How Much Video Have You Shot On Your Canon DSLR

[SPL]

I'm on my 4th dslr since my film days, ..... Have, not, shot, video....

 

[Tinky]

Would be interesting to see a poll on how many people use green square mode on their current DSLR..

Or how many folk use the viewfinder blind that is attached to your strap (or built into your viewfinder if you are one of the chosen people)

Or how many people would miss multiple spot metering?..

Or shoot with their cam set to low res, highly compressed jpegs?

To be fair 9% for regular movie use seems about right.

I don't like the subtext of some of the replies..

- Video is here to stay on your DSLR. Get used to it.

- If you don't like it, you are not compelled to use it.

- It adds negligible cost to your camera.

- It does not divert R&D costs from anything else. Canon had a video division long before they had DSLRs.

 

[Don Haines]

Would be interesting to see a poll on how many people use green square mode on their current DSLR..

I have used the green box mode.... ironically, for taking pictures of green boxes

Or how many folk use the viewfinder blind that is attached to your strap (or built into your viewfinder if you are one of the chosen people)

useful during AFMA....

Or how many people would miss multiple spot metering?..

Nice feature, but since I don't have it I'm fairly sure that I can live without it.....

Or shoot with their cam set to low res, highly compressed jpegs?

I do this all the time...720x480 pixel Jpgs..... of course I save large RAW as well

 

[privatebydesign]

Would be interesting to see a poll on how many people use green square mode on their current DSLR..

Mine doesn't have a green square mode.

Or how many folk use the viewfinder blind that is attached to your strap (or built into your viewfinder if you are one of the chosen people)

I am one of the chosen ones (well I paid for it actually) and I use it quite regularly.

Or how many people would miss multiple spot metering?..

I wouldn't.

Or shoot with their cam set to low res, highly compressed jpegs?

No, never.

To be fair 9% for regular movie use seems about right.

I have never shot one second of video, not even by accident, my cameras can't shoot it and I wouldn't care if my next cameras couldn't either.

I don't like the subtext of some of the replies..

I don't like your blanket statements that have no actual knowledge behind them.

- Video is here to stay on your DSLR. Get used to it.

Could well be true, until the manufacturers work out how to get more money off us in different ways.

- If you don't like it, you are not compelled to use it.

No but it can add clutter and unnecessary complexity to the hardware, and additional complexity to the software interface. The stills user interface could be cleaner and clearer without the necessary video options and requirements.

- It adds negligible cost to your camera.

How do you know that? In the early days when video was a basic side product of Live View I can imagine it cost little to nothing to implement, now with the ever greater clamour for bigger and better video specs, just look at any thread with the mention of 4k, all that software developing and writing, CODEC building, and specialized hardware all cost money.

- It does not divert R&D costs from anything else. Canon had a video division long before they had DSLRs.

Of course it does, fitting audio in and out to a stills camera adds complexity as well as design and manufacturing consideration and time that the video division doesn't pick up. DSLR's needing internal heat sinks and pipes purely because of the video requirement costs money that wouldn't be spent if the camera only shot stills.

To say video in a stills camera doesn't cost anything or divert costs from anything else is ludicrous.

Now the argument that economies of scale amortise those video costs to such a degree and increase the sales numbers by so much that the additional costs video development and implementation cost actually result in a cheaper combined camera, but I doubt it. Few people buy DSLR's for pure video, there are many better options, and the market for combined cameras doesn't seem to be that big, after all have you ever tried shooting stills when a DSLR is properly rigged to shoot decent video?

No, video was a side product of stills capture and the development of it has become a costly 'feature' arms race that no manufacturers sales team will let them sidestep.

 

[YuengLinger]

The term ''subtext'' is a micro-aggression.

My feelings are hurt.

I want my crayons, coloring books, and hot chocolate.

I still haven't used video.

:

Of course no money is diverted from R&D--that department has been closed for years!

 

[jcarapet]

Used my dslr as second shooter with 5d3 and t4i. That number will likely go up. Had several hundred hours on my old reliable HV30, but the heads finally died so no easy auto-focus.

7D2 time?

 

[9VIII]

Oddly enough, I recorded some stuff when I got a PowerShot S3 IS back in 2005, but since getting an SLR in 2012 I haven't touched the video mode.

 

[Tinky]

I don't like your blanket statements that have no actual knowledge behind them.

I'm not all that keen on yours. It is an opinion forum. Ahhh the internet.

No, video was a side product of stills capture and the development of it has become a costly 'feature' arms race that no manufacturers sales team will let them sidestep.

No. I think you'll rather find that the popular use of technology for recording video from a photosensitive CCD precedes the recording of digital stills. Live view is a much later addition that spawned DSLR video capture.

I don't get the costly bit.

Cameras have got better and cheaper as time has went on. Some features have been killed off, some have flourished. Compare the price of a 10D to the price of a 70D and compare the specs.

A lot of folks have a bee in their bonnet about video. I think they are over-reacting.

The examples I gave were to make a point.. some features are absolutely necessary for some users, there are other features that some users will never ever use. It's the nature of consumer products.

And whilst I agree that a dedicated video camera is better for video, that wasn't the question.

Thanks, as ever for sharing your thoughts. Always very enlightening.

 

[Don Haines]

I have a set of wrenches from 4mm to 50mm. I use some of them a lot.... others infrequently.... and some not at all. It's sort of like camera features..... some you use a lot, others seldom, and some not at all.

If I were to go to the store and buy just the wrenches I need, I would pay more than the price for the complete set. I bet it would be the same to purchase a camera with only the functions that I need......

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't like your blanket statements that have no actual knowledge behind them.

I'm not all that keen on yours. It is an opinion forum. Ahhh the internet.

No, video was a side product of stills capture and the development of it has become a costly 'feature' arms race that no manufacturers sales team will let them sidestep.

No. I think you'll rather find that the popular use of technology for recording video from a photosensitive CCD precedes the recording of digital stills. Live view is a much later addition that spawned DSLR video capture.

I don't get the costly bit.

Cameras have got better and cheaper as time has went on. Some features have been killed off, some have flourished. Compare the price of a 10D to the price of a 70D and compare the specs.

A lot of folks have a bee in their bonnet about video. I think they are over-reacting.

The examples I gave were to make a point.. some features are absolutely necessary for some users, there are other features that some users will never ever use. It's the nature of consumer products.

And whilst I agree that a dedicated video camera is better for video, that wasn't the question.

Thanks, as ever for sharing your thoughts. Always very enlightening.

You misunderstand my comment. In the context of stills cameras video was a by product of the Live View feature.

Until this latest iteration of video capabilities I agree with common wisdom, adding video cost very little and resulted in a cheaper camera, now with the fuller feature set of the video features I don't believe that to be th case any more. The software, firmware and hardware are now significant aspects of stills camera design and that has to cost real money.

I have a set of wrenches from 4mm to 50mm. I use some of them a lot.... others infrequently.... and some not at all. It's sort of like camera features..... some you use a lot, others seldom, and some not at all.

If I were to go to the store and buy just the wrenches I need, I would pay more than the price for the complete set. I bet it would be the same to purchase a camera with only the functions that I need......

True Don, but DSLR's are no longer wrench sets, they are wrench and socket sets and they cost more. If you are never going to use the socket set, or have a dedicated socket set, the combined set will cost you more money.

I believe we have now passed that point, we are paying for wrench and socket sets when we only want a few wrenches.

 

[Tinky]

You misunderstand my comment. In the context of stills cameras video was a by product of the Live View feature.

I didn't misunderstand it, you didn't make it very well. Apologies for you saying one thing, but meaning something else, I'm really sorry.

In the context of stills cameras, digital was a by-product of video technology. I fear we are entering a chicken and egg scenario here.

Until this latest iteration of video capabilities I agree with common wisdom, adding video cost very little and resulted in a cheaper camera, now with the fuller feature set of the video features I don't believe that to be th case any more. The software, firmware and hardware are now significant aspects of stills camera design and that has to cost real money.

But it's arguably money that they would be spending in any case for other benefits.

I know some folk hate live-view, but I also know some folk find it really handy, for things like macro, or high or low angle photography, for zoom previewing tilt-shift shots etc. Things like focus peaking and zebra patterns are pure video technologies, but they can also benefit stills users who may never record a single frame of video.

The extra processing grunt and processor cooling that video requires also happens to permit huge buffer depths which stills users will benefit from.

Minijack connectors and hdmi ports cost pennies, and things like video codecs are developed independently for use in the general video lines, so again, I'm struggling to see the huge additional cost, or significant detrement to stills users.

There's nothing stopping you from using a K1000, or FM2 if purity of control is what you seek, the same way as there is nothing stopping you from using only the controls you want on your DSLR...

There is an argument that to fragment product lines into very specific niches for 'pure still shooters' would actually cost more R&D spread across fewer users, raising unit costs. Paint with a broad brush and you share the R&D costs amongst a larger pool of users.

True Don, but DSLR's are no longer wrench sets, they are wrench and socket sets and they cost more. If you are never going to use the socket set, or have a dedicated socket set, the combined set will cost you more money.

I believe we have now passed that point, we are paying for wrench and socket sets when we only want a few wrenches.

This is rather a facile analogy which conflates one specific product with another specific product. I don't want wrenches. I want a camera.

 

[bdunbar79]

Chicken and egg scenario? That one's easy. Dinosaur eggs came well before chickens ever evolved.

 

[NancyP]

I am a stills photographer, and not too motivated to take up video right now. I may do so at a later point, specifically, short clips of bird behavior.

 

[Bruce 101]

Video IS the future, but I'm too mired in the past to get with the program.

Video may be the future, but a dSLR is not the best way to record it, at least for most people. Personally, I have a camcorder that does the job effectively.

I think there is some truth to the above statement but I'd like to add my experience in shooting over 100 hours of video on the 5D2, the 5D3 and the Sl1.

The quality of the video obtained from using the above DSLRs far exceeds any inexpensive camcorder I have ever tried. Indeed it far exceeds the quality of my excellent $1,200 Canon camcorder. Color, contrast, film-like quality - everything is vastly improved on the DSLR. This is a well known fact for those of us who have extensive experience in using consumer - even prosumer - camcorders and DSLRs for filming. I use my camcorder solely as a backup or if I have no tripod or monopod available. And therein lies the rub.

For the most part, if you are going to film with a DSLR, you want to be using a tripod or a monopod. Because there is no ability to use the viewfinder and one has to rely on the LCD for filming with the DSLR, most folks are better served - from a consumer point of view only - by using a camcorder providing it has a viewfinder. If the camcorder has no viewfinder, there is little reason not to use the DSLR - OK so you have to pause for a second after 29 minutes with the DSLR - big deal. Filming with the cell phone is fine if you are going to share your videos via cell phone only.

The folks dismissing the usefulness of the DSLR for filming do not know what they are missing. I suspect that (wow, big surprise) the vast majority of you on this board are photographers and not videographers. The poll results are therefore not surprising. But, it would be a shame if the message was believed that DSLRs are not a huge improvement over consumer camcorders for video quality. Adding a $100 to $150 external microphone to the DSLR puts the audio quality into the more than acceptable category for most non-pro uses as well.

Still, I agree with the statement above that consumer camcorders and not DSLRs are the best way for most people to record video. It does not mean, however, that said camcorders provide better video than DSLRs - far from it.

 

[Tinky]

Well said Bruce.

I would add that I think the main difference is that hobby video guys can pick up a cheap camcorder that will be fairly automated and do an acceptable enough job of keeping focus, of tracking white balance, of taking care of the exposure settings..

When you start using a DSLR for video, then you quickly find that the larger sensor (s35 or 135 vs s8 or smaller) means that focusing is far more critical, you have to carry a few lenses to cover the same range, you don;t have the same flexibility of shutter range etc etc.

Stills guys, particularly stills guys who have only ever used very competent electronic SLRs with good AF, often have no clue about setting everything up manually, and look at you funny when you say you never use AF for video....

Stills only have to be in focus for the duration of a single exposure. Video needs to be contiguous, and most folk can't be bothered.

I would get better video than most photographers on any video camera, but I would get far more pleasing video out of a large sensor camera not limited to but including DSLRs than I would out of a consumer camcorder.

Video wigs a lot of folk out. Their EOS cameras do a lot of the work for their stills, the same is not as true when it comes to shooting video, so my theory is, that in some cases at least, video is more prone to revealing a users shortcomings than stills, and I suspect that many of those who shirk video, do so, having been burned by a negative and revealing experience.

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm not bashing video. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be in DSLR's. I just simply do not get paid to shoot video, so personally have no use for it.

 

[gsealy]

I shoot a lot of video with my DSLRs, and I shoot video with camcorders too including the Canon cinema cameras. On a given project I mix in the DSLRs shots with what is coming from the camcorders. The camcorders provide a nice general overview of the scene. I use the camcorders to lay down the base overall view track with the production audio that is to be used. A second camcorder might be used for a different angle and different distance. I have a lot of confidence that they will do that job perfectly. I then use DSLRs with various lenses to get unique perspectives or closeups with a narrow DOF. It adds a lot of variety to the production. I use the audio on the DSLR cameras for reference synch only.

The other situation is that I often use my Canon t4i with the RODE VideoMicro to create spur of the minute video for strictly Internet purposes. In the kind of work I do, this might happen at any time, and I want to capture it. If I use my Canon 15-85mm lens, then I have a lot of freedom for doing closeups, catching a teaching moment, and quick interviews. This little package is so versatile and light, and works so well, that I have it with me all of the time. If I want to take a photo too, then I can quickly do that without digging into my case for the still camera. The Canon 15-85mm lens is not an 'L' lens, but it is pretty good and certainly good enough for this purpose.

 

[bholliman]

I don't shoot much video period, but when I do lately I use my EOS M or my wifes ancient P&S if I'm OK with low res.

 

[keemikpoiss]

Around 50-60 hours total with 5D MkIII over the past three years.

The longest project was recording of university classroom lectures from a different angle than the main camera; I actually found Canon 5D MkIII footage rather usable. However, I am planning to redo some of it with C100 Dual Pixel CMOS AF camera (thank you Canon Rumors for a tip on a recent price drop) for the class I will be teaching on-line this Spring. I found a sturdy tripod with a good video head to be much superior to the $50 light SLIK tripod that I usually hike around with. For audio, a RODE microphone was critical. Having to watch for the file size (4 Gb limit) and pause every now and then was annoying.

Another interesting application has been the video microscopy of pond life through a stereo zoom scope in the classroom. This was a bit finicky to set up but I ended up happy with some of the footage.

I also shot quite a bit of kids soccer but after reviewing that footage I felt that that had I taken still pictures of these games I would have been happier. I recognize that shooting video of kids running in unpredictable directions is not the strong point of 5D MkIII.

 

[Jeanne]

I'm a digital media student who fell in love with photography first (actually all my life, just being able to pursue in the last couple of years), and now video. Last March, I purchased the 7D MkII from reviews and also budget considerations. I wanted the best of both worlds for my budget. So far, so good. It could be a lighting problem, but I do see more noise than I'd like sometimes in low light situations.

I've shot personal videos, such as trips to amusement parks (I live in Florida), and I also shoot video for a local belly dance troupe in my city. I filmed, edited, and produced a DVD of their show last fall and that was more than 5 hours of video capture in and of itself. I also shoot video at my job. All using my 7D MkII.

For those of you talking about buying a cheap camcorder to do video separately and it would probably do a better job, I'd disagree with you. I am using a Canon Vixia at work.... it cost around $500 and the video quality is not as good as my Canon 7D MkII. I also don't like the lack of control a camcorder has, it's too automatic. But to each their own. I shot some wedding video with a videographer who uses the high end consumer Vixia and it's good, but it's also in the price range of higher end consumer DSLRs - even more than the 70D which is a great DSLR for video - I've used one and can attest to that.

Having said all of that, I am looking into purchasing another camera with video capability, at full frame. I'm hoping that the next iteration of the 6D will be worth looking into. I love the focusing capability of the 7D MkII and am interested to find out what will be available in the 6D MkII (or whatever they call it) when it finally comes out.