Quality of video on DSLRs?

I thought we were talking about a DSLR to replace a DV camera. I would say go for it. The picture quality will be better but the sound quality worse - if you use the internal mic there will be focus motor noise. I have a Nikon 3100 and love it for both stills and video. The continous focus mode makes domestic type video on a DSLR practical and easy.
 
I have made a few short films (in my sig) and have used the panasonic and sony camcorders. Also used video on the 550d etc.
My conclusion (andI've researched it a lot) is that for under a £1000 you get a camcorder like the sd700 (£550 digrev). No slr will match its video without spending big bucks.
eos 550d, £550
lens £350
it will be far less good at video than the camcorder . far less useable and compromised. I think it is still true that the best for video is camcorder. the best for photo is camera. Its obvious but a shame cos I would love to have one dslr that did both. It would save money and weight...but it isn't there yet.. The panasonic evil dslr gh2 is probably the best but its V pricey let alone before you add a tele lens (I shoot birds and wildlife).
If you don't need a long lens the 550d could do both but theres a few things it just cant do and it is tricky to get good results unless you're really into your filming in which case you would I think find the DSLR too compromised...
DSLR's do not make higher quality video ,contrary to popular myth , but take MILES better photos..
hope that helps a wee bit. All the above applies to my needs, yours may be different,
al
 
oldnick said:
I thought we were talking about a DSLR to replace a DV camera. I would say go for it.
Click to expand...

That was the reasoning behind the question - I wanted to see if it was feasible to ditch the camcorder and get a slightly better DSLR instead with the money thats been saved.

But given that I want something quickly (probably before the insurance is sorted out) it makes getting a separate comcorder probably the best option. Also given the split of opinions currently thinking that the best solution is to get a camcorder and then perhaps try and get a DSLR body with video capabilities later on.
 
Nah, a DSLR certainly can't replace your standard consumer camera (although that may be changing with new cameras like the D5100). It's a different kind of animal, and requires a different kind of care to be able to shoot decent footage with it.
 
Yeah thats my thoughts.

Now trying to figure out whats decent at the lower end of the camcorder market.
 
I have to say I have seen some video's taken on the D5000 and I have been impressed (however mine don't look as good). I was in the same predicament when I was choosing my camera as it was between the D3100 1080p and D5000 720p, I decided that the D5000 was good enough quality for me and it had the edge on the camera side I thought :)
 
The more I think about it the less I believe I'm going to get the result I should from the insurance (its a complex claim and somethings going to have to give) and hence I'll probably go back to browsing ebay and the classifieds for another body. but I dont think the camcorder can wait as our wee boy is on the verge of crawing and its not something I'm willing to miss capturing.

EDIT: and I'd just like to thank everyone for the replies i've had. far friendlier than many other forums i've been on (y)
 
Last edited:
As a mate of mine has asked me to buy one (I get them at a good price as I work for the company), what about something like the Sony NEX series? They give decent video and are very easy to use from what I've heard. Something small and compact, but capable for video and the interchangeable lenses keeps the options open.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Have you thought about a secondhand panasonic lumix TZ7?
I had one and the video is pretty good. I'm not saying it's better than my HF10 but I found it a pretty good video camera, and not too bad a stills camera in one smal package.
Click to expand...

(wondered where this had gone - didn't realise there was a Video sub board!)

I've considered nothing other than whats in this thread to be honest. We have a lower end Lumix for taking snaps but I wasn't happy with a lot of them which is why I got a DSLR. Its capable of taking video clips but nothing special.

I dont know enough about the NEX range (any any of that type of camera) to consider them. In fact I probably dont know much about anything photography related and got fed being swamped by reviews and opinions which led to me just buying the EOS1000D in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Hello guys and girls

First post here

I saw that someone said about the A55 and A33

I have the A55 and lvoe it. only problem is the battery life is a little on the short side for my likeing and the hand grip is a little too short but I have found the OWNUSER do now make a grip that extends the hand section and adds more batteries.

I use it for stills and a fair bit of free runing video.
If anyone wants to take a look i can post links to some video clips I have.
and clips i have taken with A standalone video camera to compare.

Only problem is if you keep the standard Mic. it will pic up the sound of the motors focusing. so if sound is an issue an external mic would be good.
 
I'd say the video mode is great for still shots like keeping it on a tripod to avoid rolling shutter. I've seen great video from even the epl-1 by Olympus and on closer inspection there really is some thought in the subject.

Another thing I love about it is that you can manually adjust settings like aperture so it's easier to control than a conventional camcorder.
 
People keep talking about how basic camcorders are compared to DSLR's but my last three, and this goes back at least 14 years, have all had manual controls like shutter speed, aperture etc.
Granted you can't get the depth of field like with a fast lens on a DSLR but the good ones certainly weren as restricted as people make out.
 
dave_bass5 said:
People keep talking about how basic camcorders are compared to DSLR's but my last three, and this goes back at least 14 years, have all had manual controls like shutter speed, aperture etc.
Granted you can't get the depth of field like with a fast lens on a DSLR but the good ones certainly weren as restricted as people make out.
Click to expand...

Its more about the frame rate and sensor size. The size of the sensor make low light shooting in hd pretty pathetic from my experience, and the 24 frames per second modes just produce nothing like the 'film feel' you get from 24p on a dSLR
 
Last edited:
My HF10 does 25p and is pretty good in low light.

Im definitly not arguing that a DSLR can produce better footage, my point is that people are posting inaccurate statements about camcorders. Some of them are pretty comprehensive and while that don't have the large sensor or range of lenses they are mich more than just point and shoots.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Im definitly not arguing that a DSLR can produce better footage, my point is that people are posting inaccurate statements about camcorders. Some of them are pretty comprehensive and while that don't have the large sensor or range of lenses they are mich more than just point and shoots.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on your definition of camcorder. Most people will automatically assume £200 from Currys, and they'd be assuming wrong. :)

Given that the £7,000 Sony PMW-EX3 is also classed as a camcorder, as is the more recent £4,000 Panasonic AF101 (which has a MicroFT sized sensor) , and the new £11,000 Sony PMW-F3 (which contains a Super35 sized sensor - and theoretically should be better than the 5DMk2 in low light as it's a 2K chip with larger photosites, it's not trying to cram 22MP on there) are all classed as camcorders, using "camcorder" as a blanket statement doesn't work.

Camcorders are like DSLRs. There's cheap and crappy consumer models, and there's higher end professional models - some of which now contain DSLR sized sensors.
 
dave_bass5 said:
My HF10 does 25p and is pretty good in low light.

Im definitly not arguing that a DSLR can produce better footage, my point is that people are posting inaccurate statements about camcorders. Some of them are pretty comprehensive and while that don't have the large sensor or range of lenses they are mich more than just point and shoots.
Click to expand...

but if you can control those things on a camcorder then you are proficient enough to control them on a dSLR doing video as well - so why not get the tool that provides a better quality end product.

I had shutter, wb, manual focus etc controls on my panny sd800 or whatever the make was and even when using them is didn't make much difference - the quality was still poor.
 
Kaouthia said:
I think it depends on your definition of camcorder. Most people will automatically assume £200 from Currys, and they'd be assuming wrong. :)
Click to expand...

My HF10 cost me £700 when it came out 3 years ago, my old Sony Handycam Hi cost me around the same (probably a good 10 years ago). Both have very good spec and both have a lot of control or the main parameters.

As i said, im not arguing that a consumer camcorder's IQ is as good as a 5DMKII with a decent lens, or even a 550D with kit lens, just that some consumer camcorders are more advanced that others, but the argument against them seems to be directed at the very low end of that market which i find a bit one sided.
 
dave_bass5 said:
My HF10 cost me £700 when it came out 3 years ago, my old Sony Handycam Hi cost me around the same (probably a good 10 years ago). Both have very good spec and both have a lot of control or the main parameters.

As i said, im not arguing that a consumer camcorder's IQ is as good as a 5DMKII with a decent lens, or even a 550D with kit lens, just that some consumer camcorders are more advanced that others, but the argument against them seems to be directed at the very low end of that market which i find a bit one sided.
Click to expand...

not from me it hasn't i've had direct experience and my only comparisons are with my panny which cost me over £800 3 years ago
 
Hi,
I have had 3 camcorders and 3 SLR cameras with vidio.
Now I have Panasonic sd700 and I have to say that the quality of video is much better than those recorded with even Canon 550d. Before I had Nikon d90 and the video quality was total rubbish.
SD700 is perfect and I think it is the best affordable camcorder now.
 
samagroma said:
Hi,
I have had 3 camcorders and 3 SLR cameras with vidio.
Now I have Panasonic sd700 and I have to say that the quality of video is much better than those recorded with even Canon 550d. Before I had Nikon d90 and the video quality was total rubbish.
SD700 is perfect and I think it is the best affordable camcorder now.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the info

:D

post a sample? When you get back off holiday of course
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Many thanks for the info
Click to expand...

Haha! I actually laughed out loud then :D

I used my d300s when I was in Africa to shoot the documentary out there. It was OK... the main issue for me was the shooting time bieng limited to 5 mins and when we were shooting large sections in the bush, the sensor would overheat rather quickly, thus preventing you from shooting.

I get better video (and 30 mins recording time) from using the panasonic GF1.
 
jamesoliverstone said:
Haha! I actually laughed out loud then :D

I used my d300s when I was in Africa to shoot the documentary out there. It was OK... the main issue for me was the shooting time bieng limited to 5 mins and when we were shooting large sections in the bush, the sensor would overheat rather quickly, thus preventing you from shooting.

I get better video (and 30 mins recording time) from using the panasonic GF1.
Click to expand...

I can't help wondering how this is going to affect the life of the sensors in the long run.
 
My D5000 is fine shooting videos..yeah there's the 5 minute limit, so what? I'm very happy with the quality.
 
i have a 12 min limit, most clips i record are less than 2 mi utes long so it matters not to me, in fact i totally forgot about the limit till just now
 
Quick a quick update - I finally took the plunge and have ordered a Canon 550D so will be experimenting with the video as soon as it arrives. Only got the kit lens to start with but will let you know how it goes.

Back up plan is to buy another sony camcorder of ebay - same model as old one as they are pretty cheap :)
 
You can get great results from video when you shoot with a "nifty fifty". You can really start playing with depth of field and shoot in low light. Something domestic camcorders have never been able to do well. 50mm f/.18 can be had for about £50 2nd hand and I highly recommend them.
 
I've got my eye out for a "nifty" but haven't seen one yet - only been looking since tuesday though :)

Haven't got desperate enough for ebay yet....
 
50mm are great for video but not the nifty version on a canon. the focus ring is so thin and grinds it is difficult to use for video, not impossible, i used mine a lot, but now i have the sigma 1.4 variety its much better
 
I bought a Nikon 50mm f1.8 with a decent focus ring and then a 5 quid nikon - eos adapter. obviously only works with manual focus but its ideal for video.
 
rockfall said:
I bought a Nikon 50mm f1.8 with a decent focus ring and then a 5 quid nikon - eos adapter. obviously only works with manual focus but its ideal for video.
Click to expand...

You want manual focus for video anyway. Oddly enough I was just playing with my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 on a 7D and a 550D the other day using a Novoflex EOS/NIK adapter and it worked great

The Novoflex ones cost a bit more than a fiver though. I definitely believe you get what you pay for when it comes to the lens adapaters (and the inherent risks involved with cheaper ones).

At best you get a slightly loose fitting between lens and camera, which is painful when focus pulling. At worst you could short out the connections and fry an important piece of your camera.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
50mm are great for video but not the nifty version on a canon. the focus ring is so thin and grinds it is difficult to use for video, not impossible, i used mine a lot, but now i have the sigma 1.4 variety its much better
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is better but its also several times the price. I want a nifty anyway for general shots which it does get a good name for.
 
Kaouthia said:
I can't tell you the source right now, but one major US retailer of Canon cameras reported that approximately 40% of their 5DMk2 sales were to video production companies. I don't remember if this was B&H, Adorama, or who, but it was one of the very big US names. I know many people personally too, who don't shoot stills, don't ever plan to, and only shoot video with their HDSLRs.

You've got to remember, compared to other 35mm & Vistavision sensor sized cameras, the 5DMk2 is ridiculously cheap. A lot of these production companies (especially in the USA) would think nothing of buying a dozen of them, along with a selection of lenses for each when compared to the cost of something like a single Arri Alexa, and if you're producing privately (corporate web and training videos, etc), as opposed to broadcast, you don't necessarily need an Arri Alexa (or even something as relatively lowly as an EX1 or EX3).
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you can remember the source? I've been trying to track down some numbers on DSLR use for video :)
 
I really couldn't say, and Google's being quite useless.

You could try sending the big boys (B&H, Adorama, Jacobs, etc) an email asking if them if they mind sending you some anonymous statistics on their sales. Depending on the stats they ask for, they may be willing to share info. :)
 
Just a little update for anyone who's interested. I got the camera last week and took my first HD video over the weekend - read the manual to find how to start recording and nothing else. Results are surprisingly good although i'm sure the bright sunshine helped with the clarity of the footage.

One thing to note - HD video = big files ~300MB per minute so it doesn't take much to fill a 4GB card.
 
latercomer2 said:
Just a little update for anyone who's interested. I got the camera last week and took my first HD video over the weekend - read the manual to find how to start recording and nothing else. Results are surprisingly good although i'm sure the bright sunshine helped with the clarity of the footage.

One thing to note - HD video = big files ~300MB per minute so it doesn't take much to fill a 4GB card.
Click to expand...

yup!

I have 2 16gb 60 mb/s CF cards
 
Dedicated camcorder such as especially Panasonic SD700 is much better than even praised Canon 550D, or 7D. And I know as I own all of them and I used to have some other cameras and hd camcorders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top