Why DSLR regarded for making videos?

Real question made by NickP: Why are DSLR’s considered for movie making?

As a retired “still” professional photographer, I noticed a lot of questions referring to the upper priced Canon “still” cameras qualifing for movie making or taking the place of a camcorder, I find this strange. Comments?

Definitely is info on Why are DSLR’s considered for movie making? that you’ll have to solve difficulties for their own reasons. Eventually this will help to in many ways, to create yourself considerably better. Thinking info on Why are DSLR’s considered for movie making? would be simple solution in time.

Best answer:

Answer by Hondo

Because Canon paid a few television shows some money to shoot with their DSLRs to increase camera sales.

Answer by Crim Liar

Okay, so I’ve used my Sony SLT-A77 for shooting videos. The original idea was that it would be simpler to carry around a single camera than to have both a still and a video camera – which is what I used to do. I should add that the quality of the video from the SLT-A77 is better than my pro-sumer video camera! The down side is that I find to get the absolute best quality from the SLT-A77 I end up having to use a whole load of additional kit too. So in the end I’m still carrying just as much crap about, it’s just different crap!

I keep looking at rigs, but to be honest I’m still of the opinion that many of them would get in the way more than be of any help. They may be fine if your camera is always sat at eye height but much of the time my video work is either from unusual angles or on a tripod… Eye shoulder height shooting is probably not advised anyway if like me you are 6’3″!

*Looking forward to other responses.

Answer by Snorlax

For the price, they offer bigger sensors than any video cameras available. This makes for better depth of field control, better low light performance and better detail resolution.

The wide range of lenses available at an affordable price out is a big selling point over expensive, hard to buy locally cinema lenses for video cameras.

You can buy a 50mm F/1.8 lens for $ 100 – that’s unheard of in terms of cinema lenses.

DSLRs are also smaller and easier to transport.

People who need the best performance will opt for video cameras but the video mode on a DSLR is a really good performer. With my 5D Mark III and my collection of Canon L primes I could easily switch from being a wedding photographer to a wedding videographer if I wanted to – many professional wedding videographers have been using DSLRs for a few years now. And I’m talking about some of the top wedding videographers in Ireland and the UK, not just any one person. These are people getting $ 3,000-$ 4,000 per wedding.

Also, what the guy said above is incorrect. Canon never paid a TV company to use their cameras – take “House” for example, the directors chose to shoot on DSLRs as they were smaller and easier to use in tight spaces for the episode which revolved around a collapsed building and a person trapped under the rubble.

I’ve seen many reputable colleges using DSLRs for their movie making courses now as they allow for more creative freedom on a tighter budget. You can get several DSLRs for the price of one cinema camera and if one breaks then you haven’t lost that much money.

But it’s upsetting, seeing people think DSLRs are a replacement for video cameras – yeah, they’re handy. But I would not be impressed if I saw moire and rolling shutter in a movie.

Answer by AWBoater

The reasons stump me. If you want a high-end video camera, buy a video camera.

Video on a DSLR to me seems to be a kludge, especially given that many DSLRs have CMOS sensors these days, suffer from rolling shutter distortion.

Answer by fhotoace

I will first refer you to this link that pretty much covers a lot of the issues confronted by dSLR owners who bought it to shoot video

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml

As mentioned above, there is the additional cost of the added accessories necessary to make the dSLR into a viable video producing machine. I have a colleague who bought a dSLR specifically to shoot low budget “how to” videos and after investing another $ 3,000 in video accessories, sold it all and bought a nice Panasonic P2HD video camera.

With Nikon’s introduction of uncompressed video on their D800 and D4, dSLR’s might be okay under some circumstances for shooting video shorts (with a good tight script), but except for a few notable examples on TV, any commercial video is shot using either 3-CCD video cameras or at the high end, a 4K video camera.

While a larger sensor will always enhance HD and Full HD video, especially when shooting in low light, the CMOS sensor is still the limiting factor.

My hope is that camera makers pursue a new hybrid sensor that will enhance the images that we who use dSLR’s for shooting still images. Yes, the new Nikon D800 and D800E can crank out some amazing images, but it still uses old CMOS technology. I had thought that the makers of dSLR’s might have been incorporating the new backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS technology in their dSRL cameras, but so far they are only showing up on P&S cameras.

Acknowledge good?

Leave your own special answer as part of his comments!

Why DSLR regarded for making videos?