Shooting digital videos: dSLR or DV camcorder?

Hi Stan,

You mentioned that you wanted to get back into shooting film. So... will you be producing/directing? If you are just trying to capture moments of family and friends... then probably the DV camcorder would be the best route. However if you are directing a short film where each scene is planned out, then the DSLR would be the way to go. You could start with a Kit... I do know that the Canon and Nikon entry level DSLR's are very good. The Canon T2i, which is off of canon support now... you could probably find for well under $500 and you could by a nifty fifty (a 50mm prime lens that runs for around $100. Nikon has something similar. If you go with the newer models (Canon T5i or Nikon D3200) I believe that they both have autofocus with video. Do a search on youtube for t2i. Many people have created videos and short movies with this camera.

But then there is the fact of holding the camera. If you are always going to be shooting from a tripod.. then no problem. You can by different type of mounts for DSLR's to hand hold/carry them... but these will cost you as much as the camera or more. Also.. with regards to focus... if you are producing a film... it should all be in manual anyways.

For the dollar... you can get a much more film like look with a dslr, but you give up some of the features like continuous autofocus that you would find on a dv camcorder. But again... if you are producing short or even feature length movies... you shouldn't use autofocus. In Hollywood on those big production cameras... they have several operators... i.e. one to control the camera position and one to pull focus.

Good Luck whatever you decide.

If you are the average or even above average video shooter taking holiday stuff or family footage then the camcorder offers an easy option to get reasonable quality video. At the same time it can be argued that the day of the camcorder is past with tablets and smart phones filling the niche.
On the other hand and within the price range specified if you are wanting to make serious good quality movies then a DSLR is a very good option. They will make video of the quality only otherwise achieved by multi thousand dollar pro cameras. Why else would pros be using them as a preferred option in many cases?
They do of course have drawbacks.
1. Generally lacking continuous autofocus.
2. No go sound recording
3. Not ergonomically designed for video.
And a few other
They also have big advantages
1. Greater dynamic range
2. Extremely good low light capability
3. Excellent control over depth of field
plus many others

I'm personally using a Canon 60d DSLR having jettisoned my pro Panasonic Standard Def video camera .
I use a Zoom H4n Audio recorder for sound and only ever use the camera sound for synching purposes.

Some previous comments assume that the user will use auto settings for focus and exposure. Well if that's what you do then a camcorder is for you. If you want to make seriously good video and are prepared to work at it then the DSLR should not be disregarded

When shooting, it's not just to picture resolution to have in mind. It's the quality of the shoot. With that in mind, I always use heavier cameras that are dedicated specifically for video. I've always favored shoulder mounted cameras as well for the steady shout on the go. So I vote a shoulder mounted DV camera. I've tried several small cameras (the ones that don't rest on a shoulder) and have never been happy with the results as far a steady shots. Obviously if you plan on using nothing but a tripod on all shouts, it doesn't really matter.

I use Canon Vixia HV20/30/40. I have '4' of them. They are not produced any longer, but you can still get them on eBay, & has Canon refurbs. All cost less than $500. They are well worth it. You can add LED lighting, studio mics, and lenses to this line. The video produced on Blu-Ray (1080i) is astounding. I can film an 85min Ceremony, and a Reception Party (with virtually NO hall lighting) in cinematic PF24, or standard HDV PF30. Then, capture to Hi-Definition MPEG and begin editing without going thru some crazy Sony AVCHD conversion. If I wanted to do better than this, then my options are to go with a $1500 to $6000 prosumer camera. And my cost begin to 'sky-rocket'. No consumer camera can beat the Vixia HDV models. (I cant really speak for the DSLR side, but I have seen the video clips from many Canon Mark xD models, and they are simply amazing! But then again, they are just video clips without audio. In my opinion, I believe the video filming that a DSLR can perform is a marvelous luxury for the photographer that uses it. And to repeat... DSLR video is a luxury for a photographer to use.

As the name suggests dSLRs are Cameras for Photography - they are great having come a long way from the 'Plate' format to 'Roll' Films to Megapixel Digital Images. For the dSLR, Video shooting is an 'after-thought' to cater to those individuals who want to just fulfil their desire at Video. DV Camcorders are for Videography - mid size to big are better for video stabilization and continuous shooting. Miniaturization of Video Cams are ok only if it is used in a fixed mounted place (and panning) for surveillance. However for serious and professional Videography with lots of manual creativity on the run, a reasonable sized DV Camcorder is best - that is what they are meant for. Using them for pot-shot photographs using DV Cam is fine but will NOT give the results compared to those from dSLRs. dSLRS and DV Camcorder have their own places and they are firmly entrenched there. Neither of them can really cross into other's territory.

While there are quite a few DSLR cameras and camcorders in the sub 1000 dollar range from various manufacturers, all which would meet or exceed your needs, I will reference the two that I actually own. I should also note that my models have been replaced already with newer modles this year, but I have not had the chance to use and compare the newer replacements to mine.

Both the Sony Alpha 57 and Panasonic X900 or in the sub 1000 dollar range and are 2012 models. They both perform well in their respective environments, and are both good in low light. Both can be used in full manual mode, full automatic mode, or various combinations of some manual and some automatic control. Both have 1/8 inch stereo mike inputs, but the X900 has manual control over the volume and AGC while the A57 does not. The X900 has a headphone jack, the A57 does not. The X900 comes with an excellent Leica 12x zoom lens. To obtain a similar 12x range lens for the Sony costs an extra 650 dollars.

The A57 has better color saturation, greater depth of field and lower light capability with an F2.8 lens. It's limited to 29 minutes per video clip, so long unattended recordings of two hour events are not possible. It's harder to get good auto focus or auto exposure with the A57. The X900 is better at these. The reduced depth of field of the X900's smaller sensor can be a plus if you're shooting an event with lot's of people, and you want all of the scene to be in or near focus.

A decent external mike is a must for good audio recording, and here is where the X900 shines. You can set the volume manually and bypass the ACG, getting near professional audio from the onboard electronics. This means the audio is in sync all the time. You can do this with the A57 as well, but without being able to control the volume or bypass the AGC, the results, while better than the internal mikes, are nowhere near professional. For film work, you'd need a stand alone audio recorder with your external mike, necessitating some serious shot logging and post production audio sync work in order to obtain professional sound.

In summary, for family events, weddings, parties, speeches or stage presentations I would choose the Panasonic. X900. For shooting film or documentary work where I can control the lighting and scenes, I'd use the Sony Alpha 57.

I think others have largely covered the field. But if you want good video, get yourself a good camcorder. Hopefully with a memory card like SDXC, Class 10. DSLRs are the way to go for good photos. The field has narrowed over the years, with some DSLRs taking excellent video, and my Panasonic camcorder takes some pretty good stills too.
But I have both, such as the Fuji HS10, and I was quite disappointed with the jerky manual zoom and clicking/grinding noises of the internal mechanism changing focus and aperture. It also doesn't look good in the final video either. (External mic isn't an option with that model). I upgraded to a Canon t4i, but even expensive models like the 5d Mark II still had the same trouble. And the video it does take eats up huge amounts of memory compared to AVCHD. Fortunately I got the STM lens, pricey, yet eliminates most of the noise. But DSLRs still don't focus as well as the higher end camcorders.
Plus you have to look at the specs - some DSLRs say they won't do video over 22 minutes, or 1 GB or something like that. You might not like that if you want to film a long piece.
What I don't get is for the ads and videos you see for digital video accessories (slider, jib, etc) , they all use a DSLR! Maybe some digital snobbery going on.
I'd say go for the camcorder. They are much lighter as well, and have great zoom!

Stan - you have stirred up the hornet's nest. Though there are not many replies because there are not many informed - those that did are VERY passionate you see. I use both so here is the honest answer. ONLY get a DSLR if you will ALWAYS use it with a tripod, you don't shoot that much video and you have a SEPARATE recording device. I also assume you're spending more than $1,500. EVERY videographer who has a quality camera worth $4,000 or more who went DSLR thinking they had the Cinemagraphic holy grail went back to video cams. Conversely, every DSLR lover never had a quality video cam and doesn't know what they are missing. In a big nutshell, here's why. By the time you outfit your DSLR to make it 1. Steady, 2. Audible, 3. Viewable while using (not every shot is held eye level) and 4. Usable (look up moire pattern, battery life, run n' gun) you will have spent another $2 to $3 grand - yes really. There is soooo much info available and sooooo many tests have been done comparing these two production tools (see all the Zacuto Great Camera Shoot-outs). You should FULLY do the research before you buy. Here are the ONLY reasons I would buy a DSLR if I were you. 1. if you plan to shoot a lot of low-light video (think indoors), and 2. if you want the bokeh film look with excellent depth of field controls. Here is the critical info the DSLR folks won't tell you - and you will HAVE to research this yourself. 1. ALL DSLR video is 8 bit, 4:2 color space. 2. All DSLR cams have mediocre, compressed audio quality REGARDLESS OF THE MIC USED as they all use 1/8" mic inputs (any decent cam uses XLR uncompressed). 3. Regardless of how many megapixels your DSLR boasts, ALL TV and internet VIDEO IS 1920x1080. A DSLR has to scheme the resolution down to work. Some shut off pixels while other perform other modern electronic tricks to get the resolution down to 2.2 megapixels- and this causes #4. Moire pattern. 5. Battery life. 6. Auto focus, Auto Iris, Auto White Balance, Variable gamma curves. 7. Screen viewability. 8. Usability/Shootability AKA "Run n' Gun". 9. Durability and high temp usage (over 90F) and 10. SHAKY, SHAKY, SHAKY. Here is the downside of most video cams under $6,000. 1. Poor low light usability with a lot of video noise above 18dB. 2. Poor depth of field control (little to no bokeh due to focal length issue with three-chip cams - the newer Super 35 and APS-C single chip cams overcome this but quality varies). Bottom line: if you are just going to use it for home videos - get an $800 or so three MOS chip camera, buy a $100, 40 watt or LED light and you will stun and be stunned with the video quality. Go with camera brands that are represented in the PRO video camera market and avoid the inane choice to buy the brand that everyone says you should - their A/D video conversion codec is HORRIBLE.

I'll try not to rehash what has already been posted. As a former pro wedding videographer who has switched to photography, a quick glance at these posts surprised me that nobody has seemed to mention the fact that most DSLR's only capture compressed video formats. What this means that if you are piecing together a multi-camera or greenscreen shoot in editing, your quality is going to drop sharply. Some modern DSLR's, like Nikon D800 allow for an add-on drive to capture in uncompressed format, thus solving the problem, but a D800 is $3k, body only.

Other than that, my biggest issues would be that camera movement (if not tripod mounted) would be an issue. A shoulder-mounted camera lets you get fairly steady shots and decent pans. Its weight even allows for semi-Glidecam moves. A DSLR would not be as easy to shoot with unless mounted.

Another factor not seen in other posts is the fact that when shooting video, it helps if your subjects take you seriously. You'll get more cooperation from event & news subjects and more likely to get referrals from wedding shoots if you seem to have the right gear for the job. A shoulder-mount video camera solves these issues.

Having said all that, for single-track videos, my DSLR's seem to get as good a quality as my $7k shoulder-mount Canon video cameras did.

I use my Canon VIXIA HF-M40 A for both. It's great under low light and has exceptional sound even when filming a heavy metal show in front of the speakers. It also takes exceptional stills that my friends rave about. Here's one of the hundreds of vids I have posted using this. Check the crowd that is unlit and listen to the great sound. Much better than anything I've seen with a DSLR.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLs-slYXqc

I'm late to the thread and you've received some good advice. I'll just add this- you already have experience shooting so keep your preferences in mind when trying to decide.

I like the way DSLRs look but I can't shoot with them because of the physical form factor. I shoot car reviews and need to move quickly. I just can't do that with a DSLR. I ended up buying a Panasonic P2 AG-HPX370 camera simply because it was the form factor I was used to and it allows me to shoot quickly and efficiently (much like a documentary or news photog). DSLRs are often used like movie cameras where the process is more deliberate.

I know that my camera is out of your price range but there are some great looking camcorders for under a grand. Go in with your eyes wide open and buy the format you're most comfortable operating. Image quality is important but it's the operator and how well they use and understand their gear that makes the most impact.

BTW you can see my stuff at DrivenCarReviews.com if your curious. Best of luck in your decision!

That is the biggest question you should ask yourself. If you're shooting from a tripod, a dSLR can do a fine job using the LCD. However, if you're shooting handheld like I do (barrel racing videos of my friends - user "matismf" on YouTube), DV camcorder with viewfinder is the way to go. Using the viewfinder allows you to block the camera and your arms against your body to minimize shake. As far as I can tell, the existing dSLRs do not provide that capability. Not to mention that an optical zoom range of 12 to 1 is difficult to afford in a dSLR without changing lenses in mid-shot, while the optics in my Panasonic HC-X900MP-K provide that and do not seem to create any visible problems in the final video. Previously was using a Panasonic VDR-D300 for the same reason.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

So far no one has mentioned in this debate about DSLR vs. Camcorders the problem with the 'rolling shutter' issue in almost all if not every DSLR, and the global shutters in most DV Camcorders. The rolling shutter in my Sony A77 DSLR used for video is a HUGE drawback when handheld, even with the so called sensor image stabilization, most shots come out shaky and jello-wy unless on a tripod and panned or moves VERRRRY SLOWLY ..

In comparison my Sony DCR-VX2100 Mini DV Camcorder with it's lens Super Steady Shot stabilization and global shutter 15x zoom will run circles around the A77 DSLR with only 3x lens zoom, and 1080p image. True, the MiniDV is only 720, but there is no JELLO effect, and I can hand hold it indefinitely at full zoom plus 2x digital zoom so that the image looks as if it was shot on a tripod. The A77 DSLR no matter if you hold your breath will still show artifacts of sensor image stabilization blur, and jiggle.

Question looks simple but there are lot of factors on which you need to think on it. Frankly, this is going to be out of scope of this board but I will touch upon few things you could think of.

Until 3 years ago, I primarily used DV camcorder. Panasonic GV-250, excellent video quality and I am totoally impressed with it. I used to do a ton of video editing and HDTVs were not that omnipresent.
The pros of DV video is, easy to edit but resolution is restricted to PAL or NTSC (AFAIK, as I did not look back into video issues after I bought this camcorder 6 years ago.)
Now that I do not have a desktop and none of the laptops have firewire port, I find it very difficult to transfer the video. Plus HDD are 5400rpm makes it difficult to do video editing as it is.
But if you are a desktop user with firewire ports and would like to edit video, DV should be the way to go, unless there are HD DV camcorders are available as well. I don't know.

AFAIK, most DSLR videos are compressed. Editing these compressed videos is rather difficult job. Again, you need to look into the development of softwares in this business. If they are upto the snuff now, you may want to look into it.

One point you may want to look into, the purpose of this video shooting, home videos or professional. If they are professional, then you need to go on a professional board. If its for home video, are you going to carry camera plus camcorder where you go? I found it very difficult. I have dSLR, DV camcorder and point and shoots but lately, I have been using my point and shoots a lot. New breeds of point and shoots is getting much better, powershot G series, I would rather look into it for all-in-one options.

Answer your requirements and purpose more, may be more specific answers will flow.

If money is not an issue, then a high priced DV camcorder may be best.....for now.
However, there is an exception: the new Canon Superzoom cameras, though not true DSLR's, have phenomenal zoom capabilities, with full HD video at a great price.

My opinion is that the DSLR type body is awkward to use for macro / close up work, but when mounted on a tripod, provides excellent results unmatched by any camcorder for the price. I'm a YouTube partner & produce a lot of video for TV News and the police. My target market is content with full HD action, and not too fussy about anything else.

Regards,

Mike

I bought an HDR FX1 a few years back, but when I upgraded my SLR just before my nephew's wedding, my 2 year old top of the line computer with 2 fire wire ports & BluRay capability was not able to handle the new memory card format, which meant the video shot on the card was unusable unless I bought another computer. Since I was the sole videographer of my nephew's wedding (the SLR video was for footage at a different angle from the tripod-mounted video camera), I bought a new computer that could handle the SDHC format, but could not find one in stock that also had even one fire wire port. Apparently computers no longer come with fire wire ports & getting them put in is easier said than done - thus making getting what's on tape into your computer nearly impossible. Bottom line, for people like me who use both a dedicated video camera and an SLR, there's a lot more to investigate beyond what gives you the best picture.

Hi Stan!
Sorry, I'm joining in a little late. After all the opinions have been voiced. I'd still like to add my bit, though: A DSLR is an excellent device, but it is not capable of recording long videos. My Pentax K-X can record about 12 minutes' video at one go. I don't know the exact reason for this limitation, but I guess it's due to software licensing. Happy filming.