>>2845005That's an issue to one degree or another with pretty much every consumer-grade interchangeable lens camera, though.
I'm sure people will argue with me about this, but if you're shooting things that move fast enough for rolling shutter, or if you and the camera are moving enough to run into issues with it, you probably shouldn't be using an ILC for video anyway. ILCs are best treated like cine cameras, used from a stationary tripod or slow-moving slider for shooting carefully staged, lit, and directed shots, and with a dedicated sound guy on set. They're incredible at providing 50% of an Arri at 5% of the cost.
If you need to run & gun or capture events that are out of your control, though, a camcorder, something like a Canon XA30, is a much better choice. They have IS and AF that work, excellent lenses with huge zoom ranges, controls and ergonomics meant for video, and the ability to run real microphones directly into the camera and control them without fucking around in menus.
/p/ likes to talk about how certain camera features, like fast lenses and high ISOs, are "marketing memes," but I think ILC video is the daddy of them all. My gut says that the majority of the video work /p/ will do is much closer to reality TV and documentaries than it is to Hollywood cinematography, and if you pay attention to reality TV you'll see that any time a camera is on screen, it's an actual camcorder and not an ILC.
