[TaoMaas]

I've never shot video with a DSLR before...only mirrorless cameras or actual video cameras. When using a DSLR for video, do you have to use the LCD for composing and framing? I'm thinking the regular eyepiece is useless because the mirror would have to flip up out of the way since the sensor will need to be exposed for longer durations. Is that right?

[VoiceOfReason]

Yep, I use the LCD

[TaoMaas]

Thanks. Some of the folks here are thinking about buying a DSLR and using it for video. They have some extra money and I was thinking about telling them they might want to buy a lupe while they're at it.

[Na Horuk]

Yes, DSLRs have to be in live view and flip up the mirror (so OVF is useless, dark) for video.
DSLRs are generally made for stills, video not being their top priority, but some are still used quite well for even high quality videos (mostly Canon brand).
The gamechanger may be the new 645D if it has video - there is lots of speculation atm

[Steve.Ledger]

DSLRs are not great for huge DoF stuff like landscape/scenic. Terrible aliasing and moire mostly. But they're better than camcorders for interview work, close-ups of animals and anything where shallow DoF and blurry backgrounds are used. TV shows and Movies use shallow DoF a lot.

[VoiceOfReason]

Set your aperture before recording and it will stay on that. At least it does on my K5.

[TaoMaas]

DSLRs are not great for huge DoF stuff like landscape/scenic. Terrible aliasing and moire mostly. But they're better than camcorders for interview work, close-ups of animals and anything where shallow DoF and blurry backgrounds are used.

That's what these guys saw...some videos online with extremely shallow depth of field. They were told that it looked like it was shot with a DSLR, so they're buying a Canon 5D MkIII. I asked them what lenses they were getting and they said they'd found a kit online with two zooms, so that's what they're getting. Primarily this camera is going to be used to post pictures to Facebook and Instagram. The video is only a sideline. You know...the kind of stuff most people do with their smart phone. lol Their social media person is the one driving this deal. Up until now, she's been shooting with a $200 Nikon P&S camera. This person has a great eye, but her technical knowledge is limited. She doesn't know that one of the main reasons her pics turn out good is because the camera is doing a lot of the thinking for her. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that they're about to spend $5000 to find out how much they DON'T know. Watching this reminds me of an experience I had with another co-worker years ago. He had been shooting mostly family pics and things...and was pretty damned proud of himself because his pictures always turned out looking so nice. Then he got hired by a friend to shoot some slides of some artwork. All his slides were dark and grainy and he was thinking of sending his camera in for repair. So he came to me to ask what was wrong. I told him, "Your pictures have probably always been this way, but you never knew it because the exposure problems were being fixed in the printing process. There's nothing wrong with your camera. You're just being shown how wrong you've been all along....sorry."

[kadajawi]

Yes, DSLRs have to be in live view and flip up the mirror (so OVF is useless, dark) for video.
DSLRs are generally made for stills, video not being their top priority, but some are still used quite well for even high quality videos (mostly Canon brand).
The gamechanger may be the new 645D if it has video - there is lots of speculation atm

Even IF the 645D supports video, there's no way Pentax, of all brands, will be able to read out the complete sensor and do pixel binning. Usually it's the smaller sensors that can do that. If it only reads the necessary pixels, you'll run into problems with aliasing and moire. Then there is depth of field. Actual 35mm cinema cameras use film about the size of an APS-C sensor. Getting much shallower DoF... good luck focusing. Besides the look will be very extreme. Then because the actual pixels that can be used (with line skipping) will be pretty small (high resolution sensor, even though it is big) low ISO performance will not be good at all. Which isn't helped by the apertures you need to use to get any usable amount of DoF... Add to that the bad track record Pentax has for video, and that you can get some pretty amazing cameras for a 645D II price tag, that are actually meant for video/cinema and deliver great quality... Pentax shouldn't even bother giving it video functionality. It's not like a potential 645D II buyer will be wowed by 1080p written on the box. If you spend so much money on a camera, you demand a lot. It's a waste of time and effort that they should much rather spend on fixing the K-3.

@TaoMaas: Oh wow. Bad, bad idea. They'd probably be much better off with a Sony RX100. I guess they are not good at pulling focus? Please show them a video of HOW people shoot with the 5D. Something like this:

You Tube

You Tube

Or at least

You Tube

You Tube

Scare the hell out of them.

[TaoMaas]

@TaoMaas: Oh wow. Bad, bad idea. They'd probably be much better off with a Sony RX100. I guess they are not good at pulling focus?

Pull focus? Pffftt...these guys don't even know what that means. They're very much in the "oh...you're a wonderful cook. You must have a great set of pots and pans" camp. They think the Mk III is all they need because great video/pics is only a matter of buying the right camera.

Please show them a video of HOW people shoot with the 5D.

My co-worker showed them a pic on his phone of his buddy's rig who shoots commercials with a 5D. It's much like the rig in that video. But...they're thinking they don't need all that stuff to get the kind of results they want. It's really no skin off my nose what they do with their money, but it just amazes me to think of them having all this cash for gear...and not knowing what they're doing...vs how much more "bang for their buck" they could get if that same budget were given to many of the members of this forum.

---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 12:39 PM ----------

On a totally unrelated note...I ran across a shoulder-mount rig for a DSLR in a pawnshop a while back that had a option for focus control on the side. I couldn't help but wonder who was ever going to look in a pawnshop for such a specialized piece of gear...and who had pawned it in the first place.

Also...to whoever changed the title of my thread from "Dumb question" into something that more accurately reflected what I was asking...."Thank you!" lol

[kadajawi]

Pull focus? Pffftt...these guys don't even know what that means. They're very much in the "oh...you're a wonderful cook. You must have a great set of pots and pans" camp. They think the Mk III is all they need because great video/pics is only a matter of buying the right camera.




My co-worker showed them a pic on his phone of his buddy's rig who shoots commercials with a 5D. It's much like the rig in that video. But...they're thinking they don't need all that stuff to get the kind of results they want. It's really no skin off my nose what they do with their money, but it just amazes me to think of them having all this cash for gear...and not knowing what they're doing...vs how much more "bang for their buck" they could get if that same budget were given to many of the members of this forum.

---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 12:39 PM ----------

On a totally unrelated note...I ran across a shoulder-mount rig for a DSLR in a pawnshop a while back that had a option for focus control on the side. I couldn't help but wonder who was ever going to look in a pawnshop for such a specialized piece of gear...and who had pawned it in the first place.

Oh well. At least you'll be able to point a finger and say ha-ha when they fail.

Hm... that's odd. Not the best place for such gear, yeah.

[jogiba]

Many today prefer mirrorless cameras like the new Panasonic GH4 with OLED EVF to shoot video since the OVF on DSLRs is worthless in video mode.

You Tube

You Tube

[fretlessdavis]

What a waste... for their purposes a smartphone will do just fine. On a Vegas training trip I did a while ago, I spent a good amount of time working with a cinematographer that worked pretty much exclusively with an iPhone, with a nice audio setup. For web purposes, it's more than adequate. A nice microphone, a tripod adapter, and patience is all you need.

Much like photography, it's about staging, composition, lighting, and content. If you don't have those, no matter what camera you have it is going to be worthless.

[jogiba]

What a waste... for their purposes a smartphone will do just fine. On a Vegas training trip I did a while ago, I spent a good amount of time working with a cinematographer that worked pretty much exclusively with an iPhone, with a nice audio setup. For web purposes, it's more than adequate. A nice microphone, a tripod adapter, and patience is all you need.

Much like photography, it's about staging, composition, lighting, and content. If you don't have those, no matter what camera you have it is going to be worthless.

The same could be said for photography for most people.
Flickr Search: Nokia 808
Flickr Search: Nokia 1020

[fretlessdavis]

The same could be said for photography for most people.
Flickr Search: Nokia 808
Flickr Search: Nokia 1020

For WEB viewing. any phone isn't going to hold a candle to a real video system at anything wider than 800 px. Videos don't need the quality of photos, either. The NFL shoots everything on 16mm film (for longevity sake) but it still looks good on a big screen. Any 16mm still shot will look pretty crappy on a big screen.

[jogiba]

For WEB viewing. any phone isn't going to hold a candle to a real video system at anything wider than 800 px. Videos don't need the quality of photos, either. The NFL shoots everything on 16mm film (for longevity sake) but it still looks good on a big screen. Any 16mm still shot will look pretty crappy on a big screen.

Did you just make the following post ?

What a waste... for their purposes a smartphone will do just fine. On a Vegas training trip I did a while ago, I spent a good amount of time working with a cinematographer that worked pretty much exclusively with an iPhone, with a nice audio setup. For web purposes, it's more than adequate. A nice microphone, a tripod adapter, and patience is all you need.

Much like photography, it's about staging, composition, lighting, and content. If you don't have those, no matter what camera you have it is going to be worthless.

4K video from a Samsung smartphone :

You Tube

You Tube

click here for 2560x1600 screen capture from the 4K video