HD camcorder vs DSLR - which is better

[ammo99]

I have owned a sony hd camcorder for about 5-6 years now. Recently, the power button (I think) has become faulty, which means I cannot turn it on for more than a second. This also means that the 50 or so movies I have recorded onto MiniDV Tapes are presently unwatchable.

I have made some enquiries into repairing it, and it could be around £150 (unless anyone here knows someone cheaper)

I have some questions.

1. Should I invest in the MiniDV tape camera, and repair it?
2. If not, then should I look to buy another Camcorder that supports MiniDV? or is Portable Memory the way to go (SDHC/Compact Flash etc)

3. if buying a replacement tape camcorder - which would you recommend? I dont mind spending around 1-1.5K

Alternatively, I am looking to change my Canon EOS 450d camera, and I see the EOS Cameras can record movies as well.
As I am investing in some lenses, I was looking at the Canon 7d

4. is it better to go this way instead of the separate Camcorder route?
5. Is it relatelvely painless to make movies, and download them?

6. When downloading, say a 10 minute shot - how much memory will this typically use? I say this because i once tried downloading from the sony to my PC, and a couple of minutes of movie on tape turned out to be around 80MB on the hard drive.

and finally!
7. does anyone know of good service to transfer miniDV to Bluray - or some other format you guys recommend

8 Any recommendations other than what I suggest are welcome

Thanks in advance.

 

[Chris seager]

1. No

2. No

3. Dont buy one

4. Yes especially if you are a photographer who is investing in lenses.

5. You really should convert your footage if editing and the footage from a canon dslr is not very editing friendly.

6. Files are pretty huge ! around 5mbs a second i think.

If your filming with DSLR's you need a computer that can handle it or its pointless ! They are great for the money and offer a much better look than camcorders for that price, they do not have auto focus so you need to manual focus everything.

 

[latercomer2]

I've just got a Canon 550D and while I was very sceptical about the HD video, I've been pretty impressed with my first attempts so its fairly idiot proof. I was intending on getting a DSLR and a separate camcorder but people here advised against that and hence I went for a DSLR with video. I did still think I'd probably pick up a camcorder but on seeing the initial results I'm shelved that plan for now. Will make a final decision once I've given it a proper trial over the next few weeks.

 

[herieta]

One thing that i can say fine to DSLR video is the choice of camera lens. If you use Canon HD DSLR like 5D 2 or 7D or 550D, you can use your L lens on photos as well as video ability. And ... with the great L lens like 50mm f1.2 or 35 f1.4 or 135 f2.0 , you can got many splendid video or motions which can compare to hollywood movie

one litle test here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD-Es5rzf9E

... But , as you see, for a long video clip , you have to buy a very big memory cards and high speed also. (so a litle bit more expensive than HD camcorder does)

 

[ammo99]

Thanks for all those that responded so far.

However, my current Camcorder is 1080i. If I did get anything else - it would probably be 1080p.

So, is the DSLR video better than 1080p? I didnt't think it was. In which case, isn't the quality of the film going to be the "same" as a DSLR? Excluding some instances where the lens will capture low light situations etc?

I can see the benefits of interchangeable lenses, which will work for the Camera stills and movies, but the biggest thing for me is having to download the movies onto PC/storage, and carrying enough cards on holiday -

At the moment I just take about 10 tapes with me when I go on a holiday for example. Wouldn't I have to take a laptop to download the movies, or take many SD etc. cards?

The other thing is playback. At the moment, I can pick up a tape and play it back (unedited of course) right there and then. With SD cards, once the content is downloaded, you are tied to where ever the storage may be.

As Im not into editing (at the moment) this suits me.

by the way - im only doing home movies at the moment - and don't intend to go professional at all on the video side - but perhaps with still photography

I'm edging towards a 7d, but still not fully convinced.

 

[wambam]

The quality you will get from a 7d ,550 or whatever will be so much better than your Sony HD camcorder.
Harddrives and SD ,CF cards are so cheap these days why dont you buy a few of them and leave the video on them,till you get home.
Download it to an external harddrive and then plug and play where ever you want..
Only problems i see for you is continuos focus (or lack of it)and DOF.Or maybe they are a good thing all depends on you.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

While I am a big fan of DSLR video, it seems like everyone here is pushing you down that route without asking the proper question.

What are you going to be using it for and under what circumstances.

DLSR will be more expensive but provide better quality, and if you are into photography anyway the costs can be shared between the 2 subjects. However, if you want something nice and easy to capture the kids parties with etc then a camcorder might be the easier option. Just spend a few hundred on a tape one for now for those moments and still invest in a 7d

 

[Kaouthia]

6. Files are pretty huge ! around 5mbs a second i think.

You'd probably have a heart attack working in a 10-Bit ProRes or DNxHD 1080p environment.

While I am a big fan of DSLR video, it seems like everyone here is pushing you down that route without asking the proper question.

And that's it right there.

DLSR will be more expensive but provide better quality

Not necessarily true. I've seen non-pro camcorders that are more expensive than DSLRs capable of shooting HD video - and quality is relative. You'll get a lot more control with a DSLR, but actual image quality may not be that much different - it may even be better on a dedicated camcorder, even if a smaller chip, as there's no line skipping issues to worry about, and little-to-no moiré problems.

However, if you want something nice and easy to capture the kids parties with etc then a camcorder might be the easier option.

Again, that's pretty much it right there.

If you want to use it like a camcorder, buy a camcorder. DSLRs aren't designed to function in this way - although the Nikon D5100 has been engineered in that direction, it's still not perfect.

DSLRs are designed to be operated more like traditional film cameras. They use pretty much all the same techniques for filming - the main advantage (other than chip size on full frame bodies) is the size & weight allowing you to do a bit more with them, and get away with some unconventional methods of shooting (when compared with big bulky movie cameras), but it's still a pretty disciplined method of shooting if you want the best quality out of them.

 

[daralough]

Day to day video i would not reccoment a dslr, the files are huge, the focussing needs to be done manually and it will take all day to render your video. Worth it if you are willing to put in the effort, other wise, stick to the camcorder

 

[samagroma]

Hi,
I would recommend getting camcorder and camera separately if you want a really good quality.
I have tried canon 550d as a camcorder and Panasonic SD700 and the 550d is an excellent camera but not camcorder, while SD700 is is the best camcorder I have ever had. Actually I can't believe how good it is. I had also Sanyo xacti 1010 and praised canon HF100 in the past camcorders but iq of Panasonic sd700 is much better.

 

[unplugged]

A large advantage for Video is you can take out individual frames at 1920 x 1080

While this is a throw from say a full size 6-18mp picture it's a large of a frame size to take stills out of a move and get things that might be harder to capture with still such as animals.

30 photos per second is nothing to be sniffed at even if it is only the equiv of a few megapixels compared to the 3-5fps of the still mode.

 

[Kaouthia]

A large advantage for Video is you can take out individual frames at 1920 x 1080

While this is a throw from say a full size 6-18mp picture it's a large of a frame size to take stills out of a move and get things that might be harder to capture with still such as animals.

The thing is, if you're shooting 25fps, those frames are shot at 1/50th of a second. Not generally the best speed on those "harder to capture" animals.

 

[unplugged]

Haha true

With 25 FPS though if you go though them Frame by Frame you will find that their will (hopefully) be a dozen usable ones where said animal has sat still for long enougth before tearing off again. This period of maybe a second is a lot harder when your panning around after it

Before I had an SLR the only way of getting "decent" pictures of my kitten at the time was to film it and extract the frames. The bloody thing would not stay still or make no movement for more than a 10th of a second now all it does is sit their and do sod all

Using this method I can often get pictures of people who don't like to be photo'd to they cover the camera or turn away and think their safe but nope

 

[Kaouthia]

I suppose if all you're ever going to do is put those images on the web, then maybe it might occasionally sometimes be useful to take stills from a video sequence. If you're ever going to print, doubt it.

Just load up any 1080p Blu-Ray. Pause it. Then play it through frame by frame. You'll be very hard pushed to find one that's razor sharp on its own.

 

[britco]

The video quality of my GH2 at 1080p 24 is better than my Panasonic SD700 even with the 14-42mm kit lens fitted but it cries out for better glass to be honest

 

[shane1980]

I agree with wambeen

 

[alexsmith]

Look at it another way, if someone came on a photographers forum and said this the other way round, ie: is a camcorder just as good as a dslr for photos, no one would say yes. I mean they still take photos right? and they'd be dead right cameras are designed by companies with decades of experience and they know how to make photos.
Someone said they had filmed a real good video shot on his dslr (they had, it was good ) so it can be done and often is but a few peeps on here are missing some really big points....
A camcorder is better for filming and a camera for photos imho.... I use both and here is a post I made on another section.
"Just finished making another little film this one trying to capture individual birds singing the dawn chorus. I don't think I could have given myself a more difficult challenge as trying to get good audio of a blackcap up a tall tree was a nightmare There are some photos in there too from my e-520
http://youtu.be/96DhqodLLu4?hd=1

Also just because there's been a few posts on here regarding dslr video I thought I'd add my two pence worth after a bit of experience.
Firstly I would have loved the E-5 but the price (for me to have video on board) is not affordable. I use an e-520 . I considered a canon 550d, which is the price of a good camcorder but the 550 doesn't have a great wildlife lens with the kit obviously....
I used of the dslr 's that do video and have now used a fair few decent camcorders and have come to this conclusion:
THe e-520 is for me a lovely camera to use. I have a 70-300 fitted and I find it a nice tool to use. I like the menu, the screen, and the handling. The results are ok too
My camcorder was £550 and is better than the video on any dslr (the image stabilization is the 8th wonder) but that isn't its strength. You realise something when you go to take still pictures with it...It can probably perform great at photos but it isn't "built" for photos. The ergonomics just aren't right. its not intuitive... So although it might seem blindingly obvious the truth is that the camcorder is lovely to use "as a camcorder" . I think this is the biggest weak point of video in dslr. Its simply down to ergonomics..
So after much experimenting and mucking about I have made another little film of birds singing the dawn chorus and my chosen tools are my olympus AND my camcorder. I'd love the next e-xxx to have video but I don't see it replacing the camcorder , oh and nothing would make me lose the DSLR.
BTW I am not for one minute saying you can't use a dslr for good video (you can and many people do) in the same way you could take great photos with a camcorder but each is very much designed for its primary purpose imho..
al "

Here are some of the important differences.
Manual focus . People film their family or pet and then say manual is just "practice". really! Try filming in manual focus a kingfisher flying down a river or an eagle circling overhead.
House etc. are filmed with a dslr (on occasion) but actors are prompted where to walk etc. Lots of people want to film action of some sort which is far far harder, rally cars, surfers, kids playing football lots of things I guess.
Some video shooters say the gh2 is the most useable dslr for video and I think that does have autofocus.
The next thing applies to me but might apply to someone else, the cost.
My camcorder is pretty good (very good) and cost £650 . It has a good leica zoom lens for me this is vital to film birds and wildlife... I only just bought it the nearest compareable dslr would be canon 550d and 400mm lens. Theres over a thousand pounds right there and you still can't film through the viewfinder (lcd video is a nightmare in bright sun even with a shade).
Look what a top end camcorder will do , too many things for me to list here but heres two. pre record three seconds. ie film a river , a trout jumps, press record and it will have pre recorded and got the whole thing incliding leaving the water. zoom while filming, audio headphone socket, seemless timelapse filming.

The big players in the camcorders , sony, panasonic, canon know cameras and know filming. They know what size sensor to stick in a dslr (says me who shoots olympus ) and in the case of panasonic they choose three sensors for filming for loads of technical and boring reasons , but it works.

Big myth No1: dslrs are so good they film TV with it. NO. They sometimes use dslr to get a lovely filmic dof with no loss of quality but they do it seldom and in "predictable" circumstances.
The champions league the other night? bet none of the camera men were using a dslr . And the cameras left at the goal by the press people? all dslrs. mostly canons with white lenses. Different tools different jobs.
Bottom line IMHO you can take great videos with either. Same way a good photographer can use nikon or canon. Its always about the guy or gal behind the lens... But in no way shape or form is a dslr better , its thing its designed to do second. Oh and using a 7d with a 400mm prime on it and then saying its better quality than a camcorder. thats what? £2000 worth of dslr comparing it to a £500 camcorder is a joke in terms of even just the lens. A £2000 camcorder would be fair.

A dslr with a kit lens that cost £600 (like a 550d that I really liked btw) is not "better quality film" than my similar priced camcorder. The camcorder shoots 1080p at 50fps. the canon can shoot 50fps but only at 720p. Oh and the "only" bit is wrong as well imho like the great pixel race. but we all know that old chestnut. Its not true when someone tells you at work their new phone shoots 18mega pixels better than a camera..

This may sound like a rant (it feels like one) its not. Check out my films or photos, I'm no expert but I try and it sounds crazy to me that people think canon would make a £500 camcorder that wasn't as good as their £500 dslr.
They filmed an episode of the gadget show on camcorders, it proves nothing. Its same as cameras, its about who's behind the lens.

If you have a dslr that shoots video and a lens that suits your needs it can shoot great footage. if you like take mostly photos. If you intend filming things that pose challenges, I'm not saying it can't be done with dslr but it might be harder (a lot harder) and the footage won't be better it'll be the same.
I would like a canon dslr with 100-400mm lens for the dof and the fact it would save me having a dslr to carry as well but there are too many compromises on the video side... Having both would be great.


al

 

[Kaouthia]

You know, I typed out a big long response, but changed my mind. All I can say is "lol".

But, you did say one thing that wasn't complete nonsense.

Different tools different jobs.

Camcorders are better suited to some, DSLRs are better suited for others. Proper cameras like the Red Epic and Arri Alexa are better suited to yet others.

 

[alexsmith]

You know, I typed out a big long response, but changed my mind. All I can say is "lol".

But, you did say one thing that wasn't complete nonsense.
.

Kaouthia,
Why be so rude.? I read your earlier post and thought it was accurate and helpful but does that mean I can't have an opinion?
I did say I'm NOT an expert
I did say it was my opinion
I also said my comments were based on 1.my budget 2. what I shoot (wildlife).
I have just spent a week in mull with camcorder and dslr filming otters etc and thought a newbie wondering whether to get a dslr , camcorder or both might be interested in my opinion.
I find the camcorder better suited for filming and that for stills the dslr is better. Hardly controversial I would have thought.
Judging by the photo forum sections a lot of what people shoot stills of, motorsport, birds wildlife etc would be tricky but not impossible to shoot with a dslr and a camcorder might be better.
al

 

[Kaouthia]

Ok, perhaps I was a little harsh, I just felt there were a few sweeping generalisations in there, a few inaccuracies and an overall "camcorders are better for everything!" attitude.

 

[alexsmith]

Ok, perhaps I was a little harsh, I just felt there were a few sweeping generalisations in there, a few inaccuracies and an overall "camcorders are better for everything!" attitude.

Ok none taken, I did garble...I don't believe camcorders are better at everything.
I couldn't sleep after driving Mull to Hererford in one go:bonk:, so posted on here instead, hence the stream of semi conciousness. I was posting more because I felt there was a "dslrs are just as good" kind of feel which I think a newbie might find misleading.I know you redressed the balance in your post but just wanted to add my two penneth
I doesn't help with the likes of Philip Bloom putting up stunning results that make it look easy. You know and I know putting together a film of any sort thats watchable by others is very tricky and if you're no expert and want to give it a go , then using a camcorder might be easier (still not easy).
The thing that got my goat was a trend towards saying (and it wasn't even on this thread) "look at my film of a flower head I did with my dslr, better than a camcorder could do" and then you look and its taken with a 5d and 400mm prime and think well it ought to be pretty good, the lens cost twice as much as most camcorders.
Incidentally a guy on flickr just wrote that he liked my latest film and tried doing exactly the same with his dslr. (don't remember what sort) . He used a 300mm lens with 2x extender. He has made it VERY similar to mine and the results are....... pretty similar . He said his kit was pretty heavy but apart from that you can obviously use either..
I guess the thing is if you have the dslr already, then use the video it'll be great but if you were starting out to film things you need to try both if you can..
My camcorder (sd900) has plenty of shortcomings : softer at the long end, windnoise etc oh and the photos from film aren't very good etc. but dslr for video has more shortcomings for what i do and also on my budget I would have probably ended up with a lens on the dslr like a 70-300 which might also be soft at the 300 end so not really further forward.
Shooting video is new to me and I enjoy it and I just would like my opinion to be available to someone getting into it and wouldn't want them to think dslr is the best or only way to go.....

 

[Kaouthia]

The difference is, Philip Bloom has pretty much every Kessler & Zacuto product under the sun that he can bolt onto his camera to help him out.

A camcorder is generally easier for most people right out of the box, but a DSLR can be made to be easier than it is by default (even by simply buying a fluid head tripod, if nothing else). Of course, it's still never going to be a camcorder no matter what you do to it - but it doesn't try to be. People who try to treat it like one are in for a big mistake. It's a completely different way of shooting, which is more like a traditional camera than a compact camcorder.

Btw, the guy with the "look at my film of a flower head" is an idiot. No matter how pretty it is, if it's just a camera pointed at a flower head, it's just a flower head (and I've seen a few of those, heh). It's nothing special, anybody can do that.

I think a lot of it depends on what end of the scale you're at. For professional use, the minimum camcorder you'd be expected to have is something like a Sony EX1 or EX3, which start at about 6 grand+ vat for the cheaper of the two. The alternatives that are coming out now (AF101, F3, F100 with external 4:2:2 recorders like the Ninja box) for a similar price are just ridiculous by comparison (although they have their little quirks and annoyances that still make cameras like the EX3 very very useful).

When it comes to cost vs. reward though, other than the fact that the 7D has HDMI output while you're recording, there's no difference in quality between a 550D, 600D, 60D or 7D when it comes to video, they're all identical. The extra money goes towards the stills capabilities, build quality, weather sealing, etc. Not the image quality on video.

I wouldn't use a DSLR for what you do either most likely, but I probably wouldn't be using a camcorder either. I'd be looking at something like an F3 in the current times or, a few months or more ago, an EX1 and Letus 35mm adapter so I could throw Nikon glass on it - and while expensive combos, they're budget entry level for anything broadcast quality.

I was shooting stills long before I started shooting video, but when I started with video, I jumped straight in with the PD-150, DSR500 broadcast cameras, EX1, Z1, Z5 & Z7 cameras (funny how they all turned out to be Sony huh?), and I learned how to shoot video using manual focus, on a tripod, steadicam, etc. before I got a DSLR capable of shooting video (no matter how crap the D300s is at doing so).

Funds allowing, I definitely agree with trying both. No matter which you go for, no single camera will work for every possible situation you might want to throw at it. You have to pick based on what style is going to cover the majority of what you shoot, and then try your best to make it work as good as you can for the rest - or get both, and a GoProHD.

 

[alexsmith]

Totally agree. The thing that stops my films being "broadcast quality " is down to a lot of things , the camera spec probably isn't one of them . I'm probably not the only one who isn't limited by my equipment

al

 

[Kaouthia]

Totally agree. The thing that stops my films being "broadcast quality " is down to a lot of things , the camera spec probably isn't one of them . I'm probably not the only one who isn't limited by my equipment

It generally is down to the equipment. Usually for it to be accepted as "broadcast quality", it has to be Full 1080HD (that is 1920x1080 w/square pixels, not 1440x1080 HDV with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio) 10-Bit 4:2:2, with a minimum bandwidth of (I think) 35MB/sec. It's 3 or 4 years since I last looked at the official spec from the BBC, and I do remember reading they now accept HDV for some things, so it might've changed.

The only thing that stops Panasonic's recentl release, the AF101 from being an accepted broadcast standard camera is that it natively only records 8Bit AVCHD. But, if you hook a Ninja box (or one of a handful of other alternatives) up to it, it'll pipe out a true 4:2:2 10-Bit stream encoded straight to ProRes, that the BBC announced a month or so back on Twitter that they'd accept.

Given some of what makes it onto TV these days, I certainly wouldn't be concerned about my ability if I were you.

 

[samagroma]

Interesting conversation.

 

[joescrivens]

My camcorder was £550 and is better than the video on any dslr

ok you're going to have to justify that alex. I watched your video and the quality of the video is definitely not better than what I can get from my canon 5d mark 2.

 

[alexsmith]

Joe,
maybe you're better at it than me
I'm half serious. I never said I was great at it. Whatever you do don't judge my camera by what I produce with it. just do a search on youtube or vimeo for tm900 and see if others do better.
As for my comment , well I did justify it at length in my other replies when I was more awake
It is better for me than a dslr of even vagually similar price for lots of reasons. One reason you shouldn't look at my videos for comparison to dslr is because most likely you can't compare. I don't know which video you were looking at it but I will tell you why a camcorder was best "for me"
The first film "dawn chorus" http://youtu.be/96DhqodLLu4
I had just got this cam and was using at the box, learning it as I went along. I pushed it to its limits and over its limitations in places. The result was a learning curve as to what I can and can't do...I experimented a lot. Bare in mind what I was trying to do: trying to film blackcaps singing at dawn at the top of the trees at dawn (in one shot the blackcap is doing his early morning stretches before waking up ) ..
This meant a lot of it was shot at roughly 700mm in very poor light, well dawn. In some of them I could see the bird in the evf but not in the half light with my naked eye. Some of the shots are soft and imho useably atmosphric in others it didn't work. The main point of it though was to catch the blackcap singing. I used the on board mic and headphones to tell what I was picking up. Again I now know that the sound is an art in itself and know why crews have a "sound man/woman"
It worked well in places , hitches in others. I have photographed the same birds in the same place with my dslr , which doesn't have film mode but for that attempt it would not have been better than the dslr. I couldn't afford a 700mm lens for a start off. So looking at that one the only comparison would be a dslr with 700mm lens shooting in low light and recording with on board mic.
If you looked at my latest offering, again it would be difficult to compare , a lot of the shots were 700mm and 90% were hand held because that was I wanted. I wanted spontanous short captures. I know each shot in this film http://youtu.be/5lYrk56l_YE and out of the 25 or so of the "wildlife" a good ten would have been either out of reach or impossible for me with dslr. Some would have been better with a dslr.
Some of the things I like to do with a camcorder a dslr cannot do (this may only apply to me filming what I film).
filming in 1080p 50fps. I don't think any dslr can do this. I might be wrong. ? I'm sure the next canon will ...but I don't think any do. this means I can film a bird flying at 50fps, slow by half, and still have 1080p but with slow mo. I think canon can do this at 720p. (see the owl in shot 1)
I can film a burrow I know a bird will come out of in pre record mode. leave the cam there and use the remote to record . As it leaves the camera will record the 3 seconds prior to it leaving the nest. I don't think any dslr will do this. Also you could just film and wait but most dslr have a 5 min record limit in one shot I think. Also you might be waiting an hour . Again you could do this with a dslr but not so straightforwardly. (the shot of the sand martin leaving the nest as eg.
Also while Im doing this I can "close the cam" and it will stay filming using the evf.
Time lapse...
Another thing is if a peregrine is circling above me , I can touch it on the screen and the focus will follow the highlighted peregrine even if it passes behind a tree or swoops.

Now and this is the important bit . The camcorder has lots of weakness's. Its not better than a dslr. Its different. The things it can do in film go on and on. I like some of the features and it makes better for me
I have only had it a few weeks so will probably find more weakness's. but I simply could not afford a dslr with 700mm lens, tripod, external mic. If I could have maybe I would have? I would like one as well. but for wildlife a £600 dslr is not as good as a £600 dslr. Spend a thousand who knows ? not me. Like I say I'm no expert.
Someone on here shot a film of a deer with dslr and it was brill. loved watching it. Much better than my cam could do I'm sure. its horses for courses.
The first shot in my mull /eagle video ...I had just got off the ferry (in passenger seat) and saw the (is it a short eared owl? ) in the distance , the camcorder turned on instantly and had it in focus before the electric window was down. I managed to get 3 seconds of focused owl at 700mm hand held, slowed it and had 6 seconds of ok footage. "grab shots" like that would not be easy with a dslr. Not impossible I'm sure but tricky.
I hope that explains my comment... It is better for me at the moment thats it. You're video is probably great but maybe you're not shooting the same things as me
THanks for taking the time to watch my film btw whichever one it was , I am very new to video and am just learning as I go along
al

ps any chance of seeing some of your 5d film?

 

[jonneymendoza]

One thing that i can say fine to DSLR video is the choice of camera lens. If you use Canon HD DSLR like 5D 2 or 7D or 550D, you can use your L lens on photos as well as video ability. And ... with the great L lens like 50mm f1.2 or 35 f1.4 or 135 f2.0 , you can got many splendid video or motions which can compare to hollywood movie

one litle test here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD-Es5rzf9E

... But , as you see, for a long video clip , you have to buy a very big memory cards and high speed also. (so a litle bit more expensive than HD camcorder does)

thats brilliant

 

[joescrivens]

Joe,
maybe you're better at it than me
I'm half serious. I never said I was great at it.

I wasn't talking about how good your movie was over mine it was in response to your comment:

My camcorder was £550 and is better than the video on any dslr

Here you blanket state that video from your camcorder is better than video from a dSLR. Which is basically incorrect and unjustified. The quality of video from my 5d is better than that of your camcorder. What you do with that video and how you operate it is of course subjective.

Furthermore, these comments in your last post:

It is better for me than a dslr of even vagually similar price for lots of reasons.

Now and this is the important bit . The camcorder has lots of weakness's. Its not better than a dslr. Its different. The things it can do in film go on and on. I like some of the features and it makes better for me

are very different to the original quote where you blanket say that video is better on your camcorder. Here what you are saying is that FOR YOU it is better. It's horses for courses, if the options from the camcorder under your conditions produce the end result that is better for you then thats the way it is - but that's not the same as saying that video from the camcorder is better than from a dSLR, if you see what I mean.

ps any chance of seeing some of your 5d film?

My content is just home movies, go to this thread to see some content

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=313671

 

[alexsmith]

The quality of video from my 5d is better than that of your camcorder.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=313671

oops easy done now you've made a blanket statement

Its better is it? you sure? how you going to measure that as you say most measure are subjective. Reading luminous landscape etc they both have their strengths and weakness's.
For a start off if I chose to film at 50fps (which I would for a subject moving ) I would film at 1080p. No dslr can even do that.


I'm kidding just a bit how much does a 5d cost? err it ought to be a lot better. relatively easy subjects people etc it should be amazing especially with a good lens. But if we chose to compare on fast moving subjects I'm genuinly not sure. Does the 5d have any problems with rolling shutter when panning fast?



Subjective is ok on a forum surely? if there was right and wrong answers in which case we could just google the tech spec instead of asking people..
I realise people with dslr's are a bit antsy that camcorders might be similiar to dslrs but holy moly video has only been in dslr a very short time , its early days. Canon have been making camcorders etc for decades, they have managed to get it to work in dslr a couple years .. its taken them ages to get over things like the effect of rolling shutter and moire so its not going to be perfect..

al


edit: OK Just watched you film of birth. Absolutely lovely. beautiful baby lets knock this thread on the head. You have shown with your "home movie" that you can capture beautifully a precious moment. thats photography. and video is just moving photography . who cares what anyone uses if you get the results you want? Use either or both it doesn't matter just use what you have and what works best for you.

 

[joescrivens]

oops easy done now you've made a blanket statement

my statement is true though. Again you aren't talking about "quality of video" with your comments, you talk about fast moving objects, features etc

My statement is about the quality of the video it produces in terms of colour, sharpness, noise, depth of field. You keep mentioning conditions under which one would out perform another - which are all fine but at the end of the day quality of video in it's purest form is about the sensor and my 5d has a bigger sensor than your camcorder - so the image quality is higher, it's basic science.

It doesn't mean that i can produce a better end product than you under all conditions - like you say, fast moving object and other conditions etc

 

[alexsmith]

my 5d has a bigger sensor than your camcorder - so the image quality is higher, it's basic science.

my sensor is bigger than yours

if thats "basic science" my camcorder has three



al

 

[joescrivens]

my sensor is bigger than yours

if thats "basic science" my camcorder has three



al

quality is much better than quantity alex!

by the way I have spent a lot of time using camcorders so I am in a very good position to be able to compare, I had a 3CCD leica lens panasonic camcorder not that long ago - it was pants compared to the 5d (image quality wise)

 

[alexsmith]

quality is much better than quantity alex!

I thought it might be...now

look, lets be honest here. your camera is in a different league to my camcorder. The difference ought to be huge and it is.. but for me on the side of a loch trying to film an otter 200yrds away, moving with a fish standing next to someone with a dslr with a 200mm lens mine will be the better quality in every way simply because I might be able to get the shot and they won't. picture quality sharpness etc means nothing if you can't get the shot ...

side by side shooting friends and family its comparing apples and oranges.
You say the only way to judge "better " is by dof, colour rendition etc. which is fine. I say function is equally important if I want to shoot timlapse (and I don't) and only a camcorder will do it . well it is "better" because its a one horse race.

as an aside (not for you but anyone else reading this) youtube is not a very good way to judge either. My wide shots especially on my monitor look way better than they do on youtube.

Even if I had a dslr with video I still think there would be times a camcorder would be useable. Its a vey different tool.

"better" just depends on what you want to do with it. Some people make great films with either. Orson Welles didn't have anything as good as either and did ok.
al

 

[alexsmith]

In fact here's an idea seeing as we're not really helping the original poster here.
If you're in a dilema or want to know which route to go down., google or vimeo or youtube both and see what looks good at the sort of things you might be likely to film yourself?
probably as good a way as any..

 

[Kaouthia]

side by side shooting friends and family its comparing apples and oranges.
You say the only way to judge "better " is by dof, colour rendition etc. which is fine. I say function is equally important if I want to shoot timlapse (and I don't) and only a camcorder will do it . well it is "better" because its a one horse race.

Yes, but I think the debate was regarding the image quality. Function and practically rarely have anything to do with quality.

Btw, DSLRs are much better at timelapse.

 

[joescrivens]

I thought it might be...now

look, lets be honest here. your camera is in a different league to my camcorder. The difference ought to be huge and it is.. but for me on the side of a loch trying to film an otter 200yrds away, moving with a fish standing next to someone with a dslr with a 200mm lens mine will be the better quality in every way simply because I might be able to get the shot and they won't. picture quality sharpness etc means nothing if you can't get the shot ...

side by side shooting friends and family its comparing apples and oranges.
You say the only way to judge "better " is by dof, colour rendition etc. which is fine. I say function is equally important if I want to shoot timlapse (and I don't) and only a camcorder will do it . well it is "better" because its a one horse race.

as an aside (not for you but anyone else reading this) youtube is not a very good way to judge either. My wide shots especially on my monitor look way better than they do on youtube.

Even if I had a dslr with video I still think there would be times a camcorder would be useable. Its a vey different tool.

"better" just depends on what you want to do with it. Some people make great films with either. Orson Welles didn't have anything as good as either and did ok.
al

but if you go back and re-read my posts, this all started by you claiming that your video was better than any dSLR, for the start of my first post I have purely been talking about image quality and not all that functional specs, when you clarified I said that it's "horses for courses" and that if the device is better for your conditions then it makes sense to use it.

We seem to be just going round in circles.

 

[alexsmith]

but if you go back and re-read my posts, this all started by you claiming that your video was better than any dSLR, for the start of my first post I have purely been talking about image quality and not all that functional specs, when you clarified I said that it's "horses for courses" and that if the device is better for your conditions then it makes sense to use it.

We seem to be just going round in circles.

still its all info for someone else
happy shooting
al

 

[TheEngineer]

Interesting debate - I come at it from the other side of the fence to many here - I make my living in video and "play" with photography.

General rule of thumb as has been pointed out is that bigger sensor is better.

But - and it is a huge but, the codec and the bit rate that is used makes a huge difference (as well as the glass obviously).

For instance the Canon XF300/305 have 1/3" sensors and record at 50Mb/s. The Sony EX1R has 1/2" sensors and records at 35Mb/s. The Canon also uses 4:2:2 colour sampling instead of 4:2:0 which the Sony uses.

The Canon is approved by the BBC for HD use.

There are external recorders you can use on the Sony to bring it up to BBC spec and there are numerous debates on video forms about the merits of these (and many other cameras).

To me the simple fact is that a video camera is designed to record video a stills camera has had the function added. Of course you can get stunning results from a DSLR video but you need to think what video you want to capture. If it is something where you can make use of your lenses (such as wildlife) and audio is less important then a DSLR is ideal. If you want to capture the kids then a dedicated video camera is by far the best way to go.

Oh and as for:

You'd probably have a heart attack working in a 10-Bit ProRes or DNxHD 1080p environment.

I regularly work with 190Mb/s DNxHD files (but they are only 1080i )

 

[Kaouthia]

190Mb/s is what I use for 1080 @ 24p too. Fantastic for compositing in AE.

There are external recorders you can use on the Sony to bring it up to BBC spec and there are numerous debates on video forms about the merits of these (and many other cameras).

I didn't try them on the EX1 or EX3 (had a brief play at the Broadcast Video Expo a couple of years ago, but didn't test any in the field myself nor get to actually play around with any of the recorded footage from the BVE at home on my own system), but the results I've seen from the Ninja on the AF101 looks great.

and audio is less important then a DSLR is ideal.

Even when I was using DSR500s, the audio was still recorded externally, with just a shotgun on top of the camera for syncing in post. Just picked up the DR-100 in February and love it (just wish there were better officially supported power options).