Are DSLR Cameras good for video?

[IntelFanboy417]

Hey
So I just got hired to interview people about thier experiences. The organization I'm working for offered to buy me a camera. I would like a camera that can take amazing photos as well as 1080p video. Are DSLR cameras good for this or should I look at something else for video. Any suggestions on cameras would be great!
Thanks!

 

[Yevrag35]

It's been a numbers of years since I sold DSLR's, but when I left in 2010 the Sony SLR's took the best video. They were as good as their $400-500 camcorders, in my opinion, in quality, but just make sure it still retains auto-focus. Some of the Canon SLR's, I noticed lacked auto-focus when in "movie-mode" (seriously?).

Cameras being able to take good video is the reason the camcorder industry is eroding.

 

[IntelFanboy417]

Ok thanks, I'll definitely look into some of Sony's DSLRs!

 

[Yevrag35]

Ok thanks, I'll definitely look into some of Sony's DSLRs!

If this is the first DLSR you've ever owned, I think the Sony's are a good bet. Especially the Sony A65: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/alpha-a65-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-lens/2365129.p?id=1219072180125&skuId=2365129&st=sony%20a65&cp=1&lp=1

They still sell this model which was great (features wise and quality). It beat the Nikon D3100 & Canon T3i in my mind at the same price point.

Now, keep in mind, that Sony is feature "HEAVY", but they do make their SLR's very point & shoot like.

Also, would they purchase different lenses for you as well? Because that'd be killer.

 

[IntelFanboy417]

Not to sure about lens, Im very new to photography. Since lens look pretty expensive I think that I'll stick with the factory one for a while. Do I need different lens to get blurred backgrounds?

 

[Yevrag35]

Not to sure about lens, Im very new to photography. Since lens look pretty expensive I think that I'll stick with the factory one for a while. Do I need different lens to get blurred backgrounds?

To get the blurring effect, you have to play around with the aperture and distance from the object/person. But this can achieved with pretty much any focal length lens.

I know I sound like Sony salesman right now, but when I said it was feature "HEAVY", I wasn't kidding. The A57,58,65,etc. all had post-effects processing that can essentially "photoshop" that into a picture. They can also do that color filtering feature that only shows red, blue, green in a picture and grayscales everything else.

 

[iFargle]

Aren't most DSLR's limited to 10 minute video shoots? I know my D3100 is. There's some form of firmware hack to allow longer than that though.

 

[Oreo]

Canon DSLRs are generally regarded as best for video. Cameras such as the 5D MKIII have exceptional video quality, though you are looking at many thousands.

They do much cheaper cameras with good video quality, though.

 

[Yevrag35]

Aren't most DSLR's limited to 10 minute video shoots? I know my D3100 is. There's some form of firmware hack to allow longer than that though.

I'm sure for the real low-quality ones like the Rebel T3, the limit is there. A lot of the cameras in the $600 and up support full movie capabilities. From what I recall, the limitation all had to do with how the cameras were taxed. Cameras and camcorders were defined by how long they shoot movies, and so they were taxed differently (why? I have no idea).

I'm pretty sure most DSLR's can shoot as much movie as your SD card can hold.

Canon DSLRs are generally regarded as best for video. Cameras such as the 5D MKIII have exceptional video quality, though you are looking at many thousands.

I'm sure that's probably true. As Canon lenses are beastly. I dealt with more "consumer" marketed SLR's not "prosumer" or professional ones. The highest-end DSLR I remember carrying was a Nikon D7000 (about $1500)

 

[IntelFanboy417]

Thanks for the suggestions, right now I'm in between a Nikon D3100 and a Sony Alpha a65. All thats holding me back is my budget right now.

Thanks again for the help!