GoPro or DSLR for video?

[Maverick6981]

Hi all,

Hiking has always been a hobby of mine but just recently I have found a love for video. I have started recording all of my hikes and posting them on YouTube. I currently use a Note 5, which actually has excellent recording quality but as I get more and more into video, I would like to improve my equipment. My question is, would you go for a GoPro or a DSLR such as a Canon Rebel T5i or a 70D for film? I know the DSLR will take much better video and pictures, but it could potentially get annoying carrying something of that size around especially when you do harder peaks. Do any of you use a DSLR or GoPro and have any insight?

Thanks!

-Mav

[tobiasfunke]

You basically hit the nail on the head in terms of the tradeoffs between these two. Only you can know how much you personally value portability and weight against video quality. In my opinion the weight isn't that much of a difference. If your body weight changed by two pounds, how would that impact your hiking? It wouldn't, so it doesn't make sense why it should if it is in your backpack instead of in your stomach. If you're scrambling, no question the go pro is better, however.

[Maverick6981]

You basically hit the nail on the head in terms of the tradeoffs between these two. Only you can know how much you personally value portability and weight against video quality. In my opinion the weight isn't that much of a difference. If your body weight changed by two pounds, how would that impact your hiking? It wouldn't, so it doesn't make sense why it should if it is in your backpack instead of in your stomach. If you're scrambling, no question the go pro is better, however.

Yeah that's a great point! I've got a few months to decide. Next year I will be doing class 3 and 4 but at the same time, I will use the DSLR a lot more all around as I'd like to get into photography as well. The t5i and the new GoPro are roughly about the same price. I think I may go with the DSLR eventually because it can do photo and video plus I'd be able to hook up a studio mic, etc. I'll just have to get creative when getting video on the harder peaks.

Thanks for your feedback!

-Mav

[acidchylde]

A DSLR will not take better video than a GoPro. It will take much better pictures. Their primary purpose is stills; video is an afterthought meant to keep pace with p&s that have been offering the feature for years.

A DSLR will have one major advantage for video in that it isn't a fixed lens - so you have the ability to zoom in and out, or switch from a wide angle to a tele. The GoPro is a couple of FoV settings in menu (last one I used was a 3, and it had two options). But in terms of actual video, recording time, etc. the GoPro is going to win. Just one example, the 70D (which I shoot btw) is limited to 30fps at HD res (1080p). You can only go to 60fps at lower res (like 720 or 480). The newer GoPros can do up to 4k res and 240 fps (not at the same time, it's 240 fps at 480 res and max 120fps at 1080p). I should point out that the lower level DSLRs (like the T's you mention) are better at and have had video longer than the higher end bodies like the x0D series.

Also, when considering price, keep in mind that a DSLR needs lens(es) which can cost as much or many times more than the body itself. Yes, it will/can come with a lens that's an average/solid performer, but you'll want or need to upgrade/pair it with something eventually. Then there's the cost of accessories (gimbles/tripods for a GoPro will be much cheaper than for a DSLR).

Think durability too. You don't want to drop a DSLR. Ever. Or bang it into something. A GoPro? They can take quite a tumble and still be fine, go underwater/get wet (with the right housing of course, which comes with it unlike being an expensive extra on a DSLR).

If video were my primary purpose, I'd get a GoPro. If stills were and I just wanted to do a video now and then, I'd go DSLR.

[Somewhat of a Prick]

A DSLR or a mirrorless (my preferred choice) will absolutely take better footage than a gopro, it isn't even close. I try to throw in a gopro clip or two in my videos, I can get them into unique places...but that's the extent of it. No professional, or amateur, filmmaker will be using a gopro for a primary filming device. It's like comparing a Porche to a Ford Escort.

Check out the Sony A6300 if you're looking at a solid entry level camera for video, it will run circles around a gopro and take bomber stills at the same time.

[Maverick6981]

A DSLR or a mirrorless (my preferred choice) will absolutely take better footage than a gopro, it isn't even close. I try to throw in a gopro clip or two in my videos, I can get them into unique places...but that's the extent of it. No professional, or amateur, filmmaker will be using a gopro for a primary filming device. It's like comparing a Porche to a Ford Escort.

Check out the Sony A6300 if you're looking at a solid entry level camera for video, it will run circles around a gopro and take bomber stills at the same time.

These are my thoughts as well. I can get a t5i video creator kit (comes with 15x55mm lens, a mic, as well as some other cool accessories) and I've seen entire length documentaries filmed on this camera that only costs $700. With the DSLR you can play around with depth of field as well. It has a flip around screen so you can see yourself while recording as well as many accessories to bring along. I think the DSLR will eventually be my choice but I do like the idea of having a GoPro as well. For now, what I have works great but soon I will need to upgrade.

Thank you both for your insight!

-Mav

[Somewhat of a Prick]

Also, high frame rates are great for slow motion, but other than that I always film at 23.96fps to get the creamy cinematic look. There are exceptions to this rule, but most every professional video is filmed at 23.96. You can youtube as to why, but mainly its to capture the pleasing motion blur that is natural to your eyes in daily life. For instance if you're filming leaves moving in the wind at 240FPS vs. 23.96, you will definitely see a major difference and you'll find the 23.96 looks much more natural.

Also a rule of thumb is to set your shutter speed at twice your frame rate, or 1/50th for 23.96. A gopro's shutter speed cannot be changed. This is a 100% dealbreaker.

[robinbk]

I'd suggest thinking about two things:
1. A better phrasing of the question is "Which video camera is better for what I want to do?"
2. There are actually several other options, some of which might dominate both the DSLR and the GoPro.

For background, I've also gotten bit by the video bug in the past 2 years or so -- but I've been doing fairly serious photography for about 25 years. So I've had a long line of SLRs and DSLRs for still photography, and (more recently) some compact digital cameras for when I don't feel like lugging an SLR. What really got me hooked on video, though, was buying a Phantom 3 drone and being staggered by the 4K video footage. I've always been just a bit of a pixel peeper, but the difference between 1080p and 4K absolutely blew me away.

Right now, I have (and actively use) 6 cameras for video, so I have a bit of perspective on this. Two DSLRs (Canon EOS 70D and 7Dii), one compact (Canon S100), one bridge camera (Panasonic FZ300), one 4K-capable cell phone (Samsung Galaxy Note 3), and one drone (DJI Phantom 3 Professional).

With all that in mind, here is some food for thought.

1. The best camera is the the one that works for your purpose. A DSLR and a GoPro are wildly different beasts in use -- and the difference in specs is almost irrelevant. The GoPro is a "set and forget" camera that you stick on your helmet and turn on. No zoom, no focus, no changing lenses, no setting the exposure, no nothing. The DSLR is a relatively heavy, fragile camera that wants a lot of adjusting and care. If you want to control the camera -- and you're willing to carry it carefully, choose lenses, use a tripod, etc -- then the DSLR will absolutely blow the GoPro footage away. If you want to take video of your surroundings and your partners while walking, climbing, falling, kayaking, etc... then the DSLR is totally useless and the GoPro is awesome.

2. If you want to do serious still photography, then you almost certainly do want a DSLR (or a "DSLM" mirrorless camera; see below). But honestly, while you can do video and stills with the same camera, it's usually a compromise. If I really want good imagery of both kinds, I suck it up and carry two cameras. Usually, I just choose one of the two.

3. The only really good reason to use a DSLR for video is its (comparatively) huge sensor. This gives you: (1) great low-light performance, and (2) really shallow depth of field (e.g. for portraits) if you choose a wide aperture. But these aren't necessarily relevant for hiking and climbing! The other (arguable) reason is that the Canon DSLRs with Dual Pixel autofocus (70D, 80D, 7Dii, 1DXii, 5Div) really do have fantastic autofocus performance -- but other cameras are close. But these are the only advantages, and they have a lot of disadvantages. One of those is that -- inexplicably and maddeningly -- the Canon DSLRs all take frustratingly soft video. And they max out at 1080p. Which is why I've almost quit using my Canons for video.

4. Be aware that DSLRs in video mode aren't operating as "Single Lens Reflex" (SLR) cameras. They lock the mirror up, and become functionally indistinguishable from "mirrorless" (DSLM) cameras... except that they're bigger, clunkier, heavier, and don't have electronic viewfinders. Which means that a true mirrorless DSLM -- like the Panasonic GH4 or the Sony A7S -- is strictly better than an SLR for this.

5. If you have $1500 - $2000 to spare, just get a Panasonic GH4 and don't look back. It's like a slightly downsized DSLR without the mirror, it takes interchangeable lenses, and for the past 2 years it has ruled the "high-end semi-pro video" segment. Sony has some great competitors, and if you're on more of a budget Panasonic's G7 is a solid choice too... but the GH4 is the simple choice. It's gonna run you $1700 with the (good) 14-100 kit lens.

6. Personally, I'm utterly addicted to sharp 4K video. I loooooove watching it on my 4K TV and my 2.8K laptop display. (Yes, I'm a gearhead, why do you ask?) The GoPro does 4K, but it's a seriously single-purpose camera. After a lot of research, I decided that the best performers for my uses are actually "bridge cameras" like the Panasonic FZ300 and FZ1000, or Sony's RX10. They look like small, lightweight SLRs, but they have fixed lenses (usually very good ones) and relatively small sensors (so they don't do well in low light). But in good light, they take fantastic 4K video. They're self-contained, easy to carry, easy to use, and very affordable (my FZ300 was less than $500... and comes with a 25-600mm-equivalent f/2.8 Leica lens). Another good option is a good pocket camera that does 4K. Here, you give up some zoom range on the lens, but you get easy-to-carry (and you don't lose anything in video quality). Sony's RX100iv is the king of this sector, but there are quite a few others, including Panasonic's TZ100, with great features.

7. One final caution: check very carefully whether the camera you consider (and this applies to all types) has a "crop factor" for 4K video. For irritating technical reasons, a lot of cameras right now are taking their 4K video from a cropped area in the center of their sensor. This turns your wide angle lens (e.g. 28mm-equivalent) into a much less wide angle lens (e.g. 36mm equivalent). Panasonic's GH4 and G7 do this a little bit; the TZ100 does it a lot; the Canon 5Div does it horrendously. As far as I'm concerned, this cripples a camera, because that wide angle is really valuable. (And note that this is a separate issue from the crop factor of the sensor itself -- I'm talking about the difference in crop factor between stills/1080p and 4K).

TL;DR: You might not want a GoPro or a DSLR. Consider a Panasonic GH4 or Sony A7S (if you want the best), a Sony RX100iv (if you want the king of pocket-sized 4K cameras), or a Panasonic FZ300 (if you want an inexpensive jack of all trades).