Why video on a DSLR?

= bridge camera.

Narrow depth of field, wide angled lenses, physical sensor stabilisation, weather sealing, larger sensor for low light abilities and wider dynamic range = dslr

If you are after basic tourist handy cam then all good, but if you are after a specific style then a handy cam just can't offer what a dslr can provide. Once again, hence the appeal of dslr video compared to the equivalent level video specific interchangeable lens camera.

Ok, fair do's, I see your point for different subject matter which would most likely involve a tripod with a pan & tilt head. I'll give it another go.

I'm pleased that someone has asked this question. Whilst I'm certain I'd be impressed with the abilities of the video function, it's something I don't have any real interest in, and would have been happy to have had an option to buy the camera without this feature at a lower price. Do video camera manufacturers made a big deal about the single image capabilities of their products?

At the local river, I see no end of bridge camera owners shooting video of the ducks and narrow boats, but I've yet to see any DSLR owners do the same; I've got to the stage of looking to see if a DSLR is being used that way.

My view in time over this may change, and as it is there I might be tempted to use it at some stage in the future. I suppose I'm curious why so many camera reviews bang on about the video features and I'm left thinking that I only wanted a camera, and my own group of friends feel much the same way.

Video is made by using the same hardware as stills.
There is no monetary saving to be made sorry as it is a software option only.
Honestly, expect to pay more for a camera minus an option to create video footage.

But 2.5K is pretty serious cash!

Simply put, DSLR video offers the same sort of visual qualities as DSLR stills - primarily depth of field and bokeh - that aren't possible on similarly priced video cameras. They are more suited to organised filming (camera on a tripod with shots planned out in advance) rather than whipping out to shoot 'You've Been Framed' style holiday/family videos. But we have our phones and compact cameras for that stuff!

You should just see the results from my K7 with Samyang 14mm ... For video it mostly shoots at around f4.5 - f6.7 .... With SR on it looks like I'm floating on one of those professional motion rigs. Compared to this combo, for IQ, you're latest HD handycam thing wouldn't even get off the starting blocks!

I've never shot video on my DSLR, and don't particularly expect to, but if doesn't cost very much to include on the camera then I'm not complaining about where else Pentax could have spent the money (I'd like a split-prism VF and non-crippled K-mount, but don't expect ever to see them...). I've occasionally used my second camera (Oly 5060, LX3, now Fuji X20) for video, but only 'fun' things and the occasional record that needs motion and/or sound. I think the difference is that with SLR stills I can aspire to 'professional' quality (at least as opposed to 'snaps') whereas any video I do is the moving equivalent of 'snaps'. It's maybe good to know that the K5 can shoot decent video if needed.

Yep, I was very impresed with the SR for video on my K-7 too.
I now use a Sigma OS lens on my K-50 for that same floaty smooth SR with hand held video rather than this awful MovieSR they've opted for in models since the K-5's.

Example ► https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atWh1NlIUTI

Just to follow up on this, I thought it might be useful to convey what you can do with a DSLR with regards to video and to illustrate why people use them for video in the first place.

First up an equivalent 'video camera' to a DSLR is something like the Canon EOS Cinema line, so say the C100.
C100 example link
Pentax doesn't offer anything at all in this line so hopefully the link is acceptable.

You constantly hear get a handycam for video, but as I've mentioned above, that's the equivalent of a fixed lens bridge camera. That line of approach could easily be said of DSLR owners. Why use a DSLR for stills when you could get a bridge camera? If you can answer that question and justify the DSLR option, then you can easily do the same for video.

Vimeo has a cool line of tutorials, and one of the sections is on DSLR use specifically. It's potentially worth a look to see how people use the DSLR for video work.
Vimeo Video School Link

In my opinion, iPhones are the go to for quick family snaps and video out and about, but when you want an image quality over and above this, then I reach for the DSLR for both stills and video.

Thanks Richard, all good points. In fact, DSLRs offer extraordinary value and quality for video work, when paired with the right lens for the job. As I commented before, the combination of a very wide angle / high 'resolution' prime like my Samyang 14mm, with the K7 and its mechanical SR, gives a fabulous result. I do accept that the DR can be limited, and no doubt the later sensors will add even more value to this (but the ''Movie SR'' takes away again (!) ), but in terms of smoothness and overal image quality in reasonable light, then you'd need a very expensive Pro-grade video camera to match it I think.

And of course, considering that most of us are actually buying the camera and lenses primarily for photos, makes the video an even greater value 'bonus'.

The other obvious creative scenario where a DSLR and longer focal length prime can work is for creative DOF effects ... again, a dedicated camera video camera with such quality glass and wide aperture is serious money ... and we can always stop filming, swap lenses, and start again, for the ultimate in creative flexibility. And I repeat, for DSLR film-makers, assuming they'd have bought the lenses for photos anyway, the equipment cost for the video aspect is ... ZERO!

I'm a stills photographer primarily but video is very important to me in my personal life. I got sick of carrying two systems around on holiday, on days out etc to record my family and just love the fact I can switch from stills to video and back again when on holiday with one machine that makes a superb job of both. My 3xccd Panasonic DV camera sits in a wardrobe and is simply never used anymore. The only thing I really want the Pentax to improve on is continuous autofocus in video....

Saxon

If any of you saw the snow wolves programmes over Christmas you will have noticed that a lot of it was filmed with a DSLR. Gordon Buchanan used one on a rig with his normal film camera to video his "selfies" and for parts of the filming of the wolves themselves.

I watch a lot of short films on Vimeo or YouTube now that are filmed on DSLR's and are excellent quality but they aren't filmed on Pentax's, its known to be an after thought on Pentax. People whole want a DSLR for filming mainly choose Canon as its implemented far better and as others have said provides a far lower cost entry point for budding filmers than a equivalent camcorder would.

Well this thread seems to have swung round well and truly in favour of the Pro - DSLR Video camp ! Have the arguments in favour been overpowering enough to persuade those who wanted a DSLR without video capability that it is in fact a positive thing, something either to be seized and exploited .... Or if not then at least accepted as a part and parcel of the devices, and a feature that the maker can shout about to widen the appeal and potential market?

I don't think having video features on every Pentax DLSR camera since 2009 (K-7) is an afterthought.
Remember that Canon are also manufacturers of camcorders and pro video gear for many years and have all that prior RnD to draw from.

By the way, have you seen Uncle Jack?
Shot using a Pentax K-7

► https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vez7qSrZfpc