebook forum or utube for numerous examples.
I can't think of any dedicated video camera under £6k that can better it for quality and performance, and you can buy it new for around £1700.
It captures 4k footage at 4:2:2 in 10bit with no internal time limits. At 150mbps to inexpensive sdxc cards, with a 400mbps firmware upgrade imminent.
What other camera out there can beat that in this price range?

 

[paul.w]

Camcorder to me equals a £250 Sony wonder job from Currys. So, yes.

That's hardly relevant, things have moved on. Camcorders are being priced at circa £2k or more and being marketed at the consumer.

 

[myotis]

There are plenty of wedding videographers moving over to the Panasonic gh5, check out the Facebook forum or utube for numerous examples.
I can't think of any dedicated video camera under £6k that can better it for quality and performance, and you can buy it new for around £1700.
It captures 4k footage at 4:2:2 in 10bit with no internal time limits. At 150mbps to inexpensive sdxc cards, with a 400mbps firmware upgrade imminent.
What other camera out there can beat that in this price range?

If this was directed at me, I don't disagree. That was why I finished with "if you can afford it".

 

[paul.w]

If this was directed at me, I don't disagree. That was why I finished with "if you can afford it".

I hear what you say. But for those on a budget the Panasonic g7 or g80 are more than capeable of filming weddings, and cost £400/£600 like many things, it's the skill of the operator which is the biggest variable.

 

[myotis]

I hear what you say. But for those on a budget the Panasonic g7 or g80 are more than capeable of filming weddings, and cost £400/£600 like many things, it's the skill of the operator which is the biggest variable.

Again, I'm not going to disagree with this. Mirrorless cameras, in particular, and DSLRs slightly less so, are fantastic video tools for the price and capable of excellent results in the right hands. But, if you have the money, and you are serious about video, then you need to also look carefully at the benefits of using a camcorder.

 

[KIPAX]

This question seems relevant to the original

I find I need a gimble (looking to get one) for my camera to keep things steady when moving about


I am guessing a dedicated video camera doesn't need a gimble.. is it equally as stable for moving around or is dslr/camera + gimble more stable ?

 

[paul.w]

Any kind of video camera can benefit from a gimble. Full size cameras can often be seen on a steadycam rig.
For dslr or mirrorless cameras there are plenty of options, Such as the "zhyun crane" for example. Larger cameras have plenty of options too depending on their size and weight.
The performance of any gimble depends a lot on the skill of the operator, but if you have to be moving while filming you can't beat the smooth movement created by a well balanced gimble.

 

[KIPAX]

Any kind of video camera can benefit from a gimble. Full size cameras can often be seen on a steadycam rig.
For dslr or mirrorless cameras there are plenty of options, Such as the "zhyun crane" for example. Larger cameras have plenty of options too depending on their size and weight.
The performance of any gimble depends a lot on the skill of the operator, but if you have to be moving while filming you can't beat the smooth movement created by a well balanced gimble.

Right i thought a dedicated video camera had it built in ..was looking at panasonic camcorder.. so they need a gimble then ?

 

[paul.w]

Some of the Panasonic cameras have ibis (in body image stabilisation), and some of their lenses also have image stabilisation as well, if you combone the two (stabilised lens and stabilised body) you can record steady images while standing still. But they aren't nearly good enough for Filming while moving, or climbing steps etc. For that you will need the Gimble.

 

[realspeed]

I have to disagree. A good video camera will beat hands down A DSLR camera price for price for video work.

Many members here don't do video work so it is understandable why they may be more in favour of DSLRS and not used a camcorder or video camera. You will have noticed that those using DLSR for videos have not put up any examples of video work with a DSLR on this thread . That says a lot to me

To do video work commercially you would need to go into the pro range of video cameras but even then you don't need to spend thousands. The audio input alone tells you which is better.

I have a Panasonic HC-x900m camcorder as well as Nikon D800 and D300 and for video work the camcorder every time

Try doing this with a DSLR hand held. The zoom is amazing if you watch how it says in focus even at the end

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zocBr0JOGUk

 

[paul.w]

I have to disagree. A good video camera will beat hands down A DSLR camera price for price for video work.

Many members here don't do video work so it is understandable why they may be more in favour of DSLRS and not used a camcorder or video camera. You will have noticed that those using DLSR for videos have not put up any examples of video work with a DSLR on this thread . That says a lot to me

To do video work commercially you would need to go into the pro range of video cameras but even then you don't need to spend thousands. The audio input alone tells you which is better.

I have a Panasonic HC-x900m camcorder as well as Nikon D800 and D300 and for video work the camcorder every time

Try doing this with a DSLR hand held. The zoom is amazing if you watch how it says in focus even at the end

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zocBr0JOGUk

Not suitable for pro work ........ REALLY???
I think the problem here is that photographers haven't a clue how mirrorless has moved on!

 

[paul.w]

Oh and by the way, are you aware that full broadcast parfocal b4 cinematic lenses can now be used on mirrorless bodies,
And studio pro xlr phantom powered microphones are common place too.
Come on guys, it's the 21st century .... do try and keep up!

 

[paul.w]

View: https://youtu.be/4YqFhn_58nA

Not suitable for pro work?
Can't compete with a good video camera?
All with a budget less than your top spec dslr dinosaur.

 

[Angelboy]

My mate is a professional freelance cameraman and he still uses his Canon 5D MkIII for some shoots. His main go-to camera is a Sony FS5 which is a completely different beast. Some of his friends have a range of cameras set up on a shoot, even stuff like a Canon powershot G7 to use in a multi camera set up.

His advice to me has always been that the gear can be somewhat irrelevant and that you can get some great shots with an iPhone.

You still need to consider someway of capturing great audio, which you can do completely separate to the camera if you wish.

 

[paul.w]

I don't wish to labour the point, but the 1minute demo below was shot with a gh4, which you can pick up for around £500. Which kind of puts pay to the idea that you can't shoot broadcast quality footage with a consumer camcorder.
If a more expensive "pro range" camera would of done any better I'd like to know. The gh4 has often been used as a "B" camera along side such cameras as the "red dragon" and top spec models from arri, and the footage dovetails seamlessly.
The gh4 and gh5 both have purpose made audio input attachments that accept phantom powered xlr microphones and line inputs from audio mixers, Exactly the same mics as used on £30k cameras.
Oh, and the gh5 is a higher spec than the Sony fs5, its more on a par with the fs7.
Now you'll understand what's causing the sale of mirrorless cameras to go through the roof.

View: https://youtu.be/IR8Bjkdi1_0

 

[realspeed]

Where is in that video showing the zoom capabilities, it does not, may be it is not able to

 

[DemiLion]

Try doing this with a DSLR hand held. The zoom is amazing if you watch how it says in focus even at the end

Where is in that video showing the zoom capabilities, it does not, may be it is not able to

Are you seriously punting that video clip as being of 'professional' quality?

The IQ goes from average (wide angle) to nearly unusable (zoomed in).

Unless you're flogging wedding videos for £350 a pop, all day coverage that is.

 

[realspeed]

to get a DSLR to zoom that amount you would have to change lenses at least once. Come on show a DSLR with its zoom ability. The one I put up was from my camcorder costing new about £850 taken from a moving boat and hand held. No not professional never said it was.
Until one tries with both DSLR and a camcorder or vido recorder , one can't really say one is better than the other.
but a camcorder is far easier to use

 

[DemiLion]

I wouldn't want a video camera to zoom that amount.

It's a bit like boasting about having the largest penis in the world. It may win arguments but it's sod all use if you can't get an erection.

 

[realspeed]

My point trying to get across is if DSLR's are that good then why don't news crews use them or in a TV studio use them. They can't do the job it is that simple


Quote "I wouldn't want a video camera to zoom that amount." unquote



At least you are gracious enough to admit DSLRS can't do it

 

[DemiLion]

My point trying to get across is if DSLR's are that good then why don't news crews use them or in a TV studio use them. They can't do the job it is that simple

Um, they do. Not all of the time, but they do.

 

[DemiLion]

The other thing to bear in mind of course that up until very recently broadcast (especially live transmission) was shot for fairly low resolution so the quality could be pretty shocking and still usable.

Nowhere near up to the standard that a decent wedding vid (or any locally viewed capture) should be.

 

[Angelboy]

My point trying to get across is if DSLR's are that good then why don't news crews use them or in a TV studio use them. They can't do the job it is that simple


Quote "I wouldn't want a video camera to zoom that amount." unquote



At least you are gracious enough to admit DSLRS can't do it

I don't think it's a simple as saying that news crews or TV studios don't use DSLR therefore they're not as good. The OP asked about doing weddings not shooting information content that usually requires the full frame to be in focus.

I don't believe there is a 'one size fits all' camera and to be honest, I wouldn't really need the zoom capabilities from a camcorder either. I'd be using multiple cameras with various lenses to give me the best degree of flexibility. I doubt I'd be so far away from the action to warrant needing a zoom like your referring to, I'd simply move closer.

The interesting thing is that I see more TV content shot in a DSLR style these days so they can't be all that bad.

And just to add a little more support for the lowly DSLR - http://www.recordingreviews.com/shot-on-cannon-5d-mark-ii/

 

[paul.w]

Edited

 

[myotis]

I have to disagree. A good video camera will beat hands down A DSLR camera price for price for video work.

I know I was advocating camcorders earlier on in this thread, but price for price, what you suggest is almost certainly wrong. I'm saying almost certainly as I have not compared every option against every other option.

DSLRs/mirrorless stills cameras used for video give very high quality at a lower price than you would pay for comparable quality with a dedicated video camera. They are also smaller, and with the larger sensor options, allow more control over depth of field than most camcorders would allow.

They have therefore allowed a low cost entry into professional level video, as well providing useful features for professional film makers who would normally use dedicated video cameras. They do/have suffered from issues such as aliasing, moire, rolling shutter and low bit rates, that have limited their use in the past, but this is much less of a problem now. The low bit rate was one of the reasons why until recently, DSLRs weren't used in broadcast, as the broadcast bit rate standard is/was 50mb/s

In terms of these issues Camcorders are still a "safer" buy.

But, the big advantage of camcorders is usability, as they designed for video, although this doesn't apply to all, the "normal" design of a camcorder allows operators to take its weight on their shoulder, the pre-amps are high quality, and it uses XLR connectors, will always come with a headphone jack, batteries sit on the outside of the camera so they can be quickly changed etc etc. You can get around this with a DSLR/mirrorless stills camera, but it just isn't as convenient or as functional as a camcorder.

The extreme zoom argument, is really a non-argument as for the vast majority of professional video, this isn't going to be needed, and the "quality" argument can go either way, depending on what you are comparing.

There is a lot of high quality video done on DSLRs/mirrorless, and its the obvious route to go for weddings, unless you can afford a camcorder. But that is an expensive option, with even something like the Blackmagic ursa mini coming in at around £5000 without a lens, and of course for weddings you would need a back up(s) as well.

 

[Tysonator]

Wow, this thread is a good read for ye and nays !
For me i do video on my eos 7D, and sony NEX5R a APSC mirrorless camera.

I did a test a few weeks back at Wheels Festival in Billaricay, Essex.
Both cameras take almostvthe same IQ. Both can have additional external mics, Rode Pro dor the 7D1 and the sony external mic for NEX5R.
For me the tracking AF is a big plis on the NEX5R, where I have to make any moving subject is within the depth of field I have dialled in.
And this is all hand held even though bith cameras have image stabilised lenses.

The output IQ and audio is ok for my personal enjoyment.
If I was doing paid shoots then I would either buy 80D for the AF tracking or Sony A6500, again for the DR and AF tracking.

Would i buy a camrecorder, mmmm no.
Not because they are not any good, or the zoom or hand held durability of the rig.

I have already brought into sony and canon ego system, i have lenses and exteral mics and bolt on LED lamps.

I think the Op / author neefs to consider cost, what can be utilised from current gear / kit, IQ out out, ease of post edit work flow.
I know bothy cameras do not shoot 4k and for so if not most clients might have an issue with that. That would be canon out of the race for me and I would look at sony gear upgrade only in a APSC sensor range camera.
Id the Op had not purchased any thing and asked which hard is better. Then the choice my be an easier wuestion to answer.
Sure the GH5 is an amazing 4k camera, so is 5Div, A7ii, A7Rii, the A9 and of course red dragon.
Gimbals are another consideration to take board for cost. So how much investment is required to get the desired oitput to sell to clients and what is the payback period !

Opinions are like arseh*les, everyone has one. I try to always keep an open mind on othee people's experiences. As tbey have done the testing for me. I have read that sone films, TV programs, documentariws have been filmed on DSLR's.
However they also use GoPro's and other types of cameras. So teally it is what ever works for you for the desired output !

 

[Angelboy]

Wow, this thread is a good read for ye and nays !
For me i do video on my eos 7D, and sony NEX5R a APSC mirrorless camera.

I did a test a few weeks back at Wheels Festival in Billaricay, Essex.
Both cameras take almostvthe same IQ. Both can have additional external mics, Rode Pro dor the 7D1 and the sony external mic for NEX5R.
For me the tracking AF is a big plis on the NEX5R, where I have to make any moving subject is within the depth of field I have dialled in.
And this is all hand held even though bith cameras have image stabilised lenses.

The output IQ and audio is ok for my personal enjoyment.
If I was doing paid shoots then I would either buy 80D for the AF tracking or Sony A6500, again for the DR and AF tracking.

Would i buy a camrecorder, mmmm no.
Not because they are not any good, or the zoom or hand held durability of the rig.

I have already brought into sony and canon ego system, i have lenses and exteral mics and bolt on LED lamps.

I think the Op / author neefs to consider cost, what can be utilised from current gear / kit, IQ out out, ease of post edit work flow.
I know bothy cameras do not shoot 4k and for so if not most clients might have an issue with that. That would be canon out of the race for me and I would look at sony gear upgrade only in a APSC sensor range camera.
Id the Op had not purchased any thing and asked which hard is better. Then the choice my be an easier wuestion to answer.
Sure the GH5 is an amazing 4k camera, so is 5Div, A7ii, A7Rii, the A9 and of course red dragon.
Gimbals are another consideration to take board for cost. So how much investment is required to get the desired oitput to sell to clients and what is the payback period !

Opinions are like arseh*les, everyone has one. I try to always keep an open mind on othee people's experiences. As tbey have done the testing for me. I have read that sone films, TV programs, documentariws have been filmed on DSLR's.
However they also use GoPro's and other types of cameras. So teally it is what ever works for you for the desired output !

All makes sense.

I would add that this 4K aspect is a great buzz word but one that's not entirely necessary. Again, my mate upgraded all his gear to 4K but he's the first to admit that nothing is really broadcast in 4K, in fact not so much is broadcast in HD - although it is on the increase. The 4K is purely for future potential when the technology becomes more widespread and by that time we'll be on 8K or even higher so your chasing your tail with it. A wedding couple will get more future enjoyment from a well shot video that captures the essence of the day and tells that story well, rather than the quality it's shot in. You simply can't predict what quality of format will be available in 25 years time but a story is a story and that's what needs to be captured.

I'd say that for weddings it would be better to have a solid tripod(s) and some sort of stabiliser to get some movement into the shots.

You're right with GoPro's and DSLR's being used for TV but they have a limit to the amount of footage shown within a piece. I can't remember what it is but it'll be 25% or lower with the rest of the shots on cameras that are on their broadcast list. I haven't seen an up-to-date list, I think that last time I saw it was when they allowed the Canon C300 but no mention of the Canon 5D mkIII so maybe the mkIV is on it now? I don't know.

I would consider using a, or several, cheap camcorder(s) on a wedding but these would be passed around the wedding party for them to get some shots on. You never know what 'gold' might come out of them.

 

[Tysonator]

I agree with you Angleboy, 4k on kit today is really trying to be future proof to some degree. Problem some areas of technology are moving atvan alarming rate. Smart phones seemed to have slowed down a bit now. As the emphasis aeems to be on hetting more screen than case in you hand.

I think film makers use what ever gives them the desired effort or what the budget will allow. I have looked at gimbals and they are a massive amout of investment for me. As i will only shooting holiday, and YouTube videos. So i will just do my best the old fashion way.
Some serious vBloggers use gimbals as tbat has become their job. So that investment will pay off for them. For me investing in a secent external mic has been the best buy.

Aty wedding we pit a disposable boots film camera on each table. Nowadays it could be like you mentioned a cheap cam recorder.
The angles and moments children capture are very interesting.

I watch Tony Northrope YouTube vid. He mentioned that the reason DSLR's ony have 29min duration is due to tax implications ( US i suspect ) and that is why the gh5 can shoot longrr than 29mins.

 

[Angelboy]

I watch Tony Northrope YouTube vid. He mentioned that the reason DSLR's ony have 29min duration is due to tax implications ( US i suspect ) and that is why the gh5 can shoot longrr than 29mins.

But in reality, you shouldn't be going anywhere near 29 minutes recording time anyway. The audience attention span is so short that you have to keep the momentum on screen moving otherwise their attention will be grabbed off-screen - so job failed!

There will be moments in a wedding video where you might leave a camera recording but only with the intention of cutting it with other clips or maybe using the audio track from one set up (if the audio is being captured on the camera that is) but not really nearly half and hour of a singular shot.

 

[paul.w]

Wedding services and speeches often last much longer than 30 minutes, and if the couples budget only stretches to one camera and operator, you have a problem! However, 4k can be a godsend in this situation, when filming in 4k, and editing on a 1080 timeline, (which is common) the editor can "crop in" from a wide to a tight shot and back again, in real time, and in perfect sinc.

This is just one of the many advantages of filming and editing 4k footage. And one of the advantages that people who have never done it, know nothing about. And yet I constantly hear the same crap spouted by people who say "you don't need it. You can't see any difference, it's not good enough for broadcast " etc etc.

These people clearly don't film and edit in 4k very often, to say the least.
There seems to be a misunderstanding on this forum on what is covered by the term "camcorder" a consumer camcorder may well cost £2000 not just a few bob from Argos.

Pro camcorders may cost well over £30,000. But the gap in quality and features between pro and consumer cameras is narrowing at an alarming rate. When the time comes for broadcast content creators to upgrade their gear, it will be interesting to see what decisions they make, especially when you consider you can record 4k raw footage now on £5000 cameras.

 

[Angelboy]

Wedding services and speeches often last much longer than 30 minutes, and if the couples budget only stretches to one camera and operator, you have a problem! However, 4k can be a godsend in this situation, when filming in 4k, and editing on a 1080 timeline, (which is common) the editor can "crop in" from a wide to a tight shot and back again, in real time, and in perfect sinc.

I get what you're saying but just to be cropping the shot in and out over 30 minutes?!?!? Nah!

I think you'll always find a point that you can cut the shot and fix in post. Not only that, speeches these days, especially the best mans speech, usually has some kind of additional focus point, as in they have a big screen playing clips or showing photos. To be able to catch all that on one camera plus keep it recording over 30 minutes is still going to require fixes in post.

Again, if you film one speech/service from one angle for 30 minutes then you've already lost your audience 27 minutes ago!!!

This is just one of the many advantages of filming and editing 4k footage. And one of the advantages that people who have never done it, know nothing about. And yet I constantly hear the same crap spouted by people who say "you don't need it. You can't see any difference, it's not good enough for broadcast " etc etc.

These people clearly don't film and edit in 4k very often, to say the least.

If that's the method you use then fair enough, but don't tell others that it's the only way. What did you do before 4K? We watch content all the time shot in inferior formats yet the story will still entertain us.

Don't get too bogged down on the equipment and the quality and focus your attention on how to entertain. I posted a link to a load of movies that had used multiple format cameras but the equipment means nothing without the story.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this forum on what is covered by the term "camcorder" a consumer camcorder may well cost £2000 not just a few bob from Argos.

Pro camcorders may cost well over £30,000. But the gap in quality and features between pro and consumer cameras is narrowing at an alarming rate. When the time comes for broadcast content creators to upgrade their gear, it will be interesting to see what decisions they make, especially when you consider you can record 4k raw footage now on £5000 cameras.

Agreed, but to go back to the OP's original post. He's a photographer looking to bolt on video as a service not a camera operator or production company who would approach a wedding from a different perspective. This being said, he'd probably get more out of using DSLRs to shoot his content. How we got onto Argos quality home camcorders was strangely because of a zoom ability on said camcorder. That's the least of the features needed to video weddings - I think anyway.

 

[Tysonator]

Wedding services and speeches often last much longer than 30 minutes, and if the couples budget only stretches to one camera and operator, you have a problem! However, 4k can be a godsend in this situation, when filming in 4k, and editing on a 1080 timeline, (which is common) the editor can "crop in" from a wide to a tight shot and back again, in real time, and in perfect sinc.

This is just one of the many advantages of filming and editing 4k footage. And one of the advantages that people who have never done it, know nothing about. And yet I constantly hear the same crap spouted by people who say "you don't need it. You can't see any difference, it's not good enough for broadcast " etc etc.

These people clearly don't film and edit in 4k very often, to say the least.
There seems to be a misunderstanding on this forum on what is covered by the term "camcorder" a consumer camcorder may well cost £2000 not just a few bob from Argos.

Pro camcorders may cost well over £30,000. But the gap in quality and features between pro and consumer cameras is narrowing at an alarming rate. When the time comes for broadcast content creators to upgrade their gear, it will be interesting to see what decisions they make, especially when you consider you can record 4k raw footage now on £5000 cameras.

I have watched many Pro guys on YouTube stating that cropping in 4k down 1080 is the a big advantage of 4k, not that many people are playing back 4k video on 4k TV's
29min plus recorders would be good at events were the camera can just be left to run. Then in post aspects of the footage can be edited / cut to form form the finished package with other camera angles.

Personally if I was taking photos at a wedding I would not be able to operate a video device as well. So either set a camera running or there will be another operator shooting video only.
At my step daughters wedding early this year she had 2 people doing photos, another one shooting video and I was there as a guest armed with my DSLR. Of which I took many photos and some small amount of video.
The mood / market is shifting from just stills these days to video as well. Also the tog needs to upload some photos to social media to show what is going on now at the wedding. As most guests with a smart phone are doing the same.
we all need to move with the times and at the same time preserve the skill of photography over some one with an iPhone 7 !

 

[myotis]

I watch Tony Northrope YouTube vid. He mentioned that the reason DSLR's ony have 29min duration is due to tax implications ( US i suspect ) and that is why the gh5 can shoot longrr than 29mins.

Its an EU thing, the duty on imported video cameras is higher than it is for stills camera and 30 minutes is the cut off between stills and video. But, depending on make, it seemed to influence the recording time on cameras sold outside the EU

I assume that Panasonic decided that with the popularity of the GH5 for video they would still sell well, even with penalty on price. Previously they had a GH4R available that also allowed more than 29 minutes.

But there have also been over heating issues with several DSLR type cameras used for video, which has often restricted how long you could video anyway. And some will stop recording and then immediately start recording again,after 29minutes just to get around the need to avoid continuous recording for more than 29 minutes, and hence keep the price down. And you can use an external recorder, which will extend the recording time.

I forgot to mention this as being one of the other camcorder advantages, which of course is being eroded with this change to the GH5, but I think other still type cameras are still restricted to the 29 minutes.