Hockey Camcorder - AVS Forum
Camcorders > Hockey Camcorder
Jeffrey Grab's Avatar Jeffrey Grab 04:00 PM 06-27-2012
I am looking to purchase a new camcorder to videotape youth hockey games. I want great clarity and HD, zoom and wide angle would be great. challenging light conditions occur along with thespeed of the game. I know i am looking in the $$thousands. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

markr041's Avatar markr041 07:30 PM 06-27-2012
I know you are new (welcome), but search is your friend here. If you had searched on "hockey", you would have found:

Check ou the Panasonic TM900, or or its successor. The panasonic Z150 might also be good. They both shoot at 108060p, which is great for fast motion.

There are other hockey shooter here.
bsprague's Avatar bsprague 09:57 AM 06-28-2012
To add to what Mark said, the cameras he suggested both have viewfinders. Many feel that a viewfinder held to the eye is much better for tracking action than trying to do it with the more common LCD screen. The FZ 150 may be the least expensive current camcorder that has a viewfinder, shoots in 1080p and gets significantly good reviews for both photos and video.

You didn't ask, but since you are new here, the reason the 1080p is important is that ithere are 60 full frames taken in each second. That makes action flow smoothly on play back. Additionally, there is software that can make a pretty good snapshot from each of those frames. For example, I have a favorite ink jet print on my wall that has my (drop dead gorgeous) 10 year old granddaughter swinging a bat at a ball about 1/60th of a second before she smacks it. The ball, six inches from her bat, is a little blurred but she is frozen with an amazing look of determination. The video is good too!

Another reason for the 1080p is that, with some editing software, you can get some "slow motion" from it. I used an even cheaper camera, the Sony HX9V, to shoot my brother shooting a replica of a 1776 muzzle loading rifle. It allowed me to spread the actual firing over a few seconds of playback. My brother was ecstatic when I sent him a YouTube clip. (The current version of the HX9V is an HX20V and it does not have a viewfinder.)

To summarize, you don't need to spend "$$thousands" for good sports video. You can spend that if you want, but spending a few to several $$hundred will get you a camera that takes wonderful sports video -- as long as you pick one that included "1080p60" in the specs.

bobk77's Avatar bobk77 12:24 PM 06-28-2012
Well, You are up for the hard task.
This is pretty challenging to record youth hockey mostly because of bad lighting/glass/protective net combination
Here is an example of video from FZ150.

I had TM700 before and they both have pros and cons
I found it easier for me to use LCD for hockey (both hands required) and EVF for Lacrosse.
I found stills from video to be pretty useless, but 60p lets you do better slow motion.
With FZ150 you can also make some still pics at the rink, but not as good as DSLR.

I have seen better hockey videos on this forum:)
hifisoftware's Avatar hifisoftware 04:27 PM 04-22-2013
I am currently looking for a "device" (camcorder or DSLR if it makes sense) to record my son's hockey video games. I found this thread and wanted to check if anything has changed or if Z150 is the best option?

I have borrowed and tested couple of options during several months.

I tried old SD camcorder. Then I tried Canon 7D (I have good glass for it). And finally I settled on my own iPhone 5. At the end I did not feel that 7D provided enough of improved experience over iPhone to justifying buying it. I'd like to get something significantly beter than iPhone though.

I think I am looking for something that:
1.) Can shot in low light conditions
2.) It woud be great if I can control focus and DOF to avoid focusing on dirty glass or net right next to the camera and instead to focus on the game much further away. I think I prefer auto-focus.
3.) It probably must shoot @ 60p
2.) From looking at few other folks shooting videos it appears that for best results it makes sense to attach small video monitor to tripod and to add zoom in/zoom out toggle to the tripod's head handle.

brunerww's Avatar brunerww 07:33 PM 04-22-2013
The Panasonic FZ200 has replaced the FZ150 and will do an even better job because of its faster lens. It also shoots at 1080/60p and has a flip out screen and accurate autofocus so you really don't need an external monitor.

Here is what the FZ200 can do (courtesy of bobk77):

This camera is a very good value for the money.

Hope this is helpful,

Hybrid Camera Revolution
hatchback's Avatar hatchback 10:01 PM 04-22-2013
I think markr041's TM900 hockey video has significantly more measured resolution than the FZ200 hockey video posted by brunerww The FZ200 footage has very little detail -- look at the players faces, the spectators in the background, or the signs on the wall. Based on that comparison, I wouldn't recommend the FZ200 for indoor sports video. The latest high-end Panasonic consumer camcorder is the X920, and it is reported to have better low light performance than the TM900 due to an improved BSI sensor design. So I'd recommend that you consider the Panasonic X920 (available now for $1k) or the recently announced Canon Vixia HF G30 (available in July for $1700). If you're willing to spend more money, and wield significantly larger/heavier equipment, you can get much better low light video performance from a Panasonic DMC-GH3 or a Canon C100 with appropriately fast (and heavy and expensive) lenses. The Canon C100 will give you the highest measured resolution with the best low light performance but is limited to 1080p30, so no slow motion. The GH3 shoots 1080p60 at very high bit rates.
hatchback's Avatar hatchback 10:17 PM 04-22-2013
P.S. FWIW, Camcorderinfo measures the FZ200 video resolution at 600x600 lw/ph in bright light, and the TM900 at 1000x950. So really no contest.
brunerww's Avatar brunerww 11:51 PM 04-22-2013
Since hifisoftware asked about the FZ150, I suggested a comparable camera.

But you are absolutely right, hatchback. $1000+ camcorders and large sensor mirrorless cameras have much better resolution and low light sensitivity than a $500 FZ200 superzoom (I own both the TM900 and a GH3, so I know this to be true smile.gif).

But these are darned expensive options.

And the C100 is $5499 on sale (!)

Overkill for a youngster's hockey game, I think smile.gif


Hybrid Camera Revolution
hatchback's Avatar hatchback 12:53 AM 04-23-2013
Good points, brunerww.. OP said "I know i am looking in the $$thousands." so I figured we could point him in that direction smile.gif
hifisoftware's Avatar hifisoftware 01:53 PM 04-23-2013
Thank you for replies, links and suggestions.

ZF200 video does not appear to be very sharp. I like TM900 much better.

I think for me the list of contenders is X920, Canon Vixia HF G30, or GH3. There does not appear to be much of info on G30.

Do you know how does GH3 compare to X920 (TM900) in this role?
brunerww's Avatar brunerww 06:07 PM 04-23-2013
If budget allows, I would get the $1000 X920. The $1699 HF G30 won't be available until June, and you would have to buy two separate power zoom lenses (the 14-42 and the 45-175) to get a decent power zoom range from the GH3. And these lenses would not be very good in low light.

The X920 will give you the best results for the money.


Hybrid Camera Revolution
hatchback's Avatar hatchback 06:37 PM 04-23-2013
In bright light, the X920 footage will be significantly better than the GH3 footage. But in low light and at greater distances, the GH3 with a bright lens will outperform the X920. To accomplish that you'll need the $1200 12-35mm f2.8 lens and the $1400 35-100mm f2.8 lens.

If you're happy with the TM900 footage posted above, then you will be happy with the X920 footage. So I agree with Bill, go for the X920. It's much less expensive, much easier to use, and will give you great footage.
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar Paulo Teixeira 08:00 PM 04-23-2013
Panasonic haso announce a new 14-140mm lens which will probably have very good stabilizer and auto focusing in the video mode but when you add up the price of both the camera and the lens, you could have gotten a couple of X920's. Even more expensive if you were to have both the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm. With that said, both camera's have it's pluses and minuses when shooting video and it depends on what your shooting. That camcorder will have a better stabilizer and auto focusing in video than possibly all of Panasonic's M43 lenses so for anything sports related, the X920 should be the wiser choice. As for comparing the X920 to the G30. Their both good choices. The Panasonic X920 is significantly cheaper and possibly have a better stabilizer while the Canon G30 possibly has a little bit more manual controls and native 24p. Theirs also the Panasonic AC90 which is sort of the professional version of the X920 for a little bit more money than the G30 but it's a bigger camera and for some people, that could be a negative.
ProspectRush's Avatar ProspectRush 01:52 PM 01-30-2014

Any new models out? Anything that will do a nice job for about $300?

bobk77's Avatar bobk77 01:56 PM 01-30-2014
Originally Posted by ProspectRush View Post

Any new models out? Anything that will do a nice job for about $300?

not as I know of frown.gif You can download original.

Panasonic LX7 - if you don't zoom too much.
ProspectRush's Avatar ProspectRush 02:12 PM 01-30-2014

Go pro Hero 3+ any reviews?

fishywishy's Avatar fishywishy 08:02 PM 01-30-2014
Originally Posted by ProspectRush View Post

Go pro Hero 3+ any reviews?

youtube would be your best bet
JerryLove's Avatar JerryLove 09:38 AM 01-31-2014
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Grab View Post

I am looking to purchase a new camcorder to videotape youth hockey games. I want great clarity and HD, zoom and wide angle would be great. challenging light conditions occur along with thespeed of the game. I know i am looking in the $$thousands. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
I am a big fan of the Canon D70. Professional clarity, 60fps, high ISO, you can determine your desired AoV by lens choice (and investment in lenses stays useful).

If you can shoot by tripod, you can marry it to a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens and still be out well less than $2k. Image stabilization will push that up a bit.
bobk77's Avatar bobk77 09:52 AM 01-31-2014
Can you post some hockey videos from Canon D70 ? I am intersted.
JerryLove's Avatar JerryLove 10:45 AM 01-31-2014
One problem is that I don't go to Hockey games (or really any); but I can offer some resources:

A discussion on D70 for hockey : (reviews the 70D for photos, but shot on 70D).

And, of course, though I can recall a ton of videos where they mentioned they shot on a 70D, actually finding them is a pain.

Perhaps the best option would be to rent one for a couple days and see what you can see: (there's a 20% discount code on the main page today)

I'm relatively new myself in the transition from classic "camcorders" to using the video features on the DSLR. I got into it because I got into DSLR photography (had been in video a long time back). Though certainly bigger and bulkier than likely camcorders; they come with the advantages of interchangeable lenses, a solid used market, and being the best cameras available.

One area of potential weakness would be recording times. Compare your needs and the ability of the cameras involved.
Mobile  Desktop