… 'better' …
(usually, I don't like to participate in any 'quality' debate)
The Canon 5D mkII was the famous 'cinematographers' choice, due to its full-size sensor. Tom allready explained, why this is 'better'.- Not made for 'hours' of recording, many of these device were killed by their own heat.-
Most videoDSLR meanwhile (and micro43s) have sensors of (smaller) APS-C size … for example Canons other famous DSLR, 550, 600, 650, 700 (rebel tx). You get designated video devices with APS-C too....
You've heard of the 'million pixel lie'? In theory, a sensor with 'just' 1920x1080 pixel is BETTER, than any 20, 30, 40 MioPixel DSLR - due to scaling, moire, Bayer filter, etc.
Panas GH2 got famous, due to Vitaly's hack - which modified bit-rate, intra-frame encoding, etc etc etc. Most of his features are now incl. in the GH3 ... but is it as handy as a camcorder?
switching glasses is 'better' - if you want to and can afford these masterpieces, e.g. ≤ f1.2 ... therefore, those expensive DSLR can not compete with any 300$ Sony Camcorder stabilizer ...
finally: aside all tech-lingo - it's all about photography! A 5.000$ CanonEOS1x doesn't do 'better' pictures in a low light living room, in the hands of drunken GrandPa It's about light, light, light. Many/most DSLR videographer in my neighborhood don't even know what a ND-filter is. Aside owning/using one .........
It's not the camera, it's the camera-man who does 'better' pictures.
Spend 3h with this Emmy-awarded documentary:
don't miss part II
in ptII, aside Arri Alexa, Red Epic, or Kodak (film), one contestant is an iPhone!
But plus 80 people crew, a 1Mio$ studio, a DoP with years of experience.-
Light and the one using it.
//sorry for venting!//