Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

DSLR vs. designated video camera.


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 aquaterra

aquaterra

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Panama City Florida

Posted 28 November 2016 - 02:30 PM

   I was wondering if it is worth buying a housing for my camcorder ( Sony AX33 ) for video shooting or should I stick with my DSLR ( Nikon D7100 ). I know with the DSLR I have a variety of lens options and I can switch from video to stills easily etc.... Would taking an actual system designed for video be the better option? I know the auto stabilization feature on the AX33 is better than the DSLR which is a big advantage but again worth the housing investment? Thank you in advance.



#2 Nick Hope

Nick Hope

    Sperm Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thailand

Posted 28 November 2016 - 06:14 PM

Now I'm shooting video with a "stills" camera (Panasonic GH4), these are some features I miss on my previous designated video cameras:

 

1. Wide range of focal lengths in one zoom lens

2. Better auto-focus

3. Longer depth of field (unless I specifically want a shallow DOF)

4. Flippable color-correction filter

5. Flippable ND filter (or at least an auto ND filter)

6. Smooth aperture adjustment (not in steps)

7. Simpler menu and controls

8. Better ergonomics for video

 

You potentially have most of those advantage in the AX33 over the D7100 (but probably not #5) and #4 would depend on the housing.

 

As a very general statement, designated video cameras are good for wide angle, underwater "run and gun" style shooting when you don't have much time. DSLRs etc. are good where you have time to set up a shot, such as benthic macro.



#3 aquaterra

aquaterra

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Panama City Florida

Posted 28 November 2016 - 06:53 PM

Cool, thank you. I do mostly photography but have been getting requests for videos so I wanted to ask and research before just jumping in. 



#4 Pete L

Pete L

    Tiger Shark

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney Australia

Posted 22 December 2016 - 01:41 AM

Ergonomics of a dedicated video system will surpass that of an DSLR, plus as Nick said, ND's, Flip Filters, better auto focus, smoother transition of Arpeture etc all make a dedicated video system a better choice.


Owner of Down Under Aquatic Imaging.
www.duai.com.au
 


#5 Timccr

Timccr

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 25 December 2016 - 02:33 AM

I am just wondering about Nick's comments, particularly regarding depth of field. I am eagerly awaiting the GH5 because I want a hybrid camera and thought a m43 sensor was probably a good size for a hybrid, probably better than APSC for documentary style shooting anyway. 35mm for cinema has a frame size of 24 x 18mm I think while the m43 frame size is 18 x 13.5mm and for 16mm is 10.26 x 7.49mm. Obviously a hybrid is going to involve compromises and m43 seems like a reasonable compromise in theory.



#6 Nick Hope

Nick Hope

    Sperm Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thailand

Posted 25 December 2016 - 05:32 PM

Agreed Timccr, I think it is a good size for a hybrid. Sometimes I miss being able to get a longer depth of field like my old video cameras, but sometimes I also wish I could get more of bokeh look like those full frame cameras (5D etc.).



#7 Timccr

Timccr

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:00 AM

Thanks for the response Nick which is much appreciated. I'll keep saving for the GH5. And fast lenses!