Canon DSLR or a 4k Videocam

So I've been hunting on the market again for something to replace my current Panasonic DV-cam (which still uses analogue, dv tapes).

I've been looking out for years for the Canon D series (Mk II or III), and now that I can afford it, I find that it isn't really worth it. Someone indicated to me that I'm better off getting a 4K videocam, since it suits my needs (for shooting films, commercial, artsy stuff, NOT photography).

Does anyone have a take on this? A perspective of DSLR vs 4K that I might have overlooked?

I have a Nikon DSLR , I love it but other than that I have zero helpful advise, sorry.

Sounds like the vid is the better option for your work.

If you're looking to do mostly video vs photography, get a video dedicated cam then. DSLRs add it on as a nice extra, but their original intent is that- photography. While the video has gotten outstanding on them, it doesn't seem all that logical to go and buy one for the sole purpose of recording video.

It also seems silly to spend that much on a photography dedicated camera- one that has lenses that can cost as much as the (used) body itself.

Why exactly were you even aiming for the Mark 3 if you had no intent to use it for photography? Why not an actual video camera?

Posted by rockyroadicecream
If you're looking to do mostly video vs photography, get a video dedicated cam then. DSLRs add it on as a nice extra, but their original intent is that- photography. While the video has gotten outstanding on them, it doesn't seem all that logical to go and buy one for the sole purpose of recording video.

It also seems silly to spend that much on a photography dedicated camera- one that has lenses that can cost as much as the (used) body itself.

Why exactly were you even aiming for the Mark 3 if you had no intent to use it for photography? Why not an actual video camera?

Not really so much of Mk3, but I was looking more at the Mk 2 (2nd hand), because I've used the Canon 5D Mk2 before for a few other film projects in the past and I was very happy with the results. But I have to consider that this was 5 years ago when I was also still using my DV camera - so of course I would have been happy with the results of the Mk2.

I still do some photography, but my interest in photography is very superficial compared to videography.

Definitely the thought of having to buy multiple lenses for different functions for a DSLR, is working against my reasons for getting one. Plus the fact that lenses sometimes can cost so damn much.

I'm already using a Nikon D90 and it's already a pain to have to switch lenses in between just to get the angles I need. (I only have 2 dedicated lenses for this, and I usually have to rent others).

Posted by FishyDude
Remember with a DSLR, you can record video as well.

I had a Nikon D5200, which I sold recently due to the fact that I wasn't prepared to save money for better lenses, but it recorded quite decent videos.

LOL I know that.

I've recorded videos on DSLRs before, first with a Canon that a friend loaned to me for a few projects, then later with a Nikon.

My main issues are as you mentioned, getting lenses. For a Canon that would cost an arm and a leg. Cheaper for Nikon, but I will still probably have to spend hundreds of dollars.

I would rather get a semi-pro 4K videocam since most of my stuff will be dedicated 90% of the time to videography.

My Sag buddy decided to throw a stick in my wheel by saying I don't actually need 4K for videos at the moment.

....

😂😂😂

Posted by intergalacticplanetary
It would be a significant upgrade. And you'd need a shitload of external storage for all that data. If your not using your camera for stills then making the leap to 4K is probably the right move long term.

Thank you. Another one for 4k.

Posted by aquarius_man

Posted by Ram416
So I've been hunting on the market again for something to replace my current Panasonic DV-cam (which still uses analogue, dv tapes).

I've been looking out for years for the Canon D series (Mk II or III), and now that I can afford it, I find that it isn't really worth it. Someone indicated to me that I'm better off getting a 4K videocam, since it suits my needs (for shooting films, commercial, artsy stuff, NOT photography).

Does anyone have a take on this? A perspective of DSLR vs 4K that I might have overlooked?

are you a professional or not? if not a professional, a DSLR would work just fine, regardless of what people have told you. particularly a full sensor, (the 5D series as opposed to 7D - it's cropped). if you want to invest more, then sony a7s will do the trick. but if you really want to invest some money, buy a sony fs7, its versatile, has great DOF, it fares well in low light.

however, it's not about the camera, it's about the lenses. you d rather invest in a nice set of primes, dunno, zeiss i think is the most affordable.

u don't need a 4k camera unless you want to grade the shit out of that footage. and even then, i think a full 1080p will do the job.

click to expand

I was actually looking at some Sony 4k vIdeocams over the weekend. One caught my eye, the AX700.

And to answer your earlier question, yes I'm professional.

Posted by aquarius_man

Posted by Ram416
My Sag buddy decided to throw a stick in my wheel by saying I don't actually need 4K for videos at the moment.

....

😂😂😂

you definitely don't. you can shoot your shit on ursa mini (4k, but the clients ask for pro res video files and the master file/ broadcast be full hd 1920x1080).

i don t know what you want, exactly. but if you re asking about REAL VIDEO CAMERAS, then the answer's quite simple: Arri Alexa/ Arri Mini.

click to expand

I'm taking a look at your recommendations.

http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa_mini/camera_details/alexa-mini/subsection/features_alexamini/

Unfortunately I think that's way beyond my budget or at least what I'm comfy investing at the moment.

@tiziani

the recommendation was probably the same model as the one I have hah