Bbliss Loc: Phoenix,AZ

Why is the industry trend gone to video on still cameras when camcorders do a better job?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Precisely because mirrorless cameras do a much better job than most consumer (and even some pro-grade) video cameras.

Even Micro 4/3 sensors are bigger, the form factor is more familiar to still photographers, and they don’t involve different learning curves or different lenses. Why travel with two systems when one will do a better job?

I will buy a newly released Lumix GH6 this year to replace my old GH4, a 2014 design. Since I do both still and video recording, it will do it all, far better than the GH4 does it well, already.

I already have lenses for it. It isn’t inexpensive, but it will be worth it.

Watch this:

https://youtu.be/ooeXkMRnat4

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

As Burkephoto says, current mirrorless are now state of the art.
DSLRs and now mirrorless are being used in movie productions now.
Not consumer camcorders.
Finally you have stills and video in a single package using the same lenses etc.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It mostly started with the Canon 5D Mark II. It was the first half-decent video camera in a dSLR form factor. TV/film photographers liked the full frame effect of shallow depth of field when the lenses are open wide, and they liked the performance at ISO 5000 enough to record things like the intro to Saturday Night Live, filmed in available light on the streets of NYC, and in dimly-lit bars and restaurants. Hollywood quickly adopted the look, as it was unique, compared to Super 35, which is closer to the APS-C format.

For several years, beginning in 2008, the full frame Canons developed a cult-like admiration and were used in all sorts of productions. Scott & Bailey, a British detective series set in Manchester, England, is famous for its later seasons' intro recorded with a dSLR, because it features severe rolling shutter effect — scenes from moving squad cars show phone poles and fence posts leaning backwards in an unnerving manner (they were upright in reality).

In 2007, Panasonic saw an opportunity as they were working with Olympus to develop a new lens mount for the existing 4/3 sensor. They put video in one of their early Micro 4/3 cameras (the GH1) and immediately saw much less rolling shutter effect. The main benefit of Mirrorless designs proved to be that you could have both a rear screen LCD and an electronic viewfinder, for what-you-see-is-what's-recorded views of your scenes.

It didn't take long for Sony to catch on and start adding video to their mirrorless cameras. However, both Sony and Canon were initially reluctant to cannibalize sales of their camcorders, especially at the lower end of the high end market! They left out many of the features professionals rely upon, such as decent audio preamps with limiters and level controls and meters, waveform monitors, vector scopes, slow motion and stop motion time lapse capabilities, etc.

Panasonic, meanwhile, developed its GH (Series G means Micro 4/3, and H means Hybrid stills/video) breed. By the GH2, photographers were using them for training films, commercials, and other short projects. Magic Lantern, a developer group, were hacking the cameras to increase the capabilities of the firmware. Panasonic took notice and started asking people what they wanted!

By the GH3, people were starting to make B-films and shorts quite frequently with Lumix gear. One of the best is documentary, Sriracha, by Griffin Hammond, which I believe is still free on Amazon Prime. A film on how it was made is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/tXOAx58LBDo

The GH4 was heavily evolved from the GH3, and caught my attention enough to buy one in 2015. It was a highly refined GH3, and has stood the test of time. We have two in our family, along with a GH5.

The GH5 blows the GH4 out of the water. The sensor is bigger, better, and stabilized. Panasonic made a version of it called the GH5S, with a "big pixel" sensor and no stabilization, useful for low light movie makers. Last year, they updated the GH5 as the GH5 Mark II, adding the processor and firmware from their full frame S-series cameras.

Of course, Panasonic has also developed a series of Lumix S1, S1R, S1H, and S5 full frame cameras in concert with Leica, who supplied the L-Mount license to both Panasonic and Sigma, so those three companies share lenses on their cameras. The S1H is roughly the equivalent of a full frame GH5, while the S5 is a sort of full frame Lumix G9. Fujifilm developed an APS-C camera line and a Medium Format camera line. Canon and Nikon and Sony have full frame and APS-C, and OMDS (formerly Olympus) is the only company with just one format ILC, Micro 4/3.

This year, the Lumix GH6 was finally released. The camera review crowd who are mostly video bloggers didn't like the autofocus (Panasonic's customer base mostly focuses manually anyway... not because we have to, but because it is the way films are made deliberately!). But otherwise, it is getting mostly great reviews and responses. The new sensor and processor produce results that are stunning for a $2200 camera, and the feature set for filmmakers is quite extensive. (I won't bore you.)

Meanwhile, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, and Olympus have all included video in their flagship cameras. Video capability ranges from excellent to awful. Sony probably has the best feature set out of all of these. Canon and Sony have the best video autofocus. The Nikon G9 received high marks for video from Jordan Gross over at DPReview.com. Canon's latest mirrorless models are quite well packed with video capabilities, too.

So... The market is maturing rapidly. Video hybrid photographers who do corporate training, short films and documentaries, TV/cable/Internet commercials, Netflix movies, and just filming the kids in the backyard sandbox are able to get stills and video with one camera, without setting it down to pick up another. Whole industries have formed around the dSLR/mirrorless video market. You can buy external power supplies, monitors, recorders, cages to mount ciné lenses and audio gear, gimbals and steady cam-like devices, and more.

The high end video market is 8K, 12K, and higher resolutions these days. But beyond capturing 5.7K open gate Micro 4/3, there begins a curve of diminishing marginal returns on investment. The sweet spot in video camera production is well below about $10,000. In that range you'll find gear sufficient for all but the highest budget applications. And no matter which manufacturer whose lenses you have collected, there is a body that will use those lenses to record video.

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

The newer bunch of "traditional" cameras are actually excellent as "traditional" camcorders now. For most of us, and the video needs we have, the cameras we already own perform wonderfully, and of course we mostly have a few lenses to play around with. Why go to the extra expense, and carry a second system with us, when what we already own performs the task just as well as a dedicated camcorder.
Ray.

therwol Loc: USA

I agree that a mirrorless camera with an EVF with video capabilities is a good replacement for two systems. A DSLR with video capability is not. For handheld video, a DSLR has to be held away from the body, and without bracing or a stabilizer, this is not steady, at least not in my hands, not to mention the fact that the screen may not be clearly visible in bright sunlight. The DSLRs I'm aware of typically use contrast detection autofocus, and this results in hunting for focus if you're following something. (The Nikon D780 is an exception.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Pretty accurate statements here…

Smartphones record very good casual video. But if you’re serious enough to want to edit, record decent sound, use longer lenses, etc., then you probably want a MILC/DSLM.

AF for video is controversial. Filmmakers try not to use it. Generally, they can plan their scenes, and “pull focus” from one point to another while filming.

Vloggers (video bloggers) want perfect AF at all times. But that’s an elusive technology. Canon and Sony have very good video AF. Panasonic has good contrast detect AF in the GH6, but their other models range from almost good to mediocre. They know their next models need phase detect AF.

I will use AF sparingly. Most times, when recording video, I’m doing everything manually, for consistency. AE, AWB, ALC audio, and AF can and usually do produce inconsistent results.

therwol Loc: USA

My primary camera is a Nikon D850 DSLR. In the still mode, when I set the autofocus to track a subject with the mirror down, the autofocus can track a moving subject quickly and flawlessly. In the video mode with the mirror up, the contrast detection autofocus is constantly hunting with visible effects. I'm meticulous in setting up my camera for still photography, but for video, I'm a point and shoot kind of guy, and this works out well with my 9 year old Sony camcorder. Because it has a tiny sensor, everything is pretty much in focus already, and as the camera adjusts, it is barely noticeable. If I were taking video with my D850 of my granddaughter playing soccer and running up and down the field, managing a zoom control and focus manually would be difficult.

I told the following story in another thread. My wife and I were at a beach covered with elephant seals on the California coast. I did not have my camcorder with me and my wife wanted some video of the animals. It was difficult enough holding the camera out in front of me with the screen of the D850 barely visible in bright sunlight. As she was calling out for me to video this one and that one doing this and that, the focus kept changing as I moved the camera around. The visible results of the focus hunting were horrible. I'm not sure that the results would have been any better trying to manually zoom and focus at the same time. A mirrorless camera with phase detect autofocus in the video mode would have solved all of the problems I had, and the video would have been acceptable.

I do need to upgrade my old consumer grade camcorder. The results are fine in bright light but pretty horrible under challenging light conditions. I don't want to invest in a new camera system and lenses, so I'm going to look at other camcorder options.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, phase detect AF is the ticket. Unfortunately, the D850 does not use it for video. Some Canon and Sony models do. The only contrast detect AF worth a hoot *for video* is in the Lumix GH6. But you have to learn to use it, apparently. It has a Chinese restaurant menu of options. My older Lumix AF is hit or miss, hunt and fail.