RahulKhosla

Are dedicated video cameras better for the purpose than the video capabilities of modern DSLRs and MILCs? If yes, which brand / model would you recommend for taking along on wildlife safaris.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

In a word, yes. Video cameras are superior to the video capabilities of DSLR cameras. As a Nikon user, along with other camera manufacturers, I hate to admit it but Canon makes some very impressive video cameras. Video cameras are purpose-designed and built. With DSLR, video is sort of a tacked-on afterthought.

The choice of which one I'll leave to you. You know what your safari plans are, we don't.
--Bob

RahulKhosla

Thanks Bob. My safari plans mostly focus on large cats and elephants (Indian jungles and Africa). Wonder if any of you know a good site for comparisons and recommendations

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I owned a modetately-priced Panasonic video camera thirty years ago. Even then, its zoom and focus capabilities were better for video than many dial-function cameras today. Its low-light capability was also outstanding.

That said, I really like what my relatively recent DSLRs can do video-wise. I like being able to "pre-process," by controlling white balance, color saturation, and other parameters at the time of shooting. And I like carrying one camera instead of two. I don't go on safari, but I do go railfanning, and the ability to switch from still to video with one camera is very beneficial.

The big drawback is audio. All of my cameras will record stereo directly, but without using at least a hot shoe mounted mic, focus noises and other shooting distractions can really impact audio. Making sure you choose a camera that will allow you to override the usual automatic audio gain control can make an immediate difference, and other steps can make even more improvement.

My suggestion is to resist the urge to target and shoot 4K or other extreme resolution video formats. Lots of folks do that with the hope of extracting screen captures for stills later. The reality is that shooting stills and shooting video are two different things. I've only seen about two screen caps that were worth the trouble (and memory). I usually shoot 1080p at 30 frames per second (occasionally 60, if there is a lot of motion). I shot one video at 720p for a church function last year (it was going to eventually be loaded to YouTube). It ended up looking just fine. That 11 minutes was a little over 1 GB, by the way.

There are other approached, and lots of folks have to have more resolution. But this is what works for me.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

My version of how to shoot wildlife video does not use video cameras. You need a strong telephoto lens. And, you have to be mobile. To solve that, I got a Panasonic 100-400 lens for micro four thirds. Olympus makes one too. They give you the reach, in 35 mm equivalent field of view, of twice that.

Cameras from Panasonic are known for video capability. Consider the GH5, GH5II, G9 or soon the GH6. They are good at stills too.

I shoot 4K. It provides cropping ability in editing and I do get some stills out of it that I like.

13 Loc: I am only responsible to what I say..not what

If you are looking to buy one I have a Canon with 2000x digital zoom video cam. PM me if you want more info...thanks.

RahulKhosla

I'm in Singapore so may be a tad difficult !

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Depends on what you mean by better and the price range. Consumer video cams all have tiny sensors, meaning considerably worse low light performance and no chance of getting a cinematic shallow DOF look. MFT, APS-C and FF digital cameras also have better actual image quality possibilities, shooting less compressed codecs with various gamma options.

On the other hand, for convenience, video cams have long optical zooms, making them handier and more portable. You have to pay about $5K for a dedicated video body that can equal the quality of even MFT digicams.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

It depends. The cheap video cameras generally are not better than using a DSLR or MILC in video mode and they also don't have the option of changing lenses.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’ve never been a fan of DSLR’s for video but most MILC’s do better video than consumer grade video cameras.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

Yes, for video only use a dedicated video camera. Look at the Canon C700.
You can compare cameras at the BH website.

RJI

I shot video professionally for forty years. All else being equal, video cameras are ergonomically designed with variable rate zoom lens controls, viewfinders that help promote camera stability, and controls you'd have to dig pretty deep in the weeds to find on a DSLR. Since the image size for 4k is only 8.3 megapixels, sensors can be smaller with a noticeable reduction in video quality, with the accompanying reduction in actual focal lengths, etc.

You can shoot great video with a DSLR, but you'll have to work harder at it.

RahulKhosla

Thanks much……from your experience and reviews, which brand / models would you recommend? I can’t afford to take anything heavy or large because of space constraints so am looking for something light, portable but high quality.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

A MILC is a completely different world than a DSLR when it comes to video. Nobody uses dedicated video cameras anymore unless it’s high end professional gear.

RJI

I use a Sony XD Cam that shoots 4K I import directly into Premier Pro for editing. The camera can handle phantom and standard XLR connections for microphones with external controls for mic selection and audio gain.
Start, stop, and variable zoom can be controlled either from the top or from the right side. The only "drawback" is that the video format is proprietary, although Premier Pro can read it directly.