why are dslr cameras bad at vids?

[adarw]

in my experince dslr cameras are always bad, is this true or is just that the ones im using bad?

[dizmo]

The 5D was used to shoot House. So. Probably just the ones you're using, or how you're using them.

[Electronics Wizardy]

What camera are you using?

 

The early disr kinda just had video slapped on, and didn't really have the other features do support it well. Like no AF during video. No zebras/focus peaking. And controls made for photography. This has improved a lot over time, with good af in modern dslrs, better on screen metering and controls, better codecs and gammas.

 

Also the focus of most camera companies has switched from DSLRs to mirrorless in the last few years, so a lot of cameras like the 5d mk iv and the d850 have gone a long time with no update(and likely never will get updated)

 

DSLR also all have a large flange distance which limits lens design compared to mirrorless bodies, but the lenses can still be pretty good.

 

 

[captain_to_fire]

There was a time where an iPhone 6s beat a DSLR when it comes to recording a 4K video.

Oddly enough most reviewers say that the current iPhone 12/12Pro still takes the best videos among other high end phones when it comes to quality especially stabilization. 8K recording on a phone is still a gimmick instead of being useful. Optical image stabilization for video on the iPhone seems to have a better job in reducing the jello effect that has plagued other phones when stabilizing a video recording.

[GDRRiley]

16 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

There was a time where an iPhone 6s beat a DSLR when it comes to recording a 4K video.

its because the lack of bitrate on most DLSRs, most barley push 30mbps H264 in HD. H264 really needs 60-100 mbps in HD or 100-200 in 4k to look good

and they aren't oversampling the sensor, which is down sampling the image in camera, instead they are line or pixel skipping which just doesn't look good

16 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

Oddly enough most reviewers say that the current iPhone 12/12Pro still takes the best videos among other high end phones when it comes to quality especially stabilization. 8K recording on a phone is still a gimmick instead of being useful. Optical image stabilization for video on the iPhone seems to have a better job in reducing the jello effect that has plagued other phones when stabilizing a video recording.

it doesn't surprise me, but they lose out to cameras that cost a similar amount

8k even for pro video is only useful for certain work

 

17 hours ago, adarw said:

in my experince dslr cameras are always bad, is this true or is just that the ones im using bad?

they aren't always bad they're just behind video focused cameras and mirrorless bodies. I did paid work, color graded on a 60d in 1080p. they look decent

[porina]

18 hours ago, adarw said:

in my experince dslr cameras are always bad, is this true or is just that the ones im using bad?

It varies, but in general if I was serious into video, a DSLR wouldn't be the first thing to look at unless I happen to already own it for stills photography.

 

18 hours ago, dizmo said:

The 5D was used to shoot House. So. Probably just the ones you're using, or how you're using them.

5D mk 2 was the first to have video. Original 5D didn't. I recall the 5D2 made a splash in some areas of video because at the time it was a relatively cheap option to get big sensor look.

 

18 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

DSLR also all have a large flange distance which limits lens design compared to mirrorless bodies, but the lenses can still be pretty good.

Not generally a problem for native lenses since they've had decades of retrofocus design experience. Are there any mirrorless lenses that don't or can't exist in DSLR space? The tradeoff is some more complexity in optical design. Now I say native, that's the main benefit of a shorter flange distance as it potentially opens more options for adapted non-native lenses.

 

18 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

There was a time where an iPhone 6s beat a DSLR when it comes to recording a 4K video.

Depends on how you define the output requirements. If you want the big sensor look, you generally need a big sensor so the iPhone will never compete short of strapping on a fat lens to it, or you have some damn good software manipulation faking it. Of course, if you don't need or want that look, I'd agree a good phone (not even iPhone) can beat a DSLR.

 

In a recent personal project which I've since abandoned, I took a bunch of wildlife footage at a local park. It is a mix of DSLR (7D2), compact (HX9V), and phone (Pixel 3a). In this use case, I don't need the big sensor look. My phone looked best but was held back in that it is only wide angle. The HX9V had optical zoom and, while not as good as the Pixel 3a, was still usable. The DSLR output just has a certain softness to it. Maybe it could be pepped up in post, but I'm not really familiar with doing that to video as I am to stills. That could also be another factor, the phone and HX9V default to providing something with more aggressive processing than DSLRs which in general try to be more neutral. I didn't play about with the built in profiles so maybe another would have helped some more.

[GDRRiley]

19 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

DSLR also all have a large flange distance which limits lens design compared to mirrorless bodies, but the lenses can still be pretty good.

most video glass is built for PL/LPL which is even longer

[Electronics Wizardy]

2 hours ago, porina said:

Not generally a problem for native lenses since they've had decades of retrofocus design experience. Are there any mirrorless lenses that don't or can't exist in DSLR space? The tradeoff is some more complexity in optical design. Now I say native, that's the main benefit of a shorter flange distance as it potentially opens more options for adapted non-native lenses.

A lot of the new RF and lenses for E mount are a good amount better than the dslr lenses. Smaller and lighter, sharper, and faster lenses(like. 28-70 f2 zoom). There is a good amount of designs that wouldn't be possible or haven't been done on a dslr before.

 

 

[porina]

9 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

A lot of the new RF and lenses for E mount are a good amount better than the dslr lenses. Smaller and lighter, sharper, and faster lenses(like. 28-70 f2 zoom). There is a good amount of designs that wouldn't be possible or haven't been done on a dslr before.

Ok, I've been out of the loop, stepping down from actively following photography tech before RF launched. I'm sure a f2 standard zoom will be fun for many, as contradictory as it sounds it is cheap prime like super expensive zoom.

 

Smaller only really applies to some lenses covering shorter focal lengths where the flange distance makes a difference. For example, take a tele like a 300mm f/2.8 with same image circle on DSLR and mirrorless, you're not likely to see any difference between them. Pricing was only on the up when I left the hobby. Mirrorless lenses were generally more expensive than similar DSLR lenses, but that also applied to newer DLSR lenses which were on an upward trend also.

 

"sharper" is one of those endless arguments, maybe more like the AMD vs Intel debates here even more so than Canon vs Nikon, or is it Canon vs Sony these days? Have to be careful exactly how you compare, especially as the sensor in real world testing will also contribute, such as varying density and AA filter strength. I'd also question if there is an improvement, how much is "because it is mirrorless" and not because over time, designs can get better, there may be better materials, and better manufacturing techniques.

 

I do recall before I left following the hobby, a lot of mirrorless lenses had much higher distortion than on DSLRs. Obviously in the film days, distortion wasn't something you can fix in photoshop, and I think that design carried over to DSLRs. With early mirrorless lenses, optical distortion was notably higher than before, as manufacturers took a software correction philosophy for that. That is one dimension they can trade off for cheaper/lighter lenses.