Is a proper camcorder a better solution?

[Morgan_Moore]

https://luminous-landscape.com/camcorders2015/

Is a proper camcorder a better solution?

Id say - it they would be if they were not so completely awful... I want to buy a camcorder, but ended up buying a GH4 and Yag box.

I have an FS7 'cinema' camera too - it is very good but still wont pop in a small billingham and go to the park with me - I want a camcorder.. or rather I want to do an adequate job with the content of a small Billingham... that I can cycle with.

In stills I can do a very good job with a 20 a 50 and a 70-200F4 on my nikon D600 and a small flash - yes I can do a paid job for a national publication with that package.. on my pushbike (I now live in a congested city centre!)

Anyway back to camcorders and why they fail - the dont need to but they do (IMO)

Field of view.

In most video we do some wides.. establishing.. to show the viewer where we are and also 'non synch wides' (look it up!)

Well ideally we'de do these with a FF20mm fov, or a FF24mm fov - that 29-30mm wide end does not cut it.

Sloshy focus.
Frankly most fly by wire video lenses (and still lenses like sony) just are un-focusable, you turn the ring and a week later something happens - this will break you even trying to readjust focus during an interview.

Seeing the sceen.
Most camcorders have two critical errors.
You cant see the screen in the sun
You cant see the screen when the camera is positioned in any way that the camcorder is comfotable to hold (ie on the shouder)

So - yes I want a camcorder, but I also need a professional tool.. and none of them cut it for work.. IMO

S

[Zerui]

I agree with you. I too want a small, but high quality camcorder, which will allow me to stop shooting video with my Leica M, which is much better as a still camera.  Having researched the field I have ordered a Canon XC10, which I hope to receive later this month. The specification is not perfect.  But it will do nicely for my carry everywhere camcorder. In terms of portability and image quality, I see the Canon XC10 as being the video equivalent of my Leica M.

The alternative is a much heavier, albeit more capable video camera, like the Blackmagic Ursa Minor.  But that would be the equivalent of my Hasselblad H3DII50, which is brilliant in image quality, but not a camera to carry around everywhere.

Thank you for starting an excellent, real world thread.   Zerui

[Hywel]

I went through the same thought process and ended up with a GH4 too. (Although I went for battery base instead of YAGH - I need longer battery life for timelapse more than I need XLR).

The GH4 is rapidly becoming my default stills camera for non-studio work, too. Just can't beat having a 4K video camera plus 16 megapixel image-stabilized stills plus built-in timelapse with 16+ hours battery time, focal lengths from 14 mm to 400 mm FF35 equivalents, all in a Lowepro trigger bag strapped to the side of my rucksack.

I couldn't find anything in a camcorder form factor that came close to that level of functionality or performance.

Stills-wise I get slightly better image quality from my Canon 7D, but not enough to justify the extra weight and bulk in the mountains. My Hasselblad kicks its ass, obviously, but I don't want to hump that around the rainy Welsh landscape.

Video-wise, the dynamic range and shooting ergonomics is better on my RED Scarlet... but that runs for 30 minutes on a V-lock battery, whereas the GH4 runs literally from dawn to dusk with the power grip. And it is back breaking trying to put the RED on a gimbal.

Neither the RED nor the Hasselblad is remotely as weather-sealed as the GH4 and its dinky little Panasonic lenses either.

I've got a movie shoot next week at a waterfall and mountain lake an hour's climb from the nearest road, and I've taken the executive decision to shoot it on the GH4, for all those reasons.

Cheers, Hywel.