burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Jordan Drake at DPReview.com has just posted an article that explains the best reasons why Mirrorless Cameras are so popular for recording video, OVER a traditional, dedicated video camera.

While there will always be places for cinema and studio video gear, there are now more applications where hybrid (stills plus video) mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras make far more sense than dedicated video cameras.

Go to "Aitch Tee Tee Pee Colon Slash Slash" dpreview.com "slash" opinion "slash" 6349087227 "slash" why-i-shoot-video-with-mirrorless-cameras-and-not-video-cameras

(Sorry for the edits in the URL, but I'm trying to avoid getting this sent to Links and Resources autocratically, where it DOES NOT belong. Hopefully you can translate.)

I'm of like mind with Jordan, having used dedicated studio cameras for industrial video in the 1980s and '90s. I was a still photographer first, which is probably why I never liked the form factor of those things. When Panasonic put pro video features into a sub-$2000 Micro 4/3 camera body, I said, "Sign me up yesterday!" It was the smartest thing I ever did with video. It cut my kit weight by 75% and killed off excess baggage charges. And it has been far more reliable.

Jordan addresses all the usual whiny snark surrounding the "Why don't you just use a decent video camera?" sentiment. I think his argument is thoroughly convincing, but then I have been using mirrorless for video since 2015.

If you're one of those folks who just isn't convinced, head on over and watch the video or read the article linked from the video comments on the YouTube channel. If you're one of those folks who say, "I do not understand why camera companies put VIDEO in my STILLS camera and WASTED MY MONEY," then you need to watch this or read this.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I just finished shooting two documentaries in the Arctic for Europe's largest TV network. I used a Sony A7R4 while my colleague used a Sony FX-9 full frame professional video camera. While the FX-9 has some definite advantages, specifically with audio and of course internal 10 bit recording, there is no apparent difference in quality in the end product, which was all shot in 4K. I had my camera mounted on a shoulder rig which with IBIS and lens stabilization, gave me very steady shots on the shoulder even with long lenses and unprecedented mobility when shooting on boats and live action stuff. What I shot would not have been possible with the FX-9.

Now that we are seeing 10 bit internal recording on MILCs, there will be even less reason to have a dedicated video cam. For studio work the video cam will of course still reign supreme, but in the field the MILC can give results impossible with the dedicated camera.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Exactly! We now have video in many different form factors. People have used GoPros for years to record from drones, skier's helmets, car bumpers, and the like. The MILC, in any format from Micro 4/3 to medium format, offers many characteristics that "camcorder" form factor gear does not.

The question of good audio is solved with XLR adapters and external recorders mounted in the camera's shoe, or tripod socket. Of course, separate sound audio is always available as a backup or primary source, however useful.

The highest end of the market includes the major motion picture producers and the major TV and streaming networks. Many of their production crews will continue to seek out the bleeding edge, spare-no-expense end of the market. They have the budgets for it, the post-production hardware for it, and the teams to use it. But those of us who "fly solo" and travel light now have tools for serious video and stills in one kit. The quality coming from our gear exceeds everything we grew up with. The difference between output from the better MILCs and the top end "Hollywood gear" can be pretty marginal. Unless you're in an editing bay with high end reference monitors, doing a direct comparison, it's not likely you'll see, or care, about any differences.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

My qualifications to comment do not include any professional experience. I added video to my interests a dozen years ago. Four things came together. Small cameras with high "HD" quality, digital formats that allowed non linear editing, affordable software and computers with the strength to edit.

The explosion of flat HD screens, Blu-Ray, AVCHD, etc created a market for HD (1920x1080p60) camcorders in the under $1000 group. There were lots of them. Every year at the CES there were lots more! There seemed to be a peak in HD technology with the Panasonic TM900. It did everything and could do it automatically with quality suitable for one's new HD TV screen.

The under $1000 HD camcorder market died with four four converging events. 4K formats, YouTube, action cameras and mirrorless cameras. The flood of consumer HD camcorders we had was replaced with a trickle of consumer 4K camcorders.

A single event seems to have eclipsed all of the above at the consumer level. Smartphone footage viewed on typical TV screens or computers via YouTube cannot be easily distinguished from any other video camera. Nearly everybody has a hybrid camera in their pocket.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"The question of good audio is solved with XLR adapters and external recorders"

If you have not already, take a look at the "Rode Wireless Go II" kit. Not to be outdone, DJI has introduced a similar system that you can't quite buy yet.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, the Rode lineup is quite good. We have a Sennheiser pro setup here, along with some mics we plug into tiny pocket recorders and iPhones. I tried to buy a Rode Go setup when it first came out, but they were unavailable when I needed it.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

I have mentioned MILC to be video cameras in discussions way back. IMHO, that is really their forte. Still photography is a second function.

The grandfather LOL

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Funny studio camera! We’ve come light years from that boat anchor.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There is plenty of truth in that.

therwol Loc: USA

The mirrorless cameras I'm seeing have advantages in both video and still photography, but I agree that the video capabilities are a huge plus. You can get near cinema video quality out of some of the latest mirrorless cameras, especially the ones that can shoot uncropped 4K video.

But using a mirrorless camera for video isn't a slam dunk. The form factor favors still photography where you put the camera to your eye, take a few pictures and then put it down. You wouldn't want to hold a camera up to your face like that for two hours taking video of your kids doing karate. Video cameras are better suited to this. Some can rest on your shoulder. The smaller camcorders that we don't see much anymore could be gripped in one hand with the arm braced against the body. Not tiring at all. You can attach a mirrorless camera to a shoulder harness and perhaps a gimbal stabilizer and do it like the "pros", but now you've got something that's burdensome in a different way. I think that since the video capability of today's cameras is so good, people will adapt and overcome any problems or inconvenience and continue to move away from dedicated video equipment. Those who need something more are likely to know it and know what they need, and they will exist in their own realm.

By the way, the first argument made in the video is that dedicated video equipment is conspicuous and attracts attention. Well, I was in London before the pandemic and watched someone with a camera attached to a body harness with a stabilizer walk though a market. It was a parting of the sea... of people.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

As a professional who has used every kind of video camera, as well as DSLR and mirrorless to shoot news, features and documentary, I have to take issue with a few things you say. The most comfortable video camera, ergonomically, is one that sits on your shoulder. Any camera, no matter how small, gets tiring if you have to support it with your arms, and that is especially the case with longer lenses, of course. The small consumer videocams that are so light also have miniscule sensors, and that shows in many situations, especially in less than perfect light, and in the overall look. They also offer you almost no real control over the picture, and any manual adjustments are near impossible.

Unless you go up to prosumer cams like the Sony FS-7, you will not get any of the features that a serious filmmaker wants, plus decent ergonomics, and even then, unless you drop about $10K for a camera like the FX-9, you will not have full frame.

The beauty of MILCs is both their size and their capability. With internal stabilization, they are perfectly usable handheld, and if you need more stability, you can simply pop them on a shoulder rig. I used a setup like this filming a recent Arctic documentary, and counterweighted, resting on the shoulder, you can literally shoot for hours without fatigue, as well as having a seriously stabilized picture. No weight at all on the arms, so that you can do all your adjustments without disturbing the picture, and you have three anchor points: shoulder, arms and eye against the EVF. I shot good video using a 100-400mm lens on shoulder, something that would have been impossible a few years ago, and is still impossible with the bigger cams.

And yes, it makes you very inconspicuous. I shot plenty of reportage video in situations where video filming is not allowed, especially in China, because if you go out with just the camera up to your eye, no one really knows if you are shooting stills or video. This is especially useful in sensitive areas like Tian'anmen Square, where professional filming is not allowed. I also shot reportage of pachinko parlors in Japan, where filming is also strictly forbidden. The low light capability is fantastic in such situations as well, light years ahead of standard portable video cameras.

I'm attaching a pic of the filming in Greenland in October. If anyone is interested in watching the docus (in German) you can watch them here:

https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/arctic-blue-100.html

billt1970 Loc: Gambrills, Maryland

My recent journey shooting video (primarily for vocal performances) started with an old Nikon D600 . . . until the prolonged use of the sensor shooting video caused it to burn up and become a not-economically-repairable brick.

So I moved to a Nikon Z50 and shot performances with that for the past year and a half. Aside from having a small and separate video shutter release button, my main problem was the limitation of 29min59sec shooting video with either a DSLR or MILC. That became so annoying recently that I traded in my Z50 and am switching back to a traditional prosumer video camera, the Sony FDR-AX100 camera with a 1" sensor.

The bottom line is that my experience is that a MILC is better for video than a DSLR, but not necessarily better than a true video camera that costs about the same. Stay tuned . . . time will tell whether this is the right decision for me, or not.

BT

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

New MILCs do not have a 30 minute limit, or if they do, it is generally easy to bypass. The limit is not technical, it was imposed to avoid extra duties in the EU originally.

billt1970 Loc: Gambrills, Maryland

Thanks for joining the dialogue, kymarto, and pointing out the source of the seemingly unwarranted limitation caused by EU duties.

I have a brand new Nikon Z5; when I go to video mode it shows29:59 for the shooting duration. I'd love to know how to bypass that.

Best Regards,

BT

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Awesome