DSLR vs. Video Camera

Jeff Harper · April 17th, 2012, 04:38 PM

I don't understand the haters either Jay. Makes no sense. I see videos shot with DSLRs, and the prices my friends get with them, and it is truly impressive. It is a huge phenomenon, and it's not going away anytime soon.

The moire thing that people experience with the Canons and Nikons, (which is not present in my cameras) doesn't even bother me, it's such a non-issue for 90% of all shots that I don't even care. I would use a t31 or 60d in a heartbeat, and I'd love it. Great cams.

Chris Harding · April 17th, 2012, 06:15 PM

Hey Jeff

A claw hammer and a ball peen hammer both do an equally good job wacking nails into lumber..it's just preference!! I think it's important that you use the tools that you are comfortable with without snide comments from the persons that might be different to you. Jay, you should have been posting 6 months ago!! there was a lot of heated comments between DSLR users and Video users but that has now died down which is far more sensible. Both do a good job ... why even bother to stand up for one side unless someone is asking a question about using a system.

Chris

Jay Corcuera · April 17th, 2012, 08:16 PM

Yeah I was here 6months ago lurking and remember those threads.. I think now many of the pro camera posters have finally respected the dslrs probably because they bought one and saw the great image quality they were able to get with it! :)

Craig Terott · April 17th, 2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Corcuera

I think now many of the pro camera posters have finally respected the dslrs probably because they bought one and saw the great image quality they were able to get with it! :)

Your point is understood with one minor clearification ...the DSLR, in the right hands, is a pro video camera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hey Jeff

A claw hammer and a ball peen hammer both do an equally good job wacking nails into lumber..it's just preference!! I think it's important that you use the tools that you are comfortable with without snide comments from the persons that might be different to you. Jay, you should have been posting 6 months ago!! there was a lot of heated comments between DSLR users and Video users but that has now died down which is far more sensible. Both do a good job ... why even bother to stand up for one side unless someone is asking a question about using a system.

Chris

I disagree. Take a side. Encourage thought. Spark some new incite that perhaps someone on one side or another hasn't considered. How 'bout that? Instead of trying to quell conversation and stifle debate about the tools we use to create art - encourage debate.

Jeff Harper · April 17th, 2012, 08:43 PM

You are right Chris, to a degree. To use an analogy like yours, a slotted screwdriver will not work where a phillips head is required. To accomplish specific tasks we get the best results with a specific tool. A tack hammer will not be effective in nailing a large carpenter's nail, for example. A sledgehammer would not be practical for nailing carpet tacks.

I'm thinking specifically of low light situations where the use of extra lighting is not desirable, or in some cases, forbidden by the customer. My videocamera will produce images in a darkened room, but what will they look like? Dark and muddy, and low in contrast, probably.

In the above situation, I break out my trusty GH2 fitted with a F/1.4 lens and I've got crystal clear images that will destroy my video camera. In this case the video camera will work, but only technically. Truth be told, in some situations, if clear and lovely images are the goal, the videocamera simply cannot deliver, unless the quality of my images are secondary.

We've all gotten by with videocameras for years, but customer's expectations here in Cincinnati are not the same as they once were. Customers want clear and beautiful images because that is what they see everywhere now. They don't know a DSLR from a video camera oftentimes, but they can certainly see the difference in quality.

I do get what people say when they say that it's all in the operator, but that is shortsighted and not really true at all. As has been pointed out, why not just buy an old VHS camera and shoot with that instead? Or pick up a used $100 consumer camcorder?

It is a good discussion to have, but I just think the times we live in demand more from us as videographers than to believe that when it comes to equipment, one size fits all.

For the vast majority of cases, a videocamera will suffice. But other times not so much. We can get by without DSLRs if necessary much of the time, or vice versa, but for shooting in a large variety of settings and lighting conditions, I'm glad to have both at my disposal.

Chris Harding · April 17th, 2012, 09:47 PM

Hi Craig

It was the other way around as well...DSLR users used to fight with normal camera users with the arguement that ONLY a DSLR should be used for weddings and a video camera was a waste of time.

Sorry you disagree but each to their own..it's much the same between car owners who swear by the model they drive and wouldn't be seen dead in other model!! Even here there is rivally between Ford and GM (I drive neither so I'm neutral)

The important thing is the end result, no matter what you use to achieve it and of course that could be a combination of both as Jeff uses!

Chris

Noa Put · April 18th, 2012, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

if clear and lovely images are the goal, the videocamera simply cannot deliver, unless the quality of my images are secondary.

What's your definition of a "videocamera"? If I would break out a sony fs100 with a 1.4 lens it would probably destroy your gh2 and the fs100 is a videocamera, right? :) A dslr is just a tool, which can shine in certain situations or can miserably fail if used in the wrong time and place. You should use a "tool" based on your own preferences, for me that happens to be a videocamera with a small sensor and a dslr and I use them both in the right place and time, taking into consideration that I work alone. If someone decides that dslr is the only way to go, why not if that fit's their workflow? For me a DSLR is also a valuable tool when it gets real dark since I rarely have to use videolights which bother guests but in any other "normal" situation I prefer a real videocamera which gives me much more controll, especially in run and gun where my dslr would let me fail for sure.

Quote:

The moire thing that people experience with the Canons and Nikons, (which is not present in my cameras) doesn't even bother me, it's such a non-issue for 90% of all shots that I don't even care. I would use a t31 or 60d in a heartbeat, and I'd love it. Great cams.

Have you used a canon dslr? Have you seen how horrible and distracting moire can look on a wide angle lens? If you want to deliver clear and beautiful images then you don't use a t3i with a slower wideangle lens when you have got small bricks, roof-tiles of even someone with a small striped t-shirt because your clients will comment on it. At least in my case they did once.

In my country people don't care about what tool you use to make a wedding video and nobody pays extra if you say you got dslr's, I even stopped mentioning it, I just show my demo's and that's it.

Noa Put · April 18th, 2012, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

It was the other way around as well...DSLR users used to fight with normal camera users with the arguement that ONLY a DSLR should be used for weddings and a video camera was a waste of time.

I my country that would be impossible if you work alone in certain scenarios, f.i. when I have to film the church I often have almost no set-up time, by the time I arrive at the church, find a parking place and take my gear inside everyone is almost ready to enter the church meaning I sometimes have 1 minute to setup. During that time I also have to mic the groom, place a zoom h1 on the alter and a zoom h4 if they hired some people to sing live. With a shotgun mike on my camera I capture any speeches from the family because I can get very close. A second small camera is set up right next to me aimed at the priest so a I have a safety. My camera's are put in record mode while I enter the church and I leave them running during that ceremony, all adjustments to white balance, exposure, audio or focus are done while the camera's are running.
I honestly could not imagine doing that with my dslr's.

Jeff Harper · April 18th, 2012, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put

What's your definition of a "videocamera"? If I would break out a sony fs100 with a 1.4 lens it would probably destroy your gh2.

Noa, one would hope that a $5K (no lens included) cam with a 35mm sensor like the FS100 could destroy the $899 GH2, but it would not.

The differences between the two are not enough to say the FS100 would destroy the GH2. The GH2 can acquire gorgeous images in the same low light settings as the FS100, whereas a traditional camcorder cannot. Using a prime lens with either camera you can certainly obtain beautiful images in low light.

Using a $100 Canon FD F/1.4 50mm lens for $100 with the GH2, at $1000 I would accept the differences between the two to achieve filming at F/1.4.

I do not think of the FS100 a traditional videocamera, but if we say, for your argument, that it is, then your point is well taken.

Using a prime lens on the FS100 you will be essentially shooting with all of the limitations of a DSLR anyway, so the comparison is not really the best one.

A traditional videocamera will provide the zoom that most expect from a 'normal" video camera. This is why I use both a traditional form factor videocamera and GH2, I need both.

The FS100 would be a nice compromise between the two, but outfitted with fast lenses and fast zooms you're talking quadruple or greater price than a GH2. So yes you may be right in spirit.

I can also buy a $50K videcamera that will blow away the GH2 or FS100, but it's not a fair comparison.

Nigel Barker · April 18th, 2012, 07:36 AM

I started writing a rebuttal of David's anti-DSLR manifesto to correct some of the more ludicrous statements e.g. "she's not likely to have a 60p HDTV." (HDTVs are rarely anything but 60Hz progressive) but in the end realised it was pointless as for whatever reason he just hates DSLRs for video & can see no virtue in them. It is noticeable though that most of the points he bangs on about are to do with making life easy for the videographer & not to do with making beautiful videos for the client. There are challenges to using DSLRs for video but you can make beautiful videos with them. It's a whole different technique to using a camcorder with a motor zoom & auto-everything & that's why the results are different. While a photographer is hired for almost every wedding only a minority of brides have ever wanted a traditional documentary style wedding video so it's time to try something different with an aesthetic that's nearer to photography than video.

Greg Fiske · April 18th, 2012, 12:41 PM

I would think that the best tool is being used by the leaders in our community. If you look at them, they are using DSLR's (some migrating towards C300). The market rewards those that move forward. If you look at the knot in major metropolitan areas, dslr companies are showing up everywhere. I read posts from traditional videographers that times are tough, but ignore the competition, that are doing well.

I bet that the infocus awards next year will not have a single traditional videocamera winner.

Tom Hardwick · April 19th, 2012, 02:06 AM

Interesting observation Greg and I'm right with you. I've just had the honour of being part of the final judging team at this year's IAC international film competition, and the DSLR productions took all the top slots and all the major prizes. DSLRs tend to force the cinematographers to take more care, to set up the scenes, to plan more carefully, to take their time. They know what they want pictorially and it shows in the beautiful imagery up there on the big screen.

But the reason that Jeff and I and Noa and David all use and love the traditional videocamera has nothing to do with the above, and has everything to do with the very nature of wedding and event videography, where unexpected things happen at unexpected times right throughout the day.

Brides and grooms don't hit their marks, and nor will they wait for the audio to be set up, cameras to cool down, cards to be changed. It's for this reason alone that the camcorder has its place - it's almost unfailing ability to be 5 different DSLRs in one. Lens adapters and DSLR contraptions (for that's what they end up looking like when assembled for run 'n' gun) do have their place, but my contention is that getting that one beautiful pictorial shots means you miss 5 others happening all around you.

But what great times we live in. The tiny SD900 can work alongside the EX3, the 5D2 alongside the Z1. The best tool for the job is out there, giving quality results unimagined 5 years ago.

tom.

Nigel Barker · April 19th, 2012, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Lens adapters and DSLR contraptions (for that's what they end up looking like when assembled for run 'n' gun) do have their place, but my contention is that getting that one beautiful pictorial shots means you miss 5 others happening all around you.

I don't know who you have seen shooting weddings with a DSLR but it's the wannabee filmakers who pimp out their DSLRs with rails, follow-focus, matter box & all that other junk. You don't need any lens adaptors if you use the lenses designed for the camera (we use Canon 'L' lenses on 5D2s & 5D3s). Shooting events properly with a DSLR is done with minimal extra gear with at most a loupe & monopod/tripod. Even aside from the beautiful images they produce the key advantage of using a DSLR for video is simplicity & flexibility. It's a new style of shooting that makes you think more about framing & what you are filming rather than just letting the camcorder run on auto-everything.

Tom Hardwick · April 19th, 2012, 04:46 AM

Er - I don't know any camcorder wedding film-makers who run on 'auto everything' Nigel, do you? They won't be here, that's for sure. And I assure you that when a DSLR (rather than my NX5) is held between my palms it doesn't 'make me think more about framing & what I am filming'. A viewfinder is a viewfinder, both are inanimate idiots until a brain points them in the right direction.

tom.

Paul R Johnson · April 19th, 2012, 05:23 AM

I suspect all that is happening here is that few people have both kinds of kit available to them in similar qualities, so their viewpoints are honest, but based on partial evidence.

I'll explain what I mean. If you have a very good quality traditional, large shoulder mounted video camera, and perhaps a DSLR possibly without a video facility, you simply cannot imagine how anyone would possibly be able to use one properly. You will have seen the narrow depth of field, and sighed in relief that your camera normally used doesn't exhibit that because you remember the hundreds of times you've struggled with jobs to maintain decent depth of field. This would be me, I think - remembering all the times I've done theatre stuff in very low light with the lens wide open and struggled to keep everything sharp - really hard work. Some of us tried Sonys when the EX-1 came along and found it very awkward to use because it was in front. Many of us have also had long lenses on our still cameras and found them unwieldy and difficult to keep steady. These reasons overshadow completely any positives with picture quality. Only yesterday did I realise one popular DSLR had the bottom end filtered off the audio - which to me, seems crazy. So I am biased. I look at the DSLR users and even without the crazy gizmos they attach to a small box, I just view the system as flawed - but note, flawed for me.

The users of DSLRs who love them, also get familiar with the downsides (which of course my own big cameras have plenty of) and concentrate on the positives - for them, shallow DoF and the big chips mean they love the images and excuse everything else. The end users of the products love or hate the products we produce because of content, not really quality, so to a degree, their input is flawed.

I cannot even consider buying a DSLR for video because for what I do they really would be a step down, not up. I need certain features that they don't have - so that is why they are out for me. In the last 5 years, I think I've needed shallow DoF once or twice, and using the lens open, plus a bit of cheating in post did it. Every single other production I have done wanted sharp focus, everywhere, all the time.

So there are two camps, with strong people in each one. A few flit from one to the other. Maybe we could adapt, but we don't want to try. I have physically big cameras on my plus list - with some small versions for PoV and B cam. I don't have a DSLR. Some DSLR owners have one of those, plus a small auto type camcorder, so their dislike of non-DSLR is perhaps because they are comparing DSLR with handicap types. I'm comparing my cameras with the video version of my stills only DSLR which means I'm not comparing like with like. We all read the reviews of the 'other' type and pick out the negatives and ignore the positives - that's just how we do it. I will not be buying a DSLR, but that doesn't mean people who do are wrong. I find the faults/features not what I want.

I suspect strongly we're discussing the merits/disadvantages of beta v vhs, or even Ford v Vauxhall - where the real answer is never anything other than opinion with no real substance.

We now have so many different video production tools, maybe we just need to pick them for specific projects and accept there is no single one that does everything?

April 17th, 2012, 04:38 PM	#31
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera I don't understand the haters either Jay. Makes no sense. I see videos shot with DSLRs, and the prices my friends get with them, and it is truly impressive. It is a huge phenomenon, and it's not going away anytime soon. The moire thing that people experience with the Canons and Nikons, (which is not present in my cameras) doesn't even bother me, it's such a non-issue for 90% of all shots that I don't even care. I would use a t31 or 60d in a heartbeat, and I'd love it. Great cams.

April 17th, 2012, 06:15 PM	#32
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera Hey Jeff A claw hammer and a ball peen hammer both do an equally good job wacking nails into lumber..it's just preference!! I think it's important that you use the tools that you are comfortable with without snide comments from the persons that might be different to you. Jay, you should have been posting 6 months ago!! there was a lot of heated comments between DSLR users and Video users but that has now died down which is far more sensible. Both do a good job ... why even bother to stand up for one side unless someone is asking a question about using a system. Chris

April 17th, 2012, 08:16 PM	#33
Jay Corcuera Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: USA Posts: 25	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera Yeah I was here 6months ago lurking and remember those threads.. I think now many of the pro camera posters have finally respected the dslrs probably because they bought one and saw the great image quality they were able to get with it! :)

April 17th, 2012, 08:43 PM	#35
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera You are right Chris, to a degree. To use an analogy like yours, a slotted screwdriver will not work where a phillips head is required. To accomplish specific tasks we get the best results with a specific tool. A tack hammer will not be effective in nailing a large carpenter's nail, for example. A sledgehammer would not be practical for nailing carpet tacks. I'm thinking specifically of low light situations where the use of extra lighting is not desirable, or in some cases, forbidden by the customer. My videocamera will produce images in a darkened room, but what will they look like? Dark and muddy, and low in contrast, probably. In the above situation, I break out my trusty GH2 fitted with a F/1.4 lens and I've got crystal clear images that will destroy my video camera. In this case the video camera will work, but only technically. Truth be told, in some situations, if clear and lovely images are the goal, the videocamera simply cannot deliver, unless the quality of my images are secondary. We've all gotten by with videocameras for years, but customer's expectations here in Cincinnati are not the same as they once were. Customers want clear and beautiful images because that is what they see everywhere now. They don't know a DSLR from a video camera oftentimes, but they can certainly see the difference in quality. I do get what people say when they say that it's all in the operator, but that is shortsighted and not really true at all. As has been pointed out, why not just buy an old VHS camera and shoot with that instead? Or pick up a used $100 consumer camcorder? It is a good discussion to have, but I just think the times we live in demand more from us as videographers than to believe that when it comes to equipment, one size fits all. For the vast majority of cases, a videocamera will suffice. But other times not so much. We can get by without DSLRs if necessary much of the time, or vice versa, but for shooting in a large variety of settings and lighting conditions, I'm glad to have both at my disposal.

April 17th, 2012, 09:47 PM	#36
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera Hi Craig It was the other way around as well...DSLR users used to fight with normal camera users with the arguement that ONLY a DSLR should be used for weddings and a video camera was a waste of time. Sorry you disagree but each to their own..it's much the same between car owners who swear by the model they drive and wouldn't be seen dead in other model!! Even here there is rivally between Ford and GM (I drive neither so I'm neutral) The important thing is the end result, no matter what you use to achieve it and of course that could be a combination of both as Jeff uses! Chris

April 18th, 2012, 07:36 AM	#40
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera I started writing a rebuttal of David's anti-DSLR manifesto to correct some of the more ludicrous statements e.g. "she's not likely to have a 60p HDTV." (HDTVs are rarely anything but 60Hz progressive) but in the end realised it was pointless as for whatever reason he just hates DSLRs for video & can see no virtue in them. It is noticeable though that most of the points he bangs on about are to do with making life easy for the videographer & not to do with making beautiful videos for the client. There are challenges to using DSLRs for video but you can make beautiful videos with them. It's a whole different technique to using a camcorder with a motor zoom & auto-everything & that's why the results are different. While a photographer is hired for almost every wedding only a minority of brides have ever wanted a traditional documentary style wedding video so it's time to try something different with an aesthetic that's nearer to photography than video.

April 18th, 2012, 12:41 PM	#41
Greg Fiske Major Player Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Santa Ana, CA Posts: 499	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera I would think that the best tool is being used by the leaders in our community. If you look at them, they are using DSLR's (some migrating towards C300). The market rewards those that move forward. If you look at the knot in major metropolitan areas, dslr companies are showing up everywhere. I read posts from traditional videographers that times are tough, but ignore the competition, that are doing well. I bet that the infocus awards next year will not have a single traditional videocamera winner.

April 19th, 2012, 02:06 AM	#42
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera Interesting observation Greg and I'm right with you. I've just had the honour of being part of the final judging team at this year's IAC international film competition, and the DSLR productions took all the top slots and all the major prizes. DSLRs tend to force the cinematographers to take more care, to set up the scenes, to plan more carefully, to take their time. They know what they want pictorially and it shows in the beautiful imagery up there on the big screen. But the reason that Jeff and I and Noa and David all use and love the traditional videocamera has nothing to do with the above, and has everything to do with the very nature of wedding and event videography, where unexpected things happen at unexpected times right throughout the day. Brides and grooms don't hit their marks, and nor will they wait for the audio to be set up, cameras to cool down, cards to be changed. It's for this reason alone that the camcorder has its place - it's almost unfailing ability to be 5 different DSLRs in one. Lens adapters and DSLR contraptions (for that's what they end up looking like when assembled for run 'n' gun) do have their place, but my contention is that getting that one beautiful pictorial shots means you miss 5 others happening all around you. But what great times we live in. The tiny SD900 can work alongside the EX3, the 5D2 alongside the Z1. The best tool for the job is out there, giving quality results unimagined 5 years ago. tom.

April 19th, 2012, 04:46 AM	#44
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera Er - I don't know any camcorder wedding film-makers who run on 'auto everything' Nigel, do you? They won't be here, that's for sure. And I assure you that when a DSLR (rather than my NX5) is held between my palms it doesn't 'make me think more about framing & what I am filming'. A viewfinder is a viewfinder, both are inanimate idiots until a brain points them in the right direction. tom.

April 19th, 2012, 05:23 AM	#45
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera I suspect all that is happening here is that few people have both kinds of kit available to them in similar qualities, so their viewpoints are honest, but based on partial evidence. I'll explain what I mean. If you have a very good quality traditional, large shoulder mounted video camera, and perhaps a DSLR possibly without a video facility, you simply cannot imagine how anyone would possibly be able to use one properly. You will have seen the narrow depth of field, and sighed in relief that your camera normally used doesn't exhibit that because you remember the hundreds of times you've struggled with jobs to maintain decent depth of field. This would be me, I think - remembering all the times I've done theatre stuff in very low light with the lens wide open and struggled to keep everything sharp - really hard work. Some of us tried Sonys when the EX-1 came along and found it very awkward to use because it was in front. Many of us have also had long lenses on our still cameras and found them unwieldy and difficult to keep steady. These reasons overshadow completely any positives with picture quality. Only yesterday did I realise one popular DSLR had the bottom end filtered off the audio - which to me, seems crazy. So I am biased. I look at the DSLR users and even without the crazy gizmos they attach to a small box, I just view the system as flawed - but note, flawed for me. The users of DSLRs who love them, also get familiar with the downsides (which of course my own big cameras have plenty of) and concentrate on the positives - for them, shallow DoF and the big chips mean they love the images and excuse everything else. The end users of the products love or hate the products we produce because of content, not really quality, so to a degree, their input is flawed. I cannot even consider buying a DSLR for video because for what I do they really would be a step down, not up. I need certain features that they don't have - so that is why they are out for me. In the last 5 years, I think I've needed shallow DoF once or twice, and using the lens open, plus a bit of cheating in post did it. Every single other production I have done wanted sharp focus, everywhere, all the time. So there are two camps, with strong people in each one. A few flit from one to the other. Maybe we could adapt, but we don't want to try. I have physically big cameras on my plus list - with some small versions for PoV and B cam. I don't have a DSLR. Some DSLR owners have one of those, plus a small auto type camcorder, so their dislike of non-DSLR is perhaps because they are comparing DSLR with handicap types. I'm comparing my cameras with the video version of my stills only DSLR which means I'm not comparing like with like. We all read the reviews of the 'other' type and pick out the negatives and ignore the positives - that's just how we do it. I will not be buying a DSLR, but that doesn't mean people who do are wrong. I find the faults/features not what I want. I suspect strongly we're discussing the merits/disadvantages of beta v vhs, or even Ford v Vauxhall - where the real answer is never anything other than opinion with no real substance. We now have so many different video production tools, maybe we just need to pick them for specific projects and accept there is no single one that does everything?