Originally posted by normhead Not sure I understand.
Anyway, we are just trying to explain why someone would rather use a DSLR than a video camera for videos, because several comments seem to show a lack of understanding ("buy a video camera..."). Mainly because the quality is better, even though it is less convenient. There is more control over the look, and it has a "better" look to it. Video cameras are great for non serious use/for convenience, but once you want to step up the game a DSLR or mirrorless camera is the way to go... from there there are steps up too, but they cost an arm and a leg.
And as long as it doesn't hurt the stills capabilities and broadens the possible customer base, I mean, what's wrong with that?
Some things that come from video, but help stills, are for example the ability to capture photos completely quiet, and without using the shutter. At the moment rolling shutter is a problem, but sensors get faster.
Or you might soon be able to shoot short bursts of 4K video, with the ability to quickly go through to find the perfect moment (think sports photography for example).
PDAF on the sensor... at least for mirrorless cameras that means more choice of AF points that are also much smaller, thus it's easier to judge if you hit the right spot. Also, object tracking becomes possible.
General performance increases when it comes from transfering data from the sensor to the processor, and faster processors, though yes, the hard coded parts that encode video may not help too much.
Quieter AF motors.
Better live view with things such as focus peaking.
IIRC that video that Giklab posted doesn't even go into mirrorless or DSLR cameras... the quality that those offer _can_ be leaps and bounds ahead of a video camera. At some point I have posted screen grabs from a $1500-ish 2012 Panasonic top of the line consumer camcorder, and from my Pentax K-5, both shooting video in broad daylight at the same time. Even under such conditions the output from the K-5 looks much, much better in every way, shape or form. More aliasing on the Panasonic, ridiculous oversharpening, the color of the sky changes into turquoise as the sensor just can't cope with the dynamic range... and it wasn't even a challenging scene, I've seen much worse from that camera. Admittedly the Pentax wasn't too sharp, but the 18-55 didn't help, and I turned down sharpening. The Panasonic is nice to use, it can compress video really well, can record for hours without problems, it has a ridiculously good stabilizer (though it does look too artificial IMHO). It has reasonably good audio too, even in surround. But as far as image quality goes? No competition. At all. My ancient K-5 just kills it, let alone the output of say a Nikon D5300 (not to mention a GH4 or (probably) a NX1).
Ah, now you make more sense, normhead, though that link went to the wrong section (film, as in 35mm analog...). I think, and so do all the other brands, that going after video people too helps them sell cameras, and brands that didn't think so in the first place have changed their mind apparently (just look at Olympus). The thing is, the K-3 shows Pentax did actually try to do something decent, but for some reason they screwed up in other areas. Yes, competitors may not have been much better back then either, but Pentax had the potential to do something better, something that can beat the competition, and the hardware, and even most of the software was already there. Heck, they can still do it via a firmware update, as other brands do it these days. THAT is the frustrating thing. The K-3 could have been a great tool, beating Canikon, but Pentax has chosen to limit it. Makes little sense... The hope is that at some point, Pentax will actually listen und unlock what we would like to have.
Don't worry, I shoot plenty of video, though I rarely edit and upload it.