How do i know if DSLR cameras is Good for Video or Photography?

I'm thinking of Switching from Nikon to canon. Reason I was told Canons are cheaper and got better lens. I looked at few cameras like 750d or 800d or 80d(expensive for me if i want to buy all lenses). So two of my friends said to me. Oh 80d its good for videos. So confused. How do i know if DSLR i'm looking for is Video or Photos. If there some Specification that i need to look at? Like video cam got more FPS? Please. Btw I'm still learning.

It depends

If you have enough money to switch brands, get a camcorder that is designed for the task, and cheaper.

Doing video on a DSLR is not convenient and you may need a bunch of additional accessories to make it easier. The LCD screen can be hard to see, you have to hold the camera awkwardly to be able to see the screen and hold and focus or zoom the lens, if necessary. The sound isn't always good and you can pick up AF noise.

Or get a Pentax that is better than Canon. Or a mirrorless camera.

What videos are you intending to do?

When you think you have decided which camera you want, download the manual from the manufacturer's web site.

A camera designed for still image capture that happens to capture video as a convenience feature will have video file size (4 gig) and duration (20-30 minutes) limitations and will warn of overheating and automatic shutdown util cool enough.

A camera designed for video will not have the above limitations, have audio inputs for external mic connections and a few other features for video - not still image capture.

Compare the feature set between the Canon XC10 and the T5i… Or Sony NEX-EA50M or Nikon D-anything…

The quality of your video is based upon your skills, NOT the camera

Here are two links that were shot using Nikon digital SLR cameras. As you can see, they are excellent videos.

One was shot with a recent Nikon full frame digital SLR and the other with an older Nikon D7000 (cropped sensor)

NOTE: "I was told Canons are cheaper and got better lens" It is clear that 1) you have not visited the Nikon and Canon websites to see what those costs actually are and 2) the lenses (but for one or two) made by Nikon and Canon are excellent. Nikon has one dog lens as does Canon. Any perceived savings by switching camera brands will be lost when you sell your old gear

NOTE2: If you want a cinematic look to your videos you will be shooting at 24fps. The standard NTSC (television) frame rate is 30 fps

Canon and Nikon are priced about the same. Some of Canon's lenses are better than Nikon. Some Nikon lenses are better than Canon. Some Pentax lenses are better than either one. Some Sigma lenses are better than all three. Some Sony lenses are better than all four. You can go on and on. To compare lens quality, go to photozone.de where they use numerical values in their sharpness charts. This not only allows you to see which lens is sharpest, but it also allows you to know by how much. I mean, what's the point of buying a Nikon for $1,600 if a Tamron for $500 is only 10% less sharp? Do you really need that extra 10%? Will you even see it? Probably not.

It absolutely false to say that every lens from any specific brand is "best." Furthermore, unless you plan on spending $1,000 - $4,000 for a lens, you should worry about which is "best." Also keep in mind that a lot people have opinions that are just wrong. Nikon users will say Nikon is best. People who use Canon will say Canon is best.

You're right when it comes to video though. Nikon should be avoided as their video performance is just awful. None of their cameras, including the $6,500 D5, get acceptable reviews for their video. Nikon has never made video equipment in their entire history. On the other hand Sony, Canon, and Panasonic both made their own camcorders in the 80s and even today. So they have a huge advantage over Nikon and Pentax too. While Canon is generally better for video, Sony and Panasonic are definitely superior to Canon. If video is important to you, you should skip the DSLR and go with a Sony or Panasonic mirrorless. Both Sony and Panasonic mirrorless cameras are significantly better than anything from Canon. And as good as S/P are, their camcorders are significantly better at making videos than any digital camera at any price.

How can a Canon be cheaper when you already have a Nikon?!
Canon and Nikon lenses are equal.
If you can't take good photos and video with your Nikon then the problem is your lack of skill, not the camera.

Keep what you have and learn to use it better.

DSLRs were never meant to do video. The reflex mirror design is completely illogical for shooting video. If you don't know why you need a dSLR to do video, get a camcorder instead. It's cheaper and you get longer shooting times, and better autofocus.

All dSLRs are good for photography but picture quality depends mostly on the photographer's skill. All brands are the same. They are all expensive. You don't need to buy all their lenses. Most photographers will survive with just the kit lens if they know how to use it properly. The only spec you should be looking at is your wallet. The more you are willing to spend on the dSLR, the more satisfied you shall be!

For video work a camcorder is always better than any stills camera which also has video.

Between Nikon and Canon as stills cameras there I much debate, and much would depend on which of the many characteristics are important for you.

No single answer on a site like this one will tell you everything you need to know.

Your question is unclear, but should I assume that you have not yet bought any brand of DSLR? If you already have a DSLR then get to know it, find out what it can do for you.

You really don't know, that's the dilemma. And to make matters a tad more complicated, opinions vary for many reasons. Canon users will hail the merits of Canon cameras, while Nikon users will do the same. Then unknowing people will pass along what they've heard but really do NOT know for certain, and it leaves you in the same position.

But here's what's certain, switching camera brands will mean that you will spend more money on the new camera and lens, and you lose money when you sell your current camera and lens. Not very practical or pragmatic, is it? Out of curiosity, what happens if you do switch camera brands only to discover you're encountering the same problems with the new camera brand?

Here's the root of the problem: it's not the camera and lens brand; YOU simply need to LEARN how to use your current camera properly. IF you switch, and you don't learn how to use the camera properly, you'll find that your captured images are just as lousy… Then what?

You really have two choices. One, learn to use your current camera and lens properly for what you want to do. A camera is a camera is a camera is a camera… (into infinity). All cameras take photos and now almost all modern DSLRS, even cell 'phone cameras, also take video recordings as an added feature but not as THE primary function. Please understand that the camera is only a tool, and it is only as good or bad as YOUR SKILLS when you're using it. A more expensive camera will not improve your skills, so you'll get the same lousy results unless you LEARN how to use the camera properly.

Here's a solution to your problems: for $200 to $300 (US) you can buy an easy-to-carry, easy-to-use, mid-range entry level camera designed, engineered, manufactured, assembled and sold exclusively and precisely to record videos and, as you'll discover, you'll get far better results PLUS more recording time (30 minutes) at one continuous take than any DSLR (about 10 minutes) on the market today. As you may have heard or WILL hear (and/or read) about Photography, "The right tool for the right job."

By keeping your current camera and getting a dedicated videocam, if one is damaged and sent to the repair shop, at least you'll have the other. And you'll know that at least you have "the right tool for the right job." What you learn in still photography will carry over in video-recording. YOU decide.