Do you use you interchangable lens camera for serious video?

[pierces]

I thought I'd ask the question after watching a lot of preliminary reviews of Sony's ne A7r IV. The biggest things listed as negatives seemed to be that the camera didn't have all the video features of a true professional video camera. Note to reviewers: It's not a professional video camera. All of my current cameras will do video that would put any dedicated camcorder I have ever owned to shame. This is wasted on me since I gave up video a long time ago after realizing that I simply preferred stills as the way to record what I saw and share it. I realize that having video capability to record full HD video without having to carry a dedicated video camera is a great nice-to-have but what confuses me is the reviewers moaning that the cameras don't do 12 bit RAW output at 500MB/s with 20-stop dynamic range (or whatever) so they can get the most out of their podcasts and YouTube unboxing videos. I guess everybody has their expectations but why should stills shooters pay a premium for seldom or unused video features when there are superb dedicated video cameras available? 

 

So, the question: Do you use your DSLR or mirrorless camera for serious video?

 

And the other question: If you are doing serious video, why not use a serious video camera.

 

I realize that I have a bias for stills features and couldn't really care much less if my camera is capable of filming the next Avengers movie. I am serious about the question as to why somebody who uses their camera primarily for video doesn't use equipment designed for video. It probably all boils down to cost. A $1700 MFT camera with a focus on video features costs less than a dedicated cinema-quality video camera.

 

Maybe the answer if for reviewers to review cameras with a bias towards what they are intended for rather than listing features intentionally left out as negatives?

 

I have always maintained that the best camera to cover all situations is usually two cameras (or three if you count your phone). I'm not sure that has changed much.

 

 

Dave

 

P.S. to YouTubers and Vloggers: I watch your unboxing videos and lens reviews on my PC, tablet or phone and not in a theater with 4K UHD HDR and Dolby Atmos surround sound. 😉

 

 

[zackiedawg]

Easy answer for me: no.  In fact, I shoot NO video with any of my DSLR/mirrorless cameras.  OK - I once shot video on my A68, only because I didn't have enough charge on my video camera when hurricane Irma was hitting us in 2017, so I used the A68 just to film the winds and damage.  If i need to shoot any random video documentation, I'd likely use my phone, for the convenience.  I just don't really want to shoot video.

 

That's the thing when reading reviews that illustrates what a mistake it is to go to the final conclusion and look for some 'score' or number or award to decide if a camera is for you or not.  It's much more important to know what particular things the camera excels at, and what things that reviewer feels are negatives, and decide if the plusses or minuses apply to you.

 

When I see negatives listed for video, I know I can simply ignore all of that as it doesn't apply to me.  If I see negatives about lack of touch screen menus, I can ignore because it doesn't apply to me.  Fully articulating screen missing - ignore.  Ergonomics?  I ignore, because I base that on how it feels in my hands, not how it felt in the reviewers' hands.  And so on.  If the negatives are poor high ISO performance, slow focus in stills, bad tracking in stills, poor battery life, lack of custom buttons or menus, bad JPG artifacts in highest quality setting, or poor build quality, THOSE I would weigh strongly for me.  The final 'score' doesn't mean the same thing to everyone...video-centric shooters would need to decide if the video specs and features are up to their needs - this seems to clearly not be a video-focused camera to my eye, but may offer enough video functionality for a mixed-use shooter...each to decide on their own.

[kenevenpar]

Wife:  Hey take a video of the Grandkids on that "fancy" camera of yours.

 

Me:  For the thousandth time, I don't do video.

[mskaufman]

I don't use the DLSR for serious video. Actually, I do not do serious video although I do own a GoPro.  I will put the DLSR in video mode if a target of opportunity arises.  After all, some video is better than no video.  For example, we were in Spain a couple of weeks ago and a marching band came down the street for a festival.  I did switch into video to capture it.  If it's no good, I can always delete.

[Heidi13]

Back in the working days, I routinely used my Canon 5D III for recording all the Marine Evacuation System deployments. Might not be serious video, but it served the purpose of recording and affording the ability to play back to view any issues.

[Docker123]

There are some classes on using cameras for vlogs, but usually mean tripod, focus, external release. Other than that, a reasonable alternative when a bit of video is needed and no dedicated instrument is handy.

 

Indeed, dedicated video cameras as we used to know them are scarce.

 

As a bit of a flip, a friend is making a documentary (a real one with a tv contract).

 

He has an interesting set-up for filming. He had a GoPro, a traditional looking biggish video camera, and a Nikon. All pointed at me.

 

His primary is a Blackmagic pocket camera. High quality video camera, which uses micro four third lenses. Buy a lens from your favourite camera shop.

At a pinch, it can be used as a still camera.

 

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

 

This shows the additional external screen and recording thingy.

 

 

 

[Docker123]

A photo of the set-up for the second interview. GoPro was near my left ear.

 

[pierces]

4 hours ago, Docker123 said:

 

 

His primary is a Blackmagic pocket camera. High quality video camera, which uses micro four third lenses. Buy a lens from your favourite camera shop.

At a pinch, it can be used as a still camera.

 

 

 

This is exactly my point. The review of the Blackmagic Pocket camera on DPReveiew is...nonexistent. It is geared toward video and does a bang-up job, but doesn't have enough stills bells and whistles to rate a review. Cinema 5D reviewed it and was impressed despite it's lack of stills. It is also $1300 since it doesn't load up with features superfluous to its primary intent. 

 

I would strongly urge people to read reviews thoroughly and look for the points relevant to what you are buying the camera for. All the items in the negatives list for the stills cameras I scanned just now are niggles about this or that touchscreen or video feature that is insufficient in the eyes of the reviewer. "Menu doesn't respond to my projected thoughts" in the cons list wouldn't surprise me. 

 

Dave

 

[masterdrago]

Interesting timing. I'm now looking for some sort of real video camera. And I've recently read some reviews on the two I'm looking at - Sony AX-700 and Blackmagic. I've used my DSLR Nikon models for stuff around the house - Hummingbirds, Deer, a Bobcat, etc. The focus is so wonky, that it only works well in manual mode, which is how I've learned to use them. Not serious video. I recently bought a 7Black GoPro as an introduction into somewhat more serious video, especially for an Alaska 16 day vacation. I found it an outstanding player for my needs but need something more powerful - zoom wise - for more stuff I might get interested in. Following this thread with interest.