[Imageman]

Sure these movies used dslr, but the gear of choice was usually full pro movie kit, and for very good reasons.


The fact that dslr was chosen was not because the dslr is better than or even as good as the pro movie gear they usually use, but the shots were more achievable in the space they had and the dslr had advantages, in the small crew size they could use in confined spaces. It has to be said that film makers have always been willing to compromise quality to achieve the shot. Location shots have often looked different to studio shots due to these equipment compromises.


As steve put it so well when speaking of dslr "the video capabilities are an add-on feature and performance/utility is a compromise at best"


This is an extract discussing the dslr choice and reason for it in the video discussed:-


"Similar to the reasons the crew on the TV show House used a 5D to shoot their season finale, Black Swan employed DSLRs for their maneuverability and accompanying (lack of) crew size.


It was a single-camera shoot except for maybe one day, and our main camera was an Arri 416, which we used with Arri Ultra Prime 16 lenses. We used a Canon 7D or 1D Mark IV for all the subway scenes; I could just carry a 7D and shoot on the subway all day with a very small crew."


The Arri 416 is the camera of choice and the Canon 7D was an additional piece of kit where the space didn't allow the full crew.


It should be pointed out that the arri 416 is a 16mm film camera, cinematography moved to 35mm film some 100 years ago. The 7D didn't therefore have to compete with a startlingly good film source although the arri is acknowledged as high quality camera. Broadcast quality video cameras compete with 35mm movie cameras so should be a step up in quality.


And for those who seemed amused by my suggestion that a focus puller would be used, the extract goes on:-


"I did all the focus pulls by hand, and we’d just look at it on the camera’s monitor. I ended up shooting on a Canon 24mm lens at 1,600 ASA to get as much depth of field as possible."


The fact that a dslr is good enough to stand side by side with the arri is impressive, but I stand by my statement a pro video camera is a better solution and offers so much more than just a capable sensor. If you are strapped for cash however movie mode is a useful option on a dslr. If your planning to make a movie, I still believe your better suited with a movie camera.


And I haven't mentioned it before, but I was until recently a member of a video club, some of the members own and run video production companies, producing commercial advertising videos for businesses.


Not one of them considered using a dslr, they all used various video camcorders and pro video cameras.

[stevebrot]

Whether the quality of the recorded footage is satisfactory or not is a matter of opinion

...and we definitely have plenty of opinion! FWIW, I fall into the category of user who purchases a camera for its strengths for my primary use cases. I typically don't shoot video, so my pain threshold is much higher regarding that feature than a person who does.* I am, however, very picky about build and still image quality and ergonomics. My K-3 satisfies my needs quite nicely in those areas.

To add more of my perspective, care to know what $7000 FF digital camera has HD video that is distinctly inferior to that used in any current Pentax dSLR? Hint: The same maker will charge you another $1000 for a similar body with NO video.


Steve (the other)

* If I were to take up video with any seriousness, I would probably buy a GH4 or a A7s and be happy with my choice. It is unlikely that I would buy either of those for still photography.

---------- Post added 08-03-14 at 08:02 PM ----------

And for those who seemed amused by my suggestion that a focus puller would be used

It does not amuse nor surprise me. The cameraman has enough to do without having to worry about focus.


Steve

[kadajawi]

@imageman: Wow. I don't know what to say. Image quality of camcorders better than DSLRs? I have access to a 2012 top of the line Panasonic camcorder, worth something like 1500-2000 USD IIRC. And my K-5, an older camera by a brand not giving a f*** about video, and costing a similar amount. The difference in quality is absolutely mind blowing. Yes, the Panasonic is easier to use and has a space efficient encoder with many different options. But the image absolutely sucks. Skies that are shifting in color as the blue sensor is completely overexposed, extreme denoising in anything but bright sunlight. Everything is in focus and painfully sharp. I've heard no one say they prefer the footage from the Panasonic over my Pentax.

A DSLR gives the videographer control, though it requires more skill perhaps. Yes, there are video cameras that are great, but you should be very well aware that they lack AF and cost significantly more.

I've seen plenty of TV shows produced on DSLRs, and they look good. All wedding videographers that I have seen recently shoot DSLR too.

[grispie]

If you are strapped for cash however movie mode is a useful option on a dslr.

This being the whole point and reason of the popularity of dslr filming.
Ofcourse a movie camera would be a far better option. Don't think anyone will deny that..

---------- Post added 08-04-14 at 09:42 AM ----------

@imageman: Wow. I don't know what to say. Image quality of camcorders better than DSLRs?

I think imageman is referring to (the much more expensive) bigger sensor movie cameras. Those will have a better image for sure. But it is far from a fair comparison.
Maybe he can clear this himself..

[PiDicus Rex]

Try being professional and using a focus puller to focus and zoom sweetly with dslr, it aint ever gonna happen, all you will get is obvious and amateurish looking focus changes.

Ummm,... try classic Pentax lenses, K's and KA's. They take to focus rigs like ducks to water.

I don't watch tv on my computer,

My "TV" is a P4 with WinXP and twin DTV tunercards.... And aBenq LCD set to sRGB

[TomGarn]

Because we are on a Pentax-board - and not on a SonyA7s or Panasonic GH4-board
we can see the criticism about low quality of our Video-DSLRs to be quite right - about Pentax.
Sony now reaches new hights - and Panasonic is also quite ahead - that's for shure. So we may weep ...

With a Pentax - you do come from photograpy and want to use your old glasses for video now ...
Or you may think in terms of budget and can't find a better cheap video-DSLR as the K-5 / K-01 / K-30 ;-)

If you are a professional video-cameraman you may also think about a semiprofessional camera like the
Sony PMW200 - good for problematic documentaries - in wars - and on Himalayas - etc - where you need a small
and affordable camera - because it may be risky and you also don't want to carry a heavy burden around with you.

DSLRs are used mostly and almost for their DOF as a special look - because full-format DSLR has more DOF
than even movies - so about broadcast they are just used in certain cases for a special reason - and n movies
they are used on extremely rare cases only I guess ...

https://www.google.de/shopping/product/5652095598560614995?q=PMW200&safe=off...ed=0CG4QpiswAA

[osv]

@imageman: Wow. I don't know what to say. Image quality of camcorders better than DSLRs? I have access to a 2012 top of the line Panasonic camcorder, worth something like 1500-2000 USD IIRC. And my K-5, an older camera by a brand not giving a f*** about video, and costing a similar amount. The difference in quality is absolutely mind blowing. Yes, the Panasonic is easier to use and has a space efficient encoder with many different options. But the image absolutely sucks. Skies that are shifting in color as the blue sensor is completely overexposed, extreme denoising in anything but bright sunlight. Everything is in focus and painfully sharp. I've heard no one say they prefer the footage from the Panasonic over my Pentax.

those things are operator error issues.

for instance, how is overexposure the fault of the camcorder? do you blame overexposed stills on the camera also? learn how to use manual mode.

"painfully sharp"... smear vasoline over a screw-on filter, if you want that soft garbage look... use nd filters, if you want to shoot with an open aperture all the time.

A DSLR gives the videographer control, though it requires more skill perhaps. Yes, there are video cameras that are great, but you should be very well aware that they lack AF and cost significantly more.

my cheapo vixia hf11 has full manual control over aperture and shutter speed, and even full manual focus control... so does your panasonic, you just never used it.

the "lack af" comment indicates that you don't have a parfocal lens for the k-5, so you have to rely on continuous autofocus.

since you are a movie buff... how many movies have you seen that were shot with continuous autofocus? it's not professional; it looks horrible, and everyone that you saw that's shooting those weddings with dslrs is using it.

turn off the continuous autofocus, and try doing a slow crawl shot with that dslr... ack!

these issues highlight the differences between old-skool imageman, vs. the dslr generation... i think that there is some common ground, but the dslr people need to learn how to shoot video, before it can be reached.

[Imageman]

Theres no school like the old school, as they say.


Im proud to be old school and thank you for your kind words osv


Today I watched a childrens program being video'd for television broadcast in the coming winter. It was a Christmas show, with christmas tree and winter clothing. There was of course a full crew - director, lighting crew, sound crew, cameraman, 1st camera assistant, continuity, dolly grip, etc etc. Not a dslr in sight. I didnt question that.


I applaud the use of dslr for impromptu video, I have used my phone to capture memories both stills and video. I use whatever I can to capture whatever I envision. Ive used meniscus lenses, ive ripped lenses apart to create aberrations, ive used handheld cardboard tubes for macro effects and freelensed or lenswhacked whatever you want to call it.


Use whatever you want to create art.


But lets be clear, art is art, but when people rely on you to deliver the goods and you have to produce a professional video for a client, I believe youll be more productive and get a better result with a video camera than with a dslr. Its about choices options and suitability for the task.


The question was asked what kind of video camera im suggesting is compared to dslr. The comparison im talking about is comparing a 3,000 dollar dslr kit body plus lenses, with a 3,000 dollar semi pro broadcast or near broadcast quality video cam.


Or if you prefer instead, a 12,000 dollar medium format dslr with lenses, compared to a 12,000 dollar full broadcast quality video cam.


Im not talking about comparing a 5D mk 2 plus 3 lenses, all in costing 3,000 dollars, with a 300 dollar handycam


It seems to be being suggested here that a dslr is up to feature film/video production quality, personally I cannot envisage the next star wars epic shot on a k3, nor can I envisage a national geographic natural history video produced on canon 5D mk2. or an episode of buffy the vampire killer shot on a Nikon D610.


Sure I exaggerate, but a lot of people seem to think a broadcast quality video camera is inferior now to a dslr.


In my view, video cameras and dslr cameras are quite different. High end Video cameras use 3 separate imaging sensors, one for each colour, a dslr uses a bayer array. The things that make a good dslr don't make a good video camera and the things that make a good video camera don't make a good dslr. So all we can be offered is a compromise. And I fear if Pentax is persuaded to invest in improving the video capture in their dslrs, the rest of the camera will be compromised.


Compromises are never good things.


Do we want to compromise on video quality and have great digital stills, or do we want to have great video quality and compromise the digital stills. Video cameras arent made by people who don't know what theyr doing. They don't make huge slab like cameras because they love huge slab like cameras, a high end video camera is a beast because it needs to be to do what it does competently it needs a shoulder pad and a ton of muscles to carry it. Turn a dslr into a camera that competes with that beast and the dslr will become a beast like it in form and function.


Do I want my dslr to be shackled in this way. No thanks.

[grispie]

Turn a dslr into a camera that competes with that beast and the dslr will become a beast like it in form and function.

i understand your point.
Fear not.
Personally i embrace my dslr filming options, but i am well aware that other options become available & that will only grow. this is: video oriented options with larger sensor e.g.
Sony FS100, sony cx900, ax100, bmcc, sony a7s & other ones i am not aware that become more and more affordable.
I also favour my K3 & other dslrs to stay focused on photography. I believe this will be the case, the needs are too different: lenses, audio, functionalities, ergonomics.

That is also the reason why I am happy with the limits of my dslr for filming. If i really want high quality footage, i'll need to shift indeed..
But in the mean time, i am climbing a steep learning curve, using the equipment i already have.

[kadajawi]

those things are operator error issues.

for instance, how is overexposure the fault of the camcorder? do you blame overexposed stills on the camera also? learn how to use manual mode.

No. The dynamic range of the sensor is SO tiny that a normally exposed blue sky will have the blue channel completely overexposed (you're not getting a white sky, you're getting weird colors). Granted you can correct that... but then other areas will be massively underexposed. Generally colors often look bad because one of the channels seems to have reached the limit.

"painfully sharp"... smear vasoline over a screw-on filter, if you want that soft garbage look... use nd filters, if you want to shoot with an open aperture all the time.

Even at open aperture will you not have a shallow DoF. And it sharpens alot. Maybe you can change that somewhere... I don't care.

the "lack af" comment indicates that you don't have a parfocal lens for the k-5, so you have to rely on continuous autofocus.

since you are a movie buff... how many movies have you seen that were shot with continuous autofocus? it's not professional; it looks horrible, and everyone that you saw that's shooting those weddings with dslrs is using it.

turn off the continuous autofocus, and try doing a slow crawl shot with that dslr... ack!

these issues highlight the differences between old-skool imageman, vs. the dslr generation... i think that there is some common ground, but the dslr people need to learn how to shoot video, before it can be reached.

All my zoom lenses are parfocal, and one of them is a push zoom lens, allowing very smooth zooms. I don't complain about the lack of AF, I don't need it. Though focus peaking is neat.

As long as the DoF is shallow enough I can keep my subject in focus. Not 100% all the time, but good enough for me. Things get hard at f8.

Are broadcast cameras really that affordable? When I look at cameras like the C100 and higher they carry a massive price tag. So does the BMCC, the Red One and Epic, and of course the Alexa.

DSLRs allow you to get that look without breaking the bank. Will you have to make sacrifices, esp in terms of usability? In most cases yes, of course. But the price...

Small sensor cameras, even with 3 chips, suffer from poor low light performance, poor dynamic range (see the Panasonic I mentioned... somewhere in this forum I posted screencaps from the same scene shot with both cameras) etc.

Different tools for different purposes.

I don't think much, if anything would be sacrificed by pushing more towards video. The A7S is still a terrific stills camera, for example. And personally I do not want to carry different gear, if Pentax doesn't massively improve the K-3 to reach at least the level of the K-5 I'll probably switch brands. (Pentax does have to hire some video people...).

Btw., on German TV some documentaries/reports are shot using DSLRs, sometimes you can see the cameraman (they use several cameras) with a DSLR on a rig. The stuff they shoot looks great. On Singaporean TV they showed the behind the scenes of some period drama that probably has cost the station quite a bit. And you see DSLRs being used for filming.

Will big budget productions use DSLRs? Of course not. If they have a 5 million budget per episode I'm sure they can also afford to buy an Alexa or two. And there are now alternatives to DSLRs that give the look, but in a more video centric body.

[Imageman]

I think its worth examining whats probably happening.
Several posts have indicated that standard dslr cameras are being used in the AV industry to produce tv documentaries tv productions and cinema production footage.
Some of these claims are undoubtedly true, but other claims are based simply upon seeing what looks like dslr equipment being used in tv companies. The assumption is that these are standard dslr cameras and therefore high end dslr cameras that are sold in the high street will perform satisfactorily as a video or broadcast production tool, if they are the same or a similar model.
I believe that this assumption is flawed.
Canon for example have taken their EOS 1D dslr and heavily modified it for cinematic use and called it a special model the "Canon Cinema EOS 1D C". Make no mistake this is not a standard EOS 1D or anything like it. Its an enhanced EOS 1D for cinematic use and therefore should be viewed as a camcorder not as a dslr.
canon have also produced a dslr like camcorder solely for cinematic use this is no way a dslr and was never designed as such. It does however have a strong physical resemblance to a dslr, and it may be the case that this camera when it is seen in a production environment is mistaken for a dslr, adding to the confusion.

Lets have a look at some descriptions of these two cameras.
This extract is taken from "prokit.com" a company providing professional broadcast equipment to the AV industry. I believe their opinions stated herein can be relied upon.
Note that the EOS 1D C is described as being designed for motion picture capture, and also described as the first drslr to provide broadcast production quality images.
"Canon Cinema EOS 1D C DSLR £6,995.00
A groundbreaking multimedia camera that excels at both stills and movie shooting, EOS-1D C brings 4k movies and advanced video functions like Canon Log Gamma to a high performance DSLR body. Digital cinema standard 4096 x 2160 (4k) movies are recorded to a CF cards at 24fps in M-JPEG (8bit 4.2.2) format, producing outstanding movie image quality suitable for the cinema industry.
Canon has announced that the EOS-1D C, its unique and ground-breaking DSLR designed principally for motion picture capture, has been independently tested in accordance with European Broadcasting Union (EBU) standards for HD content acquisition. The tests found that the EOS-1D C is the first-ever DSLR to provide an image of high enough quality for use as a broadcast production tool."

"Canon Cinema EOS C300 EF Mount Camcorder £10,740.00
Canon's EOS C300 is an interchangeable-lens Digital Cinema Camera, the first ever in Canon's Cinema EOS System for professional filmmakers and cinematographers. The creative possibilities of the EOS C300 Digital Cinema Cameras are greatly enhanced by their compatibility with Canon's wide range of EF mount lenses."


Now lets look at two Sony video cameras in comparison to the dslr type cameras from Canon which we have seen are capable of broadcast or near broadcast quality output.
Both these Sony video cameras are also broadcast or near broadcast quality, and can be seen as equivalent to the Canon cameras, although in the traditional broadcast (shoulder mounted) video camera form.
Notice that the quoted prices of these Sony video cameras are very similar to the Canon offerings.
"Sony NEX-FS700R Camcorder £5,388.00
Affordable 4K/2K RAW options with 4K Super 35mm sensor and Super Slow Motion. The NEX-FS700R is an NXCAM camcorder with a superior 4K Super 35mm CMOS sensor, super slow-motion capability and an interchangeable E-mount lens system, offering unrivalled flexibility and creative expression. The NEX-FS700RH option is supplied with the SELP18200 (E 18–200mm F3.5–6.3 OSS) 11x zoom E-Mount lens, with the Optical SteadyShot™ image stabilisation system.
The NEX-FS700E camcorder uses a new 4K "Exmor" Super 35 CMOS sensor (total 11.6 million pixels). This high-speed readout chip is optimised for motion picture shooting, giving high sensitivity, low noise and minimal aliasing. A future firmware upgrade will enable the NEX-FS700E to output 4K RAW bit-stream data over 3G HD-SDI when used with an optional external 4K recorder."

"Sony PMW-400L Camcorder £12,954.00
Three 2/3-inch type Exmor CMOS sensors XDCAM camcorder recording Full HD 422 at 50 Mbps.
The PMW-400L is an affordable 3x 2/3-inch CMOS high quality sensor broadcast camcorder that, like the PMW-500, supports all SD / HD 422 broadcast workflows using .MXF and XDCAM EX workflows using .MP4 and .AVI. It is also future-proofed to support XAVC 10-bit HD422 recordings.
Ideal for national and local broadcasting operations, the PMW-400L features a 2/3-inch lens mount, high resolution LCD viewfinder, 3DNR noise reduction processing and internal flash band reducer for news operations, as standard. The camcorder also features built-in WiFi remote and 2x SD/HD-SDI parallel outputs. An optional CBK-CE01 50-pin interface converts the shoulder camcorder to a system camera, with compatibility with digital triax and fibre adapters."

Finaly lets look at dslrs that have video output and are offered for sale to the audio visual industry by prokit and their descriptions.
Apart from the Canon cinema EOS 1D C, which is included I believe for completeness, all these dslrs are standard with no cinematic modifications.
Notice that the general description makes no mention of broadcast quality output, or tv production quality or cinematic quality, these dslrs are simply classed as suitable for web based video, or as a "B" camera.

"HDSLR
Video-capable DSLR cameras are useful tools for both stills and video. Large sensors offer excellent low-light sensitivity and highly controllable depth of field. Ideal for still photography, web-based video or as a “B” camera.
Canon Cinema EOS 1D C DSLR
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EOS 6D DSLR
Canon EOS 70D
Canon EOS-7D DLSR
Panasonic DMC-GH4 Camera
Sony A7s E-mount Camera with Full-Frame Sensor"

So what does all this mean. And I am assuming that this company who make their living providing pro video equipment to the AV, TV producton, and Cinema industry, know their business.
Well according to this company, Canon redisigned the EOS 1D to make it able to produce high broadcast quality output. All other dslrs that this company supplies to the industry are only capable, in their opinion, of web based output.
And while both the Canon EOS 1D C and the Canon EOS C300 both deliver broadcast quality video, Sony is able to provide video cameras which also deliver broadcast quality output at a similar price.
The price point advantage cited as a reason to use a dslr instead of a video camera now seems questionable at best.
And the Sony video cameras appear to significantly outperform all of the dslrs listed, (Other than the EOS 1D C) although it has to be said they are significantly more expensive than the "standard" dslrs.
The only advantage I see at this time that the dslr holds over a video camera is a size, weight, and convenience advantage.

[fuent104]

The Canon 1DC is absolutely a DSLR with some high-end video features. It's a 1DX with additional firmware.

One mistake in this conversation, I think, is to forget that there are more low-budget professional projects than high-budget projects. I work at a cinema camera rental house in Hollywood, and I am a cinematographer. I see DSLR rentals pretty frequently. It's usually a matter of budget, or of portability. It is certainly a professional market, though.

I also had a teacher who was the cinematographer for a commercial that aired during the Super Bowl in 2010. He was a professional. And he said he used his 7D for professional projects pretty regularly.

---------- Post added 08-04-14 at 09:18 PM ----------

Try being professional and using a focus puller to focus and zoom sweetly with dslr, it aint ever gonna happen, all you will get is obvious and amateurish looking focus changes.

This is, fortunately, very, very incorrect. When pulling focus, using proper tools, and, more importantly, good technique, you absolutely can get professional focus changes. You probably have seen it plenty of times, in commercials, music videos, infomercials, or in features...you just weren't aware of it, because it was done well.

A focus puller is a person, by the way. A follow focus is the tool used for pulling focus.

[kadajawi]

@imageman: I don't fully disagree, though the 1Dc IS a DSLR. It even has that mirror IIRC!

But a company marketing their more expensive cameras (thus earning them more) as broadcast quality, and their cheaper options, even if more capable (GH4 and A7s) as B roll or web video cameras? What a surprise! Of course they want people to give them more money!

Btw. I'm pretty sure they used DSLRs in the cases I mentioned. However I guess the number of them has gone down.

[grispie]

The price point advantage cited as a reason to use a dslr instead of a video camera now seems questionable at best.

well, guess that depends on who has to pay the bill, doesn't it?
The thing is, for individuals working on their own, students, small crews, non-professionals: dslrs are a godgiven gift. And that is still a vast group of people.

You make it sound like the alternatives are dirt cheap. they are not. But they will become affordable over time.

Are broadcast cameras really that affordable? When I look at cameras like the C100 and higher they carry a massive price tag. So does the BMCC, the Red One and Epic, and of course the Alexa.

DSLRs allow you to get that look without breaking the bank. Will you have to make sacrifices, esp in terms of usability? In most cases yes, of course. But the price...

Fully agree..

[Imageman]

Im getting a bit sick of being misquoted and misread
There are a lot of people in here who have an axe to grind trying to show that a dslr is better than the tools that were designed for the job namely camcorders.


I have said all along that good quality video cameras are available than can produce broadcast quality or near broadcast quality video for a simiar price to the dslr cameras that some people are using for video.
I have said all along that i have no problem with people using dslr cameras for video, I also said that using a dslr makes sense when you dont have the cash to buy a video camera.
But there are people in this forum who have purchased a z645 and use it to produce a video then are amazed at the quality of its video output. They are suggesting its a better option than a video camera would be.


My response is to challenge that and say a dslr is not up to the high quality a dedicated video camera can provide IN THE SAME PRICE BRACKET. Its not just about image quality theres more to a movie camera than the image alone.
The replies to that have been that dslrs are used for movie making and broadcast video in foreign tv studios.
The suggestion seems to be that video producton companies are now using dslrs.
My reply was the movie quoted was mostly shot on a movie film camera not a dslr, and some footage was shot on dslr because it was the better choice in special circumstances. I went on to say the evidence that a dslr was used in a broadcast studio is simply that the camera looked like a dslr. I suggested it was very likely in fact a specialist dslr capable of broadcast video and costing as much a studio broadcast camera.


Lets get a few things clear.
If you only have a a small budget, you have a choice of dslr, capable of web quality video, or a camcorder also capable of web quality video.
The dslr will probably provide better quality images, but wont be as easy to use or as capable for moviemaking as the camcorder. I might choose the dslr myself.
If you have to produce high quality video up to broadcast quality, with a crew for a client, and maybe for profit. you have a choice of broadcast quality dslr, or broadcast quality camcorder. The camcorder costs similar to the dslr at around £6000 and is in my opinion a more competent all round performer.
On location in cramped surroundings, the smaller more easily handled dslr has the edge.
I also said that the broadcast quality camcorder while it outperforms the stadard dslr, costs appreciably more.


There is no doubt that:-
dslrs have the edge at the under £3000 price point. But camcorders are slicker to use.
between £3000 and £6000 its about equal between camcorders and dslr.
Above £6000 camcorders have the edge. By then you will be using a crew and the broadcast quality video camera works better with a crew as well as delivering as good or better results than any available dslr.


Ive seen in this forum guys using a z645 to make a small movie with a crew.
This camera doesnt deliver broadcast quality video, it is however a very capable camera.
A z645 costs £6500. A broadcast quality video camera the Sony NEX-FS700R Camcorder costs £5,388.00 In my view the Sony wins it. The image quality is probably pretty much the same, but its a solid movie making machine, capable of dealing with anything asked of it and delivering the goods on set.


Im sure people arent making good comparisons between equipment when making sweeping statements that dslrs are much cheaper than high end equipment, and that dslrs are taking over in production video.
The AV scene is a complex one. Studio video cameras cost anywhere between £15,000 and £70,000.
A dslr at any price is a winner compared to this kind of camera, in the sub £1000 area dslrs are a strong winner compared to camcorders in that price bracket.


But if it is me and I have to produce a movie and this is my personal taste, I would be considering a video camera, and id pay a little more.
I get choice of frame rates, good quality output, and movie camera style handling that will be helping me produce the movie, not hindering as I feel a dslr would.


I have shot and edited movies, from super8 to hi8 to digital, on camcorder and on dslr. dslr cameras are just simply rudimentary for movie making. Making a good video clip is only part of the movie making experience.


Combine a pan, a tracking shot, a zoom, and a focus pull, in one scene. Do that on a good quality camcorder and its slick and sweet. Do that same pan track zoom and pull on a dslr, nightmare on elm street.