Looking for a DSLR for Video, and Lost

[Ken Reeser]

I've decided that it would behoove me to have a good quality DSLR for video recording in places where my old HD camcorder is a bit cumbersome, and also updating my picture quality. But I am lost in the weeds and do not have any source of advice directly addressing my needs. It seems that many cameras have gone beyond simply adding video ability to their wheel of tools, but a lot of the information is either about still photography or narrowly focused on picture quality.

I was hoping some of you might have some tips.

I work in the legal video field, and occasionally have vacations. I'm looking for a DSLR that will shoot Site Inspections - which can mean one long take from the front of a property through the rooms and into an unlit attic, one take is all you get. Also travel video - which for me is climbing up mountains, crumbling castle ruins and out the window of a moving car.

What's really befuddling me are the controls that I would find on a camcorder are either not present or not well described on a DSLR: Power zoom, iris/auto-iris, touch auto-focus (ie, not always auto-focusing but press once to auto-focus), and occasionally ND filters.

I am also concerned with the dynamic range of brightness: Can I easily go from the daytime exterior to a dark closet without having to stop and futz with the menus?

I've also heard scary things about DSLRs mangling the audio & audio synch. Is that still an issue? Does any DSLR have an XLR input?

To sum up: Good video, good audio, ease of use, decent auto-focus and auto-iris. But I don't need the best of everything, so hopefully in the $1k to $1.5k range.

Any advice on specific cameras or the features I should be searching for would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Doug Jensen]

I can't answer all your questions, but I can give you one important piece of advice -- forget about using a DSLR for video. Nobody is using DSLRs anymore for video. What you want to look at are mirrorless cameras that look like DSLRs, but don't have a mirror and do have an electronic OLED viewfinder. The Sony A7 line of cameras is a good place to start, but Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic all have excellent choices as well. The important thing is that you want mirrorless -- not DSLR.

Something like this would fit your low budget. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1102009-REG/sony_ilce7m2k_b_alpha_a7ii_mirrorless_digital.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801

This would be even better.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1443776-REG/sony_alpha_a7_iii_mirrorless.html/specs/BI/2855/KBID/3801

[Doug Jensen]

Honestly, you may find that a traditional camcorder suits your needs better than a DSLR or mirrorless.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...2855/KBID/3801

[Charlie Ross]

By coincidence, the Sony FDR-AX700 and the Sony A7III (ILCE-7M3) are my two cameras. Acquired in June 2019 and April 2022 respectively. Prior that I was using cheap personal cameras. Way before that in the early 2000s I learned the basics as apprentice on a Sony DSR-300 DVCAM doing corporate/industrial/agricultural field shooting (I really mean sod fields). I liked that thing and it's probably where I developed an affinity for the video camera form factor.

To be honest, I find the AX700 more pleasure to use for video than the A7. It's because it has those features the OP found lacking in DSLRs. Also the form factor makes a lot more sense in my hands and to my eye, for shooting movement especially. Mind I generally mount it on a good tripod and fluid head. I have activities that pay some bucks that include photographs that are appearing in art publications now so that's the only reason I got the A7III.

[Larrie Easterly]

From the OP comments it sounds like he is hand holding the camera and doing a continuous take as he walks through a building. What ever camera he chooses should be comfortable to hold for long periods of time.

One thing to check on mirrorless cameras is the time it can record video before shutting down due to heat. Some cameras can only record a maximum of 20 to 30 minutes before shutting down.

Another important feature to consider is how the screen flips open on mirrorless cameras. I use a Sony A7S III and an older Canon XA-20. Both have screens that flip out to the left side and rotate. This allows me to hand hold them at waist level which I find gives me steadier images than holding them at eye level.

Most of the time I mount the XA-20 on a two handed shoulder mount with a remote control for camera.. This is not really possible with the A7S III due to the lack of a remote controller and power zoom feature on the lens.

Sony make an adapter for XLR input otherwise there is a 1/8” stereo input. I have never had an issue with the sound out of sync.

The dynamic range on the Sony is very good. Much better than the XA-20.

[Tony Neal]

You will be amused at my suggestion and probably dismissive, but hear me out.

Firrstly, DSLRs are only good for video if they live on a tripod or a gimbal - they are just too clunky to be used hand-held for video, and gimbals can get very heavy very quickly.

Secondly, being hybrid, they tend to be complex to set up - its taken me the best part of 4 years to reliably set up my Lumix GH5 for 4K video shoots, or for stills sessions with or without flash - but I still get days when the camera seems to be out of control.

So I needed something small and easy to use that could record high quality 4K as a second camera for video shoots but which I could also take on holiday.

The solution, surprisingly, was a DJI Pocket 2 (pause for comic effect).

The Pocket 2 is a tiny 4K camera with its own gimbal housed on a stick-like body (google it now).

You can shoot super-smooth 4K while walking, running or otherwise on the move, It can also shoot high quality stills and panoramas, comes with its own radio mike, connects to a phone app so you can monitor and control it remotely, and is small enough to literally carry in your pocket.

I could say much more, but I found the Pocket 2 to be transformative both for professional and personal use and I take it everywhere now.

[Paul R Johnson]

The big snag with a DSLR 'shape' camera is that you must be able to see the viewfinder image with glasses - especially progressive users. I can see them below my eye line, but even adjustable screens male life hard for glasses users. Add a screen to solve the problem and you've started a very awkward size and shape to manage.

[Jan Vanhoecke]

Originally Posted by Ken Reeser

What's really befuddling me are the controls that I would find on a camcorder are either not present or not well described on a DSLR: Power zoom, iris/auto-iris, touch auto-focus (ie, not always auto-focusing but press once to auto-focus), and occasionally ND filters.

Hi Ken, it seems that you're better of with a camcorder, it's better for the run & gun situations you've described. If you do want would buy a dslr/mirror, you will have to spend a lot of time to master it, because it doesn't work like a camcorder. If you are satisfied with filming only on auto setting...Then yes it will suit you.

[Paul R Johnson]

For stills I've always been a Pentax user, a swap got me video - tryin to use it was a faff, as my post above mentions - but I've switched to Canon, when a good deal came up I couldn't miss. My opinion hasn't changed. I still will not be using it for video. A very old Panasonic SD9 camera was in a case by accident - I've had this years and has a loose side viewfinder hinge. It still took perfectly good 1080 media, as was so simple to use with great images and good sound. my DSLRs have very basic audio capability.

[Ken Reeser]

Thank you all for the stories & recommendations! Much more than I had hoped for. The trend here seems to be steering me away from a DSLR for video, and it sounds like the problems with this approach I ran into are being confirmed, and then some.

(Please excuse my tardy reply. I had an unexpected assignment, then xmas took over, am just now able to regroup.)

One advantage I can see with the DSLR is the ability to simply switch to a wide-angle lens for wide-angle shots. Adding a wide-angle lens adaptor to my Ag-AC130 would make it even heavier, longer, and probably wouldn't come cheap. A wider angle would have been helpful at my last shoot.

I will be reviewing all the cameras mentioned and considering my purchase very carefully. I actually have a Pentax K-50 from around 2015-16. I'm going to have to take it out and see what happens when I shoot some video with it. Perhaps I'll do a detailed site inspection of my garage. Maybe it will be sufficient for my purposes.

[Dave Baker]

If it's a wider angle shot you want, why not consider a GoPro or similar, just for the wider shots?

[John Nantz]

Ken -
Hey - no problem with the “tardy reply”. Know all about workload, domestic and otherwise workloads.

Given one of the problems with various requirements (wide-angle, light variation, audio, handheld, etc,) here are a couple potential options. Both use the really great Sony VCL-HG0872 wide angle lens.

The VCL-HG0872 is an older pro-model that listed around $700 back in the day but this little jewel (its actually a heavy piece of glass) can be found on eBay in the $50 range (+ shipping & + tax). Threads are 72mm so will need step-up and/or step-down ring to fit whatever cam it goes on, and adapter ring prices vary all over the place.

One cam is the AX53, typically found in the 900 > 1,000 price range, might work for this purpose. It’s basically a point-’n-shoot cam, has a good gimbal, and wouldn’t weight that much during the course of the shoot (but the glass might). Used three adapter rings in my setup.

The other cam is the AX700 and has three ND filters and the wide-angle lens fits with two adapter rings. Haven't seen any noticeable vignetting on either cam.

The Wide Angle lens is shown with 3 adapter rings on the AX-53


With regard to lighting, depending on how dark the area is, would it be considered unacceptable to add a light that can be switched on or off during the shoot?

With regard to audio, is this a situation where you, or someone, has to speak during the shoot?

Both cams have the choice of built-in mics or 3.5mm jacks. The Røde Video Mic works well in both cases. Also have a Juiced Link Pre that has a pair of XLR inputs and connects to the cam with the 1/4-inch tripod screw. While walking and talking this is probably not an option.

The VCL-HG0872 wide-angle is a great kit addition for confined spaces. It has been used below deck on a sailboat and is super! Doesn’t get much more confined that that (except for a broom closet maybe). There was only one hassle with this kit and it was with two of the adapter rings “sticking together” but I found an easy fix for that with a couple pieces of Scotch tape. The VCL-HG0872 option is credited with research by Paul Anderegg on this site.

It would be nice to know how “classy” one needs the finished video for a courtroom, f.e., YouTube or Hollywood?

The wide angle lens picture is shown with adapter rings attached and on the AX53. The AX53 is to the right, and the AX700 is below for comparison.

[Ken Reeser]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

I can't answer all your questions, but I can give you one important piece of advice -- forget about using a DSLR for video. Nobody is using DSLRs anymore for video. What you want to look at are mirrorless cameras that look like DSLRs, but don't have a mirror and do have an electronic OLED viewfinder. The Sony A7 line of cameras is a good place to start, but Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic all have excellent choices as well. The important thing is that you want mirrorless -- not DSLR.

So I reveal that I am not fully conversant with still camera terminology. I was using "DSLR" to mean, "Digital Still Camera (that also record video)". Having looked at your links, I now know only that a DSLR uses a mirror and these others do not. Is that the only difference?

But more to the point: Why avoid DSLRs, and why is mirrorless so much better?

Thanks.

[Doug Jensen]

Ken,

There are quite a few things that make mirrorless cameras better suited for video than DSLRs. But the most important one is that DSLRs do not have an electronic viewfinder (EVF). The viewfinder on a DSLR is optical (that's the reason why they have a mirror) and perfect for taking photos. But when you put the camera into its video mode, the optical viewfinder is blacked out and all that remains is a tiny, low-resolution, poor quality, LCD screen on the back of the camera that is susceptible to glare, reflections, and usually cannot even be seen outdoors or in bright light.

By contrast, the latest generation of mirrorless cameras come equipped with a very high-resolution OLED EVF that can be used for both photos and video. The EVF shows you exactly what the camera is recording, plus a ton of important information regarding focusing, exposure, frame rates, codec, white balance, peaking and zebra. The difference between shooting with an OLED EVF and a tiny little LCD screen on the back of the camera is night and day.

If someone is happy shooting with an LCD panel, then they might as well just use a phone, and be done with it. :-)

Also, DSLRs have fallen out of favor with professionals, and most of the major manufactures have either stopped making them altogether or are no longer developing new models, That means that the technology found on exsiting DSLRs is outdated. Poor quality codecs, no high frame rates, lousy audio quality, lower dynamic range, lower video resolution, crude peaking and zebra controls, crappy auto-focus performance, etc.

There are more differences than what I have listed, but those are the biggies. DSLRs had their time in the spotlight about 10 years ago, but technology has moved on.

[Paul R Johnson]

Somebody flew over to shoot the show I'm working on, and despite me having my JVC cameras here, he was shooting on a 'big' DSLR. Ironically, he asked to borrow my Vinten sticks and head, and my V lock batteries. Then he open his case and pulled out camera, viewfinder, lens, audio recorder and a mass of brackets, tubes and adaptors, plus loads of cables. His rig was bigger and crazily complicated. I just couldn't see the sense at all.