Are DSLR Cameras good for video?

[iFargle]

The D3100 is limited to 10 minute video out of the box.

 

[IntelFanboy417]

The D3100 is limited to 10 minute video out of the box.

Wow ok then, looks like Im forced to pay another $100 and then I'll get the sony alpha a65

 

[iFargle]

Not sure if this is still viable but...
Hacked: time limit during video recording now removed for the Nikon D3100/D5100/D7000 | Nikon Rumors

 

[Oreo]

Wow ok then, looks like Im forced to pay another $100 and then I'll get the sony alpha a65

Remember there is not much point spending so much on an SLR, to only buy cheap lenses. You should be really looking to spend a similar amount on quality lenses. There is just no point in an expensive SLR and cheap lenses. I'd actually be far more inclined to advise you spend less on the camera and more on the lenses.

The cheapest Sony Alpha camera with the best Zeiss lens will take a much better photo than the best Sony camera and the cheapest Sony lens.

In fact, in daylight, the picture quality between a cheap SLR and an expensive one is very minimal. You will have slightly less dynamic range, but thats about it. What you are paying for is low light ability and camera functionality with regards to settings, focus performance and so on.

By the way, autofocus in video mode on SLRs is very much an unsolved problem, even the best Canon SLRs do not perform particularly great with continuous AF. You're pretty much limited to manual focus.

 

[jfenwick]

I traded my canon 60d in for a 70d for this exact reason. The canons take very good video...you just need to know what you're doing. My issue with the 60d was that it didn't auto focus with video. For an amateur who wants video of his kids I don't have time to figure out and mess with manual focus. The 70d and the new STM lenses are great for video and that's what I've moved to. Careful as some of the older lenses (i only shot high end "L") have motors that can be heard during the filming. They weren't designed with video in mind and although they rock for photos they have their flaws for video. I basically re-did my lens inventory around the 70d and picked up the 18-135 STM lens. I've only gotten to use it a couple of times but it's been great.

One other recommendation, if you're shooting a lot of video look for an off camera audio solution. On camera mics suck.

 

[aliu84]

Remember there is not much point spending so much on an SLR, to only buy cheap lenses. You should be really looking to spend a similar amount on quality lenses. There is just no point in an expensive SLR and cheap lenses. I'd actually be far more inclined to advise you spend less on the camera and more on the lenses.

The cheapest Sony Alpha camera with the best Zeiss lens will take a much better photo than the best Sony camera and the cheapest Sony lens.

In fact, in daylight, the picture quality between a cheap SLR and an expensive one is very minimal. You will have slightly less dynamic range, but thats about it. What you are paying for is low light ability and camera functionality with regards to settings, focus performance and so on.

By the way, autofocus in video mode on SLRs is very much an unsolved problem, even the best Canon SLRs do not perform particularly great with continuous AF. You're pretty much limited to manual focus.

Yep, I love my sony Alpha camera... It's perfect. It lets you take the still dslr photo that is honestly just as good as my t3i. It's probably the best type of compromise there is if you want to film nicely..

 

[HeWhoKnows]

I use a Nikon D7000 for video work, migrated away from a Panasonic HVX200 down to the DSLR about a year ago. It shoots great quality 720 and 1080 HD video, just research settings and dial them in for best results.

Only slight issue should there be one, is that I can only shoot a maximum of 20 mins before having to switch off recording and switch it back on again. Sensor protection!!

But in answer to your question, yes DSLRs can shoot great video.