Video, anyone?

[McNs]

We're heading back for our third visit to Disneyland this year (woohoo!). Previous trips I have used my Canon Ixus230 (an Elph310) for taking video as well as photos, and it has done a good job on video for what it is, but ultimately is limited (plus more often than not I would want to take a photo while shooting video and vice versa).

I have decided to splash out on a video recorder for this trip. I am probably going to get a regular camcorder (Panasonic W550 is in the sights) BUT just wanted to get some opinions from others on a dedicated camcorder vs a better still camera that can take video or an action cam. I'm really happy with the Canon, it can happily live in my pocket all day so is always at hand, and takes better photos than our iDevices. The action cam is a bit of a curve ball, I don't think I want to go down that road as they are pretty milited from what I can tell, but then I haven't used one..

I work with the footage in iMovie to make our home videos to share with grandparents, plus enjoy the video editing/piecing together process.

 

[boBQuincy]

We no longer carry a dedicated video camera as our micro 4:3 cameras are better for video than most video cameras we have seen. The Panasonic models can take full size stills while in video mode(although it makes the video skip for about 1/2 second), Olympus models may do this too but we haven't tried them.

Some of the Panasonic GF and Olympus Pen cameras can be found for less than $300.

 

[jec6613]

The pure image quality from a stills camera is usually higher, purely due to a larger sensor, but camcorders bring a bunch of other good things to the table: more usable AF during video, a dedicated shotgun microphone, no record length limitation, quieter AF so you don't get AF or zoom noise during video, better ergonomics, and a powered parfocal lens. Oh, and a much longer lasting battery designed for continuous drain rather than burst drain like a stills camera is. They're dedicated to doing video, so all else being equal they are better from a software standpoint, including things like the image stabilization system. And if you want to zoom during video, the parfocal lens cannot be stressed enough!

Short version: In good light and if you don't care about a shallow depth of field, a video camera pretty much wins for video (which is not the same as cinematic footage!).

The Panasonic you mention has a 1/5.8" sensor, which is tiny, preventing it from really maximizing on available light, so at night you'll need to bring your own light to make some of the footage usable (or just put up with darker video). An increase in sensor size means an increase in lens size, which causes other issues as well, so to get much better than that Panasonic, while still keeping the better microphone, AF, and so on, you'll really need to go with interchangeable lenses and a large increase in cost - or, use a stills camera with its larger sensor for low light video in a pinch, which is what I'd do - I give up features and audio to get the low light shot.

The next step up with a noticeable increase in quality is probably a Nikon 1 series camera with the bolt-ons to make it dedicated video (10-100mm PD-Zoom lens, and microphone) at nearly $1,000, and then for only a few hundred more a m43 system or Canon DSLR with cinematic lenses, and then above that it's into things like the Canon XC10 for $2,500. All of these are generic ILCs that happen to do video, but the camera itself becomes the cheap part - add on a $100 microphone and a $600 proper video zoom lens, and that's where the expense starts coming in. It's a very expensive thing to get into seriously, obviously, but fortunately you have the budget to get any of a bunch of really good camcorders.

Also, make sure you get twice the storage thank you think you need, and at least two if not three batteries.

 

[jec6613]

Add-on post, but more explanatory than a response to the OP:

A varifocal lens is normally used on stills cameras, and the focus changes as you zoom, so as you zoom you lose focus and must then refocus after zooming. Nearly all stills lenses that are zooms are varifocal in the autofocus era (though there are some exceptions).

A parfocal lens does not require refocusing as you zoom in or out, making it more suited for video - and all else being equal, more expensive and more difficult to design and produce, usually leading to compromises elsewhere in the lens design. In the case of dedicated camcorders, the compromise is usually in the amount of optical glass and therefore the sensor size.

 

[k5jm]

I will shoot video with my Canon DSLR and with my Canon Vixia MiniX

 

[McNs]

Thanks for the info, sent me googling on a sensor tangent tonight! Still no further with my decision, concerned the camera option could easily break the budget (up to USD$500)...

I think I need to visit a proper camera store instead of our local best buy equivalent.

 

[jec6613]

That might be a good idea if you can find one still. Quite the dying breed these days, but hopefully you have one nearby! I'm somewhat fortunate: within a 20 minute drive I have two photo stores, and then I'm also an hour train ride from B&H and Adorama in NYC.

FWIW, for me, the ideal dedicated video rig would be quite different from yours, and would be different from someone else's.

FWIW, Mine would be a Nikon V1, 10-100 PD Zoom lens, a Rode mic on top, and video grip clamped onto an arca-swiss plate. But it shares batteries with my other cameras, works as a stills camera as well, and has a very familiar interface, but still has very good AF and a parifocal lens. But it's a lot to lug around, and somewhat expensive (which is why I haven't purchased it yet) but it's a lot of capability for the price, especially since my investment is lessened by it being in the same system as my stills cameras. I've been thinking about it for the last six months, and just a few weeks ago finally decided that now was not the time to be buying a video camera, with such little video I shoot as it is.

 

[McNs]

Well, I visited a proper camera store (still a couple around here), they sold me a Panasonic W850 camcorder for the equivalent of USD$550. To get a compact mirrorless with comparable quality he said I would need to spend at least twice that much and it would still be compromised, particularly with the zoom (as well as audio, image stabiliser, ease of use etc). Though it would have been a fine camera!

Really happy so far with the decision, the bits of playing around have been good, and the image quality is significantly better than the point & shoot I was using.

Next conundrum is the recording format - AVCHD or MP4. Both have pros and cons, and I am experimenting with both. Currently just using iMovie for editing and creating and can it use both formats without trouble, though admittedly only short clips.

 

[jec6613]

Congrats! That's a nice looking camcorder!