Time to get a camcorder
-
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
Some DSLR / mirrorless are now tuned for video recording (in-body / lens stabilization, etc.). I've seen high-end wedding photographers start to use these as their main vid. camera.
But that sort of gear is $$$$ and you need weird looking apparatuses to make them comfortable to hold.
A camcorder will be fine in most situations. The hardest will be indoor with really bright, dim or uneven lighting.
-
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
-
If you insist on "not DSLR", try looking through Sony's line-up. It may be the only shop that still makes camcorders and remains big enough to fund the sort of technology development necessary to keep up with the likes of Apple and Samsung.
Consumer grade: https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/camcorders/c/all-camcorders?query=:relevance:snaAllCategories:all-camcorders
"Pro" grade: https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/handheld-camcorders
The last Sony camcorder I bought, I have not use in probably ten years, mainly because the cellphones have gotten so much better at recording video. :man-shrugging:
-
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
The RX100 is an ass camera. The sensor is beyond too small to really make any kind of a difference. If you want to do anything that matters in low light, you need to get a Canon EOS C700 or equivalent.
-
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
The RX100 is an ass camera. The sensor is beyond too small to really make any kind of a difference. If you want to do anything that matters in low light, you need to get a Canon EOS C700 or equivalent.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
The RX100 is an ass camera. The sensor is beyond too small to really make any kind of a difference. If you want to do anything that matters in low light, you need to get a Canon EOS C700 or equivalent.
You are saying it makes no difference whether a sensor is 1" or 1/2.3" or even 1/3.5", like in many phones? That's a huge difference.
Here's an ad hoc comparison of four sensor sizes, from smartphone/compact camera over 1", then APS-C, then Full-Frame. All at ISO12800. Of course it is better when you take an even bigger sensor. But there is a huge step in quality from smartphone sensor size to 1".
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
The RX100 is an ass camera. The sensor is beyond too small to really make any kind of a difference. If you want to do anything that matters in low light, you need to get a Canon EOS C700 or equivalent.
You are saying it makes no difference whether a sensor is 1" or 1/2.3" or even 1/3.5", like in many phones? That's a huge difference.
Here's an ad hoc comparison of four sensor sizes, from smartphone/compact camera over 1", then APS-C, then Full-Frame. All at ISO12800. Of course it is better when you take an even bigger sensor. But there is a huge step in quality from smartphone sensor size to 1".
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
The RX100 is an ass camera. The sensor is beyond too small to really make any kind of a difference. If you want to do anything that matters in low light, you need to get a Canon EOS C700 or equivalent.
You are saying it makes no difference whether a sensor is 1" or 1/2.3" or even 1/3.5", like in many phones? That's a huge difference.
Here's an ad hoc comparison of four sensor sizes, from smartphone/compact camera over 1", then APS-C, then Full-Frame. All at ISO12800. Of course it is better when you take an even bigger sensor. But there is a huge step in quality from smartphone sensor size to 1".
How many prints have you made with cameras that produce images of varying megapixels?
The answer is, "much, much less than Aqua."
But you don't have to take my word for it, folks. Watch the Chris Hau video then get back to me. Or better yet, do your own printing.
-
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
The RX100 is an ass camera. The sensor is beyond too small to really make any kind of a difference. If you want to do anything that matters in low light, you need to get a Canon EOS C700 or equivalent.
You are saying it makes no difference whether a sensor is 1" or 1/2.3" or even 1/3.5", like in many phones? That's a huge difference.
Here's an ad hoc comparison of four sensor sizes, from smartphone/compact camera over 1", then APS-C, then Full-Frame. All at ISO12800. Of course it is better when you take an even bigger sensor. But there is a huge step in quality from smartphone sensor size to 1".
How many prints have you made with cameras that produce images of varying megapixels?
The answer is, "much, much less than Aqua."
But you don't have to take my word for it, folks. Watch the Chris Hau video then get back to me. Or better yet, do your own printing.
How many prints have you made with cameras that produce images of varying megapixels?
The answer is, "much, much less than Aqua."
But you don't have to take my word for it, folks. Watch the Chris Hau video then get back to me. Or better yet, do your own printing.
What is your point? That a $30K camera makes better videos than a $1K camera? That the only way to improve over the quality of a camcorder with a tiny sensor is to buy a $30K camera? Really?
-
How many prints have you made with cameras that produce images of varying megapixels?
The answer is, "much, much less than Aqua."
But you don't have to take my word for it, folks. Watch the Chris Hau video then get back to me. Or better yet, do your own printing.
What is your point? That a $30K camera makes better videos than a $1K camera? That the only way to improve over the quality of a camcorder with a tiny sensor is to buy a $30K camera? Really?
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
How many prints have you made with cameras that produce images of varying megapixels?
The answer is, "much, much less than Aqua."
But you don't have to take my word for it, folks. Watch the Chris Hau video then get back to me. Or better yet, do your own printing.
What is your point? That a $30K camera makes better videos than a $1K camera? That the only way to improve over the quality of a camcorder with a tiny sensor is to buy a $30K camera? Really?
My point is that I can tell you don’t do much of your own testing. Because you’re arguing spec sheets, not end products. Dead giveaway.
If you did more of this yourself, you'd know the use cases where these specs and numbers matter, and where they don't. The only way to know for sure is to go into a store with your own memory card, take some stills or some footage, then go home and either get the stills printed or throw the footage into Premiere.
Oh and P.S., the Canon PowerShot S120 came out 9 years ago. Like many other cameras at the time, it only went up to 12800 ISO. The a7 IV came out about seven years later. It goes up to 102400. That test is ridiculous.
-
I don't quite understand the aggressiveness, but you'll probably know why you do that.
I've made a fair number of photos in my life and went through several generations of cameras and lenses of all kinds. The difference between a smartphone camera and a modern 1" Sony sensor is immediately visible in any bad light situation. Whether you print it or not (besides, most people don't view prints of their photos these days but watch on their electronic devices). That's not something anyone with any experience in photography disputes.
-
I don't quite understand the aggressiveness, but you'll probably know why you do that.
I've made a fair number of photos in my life and went through several generations of cameras and lenses of all kinds. The difference between a smartphone camera and a modern 1" Sony sensor is immediately visible in any bad light situation. Whether you print it or not (besides, most people don't view prints of their photos these days but watch on their electronic devices). That's not something anyone with any experience in photography disputes.
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
I don't quite understand the aggressiveness, but you'll probably know why you do that.
Because this is a gearbro argument and I dislike them.
I've made a fair number of photos in my life and went through several generations of cameras and lenses of all kinds. The difference between a smartphone camera and a modern 1" Sony sensor is immediately visible in any bad light situation. Whether you print it or not (besides, most people don't view prints of their photos these days but watch on their electronic devices). That's not something anyone with any experience in photography disputes.
Fine, use Insta as an example instead. Would you agree that it's common for people to use Instagram to share photos?
I'll show you some Insta photos and you tell me if they were shot from an iPhone or a full-frame digital. Let me know when you're ready.
-
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
I don't quite understand the aggressiveness, but you'll probably know why you do that.
Because this is a gearbro argument and I dislike them.
I've made a fair number of photos in my life and went through several generations of cameras and lenses of all kinds. The difference between a smartphone camera and a modern 1" Sony sensor is immediately visible in any bad light situation. Whether you print it or not (besides, most people don't view prints of their photos these days but watch on their electronic devices). That's not something anyone with any experience in photography disputes.
Fine, use Insta as an example instead. Would you agree that it's common for people to use Instagram to share photos?
I'll show you some Insta photos and you tell me if they were shot from an iPhone or a full-frame digital. Let me know when you're ready.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
I'll show you some Insta photos and you tell me if they were shot from an iPhone or a full-frame digital. Let me know when you're ready.
They can be hard to tell apart in good light, but I was talking specifically about hand-held low-light situations. If you have such examples, go ahead. (I assume the person taking the photos knew how to operate the cameras - it's of course easy to make bad photos with a good camera).
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
I'll show you some Insta photos and you tell me if they were shot from an iPhone or a full-frame digital. Let me know when you're ready.
They can be hard to tell apart in good light, but I was talking specifically about hand-held low-light situations. If you have such examples, go ahead. (I assume the person taking the photos knew how to operate the cameras - it's of course easy to make bad photos with a good camera).
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
I'll show you some Insta photos and you tell me if they were shot from an iPhone or a full-frame digital. Let me know when you're ready.
They can be hard to tell apart in good light, but I was talking specifically about hand-held low-light situations. If you have such examples, go ahead. (I assume the person taking the photos knew how to operate the cameras - it's of course easy to make bad photos with a good camera).
I like how we already have three caveats but okay, here goes:
-
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
@taiwan_girl 3 reasons, unless I’m wrong
- zoom is shaky/noisy during a video as the lens extends
- audio recording sucks
- bulkier form factor
But one thing that matters for video is sensor size, especially when the scene is not well lit.
Most camcorders have tiny sensors.
I'd get something with a one inch sensor or more.
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
If you want a big sensor in a small package with a camera that is equally good with videos and photos, check out the Sony RX100 VII. It's not cheap, though.
Yeah that is one really great compact camera, but weirdly I'm looking for the "hold in palm" experience of taking videos, it feels a little more deliberate whereas my phone (and that Sony) require a 2-hand "behind the device" approach. I know, nit picks.... also the 1" sensor camcorders are far too big, even if they are better. Thanks for the ideas, though!
-
@Aqua-Letifer I'd say the 5th photo was shot with a bigger sensor. The others may have also been shot with a phone, especially when a tripod was used. The 4th one looks like analog film, but maybe that's an effect that was added digitally.
Look, there's really no magic behind my reasoning: You need a certain volume of light for a photo, and you have a couple of parameters you can tweak to get that volume, such as aperture, exposure time, ISO. If the light is limited and you can't increase exposure time enough (because you have no tripod, or because the subject is moving), then you have a problem. A bigger sensor (with a correspondingly bigger lens) simply allows you to take a technically good picture in a wider range of circumstances. Bigger sensors will also typically have a higher dynamic range (less danger of blown-out highlights) and more resolution (more crop potential). The aesthetic qualities of a photo are a separate discussion, and of course there's things like the creativity of limited technical possibilities (e.g. only having a fixed focal length, or only black/white). I was only talking about the technical quality. Agreed so far?
Also, by the way, phone cameras often have no manual mode, which means that, for instance, you cannot take long-exposure shots on a tripod.
-
@Aqua-Letifer I'd say the 5th photo was shot with a bigger sensor. The others may have also been shot with a phone, especially when a tripod was used. The 4th one looks like analog film, but maybe that's an effect that was added digitally.
Look, there's really no magic behind my reasoning: You need a certain volume of light for a photo, and you have a couple of parameters you can tweak to get that volume, such as aperture, exposure time, ISO. If the light is limited and you can't increase exposure time enough (because you have no tripod, or because the subject is moving), then you have a problem. A bigger sensor (with a correspondingly bigger lens) simply allows you to take a technically good picture in a wider range of circumstances. Bigger sensors will also typically have a higher dynamic range (less danger of blown-out highlights) and more resolution (more crop potential). The aesthetic qualities of a photo are a separate discussion, and of course there's things like the creativity of limited technical possibilities (e.g. only having a fixed focal length, or only black/white). I was only talking about the technical quality. Agreed so far?
Also, by the way, phone cameras often have no manual mode, which means that, for instance, you cannot take long-exposure shots on a tripod.
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer I'd say the 5th photo was shot with a bigger sensor.
Nope. iPhone.
The others may have also been shot with a phone, especially when a tripod was used. The 4th one looks like analog film, but maybe that's an effect that was added digitally.
Nope. Mix of iPhone, Nikon, and Fuji. None were analog. If you asked a 3-year-old to guess the answers, they would have done at least as well as you.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point: If you were to get 6 of your own images and ask me, there's no way I'd do any better. But I know better than to give it a go. Gearheads, though, always think that they can "just tell" these things.
A bigger sensor (with a correspondingly bigger lens) simply allows you to take a technically good picture in a wider range of circumstances. Bigger sensors will also typically have a higher dynamic range (less danger of blown-out highlights) and more resolution (more crop potential).
Yes, that is how a camera works.
By the way, image stabilization (both optical and digital) are tools that further change the exposure triangle in low light. You don't necessarily have to beef up the ISO to max if you can stop your shutter speed down to 1/15 or something ridiculous hand-held.
Computational photography has narrowed much of the gap there is between it and digital cameras. I appreciate that you disagree, but your own answers to the examples I showed you prove otherwise.
Also, by the way, phone cameras often have no manual mode, which means that, for instance, you cannot take long-exposure shots on a tripod.
What?
Any half-decent photo app on your phone allows for manual controls. I and millions of others out there have, literally, taken long-exposure shots on a tripod using their iPhones. -
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer I'd say the 5th photo was shot with a bigger sensor.
Nope. iPhone.
The others may have also been shot with a phone, especially when a tripod was used. The 4th one looks like analog film, but maybe that's an effect that was added digitally.
Nope. Mix of iPhone, Nikon, and Fuji. None were analog. If you asked a 3-year-old to guess the answers, they would have done at least as well as you.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point: If you were to get 6 of your own images and ask me, there's no way I'd do any better. But I know better than to give it a go. Gearheads, though, always think that they can "just tell" these things.
A bigger sensor (with a correspondingly bigger lens) simply allows you to take a technically good picture in a wider range of circumstances. Bigger sensors will also typically have a higher dynamic range (less danger of blown-out highlights) and more resolution (more crop potential).
Yes, that is how a camera works.
By the way, image stabilization (both optical and digital) are tools that further change the exposure triangle in low light. You don't necessarily have to beef up the ISO to max if you can stop your shutter speed down to 1/15 or something ridiculous hand-held.
Computational photography has narrowed much of the gap there is between it and digital cameras. I appreciate that you disagree, but your own answers to the examples I showed you prove otherwise.
Also, by the way, phone cameras often have no manual mode, which means that, for instance, you cannot take long-exposure shots on a tripod.
What?
Any half-decent photo app on your phone allows for manual controls. I and millions of others out there have, literally, taken long-exposure shots on a tripod using their iPhones.@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point: If you were to get 6 of your own images and ask me, there's no way I'd do any better. But I know better than to give it a go. Gearheads, though, always think that they can "just tell" these things.
Well, I think you can't conclude all that much from such a test. The difference between cameras is that you can make a photo with camera A that you cannot make with camera B. The camera B photo never makes it to Instagram, because it wasn't taken, or it was taken but had unacceptable quality.
-
@mark said in Time to get a camcorder:
What if you enlarge them to say 40" x 50"? Can you tell a difference then?
It entirely depends on how close you get. 12 MP cameras can print billboard sizes because no one gets that close to them.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point: If you were to get 6 of your own images and ask me, there's no way I'd do any better. But I know better than to give it a go. Gearheads, though, always think that they can "just tell" these things.
Well, I think you can't conclude all that much from such a test. The difference between cameras is that you can make a photo with camera A that you cannot make with camera B. The camera B photo never makes it to Instagram, because it wasn't taken, or it was taken but had unacceptable quality.
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point: If you were to get 6 of your own images and ask me, there's no way I'd do any better. But I know better than to give it a go. Gearheads, though, always think that they can "just tell" these things.
The camera B photo never makes it to Instagram, because it wasn't taken, or it was taken but had unacceptable quality.
Klaus, have you even been on Instagram? Like ever?
For every 1 good photo on there, you scroll past 10,000 exactly of the kind you say no one posts on there.You already said you could tell the difference between an iPhone image and a full frame if they were shot in low light, then introduced 3 caveats before you gave it a go, then refused to make explicit guesses for each image, then failed the test, and now you're trying to say the results don't matter.
The point is, I asked you point-blank, and you couldn't tell the difference. Because neither can anyone else.
-
@Klaus said in Time to get a camcorder:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to get a camcorder:
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point: If you were to get 6 of your own images and ask me, there's no way I'd do any better. But I know better than to give it a go. Gearheads, though, always think that they can "just tell" these things.
The camera B photo never makes it to Instagram, because it wasn't taken, or it was taken but had unacceptable quality.
Klaus, have you even been on Instagram? Like ever?
For every 1 good photo on there, you scroll past 10,000 exactly of the kind you say no one posts on there.You already said you could tell the difference between an iPhone image and a full frame if they were shot in low light, then introduced 3 caveats before you gave it a go, then refused to make explicit guesses for each image, then failed the test, and now you're trying to say the results don't matter.
The point is, I asked you point-blank, and you couldn't tell the difference. Because neither can anyone else.
You already said you could tell the difference between an iPhone image and a full frame if they were shot in low light, then introduced 3 caveats before you gave it a go, then refused to make explicit guesses for each image, then failed the test, and now you're trying to say the results don't matter.
Are you deliberately acting like that? My point is really simple, yet you somehow refuse to get it and talk about unrelated things.
My point has been all along that better cameras allow you to take some pictures that other cameras cannot. I never said that expensive cameras always make better photos or anything like that.
I didn't list "caveats"; rather, I tried to describe situations in which a better camera can make a difference. Yet, you have chosen to select photos that can be made with every camera, if you have a tripod, and think you have somehow made a point.
Here, look at this photo for instance:
Was it made with a cell phone? No, because you couldn't get the exposure time needed to freeze the action in a dark hall, and it wouldn't have enough zoom.
What about this one? Cell phone?
No chance, because a cell phone wouldn't let you get such a small depth-of-field, and again not the short exposure time required for the subject.
