Camcorder vs DSLR for video?

Most likely you'll be getting much better stills with the FZ200 and much better video quality with the V700. Also, the FZ200 is capable of shooting 120 frames per second recorded in 30p for 4 times slower motion.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 12/1/12 at 7:45am

Best combination of video quality and stills quality with some more creative possibilities to grow into would be Panasonic GH3. Not as easy as shooting with a camcorder, but the quality of the material would hold up in the future compared to any camcorder.
Best video quality of all DSLR cameras, though the GH3 is a mirror less camera, so not really a DSLR.

I own a Panasonic SDT750, which in many ways is similar to the V700. My wife owns the FZ150, the predecessor to the FZ200.

Hers takes better photos. Both take great video. In fact, I'm jealous and she won't trade me!

Bill

Usually still cameras has more noticeable side effects such as moire and aliasing and can also have less real resolution than a traditional decent camcorder. Sometimes cameras can get very close to camcorder like resolution and having very little picture site effects such as the GH2. I haven't really been comparing footage between the FZ200 and V700 but the chances of the V700 having better video quality are much higher than the quality being similar. With all that said, it's true that some people might not notice.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 12/1/12 at 10:06am

Well i own a FZ150 & GH2,the GH2 has a lot more resolution,the FZ150 less moire and aliasing,to aleviate it on the GH2 a tripod is a must.

With digital cams/dslr ... There's the rolling shutter/jello vision issue that's annoying

Superdon asked about the video performance of the small-sensor FZ200 - not the video performance of the GH2 or the GH3 (as much as I love those cameras ). So large sensor downscaling moire and CMOS jello are not the issues he is concerned about. If I understand him correctly, he is asking "which will give me better video image quality - a high end bridge camera or a camcorder?

I have personally shot 1080/60p side-by-sides with the Panasonic TM900 (better than the V700) and the FZ150 (the FZ200's predecessor) - and the FZ150 was just as sharp, and the color rendition was just as good.

Here is my unscientific comparison (please watch in 1080p - shot through a window with a screen on it - sorry):
With the FZ200, you can expect the same high quality video as the FZ150 (plus better performance than the FZ150 in low light).

You'll have a mic input, just like the V700 (even though you'll need a $5 adapter to use standard mics) - and you'll have a viewfinder, which the V700 lacks. If you can afford it, I recommend the FZ200.

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

I do not agree that the video performance - particularly sharpness or color rendition - is the same on the TM900 (one of the sharpest camcorders ever made) and the FZ150. Camcorderinfo tests the resolution of the TM900 and it is about 1000lw/ph; that for the FZ150 (digitalcamerainfo.com) is 600lw/ph, below that of almost all camcorders. I can see the difference in original videos (not Youtube compressed ones). They say "good for the best video sharpness that we’ve seen from a point-and-shoot. " It is not camcorder class. Same for the FZ200: "a respectable 600 lw/ph." The P&S standard is well below that of camcorders for video.

Here is what they say about the FZ150 color "Hues are flat, but not too ugly or wildly out of the ordinary." Nowhere close to the color accuracy of a three-chip camcorder like the TM900 or X900. Again, that is not to say that the FZ150 does not take good video; it is just not nearly in the same category as the TM900 or current mid-level camcorders from Sony and Panasonic.

This guy's YouTube channel has the most extensive coverage of the FZ200:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ghough12/videos?query=fz200

That guy is good. He manages a dry, yet entertaining style. He has 3,000 subscribers and nearly 2 million views!

I watched his series on the FZ150 and then bought one for my wife. He has done a series on several other cameras.

Could he possibly be making a retirement income from YouTube?

My FZ150 Lacks the resolution of MY GH2 but color accuracy on the FZ cameras is very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK7uoV5OtfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGVqkvnJqnY

I have both- FZ150 and V700.

If you have nice light and slow moving (or not moving objects) or you do not particularly care about smooth motion – FZ150 is fine.
I have tried to use FZ150 to shoot actions such as hockey and lacrosse and this did not work well for me.

Then light is down – FZ150 has more noise than V700, you have to make sure you can live with it.
Color accuracy and AF are fine for both, but FZ150 colors are slightly more saturated.
I am getting FZ200 tomorrow and will compare them.

I agree with coolscan that a top of the line mirrorless still camera like the GH3 (or the Olympus OM-D I presently own) offers "the best combination of video quality and stills quality with some more creative possibilities to grow into". I used to use a TM900, but sold it after I found the Olympus OM-D E-M5 delivered sharpness that is the same or better, the video image is much brighter, the colors richer, the sound more realistic and refined, the image stabilization better (the OM-D has class leading 5 axis stabilization).

It is hogwash to say that the Olympus OM-D E-M5 produces sharper video than the TM900. The Olympus OM-D E-M5 also suffers from "a serious moire issue". See the review at digitalcamerainfo.com:
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Digital-Camera-Review/Video.htm.

Sharpness can be measured, and that of the Olympus is considerably below that of most top-level camcorders, and especially the TM900, which is one of the sharpest camcorders(700/600 lpph versus 900/900 lpph for the TM900). 700/600 is mid-level camcorder sharpness, but those camcorders have no moire.

The Olympus is less sharp (measured) than the Sony NEX 5n, which I own, and the video from that is visibly soft compared to camcorders.

A "brighter video image" is not a criterion I understand - you want more brightness, open exposure.

I agree that the Olympus is a great combined stills video camera and has lots of creative capabilities, and you may prefer the way the video it produces looks. But you are stating things about video quality that are just plain incorrect.

"Hogwash" is a term my Dad used a lot. He has been gone a long time, but you made me laugh. Thanks.

Bill

markr041: I own all 3 of those cameras mentioned and the TM900 is a good camcorder, I just started shooting with the Olympus OM-D and just like in the other thread we are discussing I think the DSLR and Mirror-less camera systems is still in it's infancy stage and they will only get better. I also have a Panasonic GH3 on order and depending on that camera I might sell off my NEX. The OM-D is getting a ton of praise and it is what it is, a good still camera that does good videos. Being realistic about these reviews needs to be more focused on as most camcorders have many more years of development behind them.

SD90,

I just got the Olympus today, I must say the stills and video on it are pretty amazing for such a smaller camera, it reminds me of a mini DSLR. I need to buy the grip as it handles much better with it, just curious if the Olympus Lens will work on the GH3?

Here are screen shots of Panasonic TM900 and Olympus OM-D, E-M5 video samples captured from 720p playback on Vimeo and YouTube.
Everyone has different tastes, but I personally find camcorder video too dull, bland and lifeless as compared to DSLR and compact
mirrorless camera video like the OM-D.

This comparison is a silly way to choose or compare cameras. To generalize about a camcorder from one screen grab is ludicrous.

The top one in the above post is in fact from my TM900 video, from a cloudy day - but see the whole video (https://vimeo.com/20969928): dull and lifeless?. How about some TM900 examples from brighter days? This TM900 video has over 6,100 plays on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/21552224. dull and lifeless?

Here are some more video frame grabs:












Which one is from a camcorder? which from a DSLR? which are dull and lifeless?

Be happy with your camera - the Olympus is a fine camera - but try to learn about video to take advantage of it. If you made your camera choice on this basis, you need to learn a lot.

Why do I care? Because I am worried other readers of these threads will base their decisions on such nonsense.
Edited by markr041 - 12/7/12 at 6:20pm

Mark, I agree your closeup TM900 video footage look relatively sharp and colorful, but the real challenge is landscape shooting. I think your TM900 Vimeo landscape footage https://vimeo.com/21552224 looks quite a bit darker overall, the colors duller, the focus softer and less crisp than my OM-D Vimeo (720p) landscape footage: https://vimeo.com/55146026 . I joined the clips together using Apple's iMovie '11 but did not adjust sharpness, exposure or saturation - so the OM-D will deliver crisp, brilliantly colorful landscape footage like that straight out of the camera. So I think it's important for others on the forum to know that if footage like this https://vimeo.com/55146026 appeals to them they might have difficulty finding a camcorder that can match it.

I have both the TM900 and it is a mighty fine camcorder I have a Sony CX150 and I had a Canon HXA10, which I had to send back because it was defective. The whole debate over which to use will be one that goes on for years, now the pro-level camcorders are very hard to touch when it comes to quality and playback. Now with the new Mirror-less cameras and DSLRs that shoot video the landscape is changing and evolving. I for one will never buy a camera or camcorder based off of screen grabs, now video samples on the net can help depending on what your playing them back on. I will use them to evaluate to see what camera or camcorder I might want to look at and narrow my selections down, but I try them out and if I don't like them usually I have 10-15 days to return them. RIght now the Olympus is a keeper just for stills alone and the video is great as well. I am looking at the GH3 as well. Now remember markr041 there are many readers on here who are looking for not a camcorder but a great camera that does video as well, the days of DSLRs and Mirror-less cameras just being for novices casual video shooters is over. An opinion of course! Nice shots by the way!

SD90:

You might want to take that Olympus OM-D and check the sensor out. I was shooting some video with my second sample, the first one had a stuck on pixel in the middle of the sensor when viewing videos it was annoying so it got sent back. The second sample I got is worse than the first one, this is one hell of a nice little camera and I will try one more out, but if that sample is bad I am waiting. The problem is nowadays when you buy a new camcorder and or new kind of camera you end up being a guinea pig. Sucks because I really love the pictures and video this thing produces but the stuck on pixels are even showing up in the viewfinder. At first I thought it was dust but nope this one is worse than the first one. There is a feature called pixel mapping that seems to rectify any of the hot pixels, so far I don't see them in the video and none in my pictures like before.
Edited by Garman - 12/8/12 at 10:05am

Yes, pixel mapping is a feature all the Olympus micro-four thirds cameras have. I've never had to use it, but it's nice to know it's there. After 7 months of heavy usage, my OM-D has been defect free, but some owners have had the top most dial come off. Apparently it's glued on. Manufacturing defects can show up anytime in my experience, not just on newly introduced models. Last year, for example, my first TM900 had an optical defect that caused all the video to be slightly soft. The replacement was sharp. A good forum for Olympus and Panasonic micro-four thirds cameras is this one: http://www.mu-43.com/forum.php They don't talk much about video, however, so occassionally I come over here to the avs forum.

Panasonic GH2 with 20mmf1.7 lens versus the Sony CX760v in dim light.

A video comparison:

Select 1080p.

In each sequence, first the GH2 then the CX760, except there is an extra CX760 close-up (because the GH2 could not get closer).

Listen also to the audio: you can hear the GH2 lens grinding as it tries to focus; you can also hear elevated room noise from the GH2 (the autogain). The audio from the Sony CX760 is silent, just like the room. Both cameras in shutter priority mode at 1/60th, otherwise auto. The GH2 at high bitrate 108030p; the Sony at 108060p.

I conclude: I like the colors and resolution of the GH2, but it is clear that with this lens the GH2 is worthless as a run and gun camcorder: the audio is terrible, the lens is noisy, and the autofocus is poor. The Sony video looks just as nice, has no audio or focusing problems even up close (which the GH2 with that lens cannot get). I chose the GH2 lens because it is sharp and its wide aperture (f1.7) makes it good for low light (unlike most of the video-relevant GH2 zoom lenses). The Sony f1.8 lens is also good for low light, but it is silent and the autofocus is rock solid (it does have less of a challenge because of the shallower dof, but that is not true of the close-up).

I know the GH2 video is impressive if you put it on a tripod, lock the focus and exposure beforehand and use an external audio recorder. You can make a real nice movie that way, selecting from a wide variety of lenses. But that is not how I use a video camera. If you do not either, then do not be fooled by the DSLR hype.
Edited by markr041 - 12/12/12 at 7:43pm

Silent focusing prime and zoom len's are available for the GH2. The Olympus OM-D records stereo sound silently in a quiet room, comes with a choice of two silent focusing kit len's, the autofocus is accurate, (although a little slow) and has the amazing 5 axis image stabilization (like the $2,100 Panasonic AC90 camcorder) and a built in electronic viewfinder like a high end prosumer camcorder. The 12-50mm kit lens of the OM-D (which also can be fitted to the GH2) has a silent focusing power zoom lens just like a camcorder, plus very close up macro capability. The OM-D has worked well for me as a run and gun camcorder while also being a top notch still camera. Like Garman, I'm looking forward to reading reviews about the GH3 to see how it compares with prosumer camcorders as well as the top of the line compact system cameras from Sony and Fuji. The only feature I miss from my former TM900 camcorder is the 20x power zoom lens, but even that deficiency could be mostly mitigated if I purchased the 14-150mm zoom lenses that are available (from both Olympus & Panasonic) for the OM-D (as well as the GH2 & GH3).

Yes i agree we know the cameras and will not be changed by unbelievable BIAS,my TM 700 never had a 20x lens by the way only 12x
I still say if all you want is casual family filming a cam may be the best option,but if doing serious filming is wanted like http://vimeo.com/33025136#at=0 there is no contest.
Edited by flintyplus - 12/13/12 at 2:12am

Show us a video comparison, and stop making claims. Was there BIAS in the video?

The Olympus cannot shoot 60fps progressive (only 30p at a lower bitrate than camcorders) and has lower resolution than any mid-level camcorder. Its LCD is lower resolution too (good viewfinder though), and its kit lens is slow (f3.5, if I have the correct one (versus f1.8)). Its full stabilization is NOT available for video. All of this does not make it bad, but is an antidote to ownership BIAS and ignorance.