Why video on a DSLR?

Up to now my use of video has been for holidays, and for that I still think a camcorder is best. However having started this post very anti-video I am coming around to the opposite view, having realized that for some applications it is probably quite useful. I take the point made earlier about the availability of your range of lenses, especially large telephotos. An example I have just come across is a recording of a rare bird sighting; probably the DSLR was set up with an extreme telephoto and this was handy for a video - not exactly BBC grade but served its purpose.

Good to hear it's been worthwhile then I too take video of the family holidays and outings, and I just wouldn't be able to juggle a video camera and the DSLR for stills ... Not enough hands. Luckily I find the quality of video from the K7 great ... Of course there's always improvements to make and I hope Pentax are serious and address the matters that are often raised by the more serious filmmakers here amongst our Pentax user community.

I'm mentally preparing a section on how to make your DSLR (or any) video seem more pro.
Maybe there will be some content of interest to the 'I tried video on my DSLR and it looked horrible, my Handycam was better' crowd

I'll get it out the window one day, and try to package it as something everyone can do, regardless of gear/software.

I look forward to that Richard. There must be a set of key optimised techniques and approaches to get the best out of our video modes, and it would be great to have a avenue to explore that.

I had never tried video on a DSLR before I saw this thread and the comments contributed here got me thinking ! Therefore when I started 'playing' with my new K50 I thought I'd give it a try to capture the grandchildren over Christmas. I'm now SOLD ! As others have said it is so inconvenient to have to carry a camcorder as well as the DSLR and since still photos demand the latter it is a 'no brainer' !
The essence of 'family photos' is catching the moment. Sometimes this means a still shot but an instant later a movie is better and there is no time to put one camera down and pick up another before that moment has passed forever.

I too will look forward to any tips Rich can pass our way.

Awesome post, glad to read it. A handy cam doesn't have anything on what your DSLR can produce.

I'm working on something simple, like really simple, but want to offer a package that can be done on something like windows movie maker/free software. However I'm finding it's been reduced now as windowslive movie maker and doesn't have some of the features I was hoping to present. I'll keep working on an option.

Glad to hear you're getting the most out of the new camera Peter. It's very convenient to flick the dial over to video, and the HD quality is excellent. Don't know about your K50, but the k7 has a mini HDMI plug for a connection straight to an HD tv . If you get the custom settings right when recording then it should look very good 'out the box' . Of course, you can make it all more interesting with editing, but this can become a whole new hobby in itself ...

Davinci Resolve Lite is also free and basic colour grading techniques are really to learn on that piece of software. There are several pro features but I'm sure that any novice can easily be taught the basics of Lift Gamma Gain and using the Scope especially if they have experience editing stills.

I used to own a dedicated camcorder and it was very good at producing moving images. It also had a stills function and the results were disappointing. Likewise my K-30 makes excellent photos but is worse at filming. I also have simple 2G mobile phone that is very good for talking and texting. I do not believe in multi purpose electronic devices because there is always at least one compromised function. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned !

perhaps.

It depends on the output you're after. Show me a dedicated Handycam that you can achieve a narrow depth of field on, and with which you can change the lens to suit your requirement. The video camera that is the equivalent of a DSLRs capabilities is not a handicam.

If people get away from the idea of 'home videos' and the like, and consider briefly the concept of quality video production via DSLR then this argument/line of thought discussion will end pretty quickly. I'm not going to repeat what I've keyboard hammered elsewhere, but they aren't the same thing.

So yes, if you want the handicam experience on a DSLR it will be awkward. If you want the optics and low light ability of a DSLR on a handicam then you're stuffed.

https://vimeo.com/20578330
[vimeo]20578330[/vimeo]

Yet you use a computer which is capable of so many functions and used for a multitude of purposes.

Digital video is nothing more than a sequence of stills wrapped into a container with an audio track.
There's nothing really different, same exposure and composure attention is required. As Richard points out, if you're looking for infinite DOF such as that you get from camcorders with tiny sensors along with massive zooming (in/out/in/out/in/out ad nauseam..) then a DSLR isn't going to impress you. But for a shallow DOF such as you see on TV and cinema, well that's where the DSLR video features have caught the attention of pros and indie film makers world wide. (And hobby tinkerers like me of course )

This is a bit rough and ready and loaded a bit, but it's all info all the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXl-DtdHTxI