# How often do you shoot video with your DSLR?



## JR (Dec 21, 2011)

With all the video capabilities of the EOS camera like the 7D, 60D, 1D4 or the 5Ds, how often do you shoot video compared to shooting still? Are you using a seperate camcorder instead for your home movies?

I thought I would use the video feature much more on my 5D mkII but I ended up using video maybe 10% of the time versus 90% of time shooting still. I find not always ideal to shoot with a DSLR due to manual focus and image stabilization (so need a tripod or monopod if your lens does not have IS for example). When done right the result seem much better then my Sony camcorder, but more preparation needs to go into it which sometime prevents me from using it...(especially since I have mostly prime lenses...)

Thanks for sharing your habbits and tips...


----------



## Isaac (Dec 21, 2011)

5% of the time however it is a nice added feature.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

I generally forget it is even there.


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Dec 21, 2011)

Once in 2 years, I bought the 1DMk4 for taking photos NOT Video, a total waste of space & money for something I never use. I just wish Canon would separate the two formats completely. Ie if you want video then buy a video camera NOT A DSLR. By combining the two formats its just a POOR jack of all trades & master of NONE.


----------



## NormanBates (Dec 21, 2011)

my DSLR only shoots stills for use as custom white balance, and for lens tests; everything else is video, so I guess my answer is "100%"

edit: I'm sorry, no disrespect, and please don't take this badly, but I hate it when -usually uninformed- people say "if you want to shoot video just use a video camera" - most often they don't have a clue - did I tell them to use a point-and-shoot instead of their DSLR? because it's basically the same: tiny sensor, s___ty pictures


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

I rarely shoot video even though I really want to get more engrossed in it and learn more so I can offer it to my clients... the 7d's video really suffered on pans but my new 5d2 doesn't suffer as much as the 7d, even though the 7d has better still video image quality in the highlights... It's something I know I should do more of to advance in the industry, but it always falls off my radar.


----------



## RC (Dec 21, 2011)

Oh ya, I forgot, my 7D has a video mode.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 21, 2011)

I have 2 kids(3yrs & 9 months). My wife and I take them out in the weekend often. I do use video on my 60d(2 - 5mins clip). I think having video features on camera is quite usefull for us, especially, we do not have a camcorder at this moment.

But again....using 60d as tool to take picture is our primary purpose.


----------



## Freshprince08 (Dec 21, 2011)

RC said:


> Oh ya, I forgot, my 7D has a video mode.



+1

Think I've used it once each on the 7D and 5Dii, just out of curiosity!


----------



## Jim K (Dec 21, 2011)

Never and never on my old Minolta A2 bridge camera before I got a DSLR. Never on the Panasonic PnS I bought for my sister.

I keep meaning to try it out but never get around to it.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 21, 2011)

90% video/10% stills - I shoot live music all over the country usually the setup is:
5DII with 14L or 16-35L II as static cam
5DII with 85L or 135L on fluid head
7D with 35L or 50L on Shoulder rig
+$60k worth of audio gear = Pretty awesome quality
As much of a pain in the ass as these things can be to shoot with, the results speak for themselves.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 21, 2011)

.
Perhaps you really can't teach new trickery to old dogs.

I'm doing the same amount of video with my DSLR today that I did in 1975 with my SLR.

A while back I spent about $100 for a Kodak Zi8 video camera. So far I've used it three or four times -- deer in the yard and such. It doesn't draw me the way stills do. When I see deer in the yard, my first thought is a choice between the 70-200 and the 100-400, then it's light and background and best place to be for best composition. Just pointing a vid camera at the subject doesn't challenge me the same way.

Maybe the "everyman video" brings back annoying childhood memories -- when half the fathers and uncles were aiming 8mm video cameras at kids at Christmas and birthdays and first bicycle, etc. Some had light banks that blinded everyone present. And then the inevitable Saturday night dragging out the projector and having to watch all this stuff over and over. "Watch what happens when I run it backwards and Jimmy comes up out of the pool and onto the diving board!"

Anyway, don't mean to hijack the thread, and no disrespect to so many people making amazing videos today -- I LOVE watching them. And if anyone wants to see a genuinely creative use of video in the 1950s, I urge you to watch "Disneyland Dreams," a 1956 effort by a family who won a trip to Disneyland:

http://www.archive.org/details/barstow_disneyland_dream_1956

.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Dec 21, 2011)

It just depends on which camp you talk to.

I live in Los Angels and work in Television. I know a lot (and I mean a lot) of people who own the various Canons (5D, 7D, 60D, etc..) and almost everyone one of them shoots only video.

I mostly shoot video, but I do use stills for doing Timelapse photography. Sometimes I take pictures of family events, but that's about it for stills. For work and independent projects, it's only video.

This is a still camera forum so everyone on here is a stills shooter. If you go to DVXUSER.com or Cinema5D, those people use Canon's exclusively for video.

You have to remember, video is here to stay and the ONLY reason the 5D was considered "Revolutionary" and made huge headlines, is because it was the first affordable large sensor HD video camera. Without the HD video, it would have been like the Nikons, just another Camera. Nothing special. Canon took a huge leap over Nikon because of the video.


----------



## KacperP (Dec 21, 2011)

stringfellow1946 said:


> I just wish Canon would separate the two formats completely. Ie if you want video then buy a video camera NOT A DSLR. By combining the two formats its just a POOR jack of all trades & master of NONE.


"I just wish that Apple would separate the two formats completely. Ie if you want to listen to music then you buy mp3 player NOT A PHONE. By combining the two formats its just POOR jack of all trades & master of NONE." ;D

Let's be serious. DLSR's are hardware + software. Video functions does not stand in a way of photos, just like M mode does not stand in a way of Tv and Av modes.
If you install Premiere on computer it does not cripple Photoshop.


----------



## theuserjohnny (Dec 21, 2011)

For me I do video more than photography, I'm into the whole making movies thing. My father on the other hand uses it more for photography, he's like a majority on here who even knowledges the features existence.


----------



## xROELOFx (Dec 21, 2011)

i tried it once a couple of months ago, it was pretty cool to do. i'd like to do some timelapse videos eventually.


----------



## JR (Dec 21, 2011)

Very interesting replies so far! It seem folks either love or hate taking videos with a DSLR. One thing I am surprised is of the poeple who said they did not use the video features much, they dont seem to be using a Camcorder instead...

For myself at one point (and still now to some degree) I debated getting a better camcorder for my video, but I have so much invested in L lenses that I am still forcing myself to learn how to do video with my 5D mkII. I find I need to plan what I what to do instead of just shoot spontaneously. I think I need to get more IS lenses for this... ???


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Dec 21, 2011)

theuserjohnny said:


> "I just wish that Apple would separate the two formats completely. Ie if you want to listen to music then you buy mp3 player NOT A PHONE. By combining the two formats its just POOR jack of all trades & master of NONE."


Plus 1 
FWIW I would not have an iPhone if they gave me one.


theuserjohnny said:


> If you install Premiere on computer it does not cripple Photoshop.


NO, just your bank account ;D


----------



## AG (Dec 21, 2011)

I use mine daily for video.

But then again thats what i do for a living 

Id say 70% video, 20% Timelapse, 10% stills.

This is why the C300 is of great interest to me. It could be the start of something new for people like myself.


----------



## KacperP (Dec 21, 2011)

I never cared how much video I take versus photos. Whatever I needed, I did.
I assume that photos and videos rather complement each other, not compete against.
When measuring by ammount of data (RAW photos + 1080p PAL videos) last company party was somwhere around 60% photos, 40% videos


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 21, 2011)

I shoot probably 98% stills and 2% video. 

I was just at my kids' school Christmas concert last week and I got the stills I wanted to right off the hop when my kids were on stage and then switched to video to capture the action and singing. While I rarely use the video function, I'm happy to have it there as an option, just for such occasions.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't believe I've used my 7D for video at all, my 5D MK II a couple of times in three years. I am not a video person, but having video on my DSLR is fine, it might come in handy some day.


----------



## daveswan (Dec 24, 2011)

Well, my 550D hardly ever leaves Movie Mode (It's what I bought it for), when I want to do stills I use my 5D (Original MkI)


----------



## silversurfer96 (Dec 24, 2011)

I used to carry a Sony camcorder with me for video along with my camera, but since getting the 7D, I stopped carrying it. It's not the same as there are certain things you can do more with a dedicated camcorder, but I preferred to travel light. For 80% still and 20% video.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 24, 2011)

My 450D couldn't do video... And I've only had a 7D for a few weeks... But either way I don'tlan on doing much with video.

Currently, if I want to shoot video my iphone 4S does a great job without a lot of hassle (if I'm shooting video it's generally just to capture some vacation style moment).

Eventually, I'll try video on the 7D, but that's certainly not what I bought it for...


----------



## Richard8971 (Dec 25, 2011)

Video??? My 7D does video??? 

One feature I really wish Canon would leave out of their DSLR line. If I wanted a video camera I would have bought one!

D


----------



## Image Zone Photography (Dec 25, 2011)

Never. By the time you get a DSLR setup for video it looks like some kind of weird transformer, mike, preview screen, audio, etc. You want to shoot video buy a dedicated video camera. Adding video to the DSLR was just a market ploy to sell more cameras. I would like to see the results of this survey. I would venture to bet that the Professional Studio Photographer, ie food, portraits, still life, etc don't use it. The Professional sports photographer don't use it. The professional news photographers don't use it. The professional Wedding photographer don't use it. I hope Canon gets rid of the Video on their DSLRs and provides other features the above photographers will use and lower the price point accordingly. 8)


----------



## J. McCabe (Dec 25, 2011)

I use my 5Dmk2 for video from time to time.

Usually it's when I'm going to a band's show, and I want to shoot one song (the band and people dancing) on video for the fun of it, or short clips on video (a nephew starts walking, etc), and such. I'm not going to buy a video camera for this kind of stuff, and nobody expects it to be pro cinema level.

Once a friend loaned it for 1 & 1/2 day to shoot a clip of his song. It was done quickly & cheaply, and the results aren't cinema quality, but still better than some stuff I've seen on MTV.

I didn't buy the camera for the video abilities, but it's nice to shoot video with it occasionally.


----------



## daveswan (Dec 25, 2011)

Well my understanding is that video was added to the 5DII specifically for photojournalists who were clammering for it, it was only later that the quality atracted the cinema crowd.

When I'm using my 550D for cine I'll have a 7" Lilliput monitor hooked up to the HDMI O/P, but that's about it, though I have abandoned my 24-105 L zoom in favour of Leica R glass.

As of now, all the cine functionalaty is done in firmware, so doesn't cost any more in terms of engineering. That may change with the latest generation of sensors / DSP.

When shooting cine on a DSLR one has to take the same care as if one were running 35mm film stock through an Arriflex, it only doesn't cost as much, trying to use it like a point 'n' shoot camcorder is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Lenscracker (Dec 25, 2011)

NEVER. If I had wanted video, I would have bought a video camera instead of 5D2 and 7D.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 25, 2011)

I wonder if I'm the only one who is confused as to why, if some users don't find purpose in a feature, it means that the feature is;

absolutely worthless
needs to be removed
It's already been said here in this thread that there are people who bought their DSLR specifically for its video purposes, and others who do use the video quite a bit. But just because some people never use it or think it's unnecessary, then it automatically makes that feature - and everyone who wants and/or uses it - irrelevant.

Additionally, if they were to split their DSLRs into video and non-video lines, I'd be willing to bet that Canon would amortize the additional cost of said split by increasing the price of _both_ lines, reducing the cost difference of the non-video line.

I just wonder why so many seem like they're personally insulted by having video added to their DSLRs, when it doesn't do anything to impair their use of it.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Dec 26, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> my DSLR only shoots stills for use as custom white balance, and for lens tests; everything else is video, so I guess my answer is "100%"
> 
> edit: I'm sorry, no disrespect, and please don't take this badly, but I hate it when -usually uninformed- people say "if you want to shoot video just use a video camera" - most often they don't have a clue - did I tell them to use a point-and-shoot instead of their DSLR? because it's basically the same: tiny sensor, s___ty pictures



+2


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Dec 26, 2011)

I shoot more video than pictures.

I bought my 60D specifically for the video quality.


----------



## tron (Dec 26, 2011)

I don't. I have used it one or two times back in 2009 when I bought it and I realized one month ago that I had even forgotten that I can take videos! I just don't care for now.


----------



## Kane (Dec 26, 2011)

I bought my 7d when it came out mainly for use as a still camera but liked the option of having video. As I work in television I have used my 7d and a 5d mark ii on a few projects and the results are great for what it is. The 5d mark ii and 7d are not great cameras for high end use but when rigged out properly, much easier to shoot with and create a complementry cinematic look (especially with fast lenses like the 50 1.2), when paired with a prosumer camera like the ex3. I would be greatly disappointed if canon stopped using video as a feature in its dslrs because even if you're not using it for projects, when a once in a lifetime moment occurs and a still wont be able to capture it all you have to do is flip a switch and press record. If your serious about shooting then get a c300 and a set of the cine lenses.


----------



## Jedifarce (Dec 26, 2011)

Sorry, that 'Portrait professional' ad is really throwing me.


----------



## squarebox (Dec 26, 2011)

I know I'm just nitpicking, but I don't shoot video as much as I want to because dealing with the MOV files afterwards is a complete hassle and a half. Really wish they were in a more universal container like AVI.

That being said, the reason i bought my Kiss X4 over the 50D was specifically because the kiss had video. I shoot to capture memories, and something I've realized, and it may just be my lack of skill, but you can't capture a persons complete personality in a picture. More specific body gestures and speaking (which is even more interesting in my case cause all my friends are speaking in non-native Japanese so they say screwed up stuff often).


----------



## daveswan (Dec 26, 2011)

Well MOV is (I think) more universal than AVI now.

You could try MPEGstreamclip or even 5DtoRGB from realvision, transcoding either to Prores or DNxHD (I use the latter, being Avid / PC). The basic DNxHD codecs are available free from Avid.

Filming with a DSLR takes more deliberation than with a handy-cam (Which, I think, would be better for holiday / everyday video).

The "C" crop sensors are comparable to 35mm cine film, while the 5DII sensor is like Vista-Vision, and need the same care in focus. Using a DSLR hand-held is a recipe for Un-watchable footage.


----------



## JR (Dec 26, 2011)

During Xmas I made a lot of home made familily movie using my 24mm lens on my 5D mkII and I was pretty impressed with the result. Given the near infinit DoF of the 24mm at certain aperture and short distance, I did not have to worry about focusing. I also used a tripod with a fluid head (Gitzo).

Now I am hooked! I will use this for family movies from now one. IQ is very impressive...


----------



## daveswan (Dec 26, 2011)

At the moment I use my 550D (With 7" monitor) on a fluid-head tripod, Sachtler FSB-6 on Miller solo legs. I am now looking at a mid-range Glidecam for hand-held shots.


----------



## BigM (Dec 26, 2011)

squarebox said:


> I know I'm just nitpicking, but I don't shoot video as much as I want to because dealing with the MOV files afterwards is a complete hassle and a half. Really wish they were in a more universal container like AVI.


Actually you can just rename the .mov extension as .avi and they will work as H.264 is the actual codec. Alternatively you can use VLC Media Player for playback and convert for editing later.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Dec 26, 2011)

I have a 7D and 5D MkII and I never used it for video - I just don't need it and I am not sure why Canon is even insisting on making all new models now more Video capable. I think the C300 is a really nice project as a clear separation to the Normal Pro DSLRs and that video on Prosumer Models (60D downwards) has also its place as a gimmick. 

However Please I want Pro DSLRs (1D X, 5D MK III etc.) that are really optimized Pro Still Cameras and don't have any build in compromises for the additional video features. If I want a device that is not really good at anything but still usable for all what can do, I can use my Iphone 4s ... Which even is a small usable portable computer and Navigation System ... However I also would not use it to write a book, process my pictures or navigate me on a 100miles hike in the alps ...


----------



## daveswan (Dec 27, 2011)

Oh dear another one!

Improvements in sensor / processor that help video will also improve stills as well.

With digital technology there is little, if any, extra cost in implementing video, and if it is implemented, it might as well be done as well as possible.

I'm really hoping that Canon's next generation of Pro / Semi-Pro line (1D>7D) will have clean 1080p cine without moire and aliasing, and resolving close to the Nyquist limit


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2011)

I do not object to putting video capabilities in DSLRs but I object putting it if this means higher cost.
Also my 5DmkII has nice video capabilities but focusing is not exceptional and practically has no weather sealing.
If you come to think about it this is surely a "funny" combination!
Autofocusing goes back to the late 80's so it should have been perfected way before the addition of video capabilities.


----------



## daveswan (Dec 27, 2011)

As I remember the video was added to the 5DII's firmware as an afterthought, and totally took Canon by surprise at how it was recieved. It didn't impact the other (Physical) aspects of the camera which were already locked at the time.

The 7D has better weathersealing and autofocus, perhaps because it is 1/2 generation on. I would expect the successor to the 5DII to improve again over the 7D, possibly taking some of the technology from the 1Dx (Already developed), perhaps a single Digic V+ and a Digic IV for the autofocus / exposure functions.

Where I would find common cause with the nay-sayers is if Canon ditched the OVF for an EVF. That would be a very bad move indeed in a primaraly photographic tool, though I would be willing to conceed that it would have a place in a Cine-DSLR.


----------



## skitron (Dec 27, 2011)

Richard8971 said:


> Video??? My 7D does video???
> 
> One feature I really wish Canon would leave out of their DSLR line. If I wanted a video camera I would have bought one!
> 
> D



But it's basically a free feature. Well except a few $ for sound anyway. Case in point, you can download Magic Lantern and enable video on a "stills only" 50D because it has Live View and all video is on a DSLR is recording the Live View. So to truly eliminate video they'd have to ditch Live View. That would be in interesting discussion to see whether the stills only folks would go for that. 


That said, I only use DSLR video for controlled shooting. I chase kids with a CX550 due to it's amazing hybrid anti-shake which makes handheld look very stable.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2011)

Please don't get us wrong. Video is fine as long as it doesn't get more attention from CANON instead of still photography and
as long as it is not being used as an excuse for a price increase. Since CANON hasn't solved some basic still photography issues
like autofocusing which exists since the EOS620/650 era we will complain about video getting attention from CANON.
Other than that video is OK I guess


----------



## RC (Dec 27, 2011)

tron said:


> Please don't get us wrong. Video is fine as long as it doesn't get more attention from CANON instead of still photography and
> as long as it is not being used as an excuse for a price increase. Since CANON hasn't solved some basic still photography issues
> like autofocusing which exists since the EOS620/650 era we will complain about video getting attention from CANON.
> Other than that video is OK I guess


Nicely stated.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 27, 2011)

tron said:


> Autofocusing goes back to the late 80's so it should have been perfected way before the addition of video capabilities.


Have you ever heard of the term "focus puller"?


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2011)

Ryusui said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Autofocusing goes back to the late 80's so it should have been perfected way before the addition of video capabilities.
> ...



No. When you mentioned I googled it a little and I read that it refers to filming. Since I am not interested in movie making I have not. I saw however that you quoted my complaining about autofocusing perfection. If you read the whole post you will see that I refer to still photography only. This was not a requirement for better autofocusing for video.


----------



## daveswan (Dec 27, 2011)

Sentatious mode/

Nothing of mankind's invention is ever perfect.

/Sentatious mode

Seriously autofocus, like auto exposure can only go so far. There comes a point where the brain has to be engaged.
Myself I rarely use autofocus, and exposure too is handled manualy (I'm talking stills here, for cine it's a given).

I think though, that the autofocus capapbility of the 1Dx (Much more a stills cam than cine) might prove interesting, as they can now devote a whole Digiv IV (As used to power all of a 5DII) to the job.


----------



## daveheinzel (Dec 27, 2011)

I don't really get all the animosity towards video on DSLRs. I have a 7D and a 60D and use them both about 50% photo / 50% video. It's wonderful having equipment with that flexibility. I have a $5k Panasonic HD camera that I barely touch anymore.

The art of photography is very much related to the art of filmmaking, but they each do have several unique challenges. I love them both and couldn't choose a favorite. They can both be done very poorly and also very beautifully with DSLRs (assuming you have a separate audio capture system).

To me, it's about telling a story. Sometimes it's nice to tell a story with one photo. Some stories benefit from having audio and video, and sometimes you can use a good mix of video, stills and audio in one presentation.

I shoot & develop black and white 35mm film when I want to get back to the essence of photography, and I'll pick up the Panasonic HVX when a DSLR won't cut it for video. But on most assignments, I'll just take my 7D and a couple of lenses. It's a great time to be a photographer and filmmaker.


----------



## daveswan (Dec 27, 2011)

Yep, said it better than I could.

I too used to have an HVX till some scumbag lifted it :'(


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 27, 2011)

tron said:


> No. When you mentioned I googled it a little and I read that it refers to filming. Since I am not interested in movie making I have not. I saw however that you quoted my complaining about autofocusing perfection. If you read the whole post you will see that I refer to still photography only. This was not a requirement for better autofocusing for video.


My apologies. I did actually read the whole post but it sounded to me like it was referring to the video mode on the camera:



tron said:


> I do not object to putting video capabilities in DSLRs but I object putting it if this means higher cost.
> Also my 5DmkII has nice video capabilities but focusing is not exceptional and practically has no weather sealing.
> If you come to think about it this is surely a "funny" combination!
> Autofocusing goes back to the late 80's so it should have been perfected way before the addition of video capabilities.


You didn't specifically say that "_photo_ focusing is not exceptional" and with the sentence structure being the way it is I read it as, "my 5DmkII has nice video capabilities but [the video focusing] is not exceptional".
Again, sorry for the misinterpretation.


----------



## AG (Dec 27, 2011)

daveswan said:


> Seriously autofocus, like auto exposure can only go so far. There comes a point where the brain has to be engaged.
> Myself I rarely use autofocus, and exposure too is handled manualy (I'm talking stills here, for cine it's a given).



Agreed


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 2, 2012)

I tell you what, you put my 60D on a glidecam HD2000 and a slap an 8mm fisheye on that thing and it's amazing for shooting snowboarding/skateboarding/longboarding videos. The quality is great, shoots in 60 fps, great depth of field, and just in general better control over your video shooting that a handycam.

Short of a pro video camera, I'd take a DSLR with video over most other video cameras if I was strictly doing video.


----------



## ssrdd (Jan 6, 2012)

i know canon 5d only for video appetite.


----------

