This is only a transitory argument as the major camera companies will combine DSLR qualities with video cameras. They already have - combining the best of both.
You could argue that the quality is greater from a DSLR. The colour is deeper, the contrast range is greater and there are more pixels. And because of this it appears sharper. I have a 550D and I love it for happy snap videos. I fell in love with it as soon as started using it. To be able to own a camera of that size that can produce that quality is really exciting. If you spent the same money on a video camera you wouldn’t get much. The size of the camera is a minor plus.
But I soon realised it is really limited and would only use it to shoot home movies (if I can still use that expression). Basically it is horrible to operate, you have to figure out workarounds, and realise you can only use it in certain circumstances. Much the same as when I shoot video on my old Nokia and iPhone.
The major con is movement. The capturing of movement on the chip and the act of moving the camera. DSLRs are a stills camera and are not designed to capture movement. If there is too much movement, too much change in the information captured from frame to frame, there will be shearing and artefacts as the chip cannot process that amount of information. Obviously audio recording is a hassle but this isn’t so bad. Recording sound to a remote recorder is the way shoot with film and means the camera is free of the audio cables. You have to sbnc the sound later but there ae programs that automate that – pluraleyes is one.
It is worth checking Zac’s research -