Are Camcorders Dead?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- In the last few years we've seen still cameras start to develop very impressive video capabilities. Is there still a reason to buy a consumer camcorder? TCSTV's Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake give their perspective, comparing the most capable consumer camcorder, Canon's HF G30, and Sony's RX10.
Shop online at: www.thecameras...
Music provided by BeatSuite.com
www.beatsuite.com
Special thanks to Dean Rumpel, All Hands On Jane and Mark Langridge
Shot and Edited by Jordan Drake
Filmed on the Sony FS700
Lots of people still use camcorders due to the fact that people don't want to spend money on lenses
Coffee Shop Productions Another good point.
true but they were comparing it to a an rx10 which has a fixed lens. However yeah it didn't have the reach of the camcorder. A more suitable comparison these days would be a camcorder vs an fz300 because they have similar sensor sizes and the same zoom range. This is an older video so I am not sure if camcorders progressed much since this video, but in my opinion the fz300 blows that thing out of the water because of its ability to take great stills and video with no compromise on the zoom capacity.
Tell me a lens for a Nikon that will stop the autoseeking while doing videos. Anytime there is movement the camera tries to autoseek and makes the video almost unwatchable
It's not like you have to buy an extra lens for the RX10. It's a fixed-lens camera.
I own two Canon XA10's and two Canon Vixia G10's, with wide angle lenses and powered shotgun mikes. There is NO WAY I could cover sports events, concerts, and weddings for my clients from four different angles as a ONE MAN CREW with DSLR's. Their constant focusing problems and short clip lengths would be the death of me. The zoom factor on my cameras puts me at the front of the stage when I'm at the back and above the crowd. When Canon / Sony puts a 1" or larger sensor on a 4K run and gun video camera with powered XLR mike inputs, I'll be buying four of them. I can add depth of field, greatly reduce noise, brighten the image and grade colour in post. My clients barely know I'm there and always ask: how did you get all those close up shots from so many angles?
You can hook Sony's XLR adaptor to the AX100 and have everything you're looking for. Check out our recent review!
Jordan @ The Camera Store TV
Jordan: You've earned my respect! You guys produce well-balanced reviews with good production value in awesome locations, and you respond to TH-cam comments. I've thought about my needs a lot. I'll keep my equipment, AND add two Sony A7S cameras to my mix w. Rokinon Cinema T 1.5 lenses. I'll offer my clients "coverage" and "cinema" services, optionally in 4K w. the Atomos Shogun. Let me know when they arrive: lulrich@mts.net. Thanks!
TheCameraStoreTV I think you're overlooking that not everyone is going to use a Dslr with bunch of attachments, there's a reason for the simplicity of a camcorder. Less fuss and ease of use for a layman.
Leonard Ulrich We're hoping on a pre-release Shogun to test shortly. You're business strategy makes a tonne of sense, it's the same one I use. Stay tuned!
Jordan @ TCSTV
For long events, especially with high action, that makes sense.
I have been thinking about this, I am a DSLR video shooter and I have to say that I really think there is a need for camcorders. You can not put a DSLR in the hands of Noob and get it to produce a decent image, if you know what you are doing the the image on a DSLR is of course much nicer. While a camcorder can not get a shallow depth of field for your average home movie you don't really need a shallow DOF. It seems every one is shooting wide open all the time and the result is half the time their image is out of focus.
Price: Most DSLR's are way more expensive than a average camcorder, as you have to add Glass as well, multiple lens, Vari ND's etc...
Also when you are chilling with the family, try handing any type of DSLR so someone else if you want to be in the shoot, no chance as you will have to explain how to use it, wight the camcorder, you just hit record. Yes you can put the DSLR in full auto but the results will look crappy.
General walking around filming with the DSLR is hard work especially if the exposure is constantly changing.
Basically the above video is looking at it from some one that knows what they are doing and is into camera's and will get the best out of the DSLR, for the average joe a mid- range camcorder will capture everything needed.
I have actually just bought a small camcorder for just this reason, just for run and gun stuff and for fun. I am also not to bothered if it gets banged up. I don't need to shot a shallow depth of field all the time, in fact I rarely do.
People seem to forget that the Gopro is basically a tiny camcorder. Therefore camcorders are in no danger of going extinct.
Well. A few points FOR a camcorder:
(As this comparison is a little bit "incomplete".)
1.) They are often cheaper available (with good picture quality)
2.) They have less moire & aliasing problems
(As the chipsets and the whole devices are built for video purposes.)
3.) They offer longer running times (and bigger batteries are easily adaptable).
4.) They are easier to operate than DSLRs & system cameras (and less "bulky").
5.) They offer way bigger screens than most DSLRs & system cameras.
(And the screens are always freely adjustable - Position wise.)
6.) They offer "smoother" AF systems - Also with bigger sensors!
(Check out the new Sony 1" camcorders - As mentioned in this video.)
7.) The stabilizers are often better (check out Sonys "balanced optical steadyshot")
8.) The zoom is WAY better controllable (from slow to fast - Stepless) and
9.) The image stabilizer is adjustable WAY better (often in 3 or 4 steps)
(BY FAR not possible with any DSLR and system camera I know of.
There you need to be happy to have a on / off switch ^^.)
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT: No recording time limits!
Even the RX10 has a ~30 min. time limit. (ALSO the US model!)
I am a fan of DSLRs and system cameras. I am filming with Panasonic GH bodies since MANY months (about 2 years now). BUT the fact is: For the masses and for "quick and dirty" shooting (with your family, or if you NEED a good working AF system) a camcorder will be ALWAYS the better choice. There would be even additional points FOR a camcorder - But I think I mentioned the most important ones ^^.
10) Most if not almost all camcorders have build in ND filters
Dont forget the insane zoom range with huge apertures! Camcorder zoom lenses are often f/1.8-2.8, whereas still camera zoom lenses START at f/3.5 unless you get a constant aperture zoom (HUGE)!
I do not like having 1 DSLR for all needs ( photo, video ). All ones eggs in one basket.
If the DSLR breaks down then not having an alternative is a problem.
Other issue is DSLR are primarily designed for quick shots ( photos ) and shooting video is
awkward. Hold a camcorder is far easier. Maybe in future camcorders can have bigger sensors
and wider angle lenses to boost performance options.
AustrianGeek Im glad I saw ur comment lol... I just ordered a Canon camcorder from Amazon
i...love...you
The one thing you didn't mention was record length limits. With the DSLR style camera's you can't record a clip longer than 29min and 59sec. For normal family documentation that is fine, but when you want to record your kids school play or graduation in it's entirety the DSLR falls short and you need the standard video camera.
Great segment. I love the straight to the point honesty.
I'm surprised ergonomics wasn't discussed more. I find that camcorders tend to have much better ergonomics for video. My DSLR makes great video, but the ergonomics make it a fight to operate.
DSLRs have awful ergonomics for video, due to the lack of a viewfinder. The RX10 and many mirror less cameras have viewfinders though, and that make the ergonomics very comparable to a camcorder.
Jordan @ The Camera Store TV
TheCameraStoreTV Thanks for the info. I'll have to give mirror less a chance at some point.
So far, it feels like a lot of them are fashion accessory cameras; I'm still waiting for a "serious" mirrorless camera - with full DSLR style controls and sensor size.
Although that Sony a6000 review you guys did last week has me very, very tempted...
Kyle Clements No, I think you're wrong to think that. The panasonic GH line are definitely serious camera's even though they lack the full frame sensor. I'd go to a store and try some out if I were you. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.
4 years later 4k was introduced and camcorders blew up again
Well, I don't agree.
I personally think it is way better to shoot video material on a real video camera instead of using a conventional DSLR or so.
I mean I would use a cam coder for producing videos and a DSLR for shooting pictures.
Also handling wise to me it feels thousand times better to use a cam coder for videos.
The ergonomic argument is totally valid, but it is subjective. I prefer the feel of a mirrorless camera to a consumer camcorder for shooting video, but you may feel otherwise. Outside of that, there are very few reason's I'd rather have two different tools if a device exists that can do both equally well.
Jordan @ TCSTV
Matter of personal taste... ;-)
TheCameraStoreTV Hi Jordan, what about the 29 minute recording time ? That's basically the only reason that's making me lean towards camcorders.
Philipp Rückert I agree>
I am going to get a DSLR for photos but my camcorder I will still shoot videos on.
+Philipp Rückert I think the most valid argument is that everything look like photography cameras nowadays. Every low budget film, every videoclip, every commercial. I say let's go back to camcorders, I am really sick of that 5D and a7 look.
Interesting compare & contrast. We use camcorders a lot and they are easy to operate one handed, versus a dslr which often needs two hands. Dslr cams also need stabilization to get good footage, where as camcorders often have them as a standard feature.
Do more videos like this.
I really like this After Dark idea - I like how you guys just focus on the discussion as opposed to walking about
not me i am 100% for camcorders
I have both, always a good idea not to have one for all device. I have older Canon 450D ( no video capability )
and Panasonic HC V700. I also have Powershot 270. I am not restricted to one device. Camcorders are always better for filming hand held for long periods.
@@simon1974uk True on the ergonomics. Camcorders are designed to be held on a scene longer than a still camera. I use both, truthfully my stills are better with a still camera and my videos are better with a camcorder. Unless you are going all out with video grips,ETC. A DLSR is (to me) an awkward video camera physically.
Still cameras do no have the proper handle and zoom rocker of the camcorder. Believe me, such a small thing, but it's ergonomics, and it plays big role at least in my book. Shooting video with still camera is like plowing the field with camcorder, or something like that.
+Andrew Piatek: "Shooting video with still camera is like plowing the field with camcorder, or something like that." Uhhhhhhhhh.....................OK.
Interesting points. I just bought my first camcorder actually, the Panasonic v750. I got it mainly for it's slow motion feature. I researched a lot and couldn't find another camera that did as well as this one in that area for the price.
Show me the camera that can do 1080p at 240fps, while letting you zoom, change shutter speed, iris etc. And still has autofocus during slow mo with no time limit. For under $600 too. Closest thing was the FZ1000 which can't autofocus during slow mo, or zoom, and is $900. And is bulky as heck.
Camcorders aren't dead yet that's for sure. Maybe one day as I wish I could take some nice pictures as well, and have that fancy shallow depth of field look. But my camcorder is fun, that's the bottom line for me. Fun ass fun ;)
Good point.
Camera Conspiracies sent me...
Annnnnddddd you hate camcorders now
(1) I believe that cameras are limited to 29 minutes of video before you have to turn them off and remove the battery for a few minutes. Manufacturers agreed to this to avoid competing with camcorders. Odd.
(2) my Sony a6000 - an amazing APS-C camera - overheats after 10 to 15 min of video. Try shooting a longer video on your Sony's RX10 and report back here.
I recently shot a gig for almost for an hour with a6000. Just rebooted the recording near the 29 minute. No overheating here yet :) And that limit is due eu-taxes. If you can record over 30 minutes or over the camera is considered as camcorder and taxes are a lot higher.
My Canon EOS M just splits the clips into two automatically.
If I had infinite memory cards, I could shoot forever on my XDCAM. It can shoot back to back. :)
Agree. My Sony NEX 5n does exactly that, after no more than 15 minutes. Have they cracked this in the current crop of Sony mirrorless I wonder?
The 30 minute limit is a European tax issue. Over 30 minutes is deemed to be a video camera which are taxed at a higher rate. As they only build one camera for the whole world, that's why it appears on all cameras.
You missed a major point. Camcorders are designed to zoom quietly, not so much with still cameras.
Both my Sony NEX-3 and my later Sony α7 are frequently overheating during the shooting of a video. During summer the problem is more serious. With the summer heat outdoors I can only shop continuously video between 20-40 minutes before the camera automatically shuts down from overheating. Also there is the 30minutes limit and I have to use a timer in order to immediately resume the video recording.
Real camcorders don't overheat easily and many of them don't have the 30 minutes limit.
i'll give up my camcorder when they pry my cold dead fingers from it...I love mine
I love both, in their "lane" still camera for stills, Camcorders for "movies"!
@@jamesslick4790 But shouldn't a movie look cinematic? That would give an advantage to the RX10 in this case with shallow depth of field.
Cinema cameras are a whole different thing than what they were talking about.
@@danieldougan269 Some video should look "cinematic" others should look like "television". It's up to the filmmaker to decide. There's no "correct" answer just the opinions of the artists involved. For example is an organ "better" than a piano?🤔
@@jamesslick4790 Sure, but it's nice to have the option to defocus the background. You can always stop the lens down on the RX10 and make it look more camcorder-like. (I find it unappealing, but whatever.) You can't do the opposite on the camcorder.
I'm a piano player myself, but I'll take my full-size electronic keyboard over any piano or organ because it can sound like any instrument I want it to, including a piano and an organ.
I do think one of the advantages of a smaller sensor is the ability to operate it unmanned and still be confident that everything will be in focus. It's a convenience thing more than an aesthetic choice.
But the phase-detect autofocus in newer cameras, including the newer versions of the RX10, also makes that a possibility.
The real downside of the newer RX10 models is that, while they got that longer zoom range, it came at the expense of the constant f2.8 aperture. It was 24-200 equivalent before. I think the best answer would have been to make it 24-300 and f2.8 while making the camera a little bigger instead of making it extend to 600mm at f4. Sure, if the aperture stayed at f2.8 through 200 and then dropped off, that would be the best of both worlds, but that's not what happened.
Wish you guys talked about ergonomics more. A camcorder is specifically designed to be easily held and operated with one hand. DSLR cameras, being still cameras first and video recorders second, are designed so that you need to hold ti with both hands to work properly. Holding it with one hand is possible but awkward, and without something similar to the built-in strap of a camcorder, you really risk loosing grip on a really pricey camera.
Generally though, i agree with you guys that a Camcorder is more of a tool for pros while the DSLR is good for everyday, casual use.
I love the plastic tub used to display the K50's sealing in the background.
Good video guys, one thing for me that is a concern is image stabilization. Thoughts on DSLR VS camcorder?
+HumbleMechanic canon r600 very cheap but has very good image stabilization
Sony FDR AX53 is also great in image stabilization
idk, i have a canon t5, eos 70d and a vixia hf g30.... i do a lot of car photography and videos. i think the dslr is great for my photos with the wide angle 12-24mm... the issue that i have that draws me to the camcorder is the look of the video.... the dslr looks cinematic and dark where as the camcorder looks light and flat. big benefit for me when i start to grade my videos. now if the client wanted the car video looking cinematic i would grab the dslr, but then i have dop. i am kind of tired of dop, i mean i like it, do not get me wrong... but it gets old rather quick, especially for the videos i shoot.... now for portraits, dop is a must, like i said, idk.... these guys even forgot to mention 4k video. i think the canon 1d C will shoot 4k video, but that is a very expensive dslr.... sony has a 4k camcorder and people are grabing that... another benefit is that not all dslrs (well Canon) are shooting full HD 60 fps 1080p. the sony may, but they are also lacking lenses to make it viable. i think the canon 7d mark ii is finally doing full hd at 60 fps but the again you have the time limit restriction. i know we are talking about home use here, but you never know what someone wil use a cemera for in the future. today i may use it for stills and vacation videos and tomorrow i may want to do you tube videos. i think the video is informative but very misleading. camcorders still have a place in the video world, that is until the sensors over heating is fixed and the time restrictions are removed... i did not even discuss time lapse video here... can't do that with a dslr..... this is not comparing apples to apples. take the information with a grain of salt. thanks
The main reason I have stuck with camcorders is continuous recording. Don't DSLRs have like a 12-minute or so limit before you have to press stop and start again? That may be good for most recordings but not if you are shooting a presentation or live event that is longer than that.
With an Atomos external recorder a Dslr is capable of hours instead of minutes.
One thing not mentioned is that the camcorder is easily operated with one hand. Video on the DSLR is mostly 2 handed. Yes you can do one handed video with the DSLR but you will wear out your wrist because the weight is not centered as well as the camcorder.
With the consumer and prosumer based models, it would be easier to haul around a camcorder for an entire day.
Once in the $1000+ models the weight will be the about the same on both but it all still points back to what I said to begin with.
All my choices are done by what I need to do, and how long will it take to do it.
So ultimately in my opinion, the DSLR will never be a full replacement for a camcorder, nor will a camcorder ever be able to fully replace the DSLR.
When going to video your family in the snow, you could have captured the video with anything including your phone, and came up with the same result quality wise.
Question though... why would you take a $1400 camera out to play in the snow?
Right? Get a sweet point and shoot, or a great phone camera for photos and gopro for video when you go out with the family.
The rx100 is not a dslr. It's a compact camera with really good video capabilities. Same quality? Smartphones use mp4 which have much less bitrate than cameras. The iPhone 6 for example records 1080p 30fps at 17mbps while the rx10 with the updated xavc-s codec records 1080p 30fps at 50mbps.
I think this format is a great addition for applicable videos like this. I never get tired of your explorations in and around Calgary, though. It was nice to have a peek at the store. Going to visit if we make it to Calgary in April.
I think the issue with the SLR for the average consumer is the perceived complexity. I am not a photographer by any means and when I hear terms like IO, Apature, Fstop etc. I seize up. The "point and shoot" simplicity an average soccer mom or fishing trip dad expects is easily represented in the camcorder world. Higher-end camcorders still provide many "prosumer" features for the guys that like to tinker and play like a pro.For me anyway, an SLR will never be in my bag because I don't care enough about the technical stuff and I just want it to take a decent picture when I hit the button. I'm glad the manufactures still produce the simpler to use options. Thanks for your perspectives. It does give me things to think about when considering my next camera.
I think you forget to mention one of the most important things which is the ergonomics of holding the handycam compared to holding a DSLR for longer periods of time. What if you were at a concert and you wanted to raise your videocam really high over the heads of the people in front of you all the time? I film dance performances all the time and the DSLR just doesn't last long in that situation. Not to forget the stupid artificual 29:59min time limit.
I love this segment! If you can do more, I am absolutely on board.
I have filmed with a camcorder (Canon HF-S10) for years and was very happy with its features. But DSLRs are catching up so quickly with great AF, usable sound, and lowlight capability, that I just upgraded to the Canon 70D, and I don't think I will be looking back any time soon.
There are two things for which I still like to use the camcorder: As second camera (obviously...) and for very long and spontaneous shoots. What you did not mention is that typically camcorders can sport way bigger batteries than DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. My HF-S10 will easily record for 6 hours straight and I don't even have to worry about the battery or the recording being stopped after 30 minutes.
I have the Canon HF G30. The reason why I got it was because the the time limit of DSLRs. When shooting Vlog or review videos by myself that time limit can add some unneeded stress.
dub tee Gh3 or 4 cannot do anything coming in and out range quickly. So they don't perform like a camcorder.
You cover it all... almost. There is one unique feature in even the cheapest camcorders: The ability to shoot longer scenes than 20 or 30 minutes. So if you want to shoot an hour-long concert with multi-camera, perhaps with some cameras unattended, you are stuck with camcorders.
The Panasonic GH3 & GH4 don't have any record time limits. I expect this will become more and more common in high end mirrorless and DSLR cameras.
Jordan @ TCSTV
Well, that is an artificial limit due to import taxing in EU on camcorders.
+TheCameraStoreTV You've just increased the price of recording video with the GH4 and it's associated lenses. Multiple sub-$1000 camcorders can do a much better job.
+ArtR0001 get a Panasonic v770 and call it a day. it's like $500 shoots great video and is a highly rated camcorder. there's a 4k version of it as well. the Canon R600 is great for a $200 probably THE best camcorder in its class and can shoot for hours.
DSLRs are overrated. they're barely functional out of the box and you need $10,000 in accessories just to make them closer to a camcorder.
cheaper to just buy a camcorder.
+Joe Doe I have A Sony AX33 that I use for 4K. It does most everything for under $1,000 US. The Canon R500 is for my 1080 shots. (no filter threads with this camcorder.) But looking at someday maybe moving up to the Panasonic AG-DVX200. A big step up in price but hey... I have output single frames as JPEG and have an awesome 3840x2160 image that I can work with. Doesn't matter if that is a 8 megapixel or 10 or 14. On a 26 inch monitor they are killer images. My DSLR is in the closet. I do still use the 2x2 and occasionally my Speed Graphic 4x5 but those are starting to get expensive.
Nice one. Yes, I do want to see more videos like that.
Don't see camcorders going away any time soon. While you you have a point with consumer versions and similar price points. On the Prosumer-Pro ENG & run and gun situations I think prosumer Camcorders will out pace cameras. Far superior XLR inputs for Pro audio. A much better codec for recording video with better color sampleing such as 4:2:2 that still cameras can't match.
Great discussion. Probably not relevant to most people but it's important to note the fact that (as far as I know), you can't mount a follow focus onto a camcorder.
On the flip side, camcorders will almost always have built in ND's. A feature not available in even high end DSLR's (although you can just simply mount an ND filter onto the lens but having built in ND's is still nice).
And on the topic of mounting additional gear to your system, Mirrorless camera's like the RX10, GH4, BMPCC etc. have SO much versatility when it comes to additional filters and adapters you can use with them. Focal reducers, vintage lens adaptors even anamorphic filters provide new creative options for film makers.
My question to you guys is; When somebody comes into the store looking for a video camera, is there any circumstance in which you'd recommend a camcorder?
2018, i still use a camcorder, i video firework shows and dslr has limits to how long you can video. Nothing worse than having a dslr stop recording before the show is over.
a decent dslr costs $600 and up - a common camcorder starts at around $200 - Canon's Vixia hf-r600 costs about $180 - and is a fantastic little camera!
I've only used a handful of digital cameras, but I found all of them had the same setbacks for shooting video - slow and/or noisy zoom, inability to change things like white balance, manual focus adjustment, and exposure while recording, and for some of them, inability to adjust those things altogether.
One advantage of some camcorders is active stabilization. Another thing is you can't add an extended battery life on DSLRs or mirrorless cameras, at least on mine. You can get extended battery packs for camcorders.
I was an early adopter of dslr's... i switched from medium format film to 35mm full frame digital slr's and after many years of upgrades, lens' and extra's.. I sold it it all and went with a mirror less digital camera rig... and after awhile stopped using it in favor of looking at a camcorder for video. why? Simply convenience. The DSLR's trapped me in a mode of "I need a fast lens, a long telephoto, a medium range.. save up to buy a fast telephoto..." it's a money pit, and you end up carrying a lens vest with 4 lens' with you on every trip. What a PITA. I went mirror less and loved it at first. The body and weight was definitely better and I still had add on lens options... but again I was stuck in a mode of filming with multiple lens'. While you guys argue that a camcorder user would "need" a camera to go along on a trip... I argue you guys who are getting a descent DSLR, are doing much more carry on - with all the lens' and potentially multiple camera bodies so you don't have to switch lens (which a buddy of mine did.) Today, I'm no longer shooting professionally - i'm looking more for family video. I gave up medium format film, DSLR, mirror less digital... and have gone back to looking at consumer grade camcorders.... simply for convenience. I'm ashamed to say it, but i'd rather shoot family shots on a smart phone and video on a camcorder - simply as a convenience. If I were still shooting professionally, I would probably film through a DSLR or DMedium Format for the depth of field... but like I said, it's a money pit that I can't afford to tree again.
Before I used to carry my Canon HV30 and T2i together for projects. Gets bulky with all the equipment I would have to bring yet given certain situations, they are both applicable. I havent done any videos with my HV30 in awhile but the advantage i would say is the resposniveness of using it for action shots. Having variable zoom speeds play a huge advantage. DSLRS and Hybrids alike have these qualities but i would imagine that in time, these will progress in nature.
More of these After Dark videos please! Very good information. I am a big TCS fan. Keep up the good work!
that was interesting, would like to see a regular segment like this.
Great discussion, spot on observations, and the night time makes for a nice aesthetic. Definitely do more!
Also, you guys need to start addressing the camera more. I feels like we are looking in on someone else's conversation. Even just glancing over a bit more often as you talk would make a world of difference. Cheers! :)
My camcorder can record for 4 to 5 hours continuos with the right battery and no overheating problem. No DSLR or mirrorless camera can beat that.
More, more, more! This is the only camera related channel I impatiently check for new videos. Thank you guys.
MOAR!
Hey guys, in this video, you were talking nonchalantly about technical aspects of sensor size, MP count etc and how they link together to create - in this case - bigger or smaller depth of field. I was wondering if you could do or have done a video with regards to explaining how that works and what exactly is happening?
Cheers!
No. Camcorders are not dead. In fact I just bought a new Canon VIXIA HF R800 on Amazon and it should be here by Saturday. All I've ever used is camcorders.
For indie filmmaking-the script and the acting are the two most important things because for the image, sound and other technicalities you can find workarrounds. Never for the story and actors.
Concerning your gear- you lose the cinematic look with the camcorders but you gain:
-one man band in camera cinematic effects: vertigo effect, proper zoom and fast panning,
-one lens for close-up and zoom
-better stabilisation (prosumer camcorders)
-quality sound (60% of a scene for me)
-electronical follow-focus at the tip of yout fingers
-accurate focus in fight scenes, chases and frantic shots
-20x zoom on many camcorders
-less weight and no rig (for real run and gun)
-no more rolling shutter problems when panning
-night vision for horror/thriller shorts or any pitch black scene
At the end of the day the fast autofocus and fast/smooth zoom will win over the cinematic look.
For the weak light sensitivity- guess what- it forces you to learn lightning techniques, which is part of the filmmaking, anyway.
All the downsizes I said I had to experience with my Sony A77 DSLT
Insightful video guys,
One thing you left out that I'd really like clarification on is how the Sony RX10 holds up for image stabilisation when shooting hand held.
Great honest and realistic discussion. Would love to see a similar discussion about "APS-C vs FULL Frame" (recent an APS-C & Good Lens COMBO are getting really good) or the recent popular topic "Mirrorless vs DSLR".
Yep very, true I sold my SONY camcorder months ago on Amazon I couldnt remember the last time I used it. I sold it for $45, I had paid $700 a few years back.
Fast Forward to 2017, phones are the go to for casual video, family gatherings, impromptu shooting... thus making pulling out either a traditional camcorder or interchangeable lens camera obsolete. The sensors on the newer flagship phones are fantastic. Many built in editing features, and immediate social media sharing options. Camcorders and Cameras don't really have those available at a push of a button or the launch of an app.
Eco Mouse Also watching in 2017
Eco Mouse Actually, lots of cameras and camcorders have built in Wi-Fi with ways to edit, upload and share all on the camera.
I think I must be missing something here. You talk about all of the technical details, but what you did not talk about is how easy is it to shoot video on what is really a stills camera. To me you have to hold the stills camera to your eye using both hands which means your elbows are really stuck to your chest, so when it comes to panning the camera it must be almost impossible. Camcorders are designed to be used for the moving image so it is far more comfortable to use, nicely weighted. I would love to see a person using a stills camera for video, just to see how awkward it is.
I think your analysis is spot on for someone who just wants a half decent video of the kids, but even serious amateur videography requirements outstrips the capabilities of a consumer grade still camera.
Things I would've liked you to have covered: rolling shutter, audio balancing, the range of controls on the Canon vs. the Sony in video mode. As an example, I can put a number of functions on my control ring on the G30 and manually manage whatever is important to me at that moment. I highly doubt we can manually manage as many functions with the Sony in video mode vs. the Canon G30.
Try zooming most still cameras while panning and we'll talk.How about rack focusing? Try taking the zoom and AF noise out of the audio in post. Don't forget the battery life and the 30 minute video limit in still cameras, thanks to the EU.
When I talk to people who use still cameras for serious video, what are they doing? Buying old manual lenses and putting them on their cameras so they can control the focus and aperture properly. The typical still camera AF is so poor in video mode, it's next to useless. When I use my mirrorless for video, it has a 25 year old manual lens on the front of it.
The big sensor is nice for DoF, but it's being down sampled when shooting video. It doesn't put out a better video image quality because it's bigger. That's something you should have mentioned as you left a different impression with your burger analogy. I've put video shot my APS-C still camera vs. the G30 and the latter wins in quality. Data rate is the big thing and the G30 wins that contest.
Redo this video in the context of the serious amateur videographer spending $1,500 on a camera. You'll get a different answer.
Forgot to mention, you got the zoom range wrong. It's 26.8mm to 576mm, 35mm equivalent, so plenty wide enough.
It's true that there are still some advantages with consumer camcorders, but they are becoming fewer and fewer. I use the RX10 as an example in this video because it implements almost all the features I've been missing from dedicated camcorders, and takes great stills as well. I'm on vacation right now, and despite not intending to shoot many pictures, I brought the RX10 over An HF G30 or CX900, because I prefer the handling. Oddly enough, though you mention the dedicated controls of a camcorder like the G30, it's much quicker for me to access my commonly used settings once the RX10 is set up to my liking. The viewfinder is also much nicer than the one on most camcorders.The awful focus by wire issue is a serious one with all camcorders and cameras in the sub $4000 range. When I'm shooting I prefer to use old manual lenses, as you mentioned. In this price bracket though, there's advantage in manual focusing between a camcorder and camera. They both have awful electronic focus rings. Also, as I've mentioned in my AX100 video, camcorders don't have great AF, they just have large enough depth of field that they afford to be off the mark a bit more. A large sensor camera must be perfectly focused.As a serious videographer, I personally would buy a stills camera for video capture. That's why we made this video. I'd take an RX10 over any camcorder under $2000, and I'd go with the Panasonic GH4 or Sony A7S over any camcorder under $8000.My opinion, yours is still very valid, and thanks for sharing it.Jordan @ TCSTV
TheCameraStoreTV You're not supposed to be working while on vacation. ;)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt the Sony can do any of the following:
Preset a precise rack focus and trigger via remote
Real time HDMI output during record, not just playback.
Shoot video continuously for more than 30 minutes.
Manage timecodes (i.e.use freerun).
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Add to that simple ease of use. Ergonomically, the G30 is designed for handheld video, so hand holding a shot over minutes of continuous record becomes much more comfortable. Same is true for stabilization. Good camcorders dampen the effects of the shooter walking.
AF is buttery smooth with no hunting, random hunts in the middle of the video and jerky operation. Then there's rolling shutter and AF tracking problems. Try handheld zooming while panning the typical still camera and then look at all of the unwanted movement in the result.
Camera operation noises don't show up in audio, plus I can easily balance internal and external mics.
I do synchronized multicam shoots with a HDMI output to a switch where I monitor each camera on a single screen. Some shoots have run over an hour of continuous video while the cameras run on A/C. Just this alone defeats a consumer grade still camera.
Still cameras run on battery only and require special adapters to run on A/C. Camcorder A/C adapters charge or operate the camera. No need to buy anything else.
I get that for vacation shooting where we're knocking off ten or fifteen second clips of this and that, the Sony does the job very well, and makes a camcorder redundant. Serious amateur videography can rapidly outstrip its capabilities or force contorted compromises. I won't go back to still camera for video for no matter how good they are, they're still a compromise.
Jordan, I read the DPReview on the RX-10 and I see that they've added an HDMI out and they're not downsampling the sensor. Both certainly add to the video value of the camera. Unfortunately 29 minutes is still the limit for continuous video thanks to EU tax law.. That's a show stopper for me.
There's still a few nagging bits, like the stabilization crops the image (the G30 sensor is oversized to cover the optical stabilization). They don't mention AF performance in video, concentrating on the manual features. I suppose we can read something into that.
I can see why you like it though. It seems to be a big video upgrade over other consumer still cameras where video is still very much a second class citizen.
I own a camcorder and a DSLR because very often while I'm at family gatherings I will use both and it is just more convenient for me.
Here's how I ended up with a camcorder. I went to Hawaii (first time) and tried to use my DSLR to record some of a luau. Most of the video was terrible because in the low light the camera had difficulty focusing. The DSLR was a Nikon D5100. I later purchased a basic Sony camcorder (c-380x or something like that) 1080p 60fps. I started taking more an more videos and had great results (mostly) for a home-user/hobbyist. At these levels of cameras I have not seen a "do it all". Honestly DSLRs are not ergonomically set up to take video, and vice-versa. Both cameras are "old" but I ended up here when looking for an additional video cam. Also, the video cams are cheap compared to a DSLR that can also take a decent video. Unfortunately we may end up in a situation where you need to buy pro-level products if you want anything beyond a cell phone camera.
Anyway, have a trip planned and I am looking for a good "do-it-all" camera that is small. I am not interested in carrying an extra piece of luggage just for camera gear. Any suggestions???
Oh by the way, thanks for the video. I like the burger rating system as well as the real world comparisons...
You raise a point I agree with... I can't find using a DSLR, or a mirror less digital (like the Sony NEX) as a camcorder. It's such a awkward feeling. I've thought of getting the sony cx330 for a cheap digital camcorder.
Hi,
what would you get for use in low-light/indoor environments:
- Panasonic HC-V160-
- Panasonic HC-V180 Megazoom Full HD Camcorder (is this an upgrade?)
- Canon Legria HF R706
- Sony HDR-CX405B
- JVC GZ-R 410 BEU
All these cameras are in 190-260€ range, listed ascending with price. In my budget. EU.
I record TV displays (i test PC systems - mostly 3D games) as you may also see on my channel. I have a cheap Samsung HD camera at the moment @720p30.
U forgot to mention (did you?) two things:
- image stabilisation on Canon camcorders are really great (I own HV40, beside more pro ones). No compact/pocket still camera to date was able to match it. Wobbling at best. The rolling shutter on my ancient HV40 is way less noticable than on DSLR.
- ergonomics: Debatable, though. I just cant force myself to shoot with DSLR or even with compact camera. It can be done, of course, but I prefer HV40 in my hands over all but prosumer camcorders or broadcast TV cameras.
Yes, DSLR have so much better (low light) image but unless in situation where really need that low light performance I rather shoot with HV40. Dated, but I love the handling.
So I hoped that companies will develop camcorders with greater (by size and by quality) sensors. We do not need 60x zoom. If 1/3 chip gives us 60x, than 20x on 1'' chip will demand same camcorder size. But better from both world. I guess there is no intention to make that kind of camcorder (yet). If there would be 1'' sensor camcorder it would give similar image feel as "super 35 mm" cameras which sells for 5000->>> . Noone will buy C100/300/500/700 if Canon will realease small camcorder with similar sensor for 1000. :)
There are other advantages to camcorders, even now.
1. Battery. Bigger batteries are available, and they stick on the back. You can swap batteries while the camcorder is on a tripod. Most stills cameras can't do that.
2. Card slots. The card slot is accessible from the side of the camcorder. Some stills cameras do too, but some will stick it on the bottom, needing you to remove it from the tripod again.
3. ND filters. Camcorders will have them more often than stills cameras do.
4. Lens caps. Camcorders don't have lens caps that you need to hang on to, instead they have a shutter door that stays on the camera.
5. Tripod mount. Yeah, all cameras can mount to tripods but camcorders won't spin on the tripod plate. Camcorders have an extra hole to align the lens forward.
6. Screen. All camcorders have had flippy-swivel screens for decades. Most photo cameras don't that. Also, camcorders with EVFs will have it be able to tilt whereas photo cameras' EVFs are fixed.
7. Ergonomics. Camcorders are just shaped better for shooting video. Lots of people will start bolting cages and handles to photo cameras to improve the ergonomics (and/or batteries) when camcorders are just naturally equipped with good handling.
8. Recording limits. Some stills cameras will be able to record more that half an hour, but not all. Even if they can record longer, they may run into overheat protection in some modes. Camcorders don't have such limits. No overheating, practically endless recording.
I enjoy my film making and a major part of this is using my Sony VG20 with a 18-200 manual zoom lens.The shallow depth of field I get and the various methods of being able to hold the camera gives a wide variety of shot angles to create interest in the final product. I do use a small compact sometimes when travelling for video but this never compares to the experience of using a camcorder so in my opinion the camcorder hopefully will always have a place for the series amateur at least but I did really love the way the two of you presented the argument.Keep it up guys.
Instead of upgrading my 1100d to higher end model/a mirrorless, I bought a camcorder. However, the camcorder I purchased is a Canon XH A1, which is so much larger than the HF G30 shown in this video. However, I do find the audio, especially, is better than most of the mirrorless cameras and having manic telephoto is useful for the content I tend to shoot in my free time.
For video blogging camcorders work much better.. Specially if you are going to be holding that thing for hours filming both you and subjects !
Really depends on what you use a camera for..
Camcorders are not dead.. Simply it's market got more smaller and precise !
I agree
I've been doing research on something to replace an old Sony Handycam for many weeks now and have considered nearly every kind of video camera out there, or so I think. And sometimes I feel ready to make a decision, but then begin to reconsider something I looked at many days ago. I'm going in circles and just don't know what to do anymore. If you look at a few videos (I don't care much for photos) on my channel, it may be easier to understand what I need. I'd like to stay under 1000$ Canadian. Any help would be appreciated. I do think the RX-10 looks great, but then again, other cameras and camcorders also look very good, and I just don't know which one to settle on. Thanks!
I'll give you a hint that helped me. Buying my first camcorder I had no idea what I wanted. So as most of my things, I thought buy the best one buy it once. I first bought the Sony ax33. Because it was the best I would pay for. Knowing I could return it I Tried it out for a week, didn't like it so I bought the cheaper Sony HDR pj670. I Like the price point and quality much better.
Too long; didn't read: buy what you think you want, if not satisfied return it and buy the next option.
did I miss them discussing Image stablization? I have both types of cameras. My Sony HDR-PJ760V with Balanced Optical Steady Shot Blows Away my Canon EOS 70D as far as handheld on the fly Video taking. As far as Video Quality both are excellent - each with positives there. BUT, the Sony has Smooth Zoom control and Outstanding Image stablization it is a no brainer if I know ahead of time I need to shoot Video! IMHO :)
"After Dark with Chris Niccolls". Great show. Looking forward to the next show.
First of all I know that this video is totally geared towards the consumer market and not PRO users. That being said I would say that the number one thing that is killing camcorders as well as cameras is smart phones. The old saying applies the best camera is the one you have with you.
Yes there is more reason than ever now to buy camcorders. Lots of people are using mirrorless stills cameras as primary video recording tools, and are having them over heat and break down!
If you shoot mainly stills and some short video clips on the side occasionally, then yes a camcorder may not be needed.
Not to mention the fact that the 70D is making huge steps in large sensor autofocus and it's around the same-ish price point as the G30 and RX10. Still cameras are stepping up and it's a great thing for the consumer and professional markets alike.
The one thing I can think of that has made me with I had a camcorder at times is the ability to shoot more than 29 minutes of footage without stopping. Helpful in a classroom type setting.
More please! Love the short and sweet format.
Awesome video. Love the format and topic. Please do more of these.
I have my Canon camcorder in a bag somewhere. Can't remember when I used it last. Switched over to an NEX-5N for video.
That was a great review/comparison! I switched from the Canon HF G10 to the Canon 70D last year and really love the images my DSLR produces. I liked the HF G10 but was never able to get shallow depth of field and no matter if I shot in "cinema mode", it still looked like video. The only advantage I could find that the camcorder has over DSLR is it's sound capturing capabilities.
Please do more discussions! Thank you!
I tried JVC Enverio and think that some camcorders still have an edge. Besides outstanding ergonomics (you really need an expensive adapter to shoot a video from a regular camera on a regular bases), its compact size is still appealing. The newest Everio is quadproof, meaning it takes water, shock from being dropped, dust proof and freezproof. I can ride my bicycle over 20mph, shoot some video clips and put it back in the back pocket.
sounds pretty cool - is there a downside?
I Tell Stories
The battery life was definitely an issue. The new improved, quadproof Everio claims to have much longer battery life and full protection against elements. I need to review this one.
Please do more!!!
It is very interesting.
That's always so interesting to watch a video about photo equivement with different idea!
That's why I love your video so much!
Don't DSLRs have limited packaging buffers for movies? You can only shoot up to 30 minutes at a time? What if you need to shoot longer continuously?
One other benefit is that smaller camcorder lenses often have much better apertures to help you keep a clean image in low light. My camcorder is f/1.8 wide open, and still can get good depth of field due to the small sensor. Aps-c cameras usually have kit lenses starting at f/3.5, and gets much worse as you zoom in. If you want f/1.8 on aps-c, you need a bulky prime lens!
It's currently 2021 and I love my camcorder... My DSLR has it's uses but I still use my camcorder constantly. Optical Zoom and depth with different lenses can certainly make a difference which is why I use my camera sometimes but the camcorder, def has its uses constantly for me... Best Idea? Use both.. lol
Even though this is 4 years old, this was really cool.
the thing about depth of field is that for most people (non-enthusiasts) having a lot of it is actually a bad thing and not just because the likelihood of out of focus shots is bigger. I even had a girl complain that in the picture i took of her the background wasn't sharp as well !!!
The fact that you can also take great pictures with a camera like the RX10 is enough to kill off most camcorders, but with smartphones now filming in 4k as well nobody is gonna lug around a massive camcorder like that around (that doesn't even film in 4k)
I just purchased the Sony AX53 for the BOS stabilisation and the zoom.
Please keep this up :) proper consumer advice can be hard to find for things like this
What do you guys think of the Sony AX33 for making music videos? Close-up & scenic stuff/time lapses. I'm on the verge of buying it.
I like the exchange and particularly when you're not pushing anything. Seemed pretty fair and even-handed.
Great discussion about the pros and cons about the relevance of camcorders. For me, i think i won't even think of one when i want to shoot videos.
Keep up the good work TheCameraStoreTV !!!
It's useless to me. Have one, used once and that's that.
Still good for budding movie makers, maybe?
Joshua Ong Not quite really, budding movie makers are better off with current crop of DSLR with more controls of depth of field especially :)
Hey just caught this clip now. A good comparison discussion. As others have mentioned too, I reach for the DSLR for photography now always, the video camera stays in the cupboard, simply to play old DV tapes, and won't be replaced with a modern equivalent anymore.
Camcorders do tend to be more single hand friendly, so that along with the sensors being only as big as required for 1080p do tend to make them better for longer shoots, like a 3 hour show or something. Easier on the hand and less likely to overheat like a DSLR, (with the DSLR's 30 minute file limit too).
That said most would opt for a wearable action cam these days for that sort of rough family play in the snow etc.
Go the Pentax advertising too by the way, great to see! ;-)
In the past, I've been stung by DSLR and their little siblings overheating when being left in record for more than twenty minutes or so which lead me to purchase Sony's VG 20. Any thoughts?
Seems like most of the viewers disagree with these guys. At least the ones commenting. Even if they are DSLR users.
I would like to see a comparison video on smart and light travelkits with different cameras. Going on vacation is always a challenge. Smart solutions and great travelgear would be appreciated.
What about night vision (Especially IR?) from what I've read online it seems DLSRs either need HUGE full frame censors and high ISO for night vision or really expensive night vision lenses, but a fair amount of camcorders have IR built in. And from what I can tell buying a IR light (Separate from the camera) only works on cameras that are IR sensitive?
Awesome discussion!!!! No hype or or skewing, just a great layout of the facts. This is what should be on the internet.
This was a lot of fun! I was watching DigitalRev and seeing how they do more than just camera reviews. I gotta be honest, I'm not a fan of their style and was hoping you guys would do more stuff besides just camera reviews (tips and so forth). Then I log on tonight and see this. It's great! More please!
I prefer camcorder over dslr. I have a t5i and I'm upgrading to an hmc40 soon.
Two different functions. Neither is better than the other. Although shooting with a DSLR is more expensive.
Great video! I swapped our camcorder, Panny x900, for a Panny Lumix G6 2 months ago and don't plan on going back! The G6 kept up with our daughters basketball games plus is a great still cam with lens options galore.
Ok, I shot test video for a TV/TH-cam job. The full frame sensor DSLR's had such a shallow depth of field with the lights I had shooting at f/6, that two people one slightly father back (35mm) I couldn't have both in focus. I would have needed to be father back with a 24mm lens, twice the light shoot at f/16. With all those restrictions I bought 3 Sony FDR-AX53 camcorders and nailed the job. Other Cons of DSLR: 29min shoot limit. Constantly swapping batteries. With the camcorders I can shoot till the SD card fills up. I can plug in to wall socket, not worry about batteries! (One more thing: I shot in manual focus with DSLR's using focus peaking and this was also unreliable 1/4th of the time) The full frame DSLR's are still best when shooting in a cinema style, limited Depth of Field, when shooting scene to scene.
Interesting thanx for the heads up. I think I would purchase a DSLR for photography and a camcorder for shooting video since the camcorders has damn good auto focus that is quick as opposed to the DSLR. I would load the videos that has been recorded with the Camcorder into After Effects as pre-production and add some cinematic effects such as lens flares, particulars and color grading all in After Effects. With the DSLR I would just use it as Photography. DSLR's are pretty awesome for photography. I think people ignore the fact that Camcorders are cheap... Not in my book of budget... Anyways I hope I did not bore you with my post... Btw damn good point Allen!
I just bought the Canon r700 and I am immensely impressed by this camcorder. Seriously, just running it default on auto blew me away. Once you set it up, and fine tune to what your specific need for shooting is, it will do the job and much more. I had a seriously low budget, and I am amazed at the quality this camcorder can film.
one BIG reason that i am still considering getting a camcorder for video is ergonomics. if u shoot family events where u want to handhold the camera (to do video) it is very awkward to shoot video with a still camera.
one major downside for camcorders is their chip size-it is small compared to a still camera....
Nice video guys, liked the format !
I'd like to see more of these...very candid and honest.
Definitely fun stuff, informative too. And I'm saying this although I'm mostly interested in still imaging. Watching feels like hanging out with you guys in the store. While I do value your hands-on reviews in the field, this after-dark format has a charm that is hard to resist, and I'd certainly love to see more of it!
I went for a camcorder (about 2 years ago) because you can record videos as long as you wanted, DSLRs at the time only recorded 15 minute clips and for the videos I make that wasn't enough. I'm hopefully going to be upgrading soon and will probably go for a DSLR this time though because i record the longer videos with gopro style cameras.
You can get camcorders with interchangeable lenses and big sensors etc, they just cost loads more than the DSLRs so I don't think the camera makers want to basically have to cut the cost of all of those cameras to make people buy them but I guess they'll have to. cheers!
Great "after dark discussion", please make more of them !!!
This is personal preference case. I defend camcorders because they're simpler to deal with. With camcorders, you are always guaranteed a mic input, a completely articulating screen, more stable hand held shots, a built in high zoom telephoto lens (most of the time) with a wide angle lens built in if you buy the right camera, no overheating while recording at 4K, and the biggest selling point to me personally, extensive battery life--a good example of this is the Sony fdr ax33. No big bag to carry around all those lenses and accessories, no huge worry about how much battery I have left, no big worry about connectivity, it's all there in one handheld package. I'd compare camcorders to professional video cameras as I would point-and-shoot cameras to DLSR's. I can get a pretty good point-and-shoot for $150 and the DLSR level up would be $1000. For a good camcorder that costs $900, the professional video camera lever camcorder costs upwards of $7000-$15000. If this is a matter of video quality and sensor size, I mean... so what? Really. The iphone 7, with its very small sensor, shoots shots mistakenly claimed to be shot by a decent Nikon or Canon DSLR. But in low light situations, camcorders suck. I never shoot at night, and if it does come down to that, night shot it, or get a real video camera like a sony fs5 or fdr-ax1, or just get an a7rii. I mean, yes, the depth of field is deep on camcorders nowadays, but to be honest, I'm pretty satisfied with the depth of field camcorders have to offer. If camcorders had an adjustable or shallower depth of field, they might sell better. But for now, my point in owning a camcorder is the simplicity of life from owning one. I appreciate the video, but I had to give out my 50 cents to this argument.
This is great! I have an camcorder at home but I NEVER use it. Its so useless now a days when my Canon 600D takes great videos and photos at the same time.