Time to get a camcorder
-
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 11:33 last edited by
WAIT! Stop the chatter in this thread. I just realized. Now when my wife takes a video, I won't have to tell her to switch to landscape mode! YASSSSSSSSSS
-
WAIT! Stop the chatter in this thread. I just realized. Now when my wife takes a video, I won't have to tell her to switch to landscape mode! YASSSSSSSSSS
-
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 11:41 last edited by
I asked her yesterday if there were any specific features she cared about, such as waterproof (she said no), or 1080 vs 4k. She was like "umm, whatever format let's it transfer onto a computer".
-
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 13:21 last edited by
@George-K said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th wimmenz and cellphone video are almost as bad as wimmenz and thermostats, amirite?
I'd as soon touch the thermostat as iron clothes in the bathtub. Not gonna happen. Still, every once in a while I get asked if I "touched" it.
-
@George-K said in Time to get a camcorder:
@89th wimmenz and cellphone video are almost as bad as wimmenz and thermostats, amirite?
I'd as soon touch the thermostat as iron clothes in the bathtub. Not gonna happen. Still, every once in a while I get asked if I "touched" it.
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 13:47 last edited by@kluurs said in Time to get a camcorder:
Still, every once in a while I get asked if I "touched" it.
<nuns laughing>
-
So far I have found the market to basically be like "Hahaha oh a camcorder, you really mean a go pro, right? A DSLR, right?"
As much as I like 4K, I think I'll stick with 1080. I think the 60 fps that 1080 allows makes the video footage a bit more fluid and alive, plus a fraction of the file size. My iPhone can handle any 4K landscape scenes.
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 15:35 last edited by@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
I think the 60 fps that 1080 allows makes the video footage a bit more fluid and alive, plus a fraction of the file size.
Because the thousands of potential viewers demand fluidity?
Don't take this the wrong way, but those videos of your child playing soccer won't have a lot of viewings. And you will just barely be able to identify your children and none of the other children.
-
@89th said in Time to get a camcorder:
I think the 60 fps that 1080 allows makes the video footage a bit more fluid and alive, plus a fraction of the file size.
Because the thousands of potential viewers demand fluidity?
Don't take this the wrong way, but those videos of your child playing soccer won't have a lot of viewings. And you will just barely be able to identify your children and none of the other children.
-
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 17:06 last edited by
Have you gotten one? Try before you buy - you may be disappointed with the camcorders a bit.
Apple and others are spending a TON of money on computational photography. Many entry-level video amateurs use cell phone cameras as an alternative to DSLRs.
Cell phone video is quite advanced these days.
(Though I completely get your sentiment and where you're coming from)
-
Have you gotten one? Try before you buy - you may be disappointed with the camcorders a bit.
Apple and others are spending a TON of money on computational photography. Many entry-level video amateurs use cell phone cameras as an alternative to DSLRs.
Cell phone video is quite advanced these days.
(Though I completely get your sentiment and where you're coming from)
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 17:20 last edited by@xenon said in Time to get a camcorder:
Have you gotten one? Try before you buy - you may be disappointed with the camcorders a bit.
Apple and others are spending a TON of money on computational photography. Many entry-level video amateurs use cell phone cameras as an alternative to DSLRs.
Cell phone video is quite advanced these days.
(Though I completely get your sentiment and where you're coming from)
I’ll make sure I buy from Amazon so I can do an easy return if needed lol. Yeah phone video cameras I’d say are better than nearly any camera/camcorder for the most part. HDR, low light, 4K at 60fps, 240fps slowmo, instant editing and sharing… but it’s the device/experience I’m looking for (plus a good zoom) for this purchase. Or maybe I’m just reliving the nostalgia from my childhood’s (VHS tape) camcorder days when we went to the beach.
-
@xenon said in Time to get a camcorder:
Have you gotten one? Try before you buy - you may be disappointed with the camcorders a bit.
Apple and others are spending a TON of money on computational photography. Many entry-level video amateurs use cell phone cameras as an alternative to DSLRs.
Cell phone video is quite advanced these days.
(Though I completely get your sentiment and where you're coming from)
I’ll make sure I buy from Amazon so I can do an easy return if needed lol. Yeah phone video cameras I’d say are better than nearly any camera/camcorder for the most part. HDR, low light, 4K at 60fps, 240fps slowmo, instant editing and sharing… but it’s the device/experience I’m looking for (plus a good zoom) for this purchase. Or maybe I’m just reliving the nostalgia from my childhood’s (VHS tape) camcorder days when we went to the beach.
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 17:21 last edited by@89th What about a DSLR camera with video?
-
@89th What about a DSLR camera with video?
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 17:27 last edited by@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
-
@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
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 17:35 last edited by@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
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 17:39 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 19:20 last edited by
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.
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 19:57 last edited by@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.
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 20:11 last edited by@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".
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 20:13 last edited by@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.
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 20:17 last edited byHow 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?
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 20:48 last edited by Aqua Letifer@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.
-
wrote on 23 Mar 2022, 21:07 last edited by
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.