Are DSLRs for video dead?

Donald Ong

Donald Ong

New member
Just wondering...it seems with all the cheap large sensor video cameras available now, many people are declaring it 'the death of the DSLR evolution'.
What are your opinions on this?

Because I'm looking to get a new camera at the end of this year and I'm really torn between the sonys and the 5d3/6d...
 
Not sure. I just got into the 5d mkiii. I sometimes wonder if I made a mistake and should have gotten a FS100 but I have seen more better footage from the 5d then I have seen from many other cameras. There was a test done between the 5d (not sure which one - ii or iii) and I think it was either the epic or red and the footage was so close that I myself couldn't tell the differences between a $3500 camera too a $50k camera. Can't remember who did the test. Anyway making a very long boring story into a shorter one I'm going to make it happen on my next film shoot with the mkiii and the best part that I'm looking forward to is being able to travel 18,000 miles in a much lighter mode. I'm going to check into a pelican case that has wheels that I can carry onto the flight as a carry on that is big enough to hold Mkiii, Laptop, two lens and a Lacie hard drive.
 
Quite simply, No. Some people like having the ability to have great stills and video in the same body, some people just like the look, some people don't want to put up with large file sizes, having to buy expensive storage and batteries, some people only have used T2i type of money to spend on cameras and not $1300-3000+, etc. Basically a myriad of reasons. It's all up to the user and their needs really.
 
Not dead at all. Still arguably the best you can get if you don't have $3K lying around. But new options above that, and lack of progress in the APS-C models, have them cornered to a much smaller market.
 
It depends on the price point, whether you do stills, and how much money you make from video.

I'll use my recent history as an example.

I used to have a studio that I closed in 2007. Up to then, from 2004/2005, I had an $8,000 Canon 1DsII. Once I closed the studio (not working much, on disability) I could no longer justify that much investment/depreciation.

I bought a T4i in June this year. I was very happy with that camera for both stills and video. Then I needed to shoot in low light with higher ISO on an extended basis for events, so I bought the 5D3. (I think the T4i is good up to 1600, the 5D3 to 6400.)

So now I have invested $3,000 in a stills camera that also does great video. I can't really justify spending another $3,000 on a BMCC, +$3,000 for a rig, battery, etc, or justify a C100 at $6,500, as much as I would love one!

To justify that INCREMENTAL expense, I have to justify that it is needed on jobs that will earn me, say, 10x the annual depreciation of ther kit.

Call that $2,000 for the first year with the pace that things are changing (MY $8,000 1DsII cost me $1,500 per year for 2 years. But it saved me $10,000 out of pocket in film costs for personal projects in those 2 years (over my average from 1998-2004.))

So can I make an extra $6,000 - to $10,000 - to $20,000 by buying a C100 in addition to a 5D3? No, I can't right now.

Obviously there are others who can, depending on your business. If you are doing $3,000-$5,000 weddings every weekend, etc. it probably makes sense to deliver that quality of video at that proce point.

At that level of investment, it is a business decision.


For most people, though, you are talking about needed a $1,000 B camera, like the T4i, GH3, etc. That could also be a dedicated video camera, except that then you also have to buy a backup stills body too ...


So it really depends on the mix of your income between stills and video. I think most people who can afford a $3,000 camera right now will be likely to have a dedicated video camera as their A camera 2 years from now, when somthing like a used C100 costs $2,500.

(Especially if the Yen goes back to it's normal range of 117-120, instead of 80 right now, very very strong. That $6,500 C100 would cost $4,333 with the Yen still in the 2008 range.)

Interesting times. Lots of great cameras. It would be interesting to see a breakdown in terms of units sold at each price point, for both stills and video, to judge the market.

Best,
Michael
 
Are they dead as in camera makers will put less R&D into future DSLR's?
I hope not as I want a stills and video camera in one. I do feel that if the market dries up there will be less progression on the video side of DSLR's which would be a shame to me.


Dead as in filmmakers will use them less in favor of “traditional” cameras?
That would depend on the filmmaker and their budget.
The common dream is still the best images for the fewest dollars and whether that comes in a DSLR or a AF100 will shape the direction of those with fewer dollars.
But to some a traditional camera is worth more money due to their singular focus to moving images.
 
Thanks for the input guys :)

unadog said:
It depends on the price point, whether you do stills, and how much money you make from video.

I'll use my recent history as an example.

I used to have a studio that I closed in 2007. Up to then, from 2004/2005, I had an $8,000 Canon 1DsII. Once I closed the studio (not working much, on disability) I could no longer justify that much investment/depreciation.

I bought a T4i in June this year. I was very happy with that camera for both stills and video. Then I needed to shoot in low light with higher ISO on an extended basis for events, so I bought the 5D3. (I think the T4i is good up to 1600, the 5D3 to 6400.)

So now I have invested $3,000 in a stills camera that also does great video. I can't really justify spending another $3,000 on a BMCC, +$3,000 for a rig, battery, etc, or justify a C100 at $6,500, as much as I would love one!

To justify that INCREMENTAL expense, I have to justify that it is needed on jobs that will earn me, say, 10x the annual depreciation of ther kit.

Call that $2,000 for the first year with the pace that things are changing (MY $8,000 1DsII cost me $1,500 per year for 2 years. But it saved me $10,000 out of pocket in film costs for personal projects in those 2 years (over my average from 1998-2004.))

So can I make an extra $6,000 - to $10,000 - to $20,000 by buying a C100 in addition to a 5D3? No, I can't right now.

Obviously there are others who can, depending on your business. If you are doing $3,000-$5,000 weddings every weekend, etc. it probably makes sense to deliver that quality of video at that proce point.

At that level of investment, it is a business decision.


For most people, though, you are talking about needed a $1,000 B camera, like the T4i, GH3, etc. That could also be a dedicated video camera, except that then you also have to buy a backup stills body too ...


So it really depends on the mix of your income between stills and video. I think most people who can afford a $3,000 camera right now will be likely to have a dedicated video camera as their A camera 2 years from now, when somthing like a used C100 costs $2,500.

(Especially if the Yen goes back to it's normal range of 117-120, instead of 80 right now, very very string. That $6,500 C100 would cost $4,333 with the Yen in 2008 range.)

Interesting times. Lots of graet cameras. It would be interesting to see a breakdown in terms of units sold at each price point, stills and video.

Best,
Michael
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm really torn between the sony EA50 and the 5d3 for that reason. Also, though my first love is video, I do like the idea of being able to take some stills for fun too... Why must this be so difficult....Some one help? haha
In all honesty, though, if the EA50 was never released, I would have been dead set on the 5d3...so I blame Sony for releasing such an interesting camera at such a low price point...

On another note, though, DSLRs seem to be losing their appeal in filmmaking now...That's the main problem now... I, too, really like the idea of a great stills + video camera in one body. I'm not rich enough to buy both an fs100 and 5d3 for stills...heh

Btw, Hi samuel. Nice to see you again outside the philip bloom forum, which admittedly, is abit dead too. haha
 
Last edited:
Donald Ong said:
Just wondering...it seems with all the cheap large sensor video cameras available now, many people are declaring it 'the death of the DSLR evolution'.
What are your opinions on this?

Because I'm looking to get a new camera at the end of this year and I'm really torn between the sonys and the 5d3/6d...
Click to expand...
Many people?

I guess you missed photokina where so many dslr cameras were introduced you will lose your mind. Price/Performance wise dslr is unmatched. Now go shoot and stop worrying about your video camera.......
 
"Are DSLRs for video dead?"

An attempt at humour I suppose.

The Gh3 is about to be huge in the no budget world and the 1DC is going to be huge in Hollywood. And there's a big selection in between with the 5D MKIII being a standout with an alpha magic lantern hack so far working flawlessly for me, and there's more features to come. The A99, the D800, and the D600 look like contenders too. Is anyone even talking about the EA50? Looks like a dinosaur to me.
 
squig said:
"Are DSLRs for video dead?"

An attempt at humour I suppose.

The Gh3 is about to be huge in the no budget world and the 1DC is going to be huge in Hollywood. And there's a big selection in between with the 5D MKIII being a standout with an alpha magic lantern hack so far working flawlessly for me, and there's more features to come. The A99, the D800, and the D600 look like contenders too. Is anyone even talking about the EA50? Looks like a dinosaur to me.
Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion. Sorry for the vague title. Let me be more specific.

By DSLRs, i meant digital single lens reflex, not mirrorless. Also, I posted this in the canon FF forum so I thought it was self-explanatory that i was referring to the CANON DSLRs in particular, not the nikons or mirrorless cameras. Sorry for the vagueness.

J.F.R. well, once i upgrade, I'll stop worrying and shoot for the next 3-4 years, but since i am looking for an upgrade now, shouldn't i be worrying about this? haha
 
Donald Ong said:
There seems to be some confusion. Sorry for the vague title. Let me be more specific.

By DSLRs, i meant digital single lens reflex, not mirrorless. Also, I posted this in the canon FF forum so I thought it was self-explanatory that i was referring to the CANON DSLRs in particular, not the nikons or mirrorless cameras. Sorry for the vagueness.

J.F.R. well, once i upgrade, I'll stop worrying and shoot for the next 3-4 years, but since i am looking for an upgrade now, shouldn't i be worrying about this? haha
Click to expand...

OK but why bring the mirror into the equation? The mirror isn't used in video mode and in stills mode some people myself included prefer an evf over an optical viewfinder. Canon certainly have been leading the pack in DSLR video for the last 4 years but the new cameras from the other manufacturers are worth having a look at. So far they all appear to have some issues with moire and aliasing. This isn't an issue with the 5D MKIII at the expense of a slightly softer image which needs a touch of sharpening in post.

The only sony video cameras that IMO compete with the MKIII are the FS100 and FS700 whose S35 sensors where specifically designed for 1080p filmic images. All the other Sony video cams have sensors designed for the Alpha and Nex cameras, they're not bad sensors at all but they all have aliasing and moire.

If you give us a bit more info about what kind of work you shoot then we might be able to give you better advice.
 
squig said:
OK but why bring the mirror into the equation? The mirror isn't used in video mode and in stills mode some people myself included prefer an evf over an optical viewfinder. Canon certainly have been leading the pack in DSLR video for the last 4 years but the new cameras from the other manufacturers are worth having a look at. So far they all appear to have some issues with moire and aliasing. This isn't an issue with the 5D MKIII at the expense of a slightly softer image which needs a touch of sharpening in post.

The only sony video cameras that IMO compete with the MKIII are the FS100 and FS700 whose S35 sensors where specifically designed for 1080p filmic images. All the other Sony video cams have sensors designed for the Alpha and Nex cameras, they're not bad sensors at all but they all have aliasing and moire.

If you give us a bit more info about what kind of work you shoot then we might be able to give you better advice.
Click to expand...

promos, corporates, (occasionally) events...
I might go into weddings in the future, but at the moment, my main ones are the promos/corporates. I'm leaning slightly towards the canon as i do photography too as a side hobby (with my compact or if i can, i'll nab my mate's d7000 for a joyride)...And for photos, i actually like the mirror. Call me a traditionalist, but i feel there's nothing more satisfying than hearing that mirror slap up and down. haha :p
But basically, I'm looking to get the best possible camera for under US$5000...Fs100's slightly out of my budget as here in singapore, it's slightly more than US$6000...So 5d3 and ea50 are my main options now.

I agree with the sony part, though. I'm hoping the ea50 won't be a disappointment, but judging from the 1 raw footage video i've seen on vimeo, well, frankly, I'm not impressed. Will have to wait for the proper reviews, though.

So, as i was wondering, are the canon DSLRs on the road to extinction in the video world? Or are they still a worthy competitor?

*Btw, just clarifying, I've heard the 5d3 has some bad judder problems when doing slow pans...is that a real issue?
 
Last edited:
Donald Ong said:
*Btw, just clarifying, I've heard the 5d3 has some bad judder problems when doing slow pans...is that a real issue?
Click to expand...
It's not an issue at all. Where on earth did you find this nonsense? Probably posted by someone who left the IS on when panning on a tripod.
 
Not at all.

I am using a 1D Mark IV. My wildlife short film "A Call in the Rainforest" just got nominated for the Special Awards in Wildlife Vaasa Festival in Finland. http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/nominated-for-special-awards-in-wildlife-vaasa-festival-finland/
There are certain limitations in a DSLR for filming. However, one can still compete.

I have already informed Canon that I will be buying a 1D C when it is launched. It is touted as a DSLR albeit with 4k capabilities. So who says DSLR revolution is dead. There will be many more people who will get into filming due to DSLR revolution and realise their dreams.
 
No, they're not dead. They're just getting started.

The BBC used loads of 5Ds during their Olympics coverage. Why, because of the versatility, because of the look, because of economics.

It might be that DSLRs become 'B' cameras to the new generation of large sensor camcorders, but given the beauty of full frame imagery and the low price point I'd say they'll be around awhile yet.
 
As better options for more affordable production friendly and better quality video cameras come to market, I think the DSLR's will decline in popularity except for those who also need stills capability or the stealth factor or just insist on full frame 35 DOF. The video quality of most of them is still second rate. They make for OK specialty shot B-cams, but in general are still a real pain in the but as A-cams.

 
nigelbb said:
It's not an issue at all. Where on earth did you find this nonsense? Probably posted by someone who left the IS on when panning on a tripod.
Click to expand...
Ah ok. But he seemed quite certain he had IS off? maybe he's wrong...Who knows :)

Razz16mm said:
As better options for more affordable production friendly and better quality video cameras come to market, I think the DSLR's will decline in popularity except for those who also need stills capability or the stealth factor or just insist on full frame 35 DOF. The video quality of most of them is still second rate. They make for OK specialty shot B-cams, but in general are still a real pain in the but as A-cams.

Click to expand...

I really don't get that video...why is he complaining about lack of detail in the background when it is clearly out of focus? And in some shots i can't help but feel that the 5d was deliberately disadvantaged. Alot of the 5d shots looked like missed focus. (maybe its just vimeo, but i can't help but feel that way..or did he just not realise that even at the same f/stop, focus will be much shallower on the full frame 5d?) and in the 600mm shot, it was obvious the 5d was shot in hazy conditions while the BMCC in a clear, sunlit day. It just seems too much like the 5d was deliberately crippled to make the BMCC appear much better than it is...not sure...

Anyway, I've no doubt that the BMCC will resolve more detail with better DR, but i absolutely CANNOT live with its pathetic ergonomics and i don't really want to rig up. Also, once you get the essential accessories for the BMCC, it becomes more like 6,000 - 8,000...not 3,000. I'm looking for the best fully functional camera for under US5,000...the BMCC (once rigged out, which you need to do) is out of the equation.
Liam Hall said:
No, they're not dead. They're just getting started.

The BBC used loads of 5Ds during their Olympics coverage. Why, because of the versatility, because of the look, because of economics.

It might be that DSLRs become 'B' cameras to the new generation of large sensor camcorders, but given the beauty of full frame imagery and the low price point I'd say they'll be around awhile yet.
Click to expand...

Wow really? i watched the coverage and it looked like they were using 2/3'' panny and sony ENG cams... where did you read that? that would be fantastic! And was it on 5d3s or 5dmk2s?
 
Last edited:
I don't know whether that BMCC vs MKIII test was deliberately skewed in favour of the BMCC but there are a couple of points I'll make about it-

-The MKIII has to be post sharpened to bring out the detail in every shot, the BMCC doesn't require post sharpening.
-Even with post sharpening the 5D resolves less detail than the BMCC but the difference won't be as huge as it is in this test.
-800 ASA is not exactly a low light test, they should have pushed the BMCC to it's limit 1600 ASA and perhaps shown the MKIII at 3200 and 6400 ISO too.
-The colour grading looks vastly different.
-The test focussed on where the BMCC is strongest and the MKIII is weakest like wide high contrast landscape shots, it's a no brainer that the BMCC would outclass the MKIII in that test.
-Some controlled lighting skin tone tests would have been more helpful particularly considering the BMCC is geared more towards studio shooting.
-The ProRes BMCC shots didn't appear to have much of an edge on the MKIII in dynamic range and the test was flawed because some of the shots were overexposed.
-The BMCC also had more aliasing and moire than the MKIII.

I think the BMCC would make a great partner for the MKIII but I wouldn't give up my MKIII for the BMCC. If the BMCC had an S35 sensor, better low light ability, 60p, and a removable battery it would be a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top