Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 466734" data-attributes="member: 12496">Maybe one of the best in a DSLR, but not sure how well it compares to a little $300 camcorder.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I know less about movie video than anything, so I remain puzzled about the DSLR appeal for movies.&nbsp; Frankly, I think it is only special purpose.For sake of argument:Hollywood uses (or used to use) 35mm movie film, which is roughly DX size (certainly much larger than tiny camcorder video sensors).&nbsp; This means they use lenses longer than the tiny video sensors.&nbsp; Which gives them much less depth of field, and thus the classic Hollywood look.&nbsp; Not necessarily better or worse, just usual.The FX DSLR is even larger, so even longer lenses and even less DOF, so blurred backgrounds become easy instead of impossible.&nbsp; But alternately, the larger sensor allows even wider views with shorter lenses.&nbsp; And in digital sensors, the noise is likely lower in larger sensors too, allowing higher ISO to be acceptable, which seems the actual plus.&nbsp; &nbsp; The megapixels are not a plus, those have to be discarded.So IMO, those seem to be the DSLR pluses, if you want shallow depth of field and lower digital noise, or even wider views with shorter lenses.But the convenience of using a $300 camcorder runs circles around the DSLR.&nbsp; The Nikon DSLR is NOT user friendly for movies.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; In the little camcorder, focus is not a problem, shallow DOF is not a problem, and auto everything works out well.&nbsp; &nbsp; On trips, I could choose to use my D800 for movies, but the $300 camcorder is greatly more convenient to use.&nbsp; And seems extremely adequate for the purpose.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 466734, member: 12496"] Maybe one of the best in a DSLR, but not sure how well it compares to a little $300 camcorder. :) I know less about movie video than anything, so I remain puzzled about the DSLR appeal for movies. Frankly, I think it is only special purpose. For sake of argument: Hollywood uses (or used to use) 35mm movie film, which is roughly DX size (certainly much larger than tiny camcorder video sensors). This means they use lenses longer than the tiny video sensors. Which gives them much less depth of field, and thus the classic Hollywood look. Not necessarily better or worse, just usual. The FX DSLR is even larger, so even longer lenses and even less DOF, so blurred backgrounds become easy instead of impossible. But alternately, the larger sensor allows even wider views with shorter lenses. And in digital sensors, the noise is likely lower in larger sensors too, allowing higher ISO to be acceptable, which seems the actual plus. The megapixels are not a plus, those have to be discarded. So IMO, those seem to be the DSLR pluses, if you want shallow depth of field and lower digital noise, or even wider views with shorter lenses. But the convenience of using a $300 camcorder runs circles around the DSLR. The Nikon DSLR is NOT user friendly for movies. :) In the little camcorder, focus is not a problem, shallow DOF is not a problem, and auto everything works out well. On trips, I could choose to use my D800 for movies, but the $300 camcorder is greatly more convenient to use. And seems extremely adequate for the purpose. [/QUOTE]

Verification