[Mildlypolite]

The fact is when you are recording a good quality video you never go over a few minutes of recording. So usually it doesn't bother film makers too much.

If you're recording a live opera it's a problem but then you usually have much higher quality gear without the limitations of a DSLR.

[TexanFeller]

> The fact is when you are recording a good quality video you never go over a few minutes of recording

I've made home sex tapes longer than 30 minutes, imagine stopping in the middle to start a new file on the camera! Or imagine someone filming the birth of their child and failing to capture it because the camera timed out at an inopportune moment.

[throwanem]

> I've made home sex tapes longer than 30 minutes

No need to brag.

[azangru]

What if you are recording a conference or a lecture? May easily go over 30 minutes; does not always need theatrical quality.

[qbasic_forever]

You probably want to consider live streaming the event which means using something with clean HDMI out or a USB webcam mode, along with a dedicated capture device/computer. At that point you can just dump a recording of any size to disk.

[blitzar]

Use a $500 video camera rather than a $5,000 DSLR setup?

[Retric]

5,000$ DSLR’s take better video than $500 video cameras.

So I think it’s just price discrimination. They want people to buy 50,000$ video cameras not 5,000$ DSLR’s.

[Springtime]

Fwiw, Sony's current mid-to-high end a7 line of mirrorless cameras (eg: the a7 IV) don't have this video recording limit. They also handle long recordings fine assuming it's on a tripod and screen is in the flipped out position[1] (the link ran a capture at 4K/60fps for 3 hours before ending the test arbitrarily).

[1] @2:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9GHftTU7fE

[canbus]

$5000 DSLRs have huge APSC/Full frame sensors to try and cool... try and take a bulb mode shot on one and let me know if they let you past 30 minutes.