Well this was enough to bring me out of hibernation.
I've got to be honest I'm still scratching my head over what I just read. The internet polarises opinions for sure, but there are SO many inaccuracies that you have to wonder what purpose there was in writing this? Is it just an anti DSLR bash or an attempt to justify a "small sensor good, large sensor bad" decision? Are we talking about underwater filming here, or all filming?
Just a few points:
Audio - apart from a few niche situations who is worried about this for underwater use? Audio on the newer mirrorless cameras and DSLR's is absolutely fine and certainly comparable to the results you'd get from a camcorder's internal microphone.
DoF - not an issue for WA if you choose the correct lens. For macro we tend to like the shallower DoF and anyway you'd get a similar effect to this using a video camera with diopters.
Blue Planet - was filmed mostly on 16mm film.
Moire and aliasing - this has NOT become worse on the latest DLSR's, it has virtually disappeared from them. The first generation were pretty bad at times, but this was never really an issue underwater where you rarely get straight lines or patterns like brickwork or roof tiles. You did have to be very careful when shooting in a swimming pool though.
Colours - Oh my. The Canon DSLR's produce the most amazing colours underwater. Far, far better than ANY video camera I have used before or after.
Macro vs WA - If you want to do this properly you will always have a dedicated set up for macro and wide angle on a video camera. If you want to swim around and film what you come across then a video camera offers an advantage. Also you can get decent range of zoom through with dome ports on most WA DSLR zooms, which is at least comparible to what you'd get from a standard dome port/dome on a video camera housing.
Documentaries - Most documentaries these days are filmed with large sensor cameras. Smaller sensors are now more or less confined to ENG, but even then there are plenty of guys out there using F5's, FS700's, C300's, FS7's for traditional ENG work.
Stability - Yes DSLR housings are not normally initially well balanced, but this can be resolved very easily by adding buoyancy in the same way you'd add trim weights to a traditional video housing. The only time you should be getting shaky footage is if you can't hold the camera still and if that is the case then you'll get this regardless of what you are using.
Cost - There is a big difference in the set up costs for a DSLR vs a comparable quality video camera. The DLSR can often be 50% cheaper, which is a big decision when negotiating budgets or when it is coming straight out of your own pocket.
Is the article saying that large sensor video cameras are ok, but SLR's with the same size sensor are not, because.......they have a large sensor??
Is the article really supporting the FS100 as a viable alternative to a DSLR for underwater shooting? Seriously???
I will admit that filming on a DSLR and getting good results is more difficult than filming on a video camera where you can just set everything to auto and press record. If you tried to do that on a DSLR you'd be wasting your time so you do need to learn how to film with full manual controls to get the best out of them. I've seen some truly awful underwater footage filmed on a RED, footage that you'd be utterly embarrassed to show others that you'd shot, while on the flip side I've seen jaw droppingly awesome footage shot on a first generation DSLR. I've seen awful footage shot on a EX1 while on the same dive amazing footage shot on an GoPro1.
DSLR's and mirrorless cameras have a significant place in the current filmmakers arsenal. I film on both traditional video cameras and DSLR's and have no bias whatsoever as they both have a role to play. They are tools to be used as we see fit and we certainly shouldn't be excluding one OR the other.