Who uses their DSLR or mirrorless camera for video?

[rpcrowe]

I don't shoot video with my DSLR cameras. I simply don't have any use for video with that equipment...

The only video that I need is some 30 second to one minute spots to show my rescue dogs off. I can do a quicker job using my iPhone and can do the quick minor edit on that phone using iMovie and post the video without ever needing to get on my computer.

I am wondering how many of my CiC friends shoot enough video (or plan to shoot enough video) to make the video capability of a DSLR or mirrorless camera a valid concern in selecting the camera.

I am also wondering who is set up for editing 4K video?

My criteria for camera selection is the capability of that camera to produce top-notch still images, including an excellent auto focus system along with that camera being enjoyable to use. If it does great video fine, if the video capability is crappy that is fine too!

There are several interesting cameras on the horizon that I am looking forward to seeing... These include but, are not limited to: the Canon 7D3 (I was told at the Canon Service Center in Costa Mesa, California to expect te 7D3 this month) I am not necessarily at all sold on mirrorless at this point in time; the expected Canon full frame mirrorless which may just sneak in under the radar; the Sony 6700 or 7000 (whatever they will call it) which is supposed to be a crop format version of the A9.

Actually, even if I were seriously in the market for a new camera (which I hope I am not), I would think seriously and wait for the dust to settle. It definitely would not cost anything to wait and might just either save person a bit of money or enable the person to get a camera better suited to that person's needs.

[davidedric]

I don't shoot a lot of video, but I'm glad to have it from time to time - for example filming practice and performance of my ukulele group. However, for something that's going to and up on YouTube or Facebook high end capabilities are not needed.

I don't shoot in 4K, though my camera and software can handle it. Partly for the same quality reason, but also because everything takes a lot longer.

I do like the facilities built into my Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras to extract 8K stills from 4K video. Again, not something I use all the time but nice to have when I do want it.

So I wouldn't have chosen a camera because of video, but I don't think I'd now buy a camera without it.

Dave

[rpcrowe]

Dave, That is just the type of feedback that I was looking for. Thanks

I like the idea that my 6D2 can do quite well in auto focus while shooting video. However, for more extensive video (which I almost never do), I would use the Panasonic HDC-TM900 which, while not capable of 4K video does a pretty darn nice job in 1080P. At around $USD 3000 (used) it is a steal!

This camera is light weight and has a combination of touch screen and TTL viewing. Of course it includes auto focus in its features. This camera weighs only about 397 g. or 14 ounces - of course, the lens is included in this weight. Perhaps, it cannot do "cinematic" video, but is sure as heck a lot easier to carry around and shoot that a full size DSLR or even a mirrorless camera. It is one heck of a lot less expensive than purchasing a DSLR or even a mirrorless plus an assortment of lenses.

If video were my thing and I was set on using Canon EF or EFS lenses, I "think" that I might opt for a dedicated video camera such as the Canon EOS C100 which runs about $USD 2K without lenses. For an extra thousand dollars or just a bit more, you could pick up a 5D3 for still photography.

[pnodrog]

Until I got my D800 I had never shot video of any kind. I enjoy taking the odd little video but much to my surprise I found a whole new skill set needed to be learnt. The longest video I have shot was at a funeral when I recorded all the eulogies. The quality of the camera's inbuilt mike was surprisingly good. My main problem has been with focus - oh, and remembering I can switch to video if the occasion calls for it.

[Tronhard]

Hi Paul:

I did some videos of my partner's lectures when she was in Canada and the students were in NZ. They were static in nature and I used a manual focus with a decent DoF to make sure if she bobbed about a bit that she was in focus. I wasn't allowed to manipulate the system during recording as I was ejected from the room!

[pnodrog]

Hi Paul:

I did some videos of my partner's lectures when she was in Canada and the students were in NZ. They were static in nature and I used a manual focus with a decent DoF to make sure if she bobbed about a bit that she was in focus. I wasn't allowed to manipulate the system during recording as I was ejected from the room!

Not ever having had a video camera I found the ability to take them novel and when I remember useful. Like Dave I would now be unlikely to buy a camera that did not have video. However I have not really taken the time I should to properly master the video mode of my camera. Maybe I should read the manual.

[Shadowman]

I did in the past for both camera types, haven't done so in years and last time I shot video was with the phone. I see so much shaky video on YouTube that it annoys me, if I were to shoot I would want to consider using a stabilization device and also perhaps invest in some external audio microphone, what's on most camera bodies is limited in quality.

[dje]

My main video work is for travel clips and family clips. I have used my a6000 for this but these days my iPhone is my go to video device. It produces good quality video and it's stabilisation works very well indeed. It can do 4K but I don't use it for that. 1080 video is adequate for me.

Dave