Murvelous wrote:
it will damage your sensor

its not a video camera, its an SLR with video capability, never forget that

even the 5D MK3 and D4 can only take so much, hence the price difference between your camera, the D4 and things like the C300

That is very true. There is a huge difference between a real video camera designed to be run non stop for days on end and a still camera bodged for occasional video.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
No it doesn't.  The sensor is a chip that captures lights and it has no moving parts.  Almost all DSLR has over-heat protection and if the sensor gets too hot, it will shut down.  The shutter (moving parts) would be more likely to fail than the sensor.

This.  If the sensor is "overheating", that really means that it is shutting down to prevent overheating.  It is getting warmer, which means that your videos might get shorter and shorter, and your stills might get noisier, but those are temporary issues.  Once the camera sits for several minutes and cools down, it will all be back to normal.

Running any camera, whether it is for stills or video, will put wear on it.  But unless your sensor is faulty, as the previous posters' camera seems to be, the moving parts will still wear out long before the sensor.

But I suppose that if you were a 40-hour/week video shooter, you might kill the sensor.  But then ... why don't you own a video camera?

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Why would Nikon, Canon, et al sell a product with a function that damages the product?

This is ridiculous.

Shooting video on your DSLR does not damage or wear out the sensor. And does anyone know WHY your camera gets warm shooting video? While shooting video, the electronics inside are constantly converting an analog signal to digital information and then writing this information to the memory card. The battery is CONSTANTLY providing a voltage (higher than when you just take photos) to achieve this.

Those two things together create the heat that make an overheat protection desirable. I've shot straight hours of video with my D800 and a D3100 and have not ever been warned of overheating. Yes, the camera bodies feel warmer after 2 hours of shooting video, but then the battery is basically in the grip part of the chassis.

You burn through the battery fast with video and discharging a battery creates heat.

This is like saying driving a Honda civic on a dirt road will damage it because it's not a Range Rover.

No it isn't.  It's like saying that driving anything on a dirt road will damage it, because it's a dirt road.  And it will - driving off-road puts more wear on your suspension, which will cause it to wear out faster.

An off-road vehicle has heavier suspension, yes.  But it still wears out faster off-road than on pavement.

The OP's question wasn't 'is shooting video bad for my camera' - it isn't.  The question was 'does shooting video wear out my camera' - it does.  Doing anything with your camera will wear out your camera, to varying degrees.

rp_photo wrote:
Since getting the D7100, I have video capabilities, but have heard that video shooting is harder on the sensor, overheats it, etc.

How true is this this? I only see myself shooting occasional video.

Has anyone here shot video with the D7100?

It won't damage your camera or sensor. Ever since i experimented with video 3 years ago, i've been making a living shooting far more videos with my 5DII than photography.

Even if it over heats, just allow it to cool down, then you're ready to start shooting again.

My 5DII actually over heat for the first time in India two weeks ago while filming because of the hot weather there.

Those with the 7D will tell you it over heat so often in hot weather compare to the 5DII

Jim McSmith wrote:
My belief is, if you're going to shoot a lot of video buy a video camera.

Completely agree.

The only reason my latest camera has video is because they all include it these days.

It's kind of the same as trying to buy a phone without a camera.

Murvelous wrote:
it will damage your sensor

its not a video camera, its an SLR with video capability, never forget that

even the 5D MK3 and D4 can only take so much, hence the price difference between your camera, the D4 and things like the C300

I'm not buying this.  It's still a digital imaging sensor.  If taking video damages it, then the same would be true to a dedicated digital video camera.

With your wording, it would appear as if you're suggesting that it damages it BECAUSE it's not a video camera.

Elmwood wrote:
I'm sure I read somewhere manufacturers only limit time video is for tax or definition purposes, as if they are called video cameras, it's a different classification
There was also mention of how to hack the camera to overcome this without fear of harm
But I cant remember where I read it, so it was maybe all a dream......
And I never shoot video, so not a worry for me

They limit the time you can record because the videos are stored as files on the memory card.  The file size limit for most cameras is 4GB.

Once the file hits that limit, the camera cannot record any more data to the file.

Jim McSmith wrote:
My belief is, if you're going to shoot a lot of video buy a video camera.

I have both a DSLR and a video camera.

Digital Hands wrote:
DSLR use CMOS sensor, correct?   The camcorder "usually" use cmos sensor, correct? There are some CCD sensors on some camcorders, especially low-budget level.

For the record, while we are seeing more CMOS sensors in professional video cameras, until quite recently, all of the high end video cameras had CCD sensors, not CMOS.  You have it backwards.  It was the low end cameras that had CMOS.

Also, for the record, it turns out that CMOS has some characteristics that make it very suitable for HD.  Let's not bring CMOS -vs- CCD into this discussion.  None of the CCD DSLR's capture video so that has little to do with the discussion.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

For the record, while we are seeing more CMOS sensors in professional video cameras, until quite recently, all of the high end video cameras had CCD sensors, not CMOS.  You have it backwards.  It was the low end cameras that had CMOS.

Also, for the record, it turns out that CMOS has some characteristics that make it very suitable for HD.  Let's not bring CMOS -vs- CCD into this discussion.  None of the CCD DSLR's capture video so that has little to do with the discussion.

I know that you didn't want to bring up CCD vs. CMOS, but there is one small point that probably ought to be mentioned.  There are plenty of exceptions, but as a rule CCD sensors are better at capturing the entire image at once (and avoiding 'rolling shutter' effects), while CMOS sensors tend to be less noisy at higher ISOs.  The reason that most camcorders have CMOS sensors is because your average camcorder owner is going to be a lot more upset if Little Johnny's play looks fuzzy than they will be by a rolling shutter, which they may not even notice.  At professional levels high ISO performance is less important, since a lot of those guys will be lugging around lighting equipment.

The reason I mention that isn't to start a debate.  It is to point out that when it comes to affordable technology - even barely affordable technology - manufacturers will often produce products based on what they expect the 'average' owner to do with it.

So my NEX records 29 minutes and 30 seconds of video with a UHS-1 card before it kicks off.  Could Sony up the price to pay for the additional tariff of making it run longer than that, and still sell them?  Of course.  I for one would have been willing to pay an extra fifty or even a hundred bucks.  But perhaps it can only record 40 minutes before the overheat protection comes on - meaning that it would still be difficult to record an entire play or wedding.  Then would it be worth the extra money?  Probably not.  They could improve the heat sinks, but then the camera would be bigger and even more expensive ... by then, a tiny $500 camera might be a much larger $700 camera, and one with the same quality output.  Then how many could they sell?

I would wager this to be the case, as shutting down my NEX and waiting a few moments usually only lets me follow up with a 16 minute or so clip.

We're all hung up on the fact that our cameras can record more than half an hour without overheating.  But do we really know how much more they can record?  Certainly if a model could keep going indefinitely, it's worth the argument.  But if we can only record a little bit longer than the cut-off time before the video starts to suck, what's the point of the argument?  Isn't it possible that this tariff business is just a really convenient legal loophole that allows a manufacturer to not divulge a camera's flaws?

rp_photo wrote:
Has anyone here shot video with the D7100?

Not the D7100 but many hrs with the D7000 and never had any problems.