Okay, Here We Go Again-Video/Camcorder - System Camera?

Gents, this is starting to get ridiculous. There was a time, and really only three or four years ago, that deciding what to do for video recording was pretty easy. First, if you were not doing professional photography you simply didn't need nor really want the expense of a full frame DSLR and the accompanying thousands of dollars worth of lenses and gear that tend to go with them. Even if you wanted fantastic video capable from the full frame sensors. Typically, that is. There are always those who crave the top gear because it is their passion.

With the massive movement to 4k video shooting we are starting to see more features trickle into the lower end camcorders but honestly, anything much under $1500 is not gaining you much over a really good mobile devise like a Nokia Lumia. And for knockabout shooting there is really no need to spend 300-500 dollars on a dedicated camcorder because the results are not much different to the better mobile cameras. Yes, I realise there is much more to it but for casual shooting 99 out of 100 people likely could not tell the difference between the two. Anything in the mid or lower consumer range is almost certainly dealing with AVCHD type formats and really no difference in encoding bit rates. You have to step way up to get a better encoding rate or intraframe format type.

So this brings me to another point. I recently saw a neat article where a gent took a Canon EOS 3 and added a lens appropriate for video shoots, a handle/holder to aid in handheld shoots, EF lens adapter, and added Magic Lantern firmware for more refined settings. I think he tied up 600-700 in the whole rig. This made for an extremely compact camera and from what I gather, the video imaging from this camera body is pretty darned nice. The original EOS m is discontinued and blokes were picking up the body alone for 200-250 dollars. Adding the lens and accessories was very affordable. The gist of it is, you had a camera rig with a MUCH larger image sensor than a typical 500-1000 dollar camcorder. The EOS m had some bad reviews about autofocus lag and some other things that made it not too great for photogs but as a video camera it gave a lot.

So with that out of the way, would you look at something similar? The EOS m was very tiny which is a plus for video rigs. Prices? I think the latest system cams are a 0good bit more pricey than that. Maybe upwards of 800 dollars for the body alone. Ideas? I really cannot justify a 1000 dollar camcorder because of the lack of feature vs price. But I don't really have a desire to drop thousands on a cam. Where to start looking? Particularly formats. I would really like something that recorded to an intraframe codec in camera. Constant conversion and editing is pain.

[video=vimeo;75630564]https://vimeo.com/75630564[/video]

I clarify a bit. The prices I mentioned are for the body and a system type lens with two or three accessories. It most certainly would not include the Marantz digital audio recorder or the 24-105 zoom lens. That would add up to quite but the basic system cam with the cold shoe and mic would be a great video cam without breaking the bank. I am a bit unsure of what format these types of cams save to though.

I've been looking at similar setups as I'm wanting to get back into photography at a semi-pro level, and to try my hand at videography. The first question is: What are you doing?

If you are just shooting your kids ballgames and school plays, pick up a decent camcorder from Wally World. Don't forget the tripod, and a remote is nice. You can get HD for a few hundred bucks.

If you're wanting to shoot at a more professional level, DSLR is PART of the answer. There are some issues, however, that you need to bear in mind.

Two things make DSLR a poor choice for the average video shooter (I.e. ballgames and school plays). They will also affect your choice for more professional work.

DSLR cameras can only do about 10 minutes of video at a time. The sensor starts heating up. Also, autofocus doesn't work all that well in video. The sound quality isn't that great using the built in Mic.

To get past these issues, you'll need a full kit.

What you'll need is:

Shoulder support/cage system. This helps you keep the camera steady for hand-held work and give you places to mount the breast of the kit.

Follow focus. This device replaces the autofocus with a useable manual system. There are some electronic versions available that allow you to preset focus points.

Lighting: These aren't expensive. Small LED panels that mount up to your rig. You may need/want more than one.

A monitor. A small flat screen tv of sorts that will allow you to watch what you are videoing. The mirror is up while video is recording, so you can't use the eyepiece. The monitor on the back of the camera may not position in a way that works well for you, and is usually pretty small.

Mic and external sound recorder. These will give you better sound recording ability than the on board Mic and sound recorder.

A second video camera for B-Roll footage. Remember, you can only shoot about 10 minutes of video at a time. B-Roll gives you footage to fill in the gaps. Really, that's okay. You don't really want scenes longer than two minutes.

Yes, it's pricey...but remember, setups Luke this are now being used in TV and film. This will also give you a platform to grow with in both film and still work.

Again, if you just want to do run of the mill family video, get a Handycam type camera from Wal Mart. HD video quality is HD video quality. The HD camcorders provide the same quality as the lower-end video-capable DSLRS...which perform as well in video as the high-end DSLRS.

Google DSLR Film Noob or search for OneLoneDork on YouTube (same guy). He has a lot of good info on DSLR Film making.

Hope this helps!

Hey thank you for the great response. Indeed, a full fledge DSLR is not the way I want to go. It is why I was looking at the mirrorless system cameras. Say, is that really how they are referenced? Cams like the EOS M3, Sony A6000, Samsung NX1 are what I am looking at just for reference. The full sized DSLRs are too much of an investment for me. I am not a full blown videography nut. At least I hope not!

The little handy camcorders you mention are a great piece of kit but getting any sort of film like look from them is really hard. They just can't seem to get the shallow depth of field needed for a more pro look. Even though I have no aspirations to that level of expertise. My daughter and I talk from time to time of making a few short films and like the shadowy look of black and white or even that sort of washed out colour/monochrome look of 1998's The General. It was filmed in colour but presented in black and white. Most showings here in the States(on the telly) look like a washed out colour version. I think some of that may be hard to capture in a handy corder. Who knows? I am speaking like I know what is what but really, I am a total amateur.

I have been told and read quite a bit that technique and filming set up is much more important than worrying over camera gear. At least at first. Another thing to think of is slow motion. I know it is kind of a fad right now but the effect is pretty neat. We have this tomcat and Husky mix dog that play like they are related. They do some amazing things while jumping in the air and chasing each other. I would love to get some of their hijinks in slow mo.

My understanding is that the mirrorless doers have the same limitations as the mirrored...just a smaller package. They used the same lenses and AF system, so the follow focus is still needed (or at least very nice to have have for when the focus plane will be shifting). You'll still want a stabilizing system for hand-held shooting. Necessity for lifting remains the same. Using a Zoom H1 and Rode video Mic may trim cost for you on sound without sacrificing quality (much).

Depth of field is all in the lens...telephoto with a wide aperture. You can get that just as well with a mirrorless as you can with a standard DSLR. Check the prices on Sigma abd Tamron lenses...Quantary will be priced even better (and are usually reprimanded Sigma or Tamron). Ny experience and opinion are they are as good as the Name Brand lenses for most purposes. Skip on bells and whistles like Image Stabilization. My understanding is that it will actually cause problems with video...and only gives you a stop on handheld still work.
You can get a lot of the effects you mention in post production software. There's a really good shareware program available. The name escapes me now. But applying the effects in post means you aren't stuck with it if you change your mind. If you do it in camera, you're stuck.

What's the price on the mirrorless compared to something like Canon Rebel T5? Even the T3? Both are decent consumer DSLR still cameras and equal to a top dollar on video performance (may not be able to use Magic Lantern). Neither have Mic port (the T5i does...at a markup), but you'll be happier recording sound separate and adding in post anyways.

I think you are right concerning the mirrorless vs consumer end of DSLR cameras. Not much difference in the prices. I had heard about the video limitations of the DSLR cams and I guess it makes sense this would apply to the mirrorless cams as well. They typically use rather large sensors as well so the heat issues would be nearly the same. Good information about lenses too. I am not really familiar with Magic Lantern but it is a freeware type application and I see quite a bit of positive commenting on it. Definitely agree with a lifting/harness or whatever for handheld shooting. And the separate digital recorder is always a good idea and I can use it for other purposes like oral histories in the family. Thanks again for the great responses.

Really with the Sony E system, the video specialist is the A7s and A7s2 - certainly the latter, with 4k recording internally and iso to 102,400 - able to cope with the pitch black sets of Eastenders!

The A6000 and A5100 (same sensor and set up, slightly less features) aren't bad for HD. Certainly with adaptors, pretty much any lens ever made can be used.

Carl

I tend to think that there is no all in one solution that will be superior to a dedicated system. I doubt that any camera that records video and take stills will be in any way superior to a Nikon 810 for stills or a higher end Sony video camera. there is a reason news crews still have large video cams, if there wasn't they would issuse $1500 handicams to shoot the anchors with

Chapinahat said:

Really with the Sony E system, the video specialist is the A7s and A7s2 - certainly the latter, with 4k recording internally and iso to 102,400 - able to cope with the pitch black sets of Eastenders!

The A6000 and A5100 (same sensor and set up, slightly less features) aren't bad for HD. Certainly with adaptors, pretty much any lens ever made can be used.

Carl

Click to expand...

Carl, I looked t those two high end Sony's. Yowsa! 1000 and 3000 dollars each for the bodies alone. That puts them out my reach. I can see where a photo or videographer could justify this purchase but not me. I will have to look further down the food chain.

That's what this "hobby" does - lure you into gear envy!

Panasonic GH4 I believe is a more reasonable price point for 4k video

You know, the plot thickens in regards to consumer camcorders. The entire bugaboo with camcorders, even full HD models, if the fact they were/are almost always handicapped by small image sensors. And it stayed that way for years and years. Even some of the $2500 Canons and JVC semi pro models had relatively tiny 1/2.3 inch type sensors. Some of the HD consumer cams had sensors as small as 1/4" or maybe .375 but this was pushing it. Any video only type camera with a sensor approaching 1 inch square was measured in multiples of thousands of dollars. Sometimes tens of thousands. And to be sure, you can still spend that in a hurry. The pro cams may have had small sensors but they had other features and lens sets that put them in the stratosphere compared to any consumer or prosumer camcorder. Well things have gotten interesting.

Large sensor camcoders have been a sticking point for years. It has nearly led to the death of the handheld consumer camcorder because for five or so years you could buy a phone or pocket point and shoot cam that would film 1080p(about 24mbs rate I think but may be all wrong) with nearly the same size sensors as the camcorder and cost well under $200. I have a Canon ELPH 1300HS that is at least four years old that does this. Of course it is not as stable or easy to change up settings with but for on the fly, seat of the pants, 'hey, look at that!' moments, it is a joy to use. Hit the On button, pop the movie/record button on the back, go. So things got stuck and people who wanted lower end capabilities just used their high end smartphone cameras for this stuff. It was not as good as a HD video camera but was certainly good enough for YouTube and life moments.

Sony now has a consumer camera on the shelves that is rather amazing. Model FDR-AX100 is the one I was looking at. This thing has a ONE INCH xmoor r sensor and records to their new XAVCs format at 50mbs rate but it seems I see 100mbs and 200mbs mentioned somewhere. It has a Zeiss lens with decently wide angle(29mm), NFC, WiFi, and a host of other things that came at a cost of 3000-6000 dollars just a couple of years ago. Annnnnd it does 120p slow motion for playback at 24fps. That is going to give some nice effects. Oh, and it has a host of manual controls as well. All of this is going for about $1600 on the street.

And if that isn't enough, check out what Panasonic is doing. They have a new camcorder out, HC-VX870K, for around $800 street. It still has the 1/2.3 size sensor but it is newer model with much better performance. At least the reviews say so. It also packs 4K but encodes at 72mbs and a slightly narrower pixel count. I am unsure of the codec. It will do 120fps slow motion and up to 240 with manipulation in software. This is not quite what the Sony is but is half the price. And the lens is a Leica dicomar. I don't think it lets you do too much manually but good gravy, 4k, wifi, QR codes to allow a quick second screen like a tablet or mobile phone to make the second camera, and a full 20x optical zoom for 800 dollars? This makes decisions much more difficult. Particularly with the Sony lurking out there. I wonder what will happen with next years cameras and at what price points?

Gents, another question for those who are better educated than I am about this stuff. One thing I saw pointed out a number of times at various Web site's is the reason camcorders stick to small sensors is it makes fast auto focus easier with less focus lag. Does this make sense? It sounds reasonable to me.

Okay, more questions. Sorry. It was also pointed out that camcorders have typically smaller pixel count sensors for the same reasons. Faster scan time and you really don't need dense pixel count for video. It helps with stills but not with the fast frame rates of video.

Now that I think about it you rarely if ever see pixel counts cited for video sensors. Only what resolutions they capture at. I have seen it mentioned that full HD can be gleaned from 2-3 mega pixel sensors. When you see them state thjngs like; also captures 1 maps stills, they are doing it through interpolation. So, the recommendation is to go lower pixel count but 'larger' pixels on the sensors. How do you find what sensor is what?

Well, this may come down to a case of hurry up and wait. Much is changing in the camera world right now. I have been watching videos and reading articles the last few weeks and the manufacturers are in a state of very rapid development.

For a few years all the efforts were aimed at DSLR cameras. And for good reason. The money was made at the pro level for camera manufacturers. Probably always has been. But there was so much concentration on DSLRs that other formats suffered. Then the mirrorless revolution took hold and while DSLRs certainly are not abandoned, it is easy to tell where the emphasis is for pro cameras. And of course this bleeds over to what is offered at the 'pro sumer' crowd. You can now buy some mirrorless system cameras that do amazing things for well under $1500. Conversely, if you outfit pro with mirrorless you can spend more than for DSLR in some cases. What to do?

Well a market no one really paid a lot of attention to is making a bit of a comeback. The fixed lens, 'luxury compact' camera. You really cannot call them pocket cameras because they won't fit a pocket on your shirt or trousers. But they are easy to tote and have a load of features and a quality lens. The wickedly retro Fujifilm X100S is out there for less than $900. And it appears to be a well made camera with great reviews. I don't think it is as well suited to video as some others I have seen but man is it beautiful. Sony has a FULL FRAME 'professional compact' camera in the RX1R. It carries a whopping $2800 price tag! But there is much in the sub $1500 market and it makes coming to a decision really hard.

The 4K video options are what is driving a lot of research. There are now fixed lens and ILC mirroless cameras in the 800-1500 dollar range that really do cover just about anything a guy like me would need. But it is changing so fast on the models introduced you cannot keep up. Sony is introducing 'updated models' it seems almost every six months. This has made some fans none too happy. Look the R100. It is now on something like its fourth iteration in less than three years. So it may be appropriate for me to wait just til the second quarter of 2016 to see what rolls out in function vs. price. Camera purchases are weird. If you wait til the next great model comes out you will never buy anything. But it does behoove a person to pay close attention to the model changes right now. The decisions for me are going to be tough. I need a camera that can be flexible for video but cannot get too technically complicated or I am going to wind up buying a separate cam for the wife! And truth told some of these newer compact are darned appealing. So here I am. Not an hour closer to clicking the 'buy' button but a good bit better informed.