Who's consensus would that be? Many DSLRs will give you a picture quality better than that of a dedicated video camera costing nearly ten times as much.
They have some shortcomings: They are not that easy to operate. They have no or limited autofocus. And they can often only shoot for a limited amount of time per 'clip' (about 10-12 minutes at a time in Canons).
For home video, long events, news or field work (documentaries) they aren't really suited. But otherwise they offer no difficulties filmmakers have not had to deal with since the inception of filmmaking itself.

Just a word of warning for those who have a dSLR and are thinking of using it for video - don't skimp on the memory card! If you've already paid out for a the big camera, don't cut yourself short by trying to save a few dollars on a cheap card.

Get a decent one from a reputable seller as you want to make sure it keeps up with the data from the camera and you don't want it to fail at the end of a day's shooting...

Oh sorry guys, didn't see all the comments until just now - thought this forum was dead. Thanks for your replies.

I talked to my stepdad/camera repair guy the other day and he reckons it might have something to do with getting the full frame when it's being recorded? I'm not entirely sure; digital supposedly doesn't capture as well as DV but I guess that's another issue entirely.

I'm just interested in DSLRs for their flexibility when it comes to creating shots by using different lenses. I've been thinking about experimenting with visuals but like I said, I'm quite the newbie. More specifically though I want to get that eerie Kubrickian (e.g. 'The Shining') shot where he uses wider-angle lenses which I think is super effective and visually stunning.

I was also watching something on Gareth Edwards, director of 2010's 'Monsters' and he filmed on digital using the body of some kind of camera of which I have no idea. But he was able to attach DSLR lenses to it to give it that small DoF all on a pretty minuscule budget with the help of prosumer software to superimpose effects.

What do you guys think about the future of film being shot digitally?

I'm loving my dSLR for video. The DoF is great, but can be tricky to work around as there is no auto focus while filming. Since mine is a crop sensor and not a full frame sensor, I need to step back to get more in the frame.

Shooting on a 50mm lens gets some great looks, but not too useful indoors. For inside, I'd need a wider lens, like a 35mm or a 20mm.

As Darangula Films said, with the price of production dropping it becomes easier to create projects, but the quality goes down because people put less effort in.

For comparison: publishing an article. Just thirty years ago, if you wanted lots of people to read your article, it had to be published - either in a newspaper or a magazine. And you had to be good. Today, look at how hard it is to create a blog - likewise, look at the quality of the average post...

I lie. DSLRs shoot video with 4:2:0 chroma sampling. The cheapest thing that does 4:2:2 is the Panasonic hvx200 video camera which goes for about five grand these days. A fine machine no doubt, but it's fixed lens and shoots an anamorphic frame (ie, the picture it records is actually smaller than true HD, squished horizontally and then unsquished on playback)
Yes, weighing up all these things when trying to buy something is oh so much fun for hours and days and days and weeks. And then something new comes out!

If you are serious about your work ????? Flags plus filters.

The 4x4 filters don't come cheap either.

This might get you started.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Proaim-Compendium-Jumbo-Matte-Box-fr-DSLR-DV-HDV-kamera-/370501177910?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item5643975236

There are variations on this product. You need to make sure the version you order has the mattebox bridge support and upright, the rods and the adjustable bridgeplate/tripod mount.

There are other Indian matteboxes however the jumbo mattebox is the only one I know. I can't speak for the others.

You need to be a bit careful with the slide holders. Some are a bit snug for Schneider filters. The Tiffens seem to fit slightly easier.

You may need to skim a thin layer off the inner faces of the slide frames. Earlier examples were tighter. Later they seemed to be better.

You may need to add small spring washers under the thumbnuts which hold the flags to their hingepins.

Some semi-hardening water-cleanup bathroom sealer to immobillise the flags on the hingepins won't hurt either.

Don't use a lot, just enough to stop the flags from working the thumbnuts loose but not too much that you cannot tear it away.

There is a threaded collar which holds rubber donuts in around the lens to keep backlight from reflecting off the rear of the glass filters back towards the lens. Try to avoid getting it hot in the back of a car as it is plastic and it will shink and become tight on the threads.

You won't be able to get enough friction on the long hingepin which supports the upper flag. You need to prop it on the two side flags which have swing extensions on them.

Those are the breaks when you buy this cheaper mattebox but the build quality and utility is otherwise adequate.

The vendor "cinecity" which posts the same product from time-to-time on eBay has been reliable for three orders I have requested.