12

I have read several posts here saying that one of the first things that breaks down on a DSLR is the shutter mechanism (because it is mechanical)

I follow a facebook group of used camera sales where people are selling DSLRs, commenting that what they sell has neven been used for video (just for photos) as an advantage.

However I thought that using a DSLR for video would actually lengthen the life of it because the shutter (and other mechanical parts) are NOT used during video.

So am I missing something? When looking to buy a used DSLR is it good or bad if the camera has seen extensive video use? Or it does not matter?

Thanks

Update: I do not care about the connection of video and shutter use. My question is simple. When I buy a used camera should I take into account whether it has seen heavy video use or not? Or it does not matter at all?

Let's say that I find a Canon 700d with 2.000 clicks and 100000000 hours of video use, and a Canon 700d with 50.000 clicks and no video use at all. Both have the same price. Which one should I take?

||improve this question
  • This question may be related. – Octopus May 29 '15 at 20:55
  • Yes I have seen that. But I think that most answers say that the sensor does not wear out, which further enforces my argument that shooting video is not a big problem when buying a used camera. – kazanaki May 30 '15 at 11:27
  • possible duplicate of Does every frame of video (or live view) on a DSLR count as a shutter actuation? – Please Read My Profile May 31 '15 at 4:47
  • Ok I have seen this. But it still does not answer my question. When I buy a used camera, does it matter if it has been used heavily for video or not? Should I prefer a camera with many photos and no video from a camera with less photos and heavy video use? Or it does not matter at all? – kazanaki May 31 '15 at 16:10
  • 5
    Wait, "100000000 hours of video use"? That's well over 11 thousand years. There's hyperbole for making an argument, but then there's this... – scottbb Sep 28 '16 at 13:36
4

I think there is some urban myths regarding this, and that this has to do with the CCD/CMOS debate some time ago. CCD sensors really heated up so much that they cannot record video. The technology then switched to CMOS, that can support video seamlessly, and not heating that much.

Obviously, having the sensor to be working for hours taking video instead for fractions of a second taking photos is a difference, but sensor frabrication process has taken this into account. You may end up with dead pixels and such, but they also come up spontaneously, so I wouldn't worry much about video/non-video usage.

||improve this answer
  • 1
    Your statement that CCD sensors cannot record video is plain wrong. – bogl Feb 22 '19 at 13:50
  • I'm with bogl on this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera CCD might be bad without proper cooling (e.g. small fan, heat spreader,...), but they certainly are used in video cameras. – flolilo Feb 22 '19 at 17:11
4

I do not think that there is a good answer to this without knowing the exact camera model and how it was used.

For example, shooting video might exercise the mirror and shutter less, but may cause much greater thermal cycling of the sensor and electronics (at least one of my cameras gets very hot to the touch after shooting a lot of video).

||improve this answer
  • So you are saying that for some cameras video matters and for some others do not? According to what? – kazanaki May 30 '15 at 15:09
  • can you be more specific with your camera models? – Octopus May 30 '15 at 19:43
  • Canon 700d, Nikon 5300 if that helps. – kazanaki May 31 '15 at 16:07
1

Heat is the issue here; taking video for a long time produces heat from the sensor that is not good for any electronics. However, most cameras are made to record a set number of minutes of video capture and then cut off to protect itself. I hope that helped.

||improve this answer
  • No, they stop automatically because of strange rules that classify DSLRs (&mirrorless cameras) as "video cameras" if the allowed video capture period is too long, leading to higher import tariffs. – juhist Dec 13 '19 at 18:23
0
I follow a facebook group of used camera sales where people are selling DSLRs, commenting that what they sell has neven been used for video (just for photos) as an advantage.

Chances are they want to avoid the liability of selling something that may not work.

For example, I never use my DSLRs / mirrorless cameras for video. I assume there are a lot of similar people. Heck, I don't even know if my DSLR and my mirrorless camera is broken in a manner that would prevent shooting video. I just took the camera out of the box, tested nearly every still photograph feature without ever using the video features.

||improve this answer
-2

Tested. Yes its matter a lot. When people using for videos your dslr camera living the good life. Even video was recorded in short sections or it was taken with ninja or other type of additional recorders or screens. Even in that using your camera life living goes faster to die. We used different cameras for broadcasting thrue hdmi output. Also camera was new with quaranty also died after one year of using. While i was used for short films or broadcast. For myself i would not buy camera even it was 50 hours made for video. I know what it means and i'm afraid of those purchases, i would buy cameras with big counter of photos, because camera will live longer and its cheaper to change all inside and after "photo doors" changing. Yes many videographers using dslr and changing to others, because people don't know very much about this.

||improve this answer
  • 2
    I find it hard to follow this answer. It's very unclear. – juhist Dec 13 '19 at 18:42
  • 1
    Echoing @juhist, this answer is unreadable. – scottbb Dec 13 '19 at 20:27
-5

Here put an example of sewing machine .we get machine cost RS 4000,4500 or lower the mentioned price .we can sew it wth beautifully.but this low cost machine is not flexible to run with electric motor continuously.bcz it's parts are not made with such professional quality and durability..but we can use it for long time while using it carefully and occasionally.this concept is almost applicable for DSLR oriented for taking still images

||improve this answer
  • 4
    Your text is rather unclear, but the gist I got from it is that "still" cameras are ill-equipped to record video "professionally" as they were not 'made for it', which, sorry, is false, for a while now: petapixel.com/2010/04/09/… – Fábio Dias Feb 22 '19 at 12:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.