Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

It's art. The price isn't just based on time & materials. Some photographers charge $500 & some charge $5000 even though they may both be using the same camera. Here in the UK photographers are generally charging more than videographers in many cases a lot more even though there is less work involved (no offence to any photographers). The bride doesn't try & beat down the photographers price by pointing out that the video guy will spend more time in post.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I'm definitely not a good sales person so I rather be honest with myself and my clients. Therefore, I go with the "what you see is what you get" approach. I'll show them my portfolio and let my work do most of the talking for me. The bride should be able to use her own judgement to decide if she believes in the value of my work and feels comfortable with the asking price.

I even tell them that they shouldn't care about what equipment I use, how many people are on my team or how I achieve the result that I get. I tell them to only concentrate on watching my wedding films and let me know if this is what they are looking for. If the answer is yes, and the budget works out for them, then I'll be happy to share the technical side of the craft if they're really curious about it. But I will never use that as part of my sales pitch. Because at the end of the day, what will really make my clients happy is not the fact that I used 50 cameras and 100 people to shoot their wedding, but the fact that I managed to produce a high quality film that is worth every single penny that they paid.

With that said, I really wouldn't mind using a traditional video camera if it was the tool that would allow me to obtain the result that I'm looking for. But at this point, dSLR's seem to be the best fit for the quality that I need.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

hey uhh, can some one point me where to find the heated war between Traditional Camcorder vs DSLR that happen 6 month ago?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

There were a few heated ones.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-...slr-event.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-...ning-dslr.html

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hi Victor

I think the war has ended a while back and each faction has settled down quite a lot!! It was a little senseless as there were a few casualties too..we had one member banned due to one of those threads!!

Far better to live in peace and just use the tools that suit you best!! No sense in dragging out any dirty laundry again and re-kindering emotions!!

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I use both. I use DSLR's & EX1's as the situation calls for it. People get hung up on choosing only one format but you really don't have to choose between the two, use both.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Do you use your ex1 and the dslr on the same shoots and if you do, how do they match? the resolution diference between the 2 must be obvious, no?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

nothing like an interesting debate to get things going.. too far sometimes.. but

I started shooting weddings with the Xha1 and HV30 - the only reason I moved on was low light. I'd happily move back if a 'real' camera could deliver the same performance in low light - well maybe not - when the lights go down and I throw an old canon FD 85mm 1.2 on the GH1 and start shooting I ABSOLUTELY love the images I'm producing. in fact at anytime of the day I love the images coming from this little DSLR.

I miss the power zoom, the ND filters, gain control, ability to monitor audio.. I think that's about it I don't think I find it harder, just different

I keep looking at the new cameras coming out but I think I'm hooked on the low light & DOF that DSLR's offer - low light = romantic, if it's not the bride it's the venue (gives me the shits sometimes) but I give in and stock up on fast FD lenses.

I'm just looking over a current edit and there are so many shots that I like that I just couldn't get without a DSLR - I'm not talking about what the brides want, I'm talking about what I want.. to see. I love taking these images and working with them. My website shows my style, if they like it they book if they don't they can go elsewhere.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Noa, I use two GH2 and two Xa10 and they match perfectly fine, it's the lenses more than anything that enable good matching.

When in conditions that push the limits of videocameras, such as low light, etc, then the differences become more problematic. At ceremonies the cameras match extremely well, it's getting the white balance right that makes the difference.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I at least can't match my 550d's with my xha1 as both images are too different, if I put a wide angle lens on my dslr and place it side by side with my xh-a1, the xh-a1 is noticeable sharper. Also the look is different and I find it very hard to colorcorrect to match both, that's why I use a sony xr520 together with my xh-a1 in church and they play together fine. From the reception on it's only dslr.
Jeff, was it not you that used 4 dslr's some time ago and operate them alone?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Noa, with my limited experience with the XHA1, I agree the video would be much different. The XHA1 is so poor in low light, it would be difficult even with footage from ceremonies to match. Same with the Sony FX1- Z1, but not quite as bad. I did edit some weddings shot last year with an XHA1 and a GH1, and it was really impossible to match.

With the newer cams, which is what I was thinking when I commented before, the differences are not as significant, as the sensors in the newer cams are so much better in low light. The Canon XA10 really has a look that works well with DSLR, there's just something about the camera, it works.

Also, if you camera sensors are CCDs, which I think your XHA1 has, the differences will be much more pronounced, I think.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I like video cameras because I shoot solo and their amenities favor that method making my job easier not more difficult. For DSLRs users, how do you pay for all the other camera operators, justify the extra time editing all those cameras together to covering up gaps and unusable footage? Like someone else said a client is going to notice missing footage, out of focus, bad audio, improper exposure, and shaky hand held filming or rough zoom.

There is no arguing DSLRs image quality and light sensitivity are superior to traditional cameras but in all the other areas you are at a disadvantage. If we are going to compare the two lets be fair, solo video camera vs solo DSLR (not 3 DSLR). If I had mic boom operator and multiple camera operators my video would be also superior. It would seem to me multiple DSLR operator method there is more to go wrong and you have to charge more just make the same profit. And while you might be an expert who can over come the challenges of shooting DSLR how do you depend of finding operators with the same level of expertise that you can pay for and still turn a profit? While I could hire on the cheap an inexperienced person as a 2nd video camera operator and expect to get back usable footage, the same could not be said for DSLR (more like a recipe for disaster).

In my experience, equipment that demands my attention, distracts me from the most important thing, being aware of what going on around me (the subject that I'm filming). Simple setups means less chance for errors. You don't want to be fidgeting with your equipment during highly fluid, fast moving events such as weddings.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Peter-I'm a solo shooter and recently did a wedding with 2 canon t3is with magic lantern installed.. Fairly easy to do the ceremony when you have the auto recording restart enabled with magic lantern.. So I had one camera for wide angle that just recorded by itself. Yes there is a 1-2 second cut off for each 12 minute clips that's when I switch footage to my other camera.. So it aint too hard.. To make it even easier there's the GH2 who can record non stop as long as you dont run out of power or run out of card space...

Don't get me wrong a regular camera is easier to manage and it was frustrating at first when shooting with DSLRs.. But after getting use to them and seeing how they can produce an image that is as good if not better than a $5k camera its definitely worth it! Also learning how to shoot with a DSLR has really helped me become a better shooter and more knowledgeable about photography..

As far as camera shakes or shaky footage.. That can happen with any camera but if you have good lenses with image stabilization the footage handheld are the same as any non shoulder mount camcorders.. I dont get why there's so much hate for DSLR shooters from Camcorder shooters.. I'm guessing its probably because video camera users spent $4k for their camera while i only spent $1000 T3i w/ Sigma 17-50 lens and getting the same if not better IQ... I remember reading back in the days when FCP first came out for $1000 and Avid users were spending $50k for their editing system many thought FCP was a scam.. Little did they know..

To video camera users.. I would highly recommend you try out a DSLR first.. You can get a t3i/t2i for $500 and if it doesn't work for you either sell it or keep it! They also take pretty darn good pictures as well.. A lot better than your video cameras!

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I actually don't hate or even think about the difference in cost between the equipment. Depending on the lenses and the DSLR it could be as much if not more than a video camera. I'm more curious than anything else. Although sometimes I find proponents of new technology defensive to the point of down playing or not disclosing all the disadvantages. I can't help but imagine someone new getting into DSLR and discovering the pitfalls during someone's wedding.


"I dont get why there's so much hate for DSLR shooters from Camcorder shooters.. I'm guessing its probably because video camera users spent $4k for their camera while i only spent $1000 T3i w/ Sigma 17-50 lens and getting the same if not better IQ... I remember reading back in the days when FCP first came out for $1000 and Avid users were spending $50k for their editing system many thought FCP was a scam.. Little did they know.. "

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

The xh-a1 was a first gen hd camera and it starts to show, it does outperform my canon dslr's in resolution but like you said, low light sucks, even compared to my sony xr520. But it's not jus the lowlight that's causing issues, it's just a totally different look when matched with a dslr and it shows too much. I am looking for a new camera this year and was doubting between a pana agac 130/160 or a af100 because I really have started to like the ability to add that bit shallow dof. I think I will have to buy a agac 130/160 because when shooting alone I really need controll in certain situations, I don't see myself running and gunning with the af100.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I am a solo dslr and videocamera shooter (using two 550d's starting from the reception and regular videocameras for the first part of the day) and all I can say that t2i alike camera's can give you a better looking image in certain situations and a lot worse looking one in others and by that last I"m referring to moire which can be very nasty at times.

I would not reccomend a dslr as main cam for a solo shooter if they have a documentary style, in that case they are worthless as you will get over/underexposed and out of focus footage. You can adjust both live ofcourse but those adjustments are very obvious. When things move fast I can have spot on focus and exposure with my xh-a1 and I can't say that about my dslr, also whitebalancing is much easier with a videocamera which is critical with a dslr to get right color.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hi Noa

I agree too!! If you remember Jeff was devasted whilst using his 4 x GH2's at a wedding to find the ceremony was out of focus. He now uses a video camera for the ceremony and gets the creative footage on the GH2's... I also shoot solo and documentary style so I need a video camera. I would have thought that I might find a DSLR really nice during the photoshoot bit with the shallow DOF but my photoshoot is all on stedicam and unless I invest in a fancy follow focus then I couldn't use it on the stedicam.

I already own two Lumix cameras but I don't use them for video ..however if the need arises I would certainly use them ...there are unfortunately times at a wedding when you just have to have autofocus as everything is happening around you and you just don't have time to adjust exposure and focus ...I guess that's why it's called run 'n gun????

My market is a bit like yours and my prices would have to skyrocket if I had to hire extra camera people to shoot with the DSLR's .... my costing and edit time suits video cameras...I cannot afford to have 60 hour post editing times and charge under $2K .... I'd love to shoot weddings with 3 of us using 5DII's but my market just wouldn't support the pricing.

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Chris, you don't need or use a follow-focus on Steadicam unless you are a pro operator with a wireless FF & focus puller. The trick we all use is a wide lens stopped down for maximum DoF & set at the hyperfocal distance. I use either a 14mm or 16-35mm stopped down to about F11 on a Canon 5D which by my reckoning (or rather by consultation of the Online Depth of Field Calculator) when I focus at 10ft gives me everything from 2ft to infinity in focus.

The other trick that DSLR shooters use is to have a locked off traditional camcorder grabbing a wide shot so that it can provide cutaways when we miss focus, screw up exposure or fluff the shot from the DSLR in some other way. We use a Canon XF105 & I believe that Jeff Harper uses an Canon XA10 for the same purpose.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Actually for the ceremony I use the GH2s exclusively as stationary cameras, as a solo shooter it's the best I can do. My two XA10s are so good for the ceremony they are what I focus on. I don't get the amazing shots that other guys get using the DSLR's creatively, but I get very solid footage, and at my price point that's all you can ask for.

As you point out Chris, I use one XA10 stationary pointed at the altar from the rear, and then go back and adjust it after the processional as needed during the ceremony. Keep in mind 90% of my wedding ceremonies are full catholic masses, so I have LOTs of time to discreetly move around from cam to cam and adjust as needed.

The DSLRs provide superior footage at half the cost, and they are a godsend for a solo shooter, not a hindrance. For quick paced handheld work I use a 12mm lens (24mm equivalent) that gives superior low light performance that blows the XA10 out of the water.

DSLRs are a strange concept to videographers who know only videocameras, and most of those that are fighting it or arguing against it haven't tried it. Those that have tried it and given up didn't stick with it. I was tempted many times to give up, it is very challenging to learn. And many try to do it with slow lenses that do not work well in low light, because they will not spend the money on a decent fast lens, and hence they "give up".

Most videographers are self taught and know little to nothing about photography, as was my case. It's like learning to walk again, and it's tough, but it can be done.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I have both of them. I use the DSLR for controlled environments like the Bride Prep, Park, details at reception. I use my Video Camera at the ceremony and reception. I am a single shooter as well, so would be difficult for me to use 2 DSLR's, I know some videogs has perfected it but not me.

My 2 cents.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I actually fly my dslr with a 14mm f2.8 lens wide open all the time, since I use it at darker receptions it needs to be at F2.8 and iso 800/1600 to get decent exposure, my samyang lens has no autofocus so I focus first using the magnifying function and try to keep that same distance to my subject during a shot, focus on my 35/85mm is much more critical then on the 14mm, even if it's wide open.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

like I said - if you can show me a traditional camera that works in low/no light then I'm interested - I don't really have a preference.

we need to be clear on something here - DSLR does not equal Canon - there are alternatives

I chose the Panasonic GH1 because of:
unlimited recording
continuous auto-focus during recording
optical stabilisation on factory lenses
adapters for any lens you can name
small & cheap - I got 6

I DONT want to start a camera war - I just get tired of shooters saying "but what about the 15 minute limit"

I have always used a 2nd shooter so I guess it was an easier transition for me. for prep I usually stick to prime lenses, I might have an extra camera on a slider or glidecam (at that price, why not) and I usually leave the stock 20mm lens on - light, bright, & autofocus - you can even mimic and rack focus with a bit of care.

Ceremony - 2 manned cameras (I don't move during the ceremony - personal choice) with lumix zooms and a 3rd up the back on a lightstand for the wide shot - either autofocus or stopped down. on occasion I'll even throw an extra camera behind the alter

** I'm just working on an edit at the moment and the groom walks up behind the alter and grabs a chair in front of the camera - bumps the camera and in doing so spins it around to get a perfect shot of the signing!! - thank you!

I have a camera on a glidecam to catch the brides arrival & entry and the rest of the ceremony is static positions. as the ceremony progresses we'll shift from a 2 shot to a wide to capture the bridal party from a different angle or one of us will swing round to get parents & guests.

the edit in Edius is no problem - it's just matter of syncing the clips & audio at the start and then cutting from one camera to another. they are all one continuous clip.

it's the same basic setup for all the formal parts of the reception except we'll be on different focal length primes again with the 20mm on the lightstand getting the guests wide shot for cutaways and toasts etc.

It's been a while but I don't think I'm taking any longer in the edit that I used to - but I am bloody slow and always behind. (I should be working now - damm you DVInfo!)

I don't know what other DSLR shooters do - this just makes sense to me and gives me the coverage I want.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

In the sub 6000 euro category a panasonic AF100 or Sony FS100, they don't have the same set it and forget it auto function some camera's have but if we are talking traditional camera that's also a professional (shouldermount) cameras to me as well and those supposed to be operated all manual, just like a dslr or like above mention camera's. Both are videocamera's to me.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hi Paul

The GH series has always interested me...yes, no time limit on recording and a huge amount of value for a very small price too!! I truely don't even think about low light except in a Church ..at the reception I just zap on a video light..end of story ...I don't believe in having to struggle with light so DSLR or video I would have a light on the camera anyway..in fact I worked with a very well known stills guy at the weekend and he doesn't use much flash at receptions..he had a video light on his still camera.

I think the war is over by now so you have no fear in starting it up again. In fact if one wanted to a have a shoulder mount camera then you can also you that with a GH2 ...stick it on a SM rig, add a big matte box and a loupe on the other end and you have an ENG style camera !!!

With the release (one day??) of the GH3 we might even expect more from these cameras!!! It's only a tool that we use to shoot weddings anyway so people shouldn't get so excited about preference...!!

I would be quite happy shooting weddings on a couple of GH1's!! and yes, due to my preferences it would be on a shoulder mount rig and I would still use a video light too!!!

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I've got an Af100 and it's no shoulder mount camera - not without a seperate mount just like the GH1 or 2 - in fact the lenses I use are exactly the same on both so the only advantage the AF100 has is built in ND, peaking, gain and a proper viewfinder. There's no way those make it worth using on a wedding. Don't get me wrong, I thinks it's a great camera and I know Oleg is shooting some great stuff but I figure he could do that with a box brownie.

I think the great thing about these discussions is that we realise different people see and do things differently and therein lies the opportunity to learn. I'll certainly be taking a close look at the XA10 that someone mentioned.

Chris, I'm almost tempted to ship you over one of my spare GH!'s and an FD 85 1.8 to see if I can tempt you over to the dark side :-)

Don't you have a problem with the on camera light? don't guests or the bride comment? - I guess not. I'm not game to use them - I do have 4 LED lights and lights stands and I've set them up at a couple of really dark venues but that's as far as I'm game to go.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hey Paul

I would be tempted if you were in Perth!! Nope the video light probably has raised maybe one or two comments over a period of quite a few years..those sort of wags would more than likely make some other comment anyway!! I have had one groom who insisted on ambient lighting for the speeches..I showed him the LCD ( and purposely closed the iris a bit!!) and he said "that's perfect" ) The whole issue of lighting depends on the ambient light level in the venue..if the venue is REALLY dark then any light looks blinding!! What I do is during speeches and those sort of events, I ask the venue to raise the house lights just for the event and then lighting can be dimmed and becomes unobtrusive!!

My overall issue is that I don't only do weddings..I do a pile of rental home condition reports during the week which involves me having to film doors, walls, floors and ceilings of every room and wrap it up inside an hour!! For that I need auto focus that's fast and auto exposure...sorta clip the radio mic on my belt and push the record button and go, doing a running commentary as I film....it's purely a record and post production is dumping the clips on a DVD with a preset menu so it's fast and furious!!! Now if I used DSLR for that I would need it to keep focus and exposure for me ...I do a room complete in around 3 minutes and a kitchen (including all the cupboards) in maybe 6 minutes. There is seriously no time to adjust any settings ..the only changes I make to the cam is kick in the ND filters when I get to windows and then off again as I continue!!! Audio too must be pre-synced and not like a Zoom setup..that's a time waster...I do sometimes 4 houses in a day !!!

Reckon a GH1 could handle that kind of scenario???? You already know I'm a Panasonic man (since 1985!!!)

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

As long as the tool you use does the job and you're happy with the aesthetics, then it doesn't matter what sort of camera you use.

Personally, I fell in love with the dslr look from the very start that wasn't achievable with hdv cameras without a 35mm adapter. The transition wasn't too bad, since when I filmed with my Sony fx1, I shot in full manual also, guess this is influenced from film school.

If you have doubt about setting up a shot with a dslr as compared to a video camera on full auto, it's not that hard. After a while, it will be second nature. When you dial in the shutter speed and aperture to expose correctly, it's just a movement of the thumb and index finger.

Manual focus smoothly so that you're not hunting the focus point. I'll move back to video cameras when they have interchangeable lenses for a decent price. C100?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I think no dslr user would deny nor ignore the challenges of working with them. I guess it all comes down to our own priorities. To me, the quality I get is worth all the effort and money I invest. My goal is to always try to impress my clients and give them the feeling that they are getting more than they paid for. By making that my goal, I try not to let budget and effort get too much in my way.

Obviously, I try to be reasonable and not overdo things too much but I think that at the end of the day, the clients will be able to make the difference between a guy who only does the job and the one who always tries to push the limits. That's how you will slowly allow people to see the value in your work.

I remember the first few weddings I did, I charged less than $1000 and had a team of 2-3 camera operators, all dslrs, a full cinematic feature film that I would spend months editing, sometimes even including a same day edit in my packages. I didn't make any money. I think I even lost money a few times. And guess what? A lot of people still didn't want to hire me because they didn't see the value in it.

The second year, I started to get a lot of referrals from past clients who loved the experience and as my portfolio started showing better work, I also started to increase my rates. Even then, I was still charging not more than $2000 for all that work.

Today, I'm only at my third year into the business and my rates are sitting around $3000-8000 with most bookings in the $4000-5000 range. It's not cheap, maybe still not the most profitable business either, but at least it's starting to get somewhere.

Sometimes, you just have to make some sacrifices to get where you want. You can't just sit there and wait for people to pay you more if you've never given them a reason to. If you always go out of your way to try impressing people time after time and by giving them an exceptional work, people are going to start noticing and talking about you sooner or later. And you will eventually be able to start increasing your prices too.

But again, I think this only answers the question about dslr vs effort and money. But I think that the biggest thing that will influence one's value is documentary vs storytelling. It just seems to be common that people would assume that dslr = storytelling and traditional video camera = documentary.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

okay - let's have a look

For that I need auto focus that's fast and auto exposure - yep, the lumix lenses have continuous auto focus you can set auto exposure and even auto iso

Now if I used DSLR for that I would need it to keep focus and exposure for me - No

.the only changes I make to the cam is kick in the ND filters - that could be a problem, no ND filters

Audio too must be pre-synced and not like a Zoom setup. - just plug your radio mike into the camera, the GH2 has a level indicator

so really the only thing you can't do is the ND filters - when you go to the window are you just looking at the condition of the window or wanting to see the view through the window?

the only other question is how steady the GH1 or 2 would be compared to your camcorder - why don't your give me a link to an example and I'll repeat the same kind of thing here with the GH1? - just as a test

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hi Paul

Steady doesn't come into the equation at all!! The camera is moving all the time and set at wide angle anyway so it's purely a record of what condition the walls are, whether there is a hole in the back of the bedroom door etc etc. Action is pretty much fast pans..I would probably "scan" an entire door in under 2 seconds!!

The issues with my current AC-130 cameras is I will be moving over a wall at say F4 and all is well until I get to a big window and the camera then closes the iris as it encounters the extra light, but a closed iris is not enough to stop gross over-exposure so you need to switch in ND filters (The cameras have 3 built-in filters on a rotary switch) It's actually a PIB!! My older HMC80's had automatic ND filter systems that came in on their own....so with the GH1 or GH2 if you are using it as a point and shoot video camera...what happens if you are shooting inside the house and you walk outside into brilliant sunshine??? Will the camera change shutter speed automatically if the iris cannot handle the extra light??? or do you have to change the shutter speed manually??

I will actually get into gear and make up a sample inspection report video!!

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Noa, I usually don't mix the two, there is a noticeable difference. I use DSLR's for creative work in my case make-up, preparations, photo shoot. The DSLR's does magic to skin tones. For wide establishing shots I go with the EX1 on a custom profile that closely match the DSLR look, high contrast, saturated look. For ceremony & reception I go with the EX1 basically because it's so much easier to handle any highly demanding situation and get great results. With DSLR's if you don't have two back-up angles it's easy to screw up and that's a chance I don't like taking any more especially as a two man team, I'd choose DSLR if I had a four man team. I've had out of focus footage before of important shots I can't risk that.

I've actually found my EX1 to be amazing is low light, the same shot on my DSLR & EX1 and the EX1 usually kicks ass on the dance floor. I also don't like shallow DOF on guest tables, I want to get as many guests in focus as possible, it annoys me to get the one family member in focus and the next out. It's my personal style but I personally want to see my family & friends.

I feel that if you don't embrace DSLR's you are shooting yourself in the foot, they produce amazing images at incredible prices but there is no reason you should drop video camera in favour of DSLR's, they all serve a purpose.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

That is the key - the DSLR/SLT is just another TOOL in the kit. It is a very exciting tool, and all, but it is still a tool.

Having just reviewed a bit of test footage from the Sony A65, I'll say I'm very impressed with the overall image quality, beginning to suspect that manual focus is probably wise (even though the SLT is supposed to auto focus, it can "hunt" and not pick the correct target... thank goodness for peaking), and becomming convinced I'll be using this more as the "main" camera, with a mix of other cams for additional angles. This wasn't a "video" shoot, so stills were the main thing, but there was the chance to let the second cam free run, and "test" - results are promising, and the next "photo" shoot, I'll probably be pressing the "movie" button and pulling stills from the 24p (or 60p) footage.

IMO, it's not a question of "one OR the other", but rather a "how does one most effectively use the tools available"? For me the DSLR actually "feels" very comfortable, aside from having to get the manual adjustments down to where I don't have to "think" - just a matter of time using the tool of choice... and I'll still be running video cameras for cutaway and backup, just because that's ALWAYS made sense!