I was considering getting a good camcorder but somebody said that I should get an SLR camera as it will record movies and have a better imaging chip. Camcorder would be used for holidays/weddings etc. What do you reckon?
Are Camcorders Dead?
As a TV Pro I would point out that many SLRs produce bad moving pictures - they may have the tens of Mega pixels but they cannot get that down to the 2 M pixels that TV is without nasty artifacts and things ....
they also tend to be more of a "compose a shot and take it " rather than perhaps a "Handi lookee" sort of use for holidays etc etc .
Also how important is sound to you - get a separate mic perhaps ????
(and do all SLRS record sound??)
Also think about editing - what codec does the camera use ??
So I think steer away from SLRs.....unless their still performance is what you need as well...
or you afford what a professional will use.
they also tend to be more of a "compose a shot and take it " rather than perhaps a "Handi lookee" sort of use for holidays etc etc .
Also how important is sound to you - get a separate mic perhaps ????
(and do all SLRS record sound??)
Also think about editing - what codec does the camera use ??
So I think steer away from SLRs.....unless their still performance is what you need as well...
or you afford what a professional will use.
Originally Posted by technologist:
“As a TV Pro I would point out that many SLRs produce bad moving pictures - they may have the tens of Mega pixels but they cannot get that down to the 2 M pixels that TV is without nasty artifacts and things ....
they also tend to be more of a "compose a shot and take it " rather than perhaps a "Handi lookee" sort of use for holidays etc etc .
Also how important is sound to you - get a separate mic perhaps ????
(and do all SLRS record sound??)
Also think about editing - what codec does the camera use ??
So I think steer away from SLRs.....unless their still performance is what you need as well...
or you afford what a professional will use.”
“As a TV Pro I would point out that many SLRs produce bad moving pictures - they may have the tens of Mega pixels but they cannot get that down to the 2 M pixels that TV is without nasty artifacts and things ....
they also tend to be more of a "compose a shot and take it " rather than perhaps a "Handi lookee" sort of use for holidays etc etc .
Also how important is sound to you - get a separate mic perhaps ????
(and do all SLRS record sound??)
Also think about editing - what codec does the camera use ??
So I think steer away from SLRs.....unless their still performance is what you need as well...
or you afford what a professional will use.”
Surely the point of an SLR is their "still" performance? I would certainly never consider the moving image performance of a DSLR when deciding which to choose.
However the new generation of Compact System Cameras are able to shoot video in High Definition so they might well mean more people choosing a CSC over a traditional camcorder.
Some DSLRs are great for shooting something that looks like a Hollywood movie - carefully planned shot by shot.
They're very poor for normal "wave the camera around and capture whatever happens" home movies.
All IMO of course.
They still make great camcorders. Or cheap ones, if you prefer.
Cheers,
David.
They're very poor for normal "wave the camera around and capture whatever happens" home movies.
All IMO of course.
They still make great camcorders. Or cheap ones, if you prefer.
Cheers,
David.
On the flip side, some of the latest camcorders take some pretty good still images.
From what I have read, the gap is closing but specially in terms of audio a tradional camcorder wins.
From what I have read, the gap is closing but specially in terms of audio a tradional camcorder wins.
I'd imagine the most important difference is that camcorders are designed to be used one-handed and DSLRs are intended to be used two-handed. Not a problem if you're using a tripod but hand-held may be more difficult. HD video from a still camera can look very good, though.
I have a Nikon D5100 SLR. I should point out that I didn't buy it primarily as a camcorder, so didn't look too much into that area before I bought it. However, if someone was considering it as a camcorder, I'd point out that...
(1) It only supports 24, 25 or 30 frames per second. This is professional enough (24 fps is the speed most cinema films use). However, it gives a more "detached" look- like watching a film- compared to the "live TV" feel that traditional camcorder footage (50 or 60 fields/frames-per-second) has.
(2) The primary- and more effective- autofocus system doesn't work in the "live view" mode that video requires, and the alternative contrast-based autofocus is much slower and "hunts" annoyingly.
(3) Zoom lenses designed for still photography won't *necessarily* give a nice smooth zoom in/out, since they weren't designed primarily with that use in mind. As Inkblot said, DSLRs' handling in general is (or should!) be primarily designed for still photography.
(4) IMHO, the worst bit is that in bright sunlight the D5100 sometimes automatically sets a very fast shutter speed for each frame. Sounds like it should be good, as it means moving objects will be less "blurred"... actually, it turns out that you *want* some slight blurring of moving objects because otherwise the movement looks jerky! There are ways round this, but it's complicated and not entirely satisfactory- the D5100 doesn't give you full control over shutter speed. Casual users would probably just want a camera/camcorder that made the best choice automatically without having to worry about stuff like that anyway!
(5) On the upside, you (potentially) get a nice choice of removable lenses and the ability to (e.g.) select shallower depth-of-field letting you throw the background out of focus, neither of which is possible with a typical camcorder. Also, I'm not sure how the DSLR sensor compares with cheaper camcorders, but do bear in mind that cheap "HD" camcorders often have small sensors and lenses that means they're not as good as the "HD" tag makes them sound- don't compare solely via consumer-snaring "on paper" specs.
Let me be clear- the D5100 is meant to be primarily a still camera, and none of the above is a criticism of it when used in that way. But I wouldn't recommend it as first choice if you're primarily after a video camera, especially not for the casual user.
(1) It only supports 24, 25 or 30 frames per second. This is professional enough (24 fps is the speed most cinema films use). However, it gives a more "detached" look- like watching a film- compared to the "live TV" feel that traditional camcorder footage (50 or 60 fields/frames-per-second) has.
(2) The primary- and more effective- autofocus system doesn't work in the "live view" mode that video requires, and the alternative contrast-based autofocus is much slower and "hunts" annoyingly.
(3) Zoom lenses designed for still photography won't *necessarily* give a nice smooth zoom in/out, since they weren't designed primarily with that use in mind. As Inkblot said, DSLRs' handling in general is (or should!) be primarily designed for still photography.
(4) IMHO, the worst bit is that in bright sunlight the D5100 sometimes automatically sets a very fast shutter speed for each frame. Sounds like it should be good, as it means moving objects will be less "blurred"... actually, it turns out that you *want* some slight blurring of moving objects because otherwise the movement looks jerky! There are ways round this, but it's complicated and not entirely satisfactory- the D5100 doesn't give you full control over shutter speed. Casual users would probably just want a camera/camcorder that made the best choice automatically without having to worry about stuff like that anyway!
(5) On the upside, you (potentially) get a nice choice of removable lenses and the ability to (e.g.) select shallower depth-of-field letting you throw the background out of focus, neither of which is possible with a typical camcorder. Also, I'm not sure how the DSLR sensor compares with cheaper camcorders, but do bear in mind that cheap "HD" camcorders often have small sensors and lenses that means they're not as good as the "HD" tag makes them sound- don't compare solely via consumer-snaring "on paper" specs.
Let me be clear- the D5100 is meant to be primarily a still camera, and none of the above is a criticism of it when used in that way. But I wouldn't recommend it as first choice if you're primarily after a video camera, especially not for the casual user.
Originally Posted by Kodaz:
“I have a Nikon D5100 SLR. I should point out that I didn't buy it primarily as a camcorder, so didn't look too much into that area before I bought it. However, if someone was considering it as a camcorder, I'd point out that...
(1) It only supports 24, 25 or 30 frames per second. This is professional enough (24 fps is the speed most cinema films use). However, it gives a more "detached" look- like watching a film- compared to the "live TV" feel that traditional camcorder footage (50 or 60 fields/frames-per-second) has.
(2) The primary- and more effective- autofocus system doesn't work in the "live view" mode that video requires, and the alternative contrast-based autofocus is much slower and "hunts" annoyingly.
(3) Zoom lenses designed for still photography won't *necessarily* give a nice smooth zoom in/out, since they weren't designed primarily with that use in mind. As Inkblot said, DSLRs' handling in general is (or should!) be primarily designed for still photography.
(4) IMHO, the worst bit is that in bright sunlight the D5100 sometimes automatically sets a very fast shutter speed for each frame. Sounds like it should be good, as it means moving objects will be less "blurred"... actually, it turns out that you *want* some slight blurring of moving objects because otherwise the movement looks jerky! There are ways round this, but it's complicated and not entirely satisfactory- the D5100 doesn't give you full control over shutter speed. Casual users would probably just want a camera/camcorder that made the best choice automatically without having to worry about stuff like that anyway!
(5) On the upside, you (potentially) get a nice choice of removable lenses and the ability to (e.g.) select shallower depth-of-field letting you throw the background out of focus, neither of which is possible with a typical camcorder. Also, I'm not sure how the DSLR sensor compares with cheaper camcorders, but do bear in mind that cheap "HD" camcorders often have small sensors and lenses that means they're not as good as the "HD" tag makes them sound- don't compare solely via consumer-snaring "on paper" specs.
Let me be clear- the D5100 is meant to be primarily a still camera, and none of the above is a criticism of it when used in that way. But I wouldn't recommend it as first choice if you're primarily after a video camera, especially not for the casual user.”
“I have a Nikon D5100 SLR. I should point out that I didn't buy it primarily as a camcorder, so didn't look too much into that area before I bought it. However, if someone was considering it as a camcorder, I'd point out that...
(1) It only supports 24, 25 or 30 frames per second. This is professional enough (24 fps is the speed most cinema films use). However, it gives a more "detached" look- like watching a film- compared to the "live TV" feel that traditional camcorder footage (50 or 60 fields/frames-per-second) has.
(2) The primary- and more effective- autofocus system doesn't work in the "live view" mode that video requires, and the alternative contrast-based autofocus is much slower and "hunts" annoyingly.
(3) Zoom lenses designed for still photography won't *necessarily* give a nice smooth zoom in/out, since they weren't designed primarily with that use in mind. As Inkblot said, DSLRs' handling in general is (or should!) be primarily designed for still photography.
(4) IMHO, the worst bit is that in bright sunlight the D5100 sometimes automatically sets a very fast shutter speed for each frame. Sounds like it should be good, as it means moving objects will be less "blurred"... actually, it turns out that you *want* some slight blurring of moving objects because otherwise the movement looks jerky! There are ways round this, but it's complicated and not entirely satisfactory- the D5100 doesn't give you full control over shutter speed. Casual users would probably just want a camera/camcorder that made the best choice automatically without having to worry about stuff like that anyway!
(5) On the upside, you (potentially) get a nice choice of removable lenses and the ability to (e.g.) select shallower depth-of-field letting you throw the background out of focus, neither of which is possible with a typical camcorder. Also, I'm not sure how the DSLR sensor compares with cheaper camcorders, but do bear in mind that cheap "HD" camcorders often have small sensors and lenses that means they're not as good as the "HD" tag makes them sound- don't compare solely via consumer-snaring "on paper" specs.
Let me be clear- the D5100 is meant to be primarily a still camera, and none of the above is a criticism of it when used in that way. But I wouldn't recommend it as first choice if you're primarily after a video camera, especially not for the casual user.”
Shame there's no thanks button here.
This is easily the best post on this topic I have seen. DSLR's take superb stills and make a really good stab at video. The reverse is true for HD camcorders. They can take surpisingly good stills but lack the capability of a DSLR despite having similar resolutions, but certainly lack the ease of use of a HD camcorder.
Horses For Courses
Many thanks guys for your responses - & especially "Kodaz" for writing the longer report which further helps to clarify matters.
I will keep coming back, should anyone else wish to add their take on this matter.
I will keep coming back, should anyone else wish to add their take on this matter.
I think the gist is basically that DSLRs CAN take great video shots (especially the newer ones) but there's a lot of qualifications there - internal mic is poor, it picks up sounds the lens autofocusing, autofocus is poor, you can't wave them about like a handycam etc.
An episode of House was once shot with a lot of Canon 5D Mark IIs by the professionals, it had a very different look to normal episodes but the main thing is that it is difficult, you stick the cameras on tripods and you very carefully plan each shot.
As a normal consumer - get a camcorder, some of these may even take half-decent stills.
An episode of House was once shot with a lot of Canon 5D Mark IIs by the professionals, it had a very different look to normal episodes but the main thing is that it is difficult, you stick the cameras on tripods and you very carefully plan each shot.
As a normal consumer - get a camcorder, some of these may even take half-decent stills.
Originally Posted by Glawster2002:
“Surely the point of an SLR is their "still" performance? I would certainly never consider the moving image performance of a DSLR when deciding which to choose.”
“Surely the point of an SLR is their "still" performance? I would certainly never consider the moving image performance of a DSLR when deciding which to choose.”
You would have to consider the moving performance if you were buying it to use as a camcorder though which is what the op was interested in.
Originally Posted by TheBigM:
“I think the gist is basically that DSLRs CAN take great video shots (especially the newer ones) but
As a normal consumer - get a camcorder, some of these may even take half-decent stills.”
“I think the gist is basically that DSLRs CAN take great video shots (especially the newer ones) but
As a normal consumer - get a camcorder, some of these may even take half-decent stills.”
I should point out that my experience is limited to the D5100; I've read some people claim that Canon is better. Note that this article claims that- unlike the D5100- Canon's rival EOS 60D supports 50/60 frames per second (which would give a more "live" look). It also supports full manual control.
The same article claims that while "serious" users may prefer the 60D, the D5100 may be better for casual users because its video is more automated.
Unfortunately, I don't agree; the D5100's video mode is neither fish nor fowl. While it may appear to be a "make all the best settings and don't bother me with the details" video mode (i.e. the best choice for casual users), it's more of an ersatz sort-of-aperture-priority mode. Yes, one can just press the button and go without considering this, but casual users may be disappointed with the appearance of the resulting video under some circumstances and won't know why.
Similarly, its ability to autofocus during filming is limited by the slow performance of the contrast-based autofocus used in live mode.
Originally Posted by TheBigM:
“there's a lot of qualifications there - internal mic is poor, it picks up sounds the lens autofocusing”
“there's a lot of qualifications there - internal mic is poor, it picks up sounds the lens autofocusing”
I noticed that too, although it's not that bad, and doesn't appear as significant if you focus manually.
Originally Posted by TheBigM:
“you can't wave them about like a handycam etc.”
“you can't wave them about like a handycam etc.”
I agree- it doesn't look too good if you do that.
Is this because it uses the slower film-like frame rate that would result in greater blurring and/or jerkiness if the camera is being waved around?
Originally Posted by Kodaz:
“this article claims that- unlike the D5100- Canon's rival EOS 60D supports 50/60 frames per second (which would give a more "live" look). It also supports full manual control.”
“this article claims that- unlike the D5100- Canon's rival EOS 60D supports 50/60 frames per second (which would give a more "live" look). It also supports full manual control.”
1080P50 (60) while capable of great video has some problems for the unwary.
It's hard to edit requiring a fast PC to do anything with.
Once edited you are stuck with playing it back from a hard disc using a 1080p50 capable media player.
You can't burn it to BD-blanks as most blu-ray players have a max framerate of 24fps for full HD progressive recordings.
The cheaper option of burning to cheap DVD blanks in AVCHD format is a no no as well. Full-HD footage recorded at 17mbps interlaced can look pretty good in this format.
No one has mentioned the bulk and weight of a DSLR compared to a flash memory HD camcorder. No chance of slipping a dslr in a pocket
Originally Posted by Kodaz:
“Is this because it uses the slower film-like frame rate that would result in greater blurring and/or jerkiness if the camera is being waved around?”
“Is this because it uses the slower film-like frame rate that would result in greater blurring and/or jerkiness if the camera is being waved around?”
I think the two main issues are autofocus can be slower than in a camcorder (and the larger apertures mean shallower depth of field which makes differences in focus more noticeable) and also the image stabilisation is different. Image stabilisation in an SLR is geared towards stills whilst in a camcorder it is geared towards movies.
Plus the image processing, video formats etc aren't always the same.
For normal "home movie" stuff, camcorders are still the way to go, albeit these days pistol grip 1080i shooters are often sufficient, it's not so necessary to go for those Panasonic 3CCD camcorder types.
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“ Once [1080P50 (60) is] edited you are stuck with playing it back from a hard disc using a 1080p50 capable media player.
You can't burn it to BD-blanks as most blu-ray players have a max framerate of 24fps for full HD progressive recordings.
The cheaper option of burning to cheap DVD blanks in AVCHD format is a no no as well. Full-HD footage recorded at 17mbps interlaced can look pretty good in this format.”
“ Once [1080P50 (60) is] edited you are stuck with playing it back from a hard disc using a 1080p50 capable media player.
You can't burn it to BD-blanks as most blu-ray players have a max framerate of 24fps for full HD progressive recordings.
The cheaper option of burning to cheap DVD blanks in AVCHD format is a no no as well. Full-HD footage recorded at 17mbps interlaced can look pretty good in this format.”
Yes, but you have the *option* of reducing the frame rate or of taking your 50/60 (full) frames per second video and converting it to interlaced at the final stage.
(I'd still rather have the *source* footage as 60 full frames-per-second non-interlaced, as editing interlaced material has a number of problems).
Originally Posted by Kodaz:
“Yes, but you have the *option* of reducing the frame rate or of taking your 50/60 (full) frames per second video and converting it to interlaced at the final stage.
(I'd still rather have the *source* footage as 60 full frames-per-second non-interlaced, as editing interlaced material has a number of problems).”
“Yes, but you have the *option* of reducing the frame rate or of taking your 50/60 (full) frames per second video and converting it to interlaced at the final stage.
(I'd still rather have the *source* footage as 60 full frames-per-second non-interlaced, as editing interlaced material has a number of problems).”
I know but the results are not as good as original footage.
What exactly are the problems with editing interlaced footage.
You still need a state of the art PC and a long wait to re-code.
Being doing it for years with most video editing software. Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas etc.
I can take up to 40 mins of full HD 1080i and burn it to a AVCHD disc on a DVD blank using free software (tsmuxergui and imgburn) within 20 minutes or so for evaluataon on a core i3 laptop.
Try doing that starting with 1080p50. To get reasonable footage from 1080p50 you really have to keep the 50fps frame rate and reduce the resolution to 1280 x 720 (720p).
Moving off topic from the original thread topic, so feel free to skip this post and I'll try not to go too far in to detail. 
Probably not, but it's better than not having the choice at all, which is the case if your original source is only the film-like 24/25/30-fps.
Partly that you and your software has to be interlace aware, retain that structure and be able to work with it (e.g. if I import interlaced footage into some software, it treats it as a single frame. If I then apply a sharpen filter to that, the interlace structure around the area of movement is sharpened.) People who know more about this than me are probably aware of how to deal with it, but it's an additional complexity and nuisance.
AFAIK, there are other potential problems caused by the fact that we never have a complete set of odd *and* even lines for any given point in time.
Slowing footage down (e.g.) 4 times? If we have successive fields (1) odd (2) even (3) odd (4) even then the obvious answer is repeat each field four times (e.g. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, etc.) but although 1b should be an even-lines field, it has to be be derived from the original frame 1, which only contains odd lines.
One could deinterlace to 25/30-fps, but that loses quality and changes the appearance. I suspect that modern software like Vegas *should* be able to use information from near-static backgrounds for adjacent fields to generate full resolution detail at 50/60-fps, and for faster-moving objects where this was not practical, half resolution interpolation probably wouldn't be noticable because the objects *were* moving. But that'd still be an additional complexity, and probably requires processing power to generate- as well as the resultant interpolated 50/60-frame progressive output then needing the same amount of power/memory to handle as "native" 50/60-frame footage.
Similar issues should apply to rescaling and other distortion effects.
Also, as far as I know, interlaced footage is slightly filtered vertically to reduce "twittering", so you'd be starting off with marginally lower quality video.
Didn't want to sound like I was making a deal of this, but you did ask.
Aren't you going to end up recoding it anyway, unless you plan on watching the original unedited footage, or editing it in a way that doesn't require re-encoding most of the original source (a la VideoReDo)?
Or you could interlace it at the final rendering stage, which I would probably find acceptable for viewing the end product personally (YMMV!)
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“I know but the results are not as good as original footage.”
“I know but the results are not as good as original footage.”
Probably not, but it's better than not having the choice at all, which is the case if your original source is only the film-like 24/25/30-fps.
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“What exactly are the problems with editing interlaced footage.”
“What exactly are the problems with editing interlaced footage.”
Partly that you and your software has to be interlace aware, retain that structure and be able to work with it (e.g. if I import interlaced footage into some software, it treats it as a single frame. If I then apply a sharpen filter to that, the interlace structure around the area of movement is sharpened.) People who know more about this than me are probably aware of how to deal with it, but it's an additional complexity and nuisance.
AFAIK, there are other potential problems caused by the fact that we never have a complete set of odd *and* even lines for any given point in time.
Slowing footage down (e.g.) 4 times? If we have successive fields (1) odd (2) even (3) odd (4) even then the obvious answer is repeat each field four times (e.g. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, etc.) but although 1b should be an even-lines field, it has to be be derived from the original frame 1, which only contains odd lines.
One could deinterlace to 25/30-fps, but that loses quality and changes the appearance. I suspect that modern software like Vegas *should* be able to use information from near-static backgrounds for adjacent fields to generate full resolution detail at 50/60-fps, and for faster-moving objects where this was not practical, half resolution interpolation probably wouldn't be noticable because the objects *were* moving. But that'd still be an additional complexity, and probably requires processing power to generate- as well as the resultant interpolated 50/60-frame progressive output then needing the same amount of power/memory to handle as "native" 50/60-frame footage.
Similar issues should apply to rescaling and other distortion effects.
Also, as far as I know, interlaced footage is slightly filtered vertically to reduce "twittering", so you'd be starting off with marginally lower quality video.
Didn't want to sound like I was making a deal of this, but you did ask.
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“You still need a state of the art PC and a long wait to re-code.”
“You still need a state of the art PC and a long wait to re-code.”
Aren't you going to end up recoding it anyway, unless you plan on watching the original unedited footage, or editing it in a way that doesn't require re-encoding most of the original source (a la VideoReDo)?
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“Try doing that starting with 1080p50. To get reasonable footage from 1080p50 you really have to keep the 50fps frame rate and reduce the resolution to 1280 x 720 (720p).”
“Try doing that starting with 1080p50. To get reasonable footage from 1080p50 you really have to keep the 50fps frame rate and reduce the resolution to 1280 x 720 (720p).”
Or you could interlace it at the final rendering stage, which I would probably find acceptable for viewing the end product personally (YMMV!)
I have a Canon EOS 5D MkII dSLR for digital still photography, and a Sony HDR-FX1E 3CCD Camcorder for HD(1080i) or SD filming.
Although the Canon has the ability to film in HD at an even higher quality than my Sony (1080p, as opposed to 1080i), I prefer to use a proper camcorder for filming, the main reason being, smooth, well-controlled zooms are extremely difficult to achieve when filming with a dSLR. You need to twist the zoom control on the lens at a steady, consistent rate, while at the same, hold the camera so that it remains steady and wobble-free. Tricky, to say the least, especially when zooming at higher magnifications.
I know that you should use the zoom control very sparingly when filming, to avoid the footage looking amateurish, but you still need to use it now and again.
Although the Canon has the ability to film in HD at an even higher quality than my Sony (1080p, as opposed to 1080i), I prefer to use a proper camcorder for filming, the main reason being, smooth, well-controlled zooms are extremely difficult to achieve when filming with a dSLR. You need to twist the zoom control on the lens at a steady, consistent rate, while at the same, hold the camera so that it remains steady and wobble-free. Tricky, to say the least, especially when zooming at higher magnifications.
I know that you should use the zoom control very sparingly when filming, to avoid the footage looking amateurish, but you still need to use it now and again.
