Q-Ball40

Lately I'm reading a lot of information about 4K & 8K video capabilities in the new full frame mirrorless cameras. I know it is convenient to have the capability of photographs & video in 1 camera but video/battery time is limited & overheating is prevalent. If you want to shoot video, why not just buy a video camera?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Cost? Using the lenses you own already? How often do you shoot 20+ minutes of continuous video? If you do, yes, you probably need a dedicated video camera. If not, do you need a dedicated video camera?

Commercial TV and feature-length movies were being shot using DSLRs when the first capable models arrived in 2008, such as the EOS 5DII. Even at $3500, these full-frame cameras were a cheaper option than EOS cinematic equipment where the lenses alone start at that price and only go up from there.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Why do you even need 4k or esp 8k? 1080 is actually very good. I've been happy with 720 but video is not my reason for owning a camera. By the way good video cameras are so expensive. Take your time and think of what you really need and good luck resisting the advertisements and UTube videos.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"If you want to shoot video, why not just buy a video camera?"

Compactness, weight, portability, expanded creativity? One smaller camera makes for a much better travel experience that a bag full of gear. And, a good consumer video camcorder from Sony or Panasonic can be $1000 to $2000 and the lens may not have the "reach" for wildlife clips.

Of the three 4K dual purpose cameras I have, not one has overheated. I always have a spare battery for each, but rarely use it.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

1) In photography we use our software to crop so that we can improve the composition. In video you need the extra pixels to do similar. 4K source footage provides the extra pixels for that. Shooting in 4K leaves a lot more room for creativity in editing. 1080 videos from 4K source clips is better.

2) 1080 is very good for computer viewing. The last time I checked, the majority of the TVs now are 4K. Shoot and your home and travel videos in 4K!

3) Frame grabs from 1080 are OK at best. From 4K footage they can be about the same as a 8 megapixel still and I can make some useable prints. 8K? Each video frame is a similar to a 32 megapixel JPEG. If you took a minute or two long vidoe of wildlife or sports at 30 fps you might find some good stills in there!

4) Slide shows are no longer run on Kodak Carousels. Watch 4K slide shows on your 4K TV! It is better than 1080 slide shows.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The video capabilty of Panasonic cameras, is amazing, and used by many film makers.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

To me video with my camera is for when a few minutes of non important footage is needed, but then again I had videograph only once with a camera, preferring my camcorder with its ease of use, much better layout for controls, manuravility, etc., but some of today's cameras are very good for video.

For many people the ease of just one piece of equipment is what they prefer. For some other like myself, I prefer equipment just for that job. That's why most of the time that I want a photograph, I pick my Df or D750 if I want to video, I pick my digital camcorder.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

The real question is "why use a "full frame" camera for video at all - and the answer is "because that allows for the shallower depth of field and more "film look" that pro film-makers strive for. This is why they will spend more on the external rigging for a DSLR - focus rings and brackets of all kinds - as well as for external microphones - than the DSLR body itself costs.

When camera manufacturers figured out how to take moving images with their DSLR (and later, mirrorless) camera bodies man in the movie world jumped at the chance to get that look of film (or $30K+ pro video cameras) for a much lower cost.

Canisdirus

If you lean heavily on video...you should invest in a good video camera...you can always grab a frame when you need one.
If you lean heavily on stills...get a mirrorless FF.

brent46 Loc: Grand Island, NY

I use a D7100 to stream and record our church services. The services last about 1 hour 10 minutes, and I stream and record simultaneously with a video capture card and OBS. I use the HDMI out of the camera which is set at 1080P 30 fps. Quality is great, the battery only uses 2 of 5 bars, and the camera only gets moderately warm. Remember that even the crop sensor on the D7100 is many times larger then a camcorder sensor.

CaptKK Loc: Edmond OK

I think most mirrorless cameras allow you to take pics while you’re recording video....you don’t have total control of pics but I do find myself using this option from time to time.

BebuLamar

If you want a FF video camera the FF Mirrorless still camera is quite inexpensive. FF video cameras are very expensive.

Canisdirus

You won't need a full-frame video recorder to get fantastic results. Video doesn't need high megapixel counts.
Even so...you can get a 4k FF video camera with FF lens attachment capability for no more than 4500 bucks.
That video camera will blow any FF mirrorless out of the water for video.

If you shoot heavy for video..it's still WAY better to get a dedicated video setup.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There are more affordable camcorders with non-interchangeable lenses and smaller than APS-C or M4/3 sensors used in DSLRs and mirrorless (in fact, some are much, much smaller). The resolution of these also hovers around 8 to 12MP. Not surprising, since in some cases they need to make 120 or 150 images per second (frame rates that can be used for slow mo effects).

But when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras, have you priced digital cinema cameras? You can easily spend $5000 to $10,000 on a full featured one with a "super 35" size sensor (which is roughly half the size of a full frame sensor).

Then there are cine lenses for video, too. Those are special designs that eliminate any "focus breathing", for example. And they lenses ain't cheap! Cine lens zooms start around $2300, and go well over $50,000.

Are the DSLRs and their lenses starting to look more attractive?

Higher resolution for stills in most DSLRs.... APS-C 21MP and 24MP is typical, 26MP and even 32.5MP is available... full frame 30MP, 45MP and even 60MP is widely available.

And, in general lenses for DSLRs are a lot more affordable (so much so that some cinema cameras are designed to use them too).

A modern DSLR is an excellent stills camera with "pretty good" video capabilities.

While a cinema camera is an excellent video camera with mediocre stills capabilities.