# How Much Video Have You Shot On Your Canon DSLR



## Sabaki (Nov 26, 2015)

Quick poll just to determine how many folks actually shoot video on their Canon DSLR


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2015)

I chose never even though technically I did shoot about 5 s of video before I reassigned the M.Fn button. I did shoot a video _of_ my dSLR, does that count?


----------



## Besisika (Nov 26, 2015)

Option 4+5 is possible as well.
I am officially promoting myself as a photographer, but I do more often DSLR video work than photography. Word of mouth, I guess. 
Besides, shooting video helps me understand and improve my on location portrait quite a bit.


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 26, 2015)

I chose less than 5 hours. I'm too picky about quality and have decided not to invest in a bunch of add-ons just to make a camera designed for stills into an acceptable video camera.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 26, 2015)

I voted less than 5 hours, but actually I compete with Neuro in the seconds range. I just tried it once with the 5DII when that was new. To me they may remove the entire video functionality without impacting my procurement decision. If I disregard some footage of the kids when they were small, +10 years ago, I have not shot video on any other platform either.


----------



## DomTomLondon (Nov 26, 2015)

I shot many hours of video with my own 7D, and two 60Ds I use at work. (500+ hours)

Only an hour or so since I got my 5D markIII last year.
Magic Lantern is a real game changer with the 5D3. I shot about 30mins of RAW video.
Looks brilliant, but takes up so much space, you need some serious storage.

Now I use a BlackMagic Cinema Camera for video as it records in Pro-Res straight to an SSD drive, which speeds up my workflow and looks almost as good as RAW video, without the need for huge amounts of storage.

However if I needed to pick one camera for video and photography, the 5D3 would still be my first choice. (with Magic lantern of course)


----------



## Tinky (Nov 26, 2015)

I do video full-time, so shoot a lot of video on a lot of cameras.

I got a 7D (first DSLR camera to shoot PAL 25fps natively) when it first came out and have been through a 550D, 2x 600ds and am currently using the same 7D (2nd camera on 2 camera shoots) a 60D, and 2x M's.

This week though I've bought a Panasonic G7, and am selling my 7D and one of my M's to put towards a speedbooster.

Once I'm satisfied that I'll be satisfied with the G7 I'll probably buy a second and sell the other M and the 60D.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 26, 2015)

.
Here's my 44 seconds worth...

https://youtu.be/s2cC9DOQsRs

I did another 19-second one, but it would not make sense to anyone outside the family.

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2015)

distant.star said:


> 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.


----------



## slclick (Nov 26, 2015)

What dslr is really making people happy with both stills and video? Any? This is such a polarizing topic. No one seems happy. Perhaps it's because it's the wrong tool for the job? Anyone?


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Nov 26, 2015)

I chose never but I did do a 20 sec plus clip of trying to learn my 70d with the selector in the vid mode when I tried to take a still photo of a sunset. no it will never be seen by any one as I kept Turning the camera until I figured it was in live mode video.

I have used video cams the full sized vhs and port pack reel ones. also the Sony hr1 bridge super zoom. that was only 20-30 sec clips on the Sony.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 26, 2015)

I used my 600D to produce Koayannisquaatsi-like footage for cloudscapes in time lapse. Before using Magic Lantern I needed hours of material to produce timelapses afterwards.

The best use was to produce simple videos for teaching where I was happy to have
- full manual modes fore critical exposure
- 16mm equiv for several situations
- ability to shoot 1:1 macro (3:1 is possible with crop mode in 600D + EF-S 60mm)
- ability to shoot distant fireworks (8km) and record the sound to give students a chance to measure the speed of sound with reasonable precision (333m/s) at 3840mm equiv focal length:
3 (video crop) x 2 (TC) x 1.6 (APS-C-crop) x 400mm (EF 5.6 400) = 3840mm

... without selling my house ...


----------



## dcm (Nov 26, 2015)

Video needs have changed over the years as much as the technology. When kids were small and growing I captured about 100 hours on videotape (80s-90s), but less and less as they grew up. Coverted it all to DVD years ago. When I first switched to digital I did some video on my G3/G6 before I moved to a DSLR. For family stuff today I'm happy with my iPhone or the M/M3 to catch short clips since I likely have them with me already. As the grandkid grows it will be interesting to see if that remains sufficient.

My first DSLR was a T2i - I was waiting for a camera that would shoot HD/1080, but I never used it that much for video. I still use my 6D with external/remote mics for occassional church events where the demands are a bit greater and I can setup a tripod with a fluid head or use a physical mount. If I did it a lot I'd probably invest in a dedicated video setup.


----------



## tpatana (Nov 26, 2015)

Chose the 5+ since first thought was around 5-10h, but now thinking it was too much, probably around 3-4h. Oh well.

I have decent Panasonic camcorder which does 90%+ of video needs.


----------



## kaswindell (Nov 26, 2015)

I guess that I am another of the "I shot a few seconds of video by accident once" crowd. The only real video was with an old Sony 8mm camcorder when the kids were small. It has long since died but I did digitize the 20 or so tapes that I have.


----------



## fish_shooter (Nov 26, 2015)

I have used my 7D2 to shoot vid on two days. The subject was my underwater housing with my 1DX in it during actual shooting. A minute or so of one these shoots is on my web page in the videos gallery. The other vids there were done with an EOSM. These are how I do it type of vids. I had to use a pants pocket's worth of batteries to keep them running each time these cams were used for vids.
Tom


----------



## zim (Nov 26, 2015)

Anyone who has accidently or had a quick go with a new camera should be selecting option 1
I'd assume the question is referring to taking video with a deliberate visual purpose.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 26, 2015)

It's rare that I shoot video with a DSLR. Having been in the video production business with real video cameras, I am spoiled. The investment to do full production with a DSLR is insanely expensive and requires way too much "add-on" gear to carry. The quality out of the DSLR is very impressive, but comes at a great price. When I do shoot video, it's a short clip of something I find interesting or may have some market value. Most of them wind up on my web site and they occasionally get sold to broadcast markets. 
I think the popularity of using the DSLR for video stems from the ability to customize rigs to meet their specific needs. Lenses play a key role in todays market. The look of a prime lens and shallow DOF can't be beat. Back in my days of video production, I was stuck with factory TV zoom lenses that were in the 16:1 category. Starting in the 80's, I invested over $250,000 in gear. I am not going to repeat that in today's market.
In 2007, I decided to return to my roots of still photography and enjoy shooting subjects for my own satisfaction. Once in a while I'll flip the switch to video and curse having to hold the camera 2 feet from my face and watch the LCD screen. :
I shot this video because the crew handed me cash to do it. Sometimes you just need to go with the moment.

1080P with the 5DS, 24-105L
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=A2PGec5dTHw


----------



## Tinky (Nov 26, 2015)

slclick said:


> What dslr is really making people happy with both stills and video? Any? This is such a polarizing topic. No one seems happy. Perhaps it's because it's the wrong tool for the job? Anyone?



I don't know of any that make all users absolutely happy. The C100/C300/C500's aren't technically DSLRs, but of the large sensor type video camera they are very well sorted in terms of ergonomics, in terms of grown up audio, and as many allude to, single device, single battery, single button operation.

I'm sure folks do use them for stills too, but you don't hear so much about it.

The right tool for the job can be many things. I love the form and stability and transparancy of an ENG format camera. Be it Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami, Grass Valley, JVC etc.. XDCAMHD, Digibeta, HDCAM, DVCAM... whatever. I can pick up any ENG camera and within around 20s have it set up the way I wish.

Long movement servo zooms, swoon, mechanical lens and iris movements, swoon, a correctly counterbalanced head, swoon, b&w EVF, swoon, one touch WB, swoon etc etc etc.

But crap for stills.

A lot of the large sensor cameras lke the Sony F's, Reds and Arris, are designed to be used on rods, a rig, or cage. There is nothing to beat an ENG format for running and gunning.

I shoot mainly on DSLRs these days, and actually have a 'stills' DSLR (my 7D with it's excellent viewfinder, flexible AF, speed) and a 'video' DSLR (my 60D with it's flip out screen, very useful) I have to cobble on a Tascam audio unit to interface between my XLRs and give me headphones, but it's a small price.

I used to shoot with a trio of f2.8 zooms, but I've moved towards faster primes, with 3 f1.4 primes for the most part, as this really helps to achieve the shallow DoF I like.

An ENG camera with a 1" or s35 sensor would be great... and do you know what really interests me.. the Sony RX10mk2 and the Panasonic FZ1000... An ENG version of either of those lenses would be fantastic...


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 27, 2015)

This is my video rig



Kirkwood Freestyle Championship © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## MrToes (Nov 27, 2015)

Not much video, just occasionally back video at weddings. I just need more DR, ISO 64 (Native) and ISO 400K!


----------



## dak723 (Nov 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Video IS the future, but I'm too mired in the past to get with the program.
> ...



If I were to shoot video - and have done some on the past - I would get a camcorder for probably less than $200. It will be a lot easier and probably do a far better job than my $2000 DSLR.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 27, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> This is my video rig


Nice!!!!


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 27, 2015)

I have done a little over 5 hours. About an hour is the family events stuff. The other was seeing if I could get back into it from my college days. 

I agree w/ the form factor issues - I have a few pieces of add on to make the shooting more comfortable (LCD hood, magic lantern, etc). These make it a workable environment but as fun as it is to compare outcome to effort compared to "the not so good old days" I didn't get the bug.

I am just happy that many other do and share their imagines and stories.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Nov 27, 2015)

I've been doing a lot of interview type stuff on my 70D and I also have a 7Dm2, but the flip touch screen is a real winner for video. I'll switch over to the 7Dm2 if I need 60p (normally shoot 24p) or if I need two cams. I also have a GoPro Hero 4 silver for pov, space limited tricky stuff or in conditions where I need a fully sealed system like shooting inside a Cnc machine with cooling fluid. I have magic lantern on the 70D and will add that to the 7Dm2 when they get around to porting to it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 27, 2015)

I have shot less than 5 hours of video on my 5D MK II and 5D MK III together. For me, getting and keeping a subject in focus for casual shooting is so difficult that I don't bother.

If I really wanted to do serious video, I'd get a video camera. I would be handy to be able to take a short clip now and then with my stills camera, but I'm just not good at focusing on moving subjects.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 27, 2015)

It is quite hard to calculate exactly how many hours I've shot on my 1D X, but I believe it to be over 100 hours.

The 1D X, even though its main use (for me) is sport photography, still takes excellent video. Of course using a DSLR is only suitable for certain types of videography, and there are certain situations where I would not even bother turning it on to try. But in the right situations (with the right audio equipment) it produces outstanding results.

For the moment, I am not making any major purchases on equipment. I will wait and see what the 1D X Mark II is all about with regards to its stills and video capability and make a decision based on that.


----------



## Khristo (Nov 27, 2015)

Does timelapse count?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/khristo2/16863697559/in/photostream/


----------



## tahoetoeknee (Nov 27, 2015)

Focus when zooming I find impossible on my 5d3 so I've shot maybe 30 min in 3 years


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2015)

Definitely over 100 hours....

The video is great.... the sound is quite poor unless you use an external microphone and turn off IS on your lens, unless your project is to record the sounds of IS


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 27, 2015)

me 0hours, 0minutes, 0seconds, I know this to be accurate as I have a 30D


----------



## mkabi (Nov 27, 2015)

Countless hours to be honest...
I wouldn't be into video if it weren't for DSLRs.

I guess it has a lot to do with the small form factor, and how creative you can get with each lens. 

KeithBreazeal's ridiculous rig... I used those pain in arse cameras before... Stuff like those turned me away from video.... Sure...You can shoot hours of video on it, but its hard to get creative with it. How often are you changing lenses on it? Its already a heavy camera, the lenses are probably just as expensive, heavy and hard to change. You're probably depending on the power zoom? How often are you adjusting off camera lights?

All principles of photography apply to video... Believe it or not...
For example, we all know each lens brings its own characteristics... 
There is a lens for portraiture, a lens for wide angle, macro, telescopic, etc.
Say you doing a commercial for Tiffany's and you want to showcase a diamond necklace - I would use a macro lens to pan over each and every diamond. Are you going to get the same creative effect with a 24-105??? Hell no...


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 27, 2015)

*I responded "Less than 5 hours" ...*

... but it's actually less than 10 minutes (and not accidentally). My wife used to ask me to shoot short video clips with my 5DIII of things she found interesting / amusing during vacation trips (surf spray, elephant seals, prairie dogs, etc.). But I don't enjoy editing video, and she never looked at the vids more than once after I finished them. So I got her a pocket camera to shoot any vids she wanted on her own.

It won't hurt my feelings in the least if the 5DIV has no video capabilities, presuming its other features are sufficient to compel me to buy one (like a built-in Speedlite transmitter, illuminated AF points and not too many more MP ... I like the rumor of a version with less MP than the 5DIII, with better DR / less noise). At this point, however, I'm more inclined to buy a 2nd 5DIII at closeout prices once the 5DIV launches, give away my 5D and 20D bodies, and call it a day.


----------



## RGF (Nov 27, 2015)

I won't say zero, but I have tried it. But in reality, if there was an option for less than zero, I would have selected that.


----------



## Tinky (Nov 27, 2015)

mkabi said:


> KeithBreazeal's ridiculous rig... I used those pain in arse cameras before... Stuff like those turned me away from video.... Sure...You can shoot hours of video on it, but its hard to get creative with it. How often are you changing lenses on it? Its already a heavy camera, the lenses are probably just as expensive, heavy and hard to change. You're probably depending on the power zoom? Ho



Haha, this is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read in my life.

There are different types of camera suited for different jobs, there is nothing ridiculous or excessive about Keiths kit. A long through power zoom so he can zoom and track an approaching sportsperson? Couldn't do this with a DSLR, the lenses don't tend to have more than 3 times or 4 times range, are seldom truely parfocal, and virtually never have smooth touch sensitive servos.

The flag is essential for contrast, look at the bright weather, look at the probably ground surface. Without a flag you would have washed out footage, or it would be so flat..

Final excess.... a radio mic rx... for commentary perhaps?

This is all backbone ENG kit. Nothing fancy, nothing superfluous. Absolutely nothing ridiculous. The only ridiculous aspect is your apparent belief that your way is the only way. Find and advocate what works for you, sure, but you only make yourself look stupid and ignorant with this kind of outburst.

It might not be the kind of event you shoot, it might not be the kind of kit you want to use, but it looks to me very much like the right tool for the job in hand. I'll bet the multistage ND filter wheel is very useful. 

It's a huge zoom, you probably have a wide zoom in the van, not much heavier than say a typical 70-200.
It's a bayonet mount with locking ring. Unplug the power / iris / rec run cable (helpfully, all in one) turn the locking ring. Lift out the lens. Put the new one in, turn the locking ring, plug the cable back in, flick on the peaking, do a quick back-focus calibration (some folk carry spira charts, a bold newspaper headline will do, something sharp edge and contrasty) and thats you. A good operator could do it in the same time as an amateur takes to change an EF lens.

This rig could be used as a production camera, but you are right, the fashion in this day in age is to use short run time cameras with large sensors and higher quality, faster primes. Horses for courses.

Yes they are comparatively expensive, the current generation is somewhat spoiled in that regard. But then a T2i can't do what an ENG does, no more than an ENG can do what a T2i can do... thats why mature, open, experienced operators get skills on both and don't denigrate kit as ridiculous.

In terms of being creative.. it's all in the mind, not in the camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal's ridiculous rig... I used those pain in arse cameras before... Stuff like those turned me away from video.... Sure...You can shoot hours of video on it, but its hard to get creative with it. How often are you changing lenses on it? Its already a heavy camera, the lenses are probably just as expensive, heavy and hard to change. You're probably depending on the power zoom? Ho
> ...



I like the people filming without a tripod.... how the heck do you keep it steady?


----------



## Tinky (Nov 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I like the people filming without a tripod.... how the heck do you keep it steady?



A good counterbalanced tripod head makes fluid movements very easy to achieve, even with a big heavy camera, looks like a manfrotto 504 or 510 Keiths using, good starting point, I prefer Vinten pro-touch's or sachtlers (sachtler speed lock legs are brilliant, bits of kit designed by people who shoot rather than product designers), but the form. of the ENG is actually very stable, you have three points of contact, the shoulder, the eye-cup and the zoom grip. This leaves your left hand free to alter controls, all of which are on the left of the camera, expect the rec run and servo zoom, which are under your fingers and thumb as your right hand grips the lens. All the panning movement comes from your waist, you ped up and ped down using your knees. If you need to track your legs take out most of the judder, if you need a low angle the top handle is secure and the weight if the cam steadies it. out and deadens the smaller bumps.

It's fantastic, evolved over years, but it is not for every job. And it is far from ridiculous.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I like the people filming without a tripod.... how the heck do you keep it steady?
> ...


I was referring to the DSLR and phone people shooting without tripods (I should have written my post clearer)

The ENG equipment is great without a tripod... as you say, the ergonomics are all designed for it... ( you forgot to mention mass, which also improves stability). We had a commercial BETA recorder that was a dream to use and no DSLR I have used had ergonomics even half as good. Once you got the camera on your shoulder and adjusted the strut that connected to the battery belt it was solid as a rock. 

As bad as a DSLR is to handhold, it is WAY! easier than a cell phone... With a DSLR you can start the clip and brace the camera against something to improve stability, but all those people with one hand in the air and the phone shooting video?? EWWWWW!

And lens creep.... never saw an ENG rig with lens creep.....


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> A good counterbalanced tripod head makes fluid movements very easy to achieve, even with a big heavy camera, looks like a manfrotto 504 or 510 Keiths using, good starting point, I prefer Vinten pro-touch's or sachtlers



Just curious, but why do you prefer Vinten heads to the Manfrotto? Any Vinten in particular? I use the 502HD which is not too big and heavy, but works well.

I also googled the sachtler legs you mentioned, they look amazing but are also very pricey.

Thanks.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 28, 2015)

So 1 in 3 use the video function quite a bit, not quite the "only a very limited number of people, so few as to not bother with" talk.


----------



## ERHP (Nov 28, 2015)

Reading the results, 71.4% seem to care less about video on a DSLR. That seem pretty congruent with most of the statements I've seen on here regarding video on Canon DSLR's.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 28, 2015)

I went with never shot video, it's slightly untrue because every one in a while while on the BR strap the little video button gets knocked to on. I'm definitely in the camp of i get that video is in DSLR's to stay but, the latest greatest video stuff need not be in it especially if it means gimping other features.


----------



## Tinky (Nov 28, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > A good counterbalanced tripod head makes fluid movements very easy to achieve, even with a big heavy camera, looks like a manfrotto 504 or 510 Keiths using, good starting point, I prefer Vinten pro-touch's or sachtlers
> ...



The 502 is built to a price, it has lots of strengths, and hides it's shortcomings well, but as you ask...

Weight capacity is lower than vinten

The counterbalancing in the vinten and sachtlers is variable (on the big menfrottos you need to swap out springs depending on the weight of the camera, on the small manfrottos the counterbalance is fixed). counterbalancing is the key to resistance free movements. You can touch a massive canera with one finger and get a totally controlled movement, on a poorly counterbalanced tripod you constantly compensate and fight against the wrong weight of spring.

It's night and day. good tripods cost much much more, not through extravagance.

The quaity of the pan and tilt resistance, vintens and sachtkers use oil cartidges, the cheaper manfrottos used to use teflon plates,nthen went to basic fluid cartridges, which are prone to bounceback and judder, smooth ramping is made much more difficult.

Then its little things like handle rosettes, on the cheaper manfrotto, these are cast as part of the main head, on better tripods they are faces that can be repkaced when the risettes wear out, which they will.

For eng I mostly use a vinten pro-touch 5, so ething like a sachtler ace costs the same as a 502 and video legs, and for my money is the far superior head.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 28, 2015)

Thanks, Tinky. I appreciate you taking the time to write that. I do not think I have ever seen a Vinten head here in Asia but will look a little harder now.


----------



## Zeidora (Nov 28, 2015)

Mathematically, 5 minutes is less than 5 hours, so chose that option. That was on a 5D2. Have not used video on 5DsR (which it really is not meant for anyway). Have absolutely no interest in video.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



As explained previously, my post (which was obviously not well enough written) was referring to DSLR users and particularly phone users hand holding their device well away from the body.. ergonomics of a DSLR for video are terrible!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > This is my video rig
> ...



and mirrorless


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 29, 2015)

About an hour's worth, just for a friend who produced a fashion show. That was with a 60D almost three years ago.

Never on my 5DIII.

Grrrreattt poll for 4K hysteria perspective!


----------



## Tinky (Nov 29, 2015)

not really. try the same poll on cinema5d etc. There is a stills bias amongst this forums users.
Do I think video users are in the majority? No
Do I think the addition of video is in anyway to the detriment if stills users? No
Do I think video is a good value add on to a dslr? Yes
Do I think the video market is important to the eos and ef brand? Absolutely.

I don't get the fascination with video bashing. I never ever use spot metering or green square mode, do I gimp and whinge about their inclusion or clumsily surmise what is excluded to allow their inclusion? no.

live and let live, or go build your own perfect camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2015)

Tinky said:


> not really. try the same poll on cinema5d etc. There is a stills bias amongst this forums users.
> Do I think video users are in the majority? No
> Do I think the addition of video is in anyway to the detriment if stills users? No
> Do I think video is a good value add on to a dslr? Yes
> ...


+1
well said. Video is another tool to add to the kit...

BTW, number one reason to shoot video on a DSLR? "Because I felt like it"


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 29, 2015)

''I never ever use spot metering...''

I wonder how many videographers whine about a lack of advanced stills features.

Friendly poll, no bashing detected. But it does make a good point about gear heads bemoaning a lack of features used by a small minority.

OTH, Canon enjoys the sales to people who believe they may someday use a feature...Win, win, if the feature doesn't painfully increase price or cause primary use headaches.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2015)

Sometimes you are shooting stills and you say to yourself "hey, why not shoot a video clip?"..... so you do.

Yes, a proper video rig would do a better job, but it costs money that you don't have, and even if you did have one, it's not with you because it's just too darn heavy to bring on a hike. So you make do with your DSLR. Your clip is never going to be shown in theatres or featured on the news (unless you caught bigfoot, Nessie, space aliens, or Elvis) but it is certainly good enough to share with friends....

https://vimeo.com/147408154


----------



## Stickman (Dec 12, 2015)

I do as much video with the 1Dx as I do with the 1Ds3....


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 12, 2015)

I shoot quite a bit of video, mainly at events and weddings, often filling a 128gig card.
I have used my 60d and 5d3, but being a one man show, I always had trouble focussing, so I bought a nice Sony HD cam, which is OK but the focussing was slow and it's performance in low light was pretty poor, so I bought a 70d and haven't looked back.
I usually use it on a 3 legged monopod, and I find I can get good steady footage this way.
This way, if I need to take stills as well, I only have to flip a switch.

I think a lot of us are a bit frightened to use the video functionality of our cameras, but if you start using it, you'll find that it's a lot of fun and easy to use, especially if your camera has dpaf, and as far as editing goes, get a copy of Premiere Elements.


----------



## George D. (Dec 13, 2015)

Myself: Zero. I only use movie mode occasionally on low budget ELPH while on vacation and that for 1-2minutes max. at a time. Total less than 5hrs. (on ELPH).


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 13, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> I shoot quite a bit of video, mainly at events and weddings, often filling a 128gig card.



Seriously? How many batteries does it take to do that?

I have two 1D X batteries and they die before I am close to filling two 64GB 1066x cards.

The 1D X battery is amazing but video eats a lot of power.


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 13, 2015)

Never and I don't expect it to change. iPhone is good enough for anything family related and I don't record videos of anything else. I would go for a camcoder if I had to do video. 

So far 75% of people who responded to the poll don't use video on DSLR and 16% use it "rarely". That puts all those rants about 4k and pro-level video features necessity for 5D mk. IV to the whole new perspective. It just doesn't make sense to me for 9% of users.


----------



## rcarca (Dec 13, 2015)

I used my 7D and more latterly my 5Diii to video my daughter playing violin. Plus I have video'ed a music festival final competition for the organisers. Nothing stupendous, but a million times better than using my iPhone! However, now that my daughter rarely plays the violin (at least in my sight) the video functionality is largely irrelevant to me. And now my iPhone suffices for 99.9% of my video requirements!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

@threadopener: thanks for this poll.
Results fully confirm what i had suspected all along.
Nevermind, i am all for 4k ... EVFs!


----------



## Tugela (Jan 7, 2016)

Shot about 5 minutes worth, realized it was crap, then went back to using dedicated video cams.


----------



## SPL (Jan 7, 2016)

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


----------



## Tinky (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

Tinky said:


> 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 



Tinky said:


> 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....



Tinky said:


> 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.....


Tinky said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2016)

Tinky said:


> 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.



Tinky said:


> 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.



Tinky said:


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



I wouldn't.



Tinky said:


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



No, never.



Tinky said:


> 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.



Tinky said:


> 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.



Tinky said:


> - 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.



Tinky said:


> - 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.



Tinky said:


> - 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.



Tinky said:


> - 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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 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. 



privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

Tinky said:


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



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.



Don Haines said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.



privatebydesign said:


> 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.



privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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


----------



## NancyP (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Video IS the future, but I'm too mired in the past to get with the program.
> ...



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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Jan 7, 2016)

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 (Feb 8, 2016)

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.


----------



## mkabi (Feb 10, 2016)

The best way to explain DSLR vs. Camcorder video is through video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXl-DtdHTxI

Thats the difference!
Come on... after watching that video.... you have to admit.... if ever.... if anyone can complain about sensor size and image quality, its people that work with video.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 10, 2016)

Shooting video in the past hasn't ever been a priority for me, both my Sons shoot quite a lot of Underwater Video though with various Cameras, which actually looks pretty good, I may change my perspective when I get the 1Dx II.

I've actually purchased the Zacuto Gratical HD with the intent that I WILL shoot more Video, I keep putting off the decision to actually get it out of the Box, still, I have time, the 1Dx II won't arrive until sometime late April.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Feb 23, 2016)

I've created around 150 commercials with my 5D, around 75 percent were shot using RAW from Magic Lantern. The DSLR form factor is great for me, I prefer it over the C100, C300 and Blackmagic. I would be willing to work with the 1DC or 1DX Mark II, for a compressed 8 bit format, the footage is still very gradable and the colors look great out of the box. However, the taller body is not my cup of tea. I'm hoping they bring 4K to the 5D Mark IV and the rest of the cameras here on out, otherwise, I'll need to jump ship soon.


----------

