Camcorder vs DSLR for video? - Page 2

Any thoughts on hackable mirrorless/DSLR cameras versus a fixed bitrate camcorder?

Camcorders like the X900M/28mbps max bitrate and (refurbished version of the) HF G10/24mbps max have/had sales lately. They are both very decent camcorders, but am wondering if their fixed bit rate may be an issue sooner than later versus the hackable cameras...

For example, if you buy a 24mbps camcorder now, by early 2014 will it be outdated? It will take awhile for 24mbps to be unacceptable, but will 24mbps soon be the new 17mbps?

GH3 has already introduced much higher bitrates without a hack and cameras like GH2 and T3i are hackable and would be able to play bitrate catch-up, if need be.

I'm also thinking the new line of upcoming 2013 comsumer camcorders are going to introduce higher bitrates. Canon's $200 SX230 HS point-and-shoot from last year had a max video bit rate of 36mbps.

So far the bitrate increase is not showing impressive results, and there is a lot of direct evidence.

People have the opportunity now to test high-bitrates with AVCHD cameras that provide clean HDMI out. HDMI out is uncompressed, and there are recorders like the Atomos Ninja2 that can record the uncompressed stream at very high bitrates (over 400Mbps). So far no one has discovered any significant difference in quality, and they were looking very hard. The recorders do take advantage of 4:2:2 color sampling, but that is another thing entirely.

I have done some tests myself (so I could take advantage of higher bitrate if they were any), but have found no obvious advantage.

Here is a test using the Sony HDR GW77 comparing 108060p AVCHD and Pro Res 422 (145Mbps):

https://vimeo.com/47785992 AVCHD

https://vimeo.com/47788836 High-bitrate Pro Res

And do not be fooled - these are very detailed scenes, for which high bitrates should improve. But no one has seen any difference. You can download the originals and pixel peep all you want.

The sharpest landscape footage I've ever seen: https://vimeo.com/55219894
(and it doesn't come cheap ($1299 body and $1,199 lens)

I decided to post this elsewhere.

Thanks a lot to Markr041 for the footage. I am a newbie in video trying to pick between precisely CX760V versus the panasonic GH2 and GH3, as a dedicated video camera, but hopefully can double as a backup still camera to a Nikon D800. With your footage I can easily rule out the GH2. The CX760V is a lot cleaner. GH3 is the only candidate left, and personally I like 1080/60p footage better for running kids and toddlers.

I've handled the GH2 and 14-140 combo before, i did found the AF relatively quiet and responsive , but that was in bright day light.

I personally like the CX760V a lot. The low light shooting of the CX760 can easily rival the even the Nikon D800 / 24-70/2.8 combo with the CX760 being able to AF in the most difficult situations where the Nikon simply hunts non-stop. The noise level is roughly the same between the Sony and the Nikon. I've tried many many camcorders/cameras and CX760 is perhaps the only one that can track a moving baby running in totally random directions. The floating lens module surely helps a whole lot.

Now the big question is how would the GH3 / 14-140 combo perform relative to the CX760? I prefer 14-140 to the 12-35/2.8 if that's at all possible, for a bigger range and lower cost. I do like the 12-35 a lot, but it's also very expensive for the limited range.

Have anyone been lucky enough to compared between them? In general does the GH3 do better with video AF in very low light ? and is the video any cleaner in indoor poorly lit conditions, compared to the GH2?

If you get noise with a 20mm f1.7 on the GH2 i suggest cleaning the lens.

flinty - I think he means autofocus noise. the 20/1.7's autofocus motor is notoriously loud. I'll never buy one for that reason.

In case you haven't seen it, here is a side-by-side between an Olympus 9-18, the Panasonic 20 and a Panasonic 14-140:

I've shot with the 14mm, and it is a lot quieter.

Cheers,

Bill

Patrick - I have the GH2, the GH3 and the 14-140 - and the GH3 is much better in low light - even with a slow lens.

If you ignore the not-suitable-for-work (or suitable for children) subject matter, this is impressive low light footage (I did not shoot it).

Shot with the GH3 and the 14-140 at ISO 1600 f5.6, 50mbps 1080/60p. Please watch at 1080p, and note the lack of AF hunting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkY7o3uDgVc

This would have been a disaster with the GH2 - the dark background would have been blocky and muddy, even at the 14-140's widest (f/4.0) aperture.

Good luck with your decision. The CX760 (and my old TM900) are fine video cameras, but I personally prefer the flexibility, higher bitrates, superior Intraframe codec and the shallower depth of field provided by the GH3.

Best of the holy-days,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

P.S. I can't afford the 12-35 either - so I shoot with the 14-140 and less expensive and faster (f/2.8) classic 4/3 zooms - or with fast old Canon FD or Konica AR glass with adapters.
Edited by brunerww - 12/19/12 at 5:19am

That video had a lot more interesting subject matter than mine. But you see that the camera completely *lost* focus at 18 seconds in [after it zoomed] (I stopped watching after that). This is the same poor autofocus performance I have seen with my 14-140mm lens and the GH2.

The CX760 is more "flexible" than the GH3/14-140 combo; why? you have a *fast* (wide aperture) zoom from 26-260mm - this compares to the slow (small aperture) 28-280mm 14-140 (35mm-equivalent). So you have a low-light and a zoom lens all in one - that is flexibility, not having to give up zoom to get a fast lens in low light. The CX760 zoom is a power zoom, you can do smooth zooms at the speed you control. The 14-140 is a multi-length lens essentially, it is not a really a zoom since manually zooming smoothly is very difficult. It is useless for tracking/following active people, like in a sports video (I have done that). The autofocus on the CX760 is simply better. The OIS is much better. The camera is much smaller and lighter than the GH3 14-140 combination - that also increases flexibility - you can carry it around in your coat pocket. Shallow dof of the GH3 in low light is a problem, not an advantage in many situations and makes (auto) focus even more critical.

The GH2/GH take beautiful video when you have time to set it up, including locking focus. It is not for people who themselves move around, move the camera or move the lens, or take videos of people who move around. It is no happenstance that most videos you see from DSLRs that are posted have the camera locked down and the subjects are static, like buildings or scenics (leaving aside the dancing one above, but you see what happens there). If you want to take videos of your kids playing (at any age), a DSLR is simply not the video camera. If you want to enjoy your vacation with you family and take video, a big-rig heavy DSLR that requires you to change lenses and heft a big bag is not your camera. And you sacrifice nothing in video quality except shallow dof (and gain some things) by using a real (and good) camcorder. I have both, and I never take the GH2 anywhere anymore.

Oh i thought video noise was what was meant,Incidently the only focus noise my 20mm gives is when touching the shutter button to get focus the same as my 14mm does,once recording mine is not noisy.My 20 does not sound like the one in the video focusing.cheers

Not everyone agrees that "you sacrifice nothing in video quality". On the DVX forum the author of this spectacular GH3 video https://vimeo.com/55219894 wrote the following in regard to Panasonic camcorder vs Panasonic GH2 & GH3 video: "it's near impossible [for the camcorder] to match their [GH2 & GH3] color. Also, the GH units are infinitely more adjustable." So I think it's important for potential buyers to know that if they crave this kind of look: https://vimeo.com/55219894 they're not going to find it in a camcorder.

Hyperbole. A pro camcorder like the ac90 has all the adjustments but no moire or aliasing or rolling shutter like the gh2/3. That video is unnatural looking and was altered in post to look that way. The ac90 and the x900 are sharper by objective tests; no hyperbole.

Here's a full quote of what he said exactly.
Now here's a response from the other thread you posted.
It seams like you're only trying to pick parts from quotes that suits your agenda and will leave out anything else that doesn't suit it.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 12/19/12 at 9:21pm

Paulo & Mark, my agenda is to make sure everyone knows that still camera video looks different than camcorder video. This is an important fact I think shoppers would be interested in knowing about if they are trying to decide what type of camera to purchase.

Mark - are you referring to Dan's Biltmore video from the GH3? If so, I don't think that's correct, he says in the comment section: "...All scenes are straight from the GH3."

Cheers,

Bill

Your correct i know and have often been in contact via forum with DAN he shows as he shoots,for me IN Dans GH3 video he has set the saturation a bit high,i prefer his GH2 video for color etc.

There's another, less tangible issue in this discussion. I've been shooting with the Sony VG20 camcorder and just recently picked up the VG30. These camcorders utilize the much larger APS-C sized imager, so in a sense they're DSLR-type cameras in camcorder bodies. As a result, the ergonomics are far better than shooting with a DSLR. To put this in perspective, I've also owned and shot with the more traditional camcorders such as the Panasonic 900 and its great resolution, the Canon XA10 and its great overall image and a host of others too numerous to mention.

With that said, yes, the resolution of a dedicated, traditional small chip camcorder is often greater than most DSLR cameras in video mode. However there's a big 'but' that brings us to that intangible. There's an organic, professional look to my VG20/30 footage that none of these smaller chip camcorders can attain IMO. When I view the footage from the VG20 or 30 there's a 'wow' factor I just don't get with smaller camcorders. The image feels denser, the colors richer, the noise levels lower and the overall image simply more akin to broadcast camera imagery. Some of this is actually hard to put your finger on, but when you see it you know it.

As far as the resolution is concerned, that's only one of a myriad of qualities that go in to a great image. I'm of the opinion that once you get above a certain resolution or a certain 'feel of sharpness', other picture qualities come in to play that have a greater impact on final image quality.

Even my little pocket Sony GW77, on close inspection, can produce a somewhat more resolute image than my much larger VG20 or 30, but I seriously doubt many people would choose the 77's overall image quality over the VG20/30's image quality. IMO there's no comparison. Even with the occasional moire that you get with these larger sensors, there's a real payback in overall image quality. I haven't even brought up the DOF advantages of the large sensors, because frankly I don't think it's necessary for this discussion.

I agree, and that is why I purchased the full frame Sony VG900 to use in still and 1080p60 video mode with my many Pentax lenses . If I want to just shoot a quick 1080p60 video of the kids etc I use my TM700 or DMC-ZS20 20x pocket size superzoom. The only full frame Sony A mount lens I purchased is the Bower (Samyang) 35mm F1.4 wide angle and will get the new 16-50mm (24-75mm FF eqiv) Sony power zoom lens with OSS in APS-C 1.5x crop mode when I want to use it like my TM700. The VG30 and VG900 are great if you want the best OLED EVF w/ variable angle along with swivel LCD to use with most any DSLR lens out there using low cost adapters. I also have the GH2 with fast lenses like the Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 that has features not available on other cameras like 1:1 ETC crop mode for 2.7x in 1080p and 3.9x in 720p.

Jogiba, how do you like the 900? I was sorely tempted, but the greater weight and crop factor that remained with E-mount lenses, deterred me. I didn't want to invest in other lenses, A-mount or otherwise. For those that already have these existing lenses, this camera is unreal. I don't know what the technical reason is that the 1.5 crop factor exists with the 900 and E-mount lenses. With that said, I'll bet that is one incredible camera.

Your point about the OLED VF is excellent and one that I forgot. The OLED VF is just incredible and I find that I feel like I'm more part of the action I'm shooting rather than just a 'bystander'. For the first time you can actually get a pretty accurate idea of color quality and focus in the VF. Having had this in my NEX7 & NEX6, I knew I wanted it in my next camcorder. It would really be tough for me to go back to an ordinary VF at this point.

Ken I love it since Pentax does not have a full frame DSLR and I have a myriad of Pentax full frame K-mount lenses and wanted a full frame mirrorless camera that would work with my lenses. I shoot more video than stills so the VG900 camcorder body is perfect compared to a DSLR body and it gives you a choice of shooting in APS-C mode or full frame mode that will work with the two new APS-C Sony power zoom lenses (16-50mm, 18-200mm) with OSS or high quality full frame lenses like the Sony A mount Zeiss 135mm F1.8 , 24-80 F2.8 etc along with MF Samyang 24mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4 in Cine versions or regular. I like that my lenses show their native full frame FOV instead of a 1.5x crop like my 20mm Pentax with 94° super wide FOV.

Agree with this 100%, Ken. I have the Panasonic TM900 and have shot with the VG20. There is something about images from large sensor camcorders and my hybrid cameras that looks more professional (I call it 'more movie-like') than small sensor images - and it goes beyond shallow depth of field. Difficult to quantify, but it is there.

Cheers,

Bill

I agree with all of you that the NEX cameras produce a very pleasing picture, that looks very different than that produced by camcorders. And Ken's use of the word 'organic' is spot on. I like the way my NEX-5N produces video (and use the oled viewfinder), even though it is soft. Soft, but nice.

What I wonder, however, is which is actually more accurate - camcorder video or NEX video (putting aside moire and resolution)? I remember the discussion (debate?) among audio aficionados about tube versus digital sound. Many people swore by tube sound. We now know that tubes (old vacuum tubes) definitely distorted the audio, but in a way that was pleasing. They weren't accurate, but they sounded 'good.'

Maybe we like the way the NEX videos look in preference to how the world really looks, just like we like tube sound and pretty pictures even if they are not, well, realistic?

Those who like the 'film' look, with 24fps, for example, are indicating an aesthetic choice. The film look is clearly not an accurate depiction of the world, nor is shallow dof. Nothing wrong with preferring it, but I wonder if a lot of disagreement is over what looks good (completely subjective) and what is accurate (mostly measurable).

The NEX does clearly have greater dynamic range than most camcorders I know (and the GH2), and that is nice, and more accurate.

It is depth of field, what else. Well, with shallower DOF comes easier-to-compress image that has less detail, hence less macroblocking and overall nicely rounded image. Stuff like gamma and color tint can be adjusted in post.

Several seasons of Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations" have been shot with the 1/4-inch Sony V1U. The very first season has been shot with the DVX100 in 4:3 AR. Nevertheless it is a professionally made show unlike most amateur shallow-DOF home videos.

Here's a video clip that no DSLR, GH3 or NEX could do: It's Sports


Here is one short unedited clip from a basketball game. You see a combination of smooth controllable-speed zoom, extended zoom, amazing stabilization - this was handheld - great (accurate) color under low light and the pick-up of ambient stereo sound without distortion. And the wide dof and good autofocus means that nothing important is out of focus or loses focus despite the fast movement of subjects and zooms. You simply cannot do this with anything but a small-chip, full-featured, high-quality camcorder.

This was shot at 108060p at 1/60th, manual WB (they use very odd, and not very bright, lights).




Select 1080p.


Here's another, with end-to-end action and smooth zoom, handheld with a bird's-eye view:



Again select 1080p.


What video you need dictates what kind of camera you should use.
Edited by markr041 - 12/20/12 at 8:30pm

Jogiba, are you saying the 2 new power zoom lenses will work full frame on the 900? I have both since one came with the NEX6 and the other with the VG30. I was under the impression they wouldn't.

On another note, if you've handled the VG30, how much do you feel the additional weight of the 900?

Bill, I agree with you, the professionalism of the image goes far beyond the added DOF. That's very easy to see on bright days when you've shot something like a landscape or virtually anything where everything is in focus. There the image is, as Mark might say, more 'camcorderish'. Yet despite that, the image appears deeper, richer and more professional than a traditional small chip camcorder. I really don't get a feeling of that footage looking 'film-like', but rather more like my eyes see it than most cameras I've used. I guess, at least in my experience, that addresses Mark's good analogy of 'tube vs solid state'. To me, the VG produces the more accurate image and more like I remembered it. As far as detail is concerned, I honestly can't ever recall shooting with these VG series camcorders and thinking I needed more sharpness. Yes, in doing A/Bs, if you look carefully you can see that a camera like the Panny 900 can give some additional detail. However the critical point here is that's only noticeable during an A/B (iMO). It would be a far different story if you shot with the VG20 or 30 and thought, while looking at that footage by itself, 'I'm missing detail, the image looks soft'. I've never gotten that feeling and I doubt that many owners have. In fact, I find it quite the opposite. Generally, depending on what I'm shooting, I'm always very pleased with the amount of detail in the picture. The overall picture has far more pop than say my more resolute GW77 or any other small chip camcorder I've used. That goes back to all the ingredients that make for an impressive and 'poppy' picture. Things like color depth, low noise, perceived sharpness as well as actual detail as well as other factors like gamma contribute to an impressive picture.

I should note that my observations are on a 60" Sharp Elite display. I rarely watch footage on my computer (other than for editing) as I find the experience far more impressive and engaging on a larger screen display.

Now I agree with Mark that the VGs may not be the camcorder of choice for indoor sports. Notice I said indoor sports. The low light there will result in a larger lens opening and that shallower depth of field that might not be what you're looking for. On the other hand I'd bet the image will look more pristine than most small chip camcorders due to the low noise and good sensitivity of the VG series. With that said, outdoor sports should be just fine and DOF not an issue. I see no reason why the VG wouldn't perform very well and provide the added benefit of its deep, rich picture. Now that the new VG30 & 900 sport a power zoom, smooth and consistent zooming has become a non-issue. VG20 owners can also use the new power zooms. In fact, with the OLED VF, I'd bet the shooting experience for sports would be more enjoyable than a traditional VF and most certainly a flip out VF.

Ken, I agree with most of what you have to say, with one small point though: I do not think there are or will be any *fast*, long power zooms for the VG series or any DSLR. For indoor sports you need a *wide-aperture* (1.8-3.2), variable-speed, long power zoom. It is not just a matter of dof. The small sensor is what enables big-aperture long zooms, since the lens can be smaller (and cheaper and lighter) for the same quality. The 18-200mm E-series Sony zoom, with its small aperture (especially at the long end) is not going to work well for indoor sports, even if it is powered. And a fast, long, power zoom for a big-sensor camera would be so large as to not be useable handheld. I do not see any technological breakthrough that is going to create small lenses with wide apertures and long extension for big sensor cameras, even if they shrink the body to a cellphone size. ESPN uses camcorders for its non-stationary shooters to shoot basketball.

"Jogiba, are you saying the 2 new power zoom lenses will work full frame on the 900?"

No, I posted above "The only full frame Sony A mount lens I purchased is the Bower (Samyang) 35mm F1.4 wide angle and will get the new 16-50mm (24-75mm FF eqiv) Sony power zoom lens with OSS in APS-C 1.5x crop mode when I want to use it like my TM700. "

There are rumors of a full frame NEX still camera like the NEX-7 so if true that would mean more full frame lens choices.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-frame-mirrorless-from-sony-coming-in-almost-exactly-one-year-24-or-30-32-megapixel/

BTW there are many full frame E mount lenses available today.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Mount+Type_Sony+E-Mount&ci=1884&N=4292338124+4190025432

I use my TM700 for sports since it's easy to make a fast power zoom lens for a small sensor.

But, you cheat! You always have a brand new camera that is really good at something that can be exploited! (grin)

Bill

Cheating is half the fun!

Btw, the video from Sony Hx20v is actually much better than that of the Hx9v (it is still not great in low light). If you want to replace your Hx9v and a have a great quality small video camera that exactly complements your RX100 (good in low light, no great zoom), it is a nice cheat (and it is only *$259* right now at BH).