Are the days of consumer camcorders coming to an end?

mpgxsvcd

I hadn't looked at what options there were for camcorders in a long time because even 2 years ago m4/3s had surpassed them at a lower price. So I decided to see if the camcorders had progressed at all since then.

I looked up the latest consumer camcorders from Canon and Panasonic. It looks like the HF G10 is the latest from Canon and the HC-X900M is the latest from Panasonic. Both cameras are well over $1100. The HC-X900M has 1080p @ 60 FPS but lacks true 24p and the G10 has 24p but lacks 1080p @ 60 FPS as far as I could tell.

Canon claims that they have significantly increased the pixel size at the cost of high resolution photos. However, their 2.75um pixel size is well short of the 3.75um pixel size that m4/3s can offer. Even their lenses are not really that special when you consider how small their sensors are. They are fairly bright wide open F1.5-F1.8 but neither of them goes wider than about 30mm.

So why would anyone still buy a camcorder? I just don't get it. My friend just bought an FZ200 for stills and absolutely refuses to even try the video because she is convinced that it could never be as good as a camcorder. I guess that is why these camcorders are still around. The perception of the general public is still that a camcorder is best for video.

So am I missing something. Are there things that a camcorder does that a GH3 can't?

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/HC-X900M?t=specs

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_g10#Specifications

trevmar

@maxotics Agreed. My M41 does 24p with 1/24 shutter, and allows lowering of contrast, saturation and exposure to make grading easier in post...

maxotics

the Canon Pro CMOS M4xx series used for say $200 is hard to beat

I agree! The cameras have full manual exposure control (with lock). A mic input. I suggested one for my cousin. He already had a Canon T1i he used for video. He uses his M500 camcorder most of the time now. Unless you want low DOF, wide-ish angle shots, those camcorders (Panasonics too) are almost idiot-proof.

DrDave

One way to make a video is to buy a dozen camcorders and set them to face recognition. Use a couple of hacked GH2 as well. You can do it with all GH2/3 but it does not work as well. The only hurdle left is sooth, silent zooming and tracking, in an inexpensive, lightweight package with good low light. As soon as they do that, there will be no reason to get a camcorder. Until then, the Canon Pro CMOS M4xx series used for say $200 is hard to beat (not the newer ones where they "removed" the Pro sensor). Of course, that is only one way to make a video. You can just use one cam, and rely on your artistry. Looking forward to 4K camcorders. @MarcioK most professionals that I have met will talk about anything if you buy them a few drinks.

maxotics

Panasonic X900 or X920

I've been wanting to get one of those cameras for a while. The Canons are nice, but I feel Panasonic has maintained their lead in video technology for quite some time now. Panasonic doesn't focus on still cameras. That should tell you something. Even in my little test between the EOS-M and Panasonic G5 video, I found the Panasonic video to be better (subjective opinion).

@MarcioK My favorite saying in all photography, "Amateurs talk bodies, professionals talk glass and photographers talk lighting" I couldn't agree with you more! You only have one chance to take a shot, the more you know about how the equipment will work, the better it will hopefully match you intended effect. If someone said, uses X lens on X camera and set it to this, you will get a very natural look to your image, I'd try it! I've gone to great pains to put up videos www.vimeo.com/maxotics where I do comparisons. They aren't good creative videos, but they should help others, as they've helped me, understand the pluses and minuses of various equipment. That said, I'm sure you can relate when I say that when I bring the wrong equipment or try something weird I often get better results than if I did everything theoretically perfect. Anyway, if you have a Canon, or can borrow one, try RAW. You can't grade color and detail image-information that isn't there. But if @shian knows how to get the look I'm after in H.264 there's no way I'm going to keep torturing myself with RAW. I'm waiting :)

MarcioK

One of my favorite cameras now (thanks to you) is a GF3 and with Fujian TV lens. Why? Because it give me a certain feeling. I love the look.

@maxotics Maybe you might try to focus more on lenses than in cameras. I know what are you talking about - one day I've shoot a live performance here from a DJ (Mix Master Mike, the Beastie Boys DJ - info for the music guys :) ) with my GH2, with two different lenses - the Panny 20mm 1.7 and the Canon FD 50mm 1.4 (in 2.0). The settings were the same for both.

The Panny shot were perfect - excellent exposure, sharp as hell (as usual with that lens), was really very good. With the FD 50mm...not as sharp, a different point of view (I was in the same point, the it came a close shot), not as focused since I have to do it manually. But I've preferred the FD shot a lot more - more organic, more filmic (and both shots were in 24p).

Cameras are important, but a lot of character from a shot are obtained from the lens (people, could correct me if I'm wrong). And grading - maybe @shian and the other grading experts here could give you some hints.

And I have a Fujian 35mm too - hate it for photos, but made some lovely movie shots with it. :)

maxotics

@Vitaliy_Kiselev One of my favorite books on film-making is by Andrei Tarkovsky, "Sculpting in Time". (You're fortunate you can read original) He talks about getting an emotional feeling that is true to you, but often does not give the viewer the same feeling. What can one do? It is the main problem of film-making. What is interesting to you, in people or content, may not be interesting to me, and visa-versa. So how do you get me to have the same feeling you have? How do I get you to experience the same feelings I have?

You're right in that content is what will give you an emotional response. All I can say is that I have shot some stuff in RAW that gives me a different emotional response I have gotten from the same content, as shot with a camcorder or camera. For you to think I'm bragging about getting a film-look, or to think I'm interested in a flame-war, is misguided.

Very few people understood Tarkovsky. Why? I'm not trying to get "film-like". That's just the way I'm trying to explain it. I'm trying to get a look that expresses how I feel. But I feel you writing my questions off as if I'm pro RAW, or anti camcorder, or anything else.

One of my favorite cameras now (thanks to you) is a GF3 and with Fujian TV lens. Why? Because it give me a certain feeling. I love the look. I don't care about it's megapixels, bitrate, etc. RAW gives me another emotional feeling I can't get from other cameras. Because you can get the most out of the Panasonic cameras I'm naturally curious to know if you can get the same look.

Again, because I like it. Not because it is better. There is no better.

Sph1nxster

Panasonic X900 or X920

http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-hc-x900_Camcorder_review

peternap

@Vitaliy_Kiselev OK Vitaliy, you are one of the people that I pay a lot of attention to when you speak. I've been considering another camcorder for run and gun which is mostly what I do.

I'm still using my old Canon HF G10 but it doesn't do 1080 60P which is a must have for me. I have an ENG camera and 2, GH2's which I may sell and a GH3 which I won't sell.

What Camcorder(s) would you recommend?

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@maxotics

I think you need to go to http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/6222/raw-makes-obsolete-all-your-skill/p1 to not start here useless flame.

As for me, I do not care about all this "film like". I care about interesting people and interesting content.

maxotics

Hmm. Why do you care so much?

Vitality, you're going to make me laugh so much I cry! I wish I knew!

I have always found faces/skin to have an artificial look is consumer video. The CODECs seem to favor sharpness and contrast, not color accuracy and dynamic range. I have NEVER liked the way people look in consumer video (unless they're frolicking around in the park).

RAW video is the first footage I've seen where I see a face, I shoot, that looks like the face I shot, not a "video" face. I went through this with the Sigma DP1. It was the first camera that gave me film-like photography. It gives me great pleasure.

Anyway, a reason I care is that when I shoot a minute or two of video from my G5 it's maybe a megabyte. The same length is about 2 gigabytes in RAW! If I could get a natural looking image from the G5, or a G6, Gh3, then that would certainly be the SANE approach. In many cases, I won't mind the trade-off. In some cases, however, I want the video to look as much like film as possible.

I have not seen any H.264/similar video that captures facial tones as well as RAW video, IMHO.

All the resolution in the world can't bring back color and tonal-range information. That's been my experience.

BTW, these are my findings so far, compared to EOS-M

Panasonic G5 (I paid $350 with lens) o. Sharp video o. Seems like best video CODEC in recent model camera.
o. Even with all settings -2 video is high in contrast and lacks color nuance

Canon EOS-M (I paid $400 with 22mm) o. Native video not as sharp as G5 o. ML video hack (H.264), higher bitrate doesn't seem to improve video o. ML RAW video is very rich in dynamic range and color depth. However, resolution is, at best, 720p, and unless in crop mode, suffers from moire).

I think the problem for many people is they'll shoot some video with their camera, say, the GH2, bring it home and find the video very sharp and appealing. It is! However, if they were to shoot the same video in RAW, they would find that they could have gotten a more natural look (different in any case) with the RAW footage.

I shot this rushed, but it gives the general idea of what I'm talking about

The RAW video shows the natural lighting and the subject's true face tone.

Finally, my problem is once I know a certain look can be achieved. It's hard for me to go backwards. The Sigma DP1 spoiled me in what I expect from a photo. RAW video has now shown me what's possible. But if you can show me how to do it with your hacks, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW!

Thanks!

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Can you explain more what you're thinking? Do you mean content as in creative scripts/acting, or the footage

I mean real content that stands behind scripts and all this acting, shooting. And result of all this work. raw is a tool, you trade your time for better result in some situations. This is it. raw is present in cheapest of stills cameras for long, long time. In fact first hack I made was for Nikon compacts long time ago that enabled raw :-)

My big question is whether the GH2 hacked, or GH3, can ever match the dynamic range and potential color accuracy of RAW, even cheap RAW. I'd love to see an example of that.

Hmm. Why do you care so much?

maxotics

@Viataliey_Kiselev Can you explain more what you're thinking? Do you mean content as in creative scripts/acting, or the footage? As for RAW, I've been torturing myself with it for the past couple of weeks. Have set up a 50D and EOS-M. (see my feed at video.com/maxotics) My big question is whether the GH2 hacked, or GH3, can ever match the dynamic range and potential color accuracy of RAW, even cheap RAW. I'd love to see an example of that.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Camcorders are like mini-vans. They just look ugly. And like @Aria says, they don't inspire artistry.

I really do not care much about artistry.

How about showing me content? As we have "cheap raw" for a while, but most things we got are better to reside in their original place (I mean here head of their authors).

maxotics

Camcorders are like mini-vans. They just look ugly. And like @Aria says, they don't inspire artistry. DLSR video is great if you're shooting a plant. Asking a DSLR camera to focus is like asking a blind man to find the nose on your face. All that said, I enjoy experimenting. Especially the new RAW stuff. But if someone asked me to go shoot their wedding, or any real-time event, I'd go out and buy a camcorder. You really appreciate camcorders after working with equipment never meant to shoot video. Also, most of the great video stuff from Panasonic originated from their video cameras. Why not get it where they perfected it?

glenpinn

its a bit late to post i guess, but i shoot with 2x Panasonic HDC-SDT750 cams, and they are absolutely wonderful video cameras.

wonderful OIS and AF systems built in, and the best thing is the 1080/50p @ 28Mbps video mode, and there is no way i can ever shoot in any other mode, 50p vs 25p is chalk n cheese, and who cares about 24p cinema, these cameras with a good quality macro/wide angle lens, a good 60 or 120 Led light, and lens hood fitted, plus a Rode VideoMic Pro microphone attached, shoot wonderful quality video, be it in run n gun mode or tripod/rig mounted, especially great for shooting weddings.

there still is a place for traditional style camcorders, they absolutely kill DSLR type cameras for ergonomics and hand held mode, and i know because i used a GH2 with some big ass lens on it and it was so front heavy it was impossible to hold.

my next cam will be an AG-AC90 because it is an awesome video camera.

cheers

ahbleza

@Mirrorkisser “We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates

“Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.

Actually, they were both right. Microsoft never made an operating system that deserves to be called by that name. And many vacuum cleaners are powered by nuclear energy, that is converted to electricity for national or regional distribution. :-)

Aria

When I do a wedding I do the combo deal. I use the GH to get those "Artsy" shots and the HFS21 to do the standard video of the event itself. My main reason for even having a GH is to get the kind of artistic looks that are much harder to get with a standard Video Camera. The different look of camera lenses I can get. Of course the DOF shots, sweet bokeh, various levels of contrast depending on the lens, color rendition etc. The overall "character" of the footage itself. There just seems to be more variety in the GH shots that I can get using old manual lenses. It just depends on what your needs are. You don't need a DSLR to record basic video. The reason 35mm Adapters go so popular was to add those things to the look of a standard video camera.

stoney

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/506785-dslr-vs-video-camera.html

This seems a complex issue with no simple answer. Just use whatever works...

trevmar

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

In real life doc, average guy just don't have time or ability to set up things, unfortunately.

This is too true. I recorded a couple of 'documentary' sessions at the Moscow conference. Once a live event is running, changes of focus, etc, can be seen by your viewers unless you cut to B-roll. You have to synchronize changes with activity where the B-roll is a suitable target. The camcorder is set to 24p low-contrast, and left fully automatic most of the time.

Btw, shallow DOF is a really minus of big sensors if things go seriously 3D :-)

With the LX7 and FZ200. I use one of several Canon HF100 or an M41 (I got it for a bargain $399 just before Christmas) as A-roll, and they generally have an excellent depth of focus. However, with the shallower f1.4 of the LX7 and even f2.8 of the FZ200 at tele, there is noticeable focus hunting when a significant amount of bokeh is in the frame. In my case it is often no problem to use manual focus, but it does take more time to set up. It comes down to a tradeoff when light is low - shallow DOF and open lens, or higher ISO and the noise that brings.

As for rig, you need proper one anyway, you still need proper mikes

Clean audio is critical for a usable final product. I am filming conferences, and use several tiny Yamaha Pocketrak 2G scattered around, as well as a Zoom H1 (PCM, no ALC) as an overall ambient recorder near the tripod. My home-made lapel mikes use a local Pocketrak in lieu of wireless. Recently, in Moscow, I had my 1.5lb Benro tripod (with an extension tube to 6ft 6ins) loaded with the M41 at the top, the FZ200 and Zoom H1 strapped just below. Editing with Vegas Pro makes it easy to sync the various audio sources.

I see my Canon camcorders as approaching the end of their useful days for me. When traveling light, the FZ200 does double duty as a still-camera, and is the same weight (essentially) as the camcorder (with batteries and charger). When some airlines now limit carry-on weight to 10KG (I am looking at you, Aeroflot) every ounce is precious. If only the LX7 filmed more than 29 minutes of FullHD, if only... But the camcorders are just so reliable. I set them up and rolling with a 4 hour extended battery -- and they just roll .. and roll.. so I just keep using them :-)

DrDave

Well, that's true. But having shot the same scene this way for several years I'm thinking they won't be too far off. I'm jammed up with gigs the next two weeks, then I'll put something together. I'll compare the two camcorders to the GH2 with a sharp zoom--after all, the Cams have zooms, then I'll roll in the 20mm or the 45mm.

LPowell

@DrDave Depends on how good you are at making best use of your GH2 lens collection.

DrDave

Here's a question, if I make a short video with my XA10, my GH2 and a $275 camcorder, would anyone be able to pick which cam is which?

stoney

@mimirsan very nice.

Mimirsan

Will do a short video review of this camcorder will have to be a week away as ive hit my 500mb weekly limit. Download original 1080p file for a better look.

Nice to have a camera that doesnt have banding when shooting a blue sky.Nice to have a camera that I can shoot shake free videos with.Nice to have a camera that has a decent zoom without jittery aperture changes throught the range.Nice to have a camera that I can just pick up and shoot quickly and efficiently. Lowlight isnt so much a issue these days either from the newer crop of camcorders.

vicx

Btw, shallow DOF is really minus of big sensors if things go seriously 3D :-)

Oh you are thinking a long way ahead. It is not a crazy prediction to say one day cameras will try to capture the whole scene in focus. Even beyond stereoscopic viewing it would be useful for DOF effects to simply be a function of the playback engine. I think a depthmap is the extra channel to make it possible. It could be calculated from stereo views but a Kinect like camera or even LIDAR is just as likely. I don't know how they will do it - but depth map will be a component of video not too far from now.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters