or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Camcorder or DSLR for Video?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Camcorder or DSLR for Video? - Page 2

post #31 of 89
Thread Starter 
GPS is also hell on battery life...
post #32 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

For ease of use , kids, sports etc get a camcorder. A DSLR is not for that in video mode.

Sony 16GB HDR-PJ380 60p HD Handycam Camcorder with Projector

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909735-REG/sony_hdr_pj380_r_16gb_hdr_pj380_60p_hd.html
The CANON 650D and 700D DSLR and the CANON EOSM auto focus just fine on video using CANON STM lenses and these cameras will shoot great video in low light - a camcorder will not.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

I am sorry, this advice is not right, and ignores what we know, which is that DSLR video quality - especially that of Canon DSLRs - is inferior to video from camcorders, in sharpness and in artifacts (rolling shutter, moire, etc.).

Moreover, camcorders have faster lenses and more zoom in smaller packages, and also as an option offer full manual control, as well as tweaks to quality like contrast and saturation and noise control (depending on model). The shallow dof of DSLRs gets in the way of achieving sharp focus quickly, which makes DSLRs especially poor for sports or kids action. The variable-speed zoom rockers on camcorders are much better for controlling zoom while shooting than any DSLR.The Canon EOS is a particularly poor autofocus camera, especially its slow (small-aperture) zoom.
OK, the facts are:

The 2011 SUNDANCE winning and globally released film "LIKE CRAZY" was shot entirely on a CANON 7D DSLR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_Crazy (I have the bluray - it looks fine).

Part of BLACK SWAN, a movie that received five Academy Award nominations and Portman won the Best Actress award for the film, as well as many other Best Actress awards in several guilds and festivals, while Aronofsky was nominated for Best Director. In addition, the film itself received a nomination for Best Picture, was shot on the CANON 7D DSLR some info here: http://www.alexandrosmaragos.com/2010/12/black-swan-canon-7d.html

and a huuge list of critically reviewed material was shot on CANON DSLRs - I can post this if any one really cares.

Camcorders are not used due to their tiny sensors, that limits creative DOF control, and cause poor performance in low light.

The cheap CANON 650D and 700D DSLRs and the CANON EOSM auto focus just fine on video using CANON STM lenses and these cameras will shoot great video in low light, and allow for great creative DOF control - a camcorder will not.
post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

It depends. I'm getting pretty fantastic sharp video out of my Canon 5d Mark III in raw, have complete control over DOF. Video quality is not just pure sharpness, which is why there are very few camcorders that shoot major movies or even television shows or sports. Being able to isolate a subject is HUGE and plays a large role in storytelling. If you like the infinity focus / deep DOF / live look, then camcorders are a great option.
Camcorders have faster lenses? Please let me know which camcorder can equal the speed of my Sigma 35mm F/1.4 on a full frame sensor. Answer = there aren't any. Or the 85mm F/1.2, etc.
DSLR's will give you much better low light performance as well.

I will agree that it's near impossible to keep focus with a DSLR on moving subjects, so if your goal is to film Junior running around you'd best stick with a camcorder.

But I wouldn't get a camcorder or DSLR if I were you - I might get something like the Panasonic LX-7 or FZ200 or even Sony RX-100. Larger sensor than normal camcorders and much better for stills.
I use a CANON 85mm F1.2 on my CANON 600D - one of the fastest lenses ever produced !

For kids running around, a camcorder may track focus better, however, the 650D, 700D and EOSM auto focus isn't all that bad with STM lenses. But.... in good light, even in full auto mode, the DSLR will stop down to a small aperture, eg F10 and beyond in good light, and mostly every thing will be in focus - ala camcorder style - and focussing is easy.

I only use DSLRs for video. I mostly use the CANON EOSM just like a camcorder, but with the benefit of great video image quality, great lenses, and great stills quality. I do not use a camcorder at all any more.
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepster returns View Post

...
and a huuge list of critically reviewed material was shot on CANON DSLRs - I can post this if any one really cares.

Camcorders are not used due to their tiny sensors, that limits creative DOF control, and cause poor performance in low light.

The cheap CANON 650D and 700D DSLRs and the CANON EOSM auto focus just fine on video using CANON STM lenses and these cameras will shoot great video in low light, and allow for great creative DOF control - a camcorder will not.
I largely agree with you but you are playing to the D-SLR's strengths.

For example, recently in the market for a new camcorder, I seriously considered buying a Canon 7D. First, I ran into the problem of sound. I want to record ambient sound accurately in 5.1. With a D-SLR, this means added gear. Second, stabilization is important to me since I move while recording. I can use a hand-held stabilizer with a D-SLR but its weight, zoom (and any lens changes) make the centre-of-gravity problematic. Its internal stabilization is primitive. Thirdly, a D-SLR is not designed for movement, and recording a moving object. For example, I often move my camcorder from a dark room outside to bright sunlight and then the subject moves into shade. IOW, the better specs of a D-SLR are lost when I consider how I record images. I could go on.

In an ideal world, I could set up my shot and have focus-pullers adjust for all these variations - as no doubt the DOP on Black Swan had. But I don't live in such a world.

My advice? If you primarily want to take stills, buy a good D-SLR. With still photography, you are trying to take an instantaneous slice of life - without sound. If you primarily want to record video, buy a camcorder. With video, you are recording the time series of life - with all its confusion.
Edited by August1991 - 7/1/13 at 12:48pm
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by August1991 View Post

Your question is not dumb at all, and neither is your OP. Indeed, the posts above are enlightening.

I think that if you go with a mid-range Panasonic/Sony/Canon camcorder, you will have better stills than your current point-and-shoot. (Check out the specs carefully.) Keep in mind that with a camcorder, you can use post-production software to get a screen grab (so-so quality) still from a video - or before shooting, you can put the camcorder into still camera mode as a point-and-shoot (with flash) and you'll get a better quality still.

I agree that a DSLR will give you more control over image - and interchangeable lenses!

Last point: Posters on this forum tend to put a lot of emphasis on image. But videos also have sound. A camcorder will record much better sound (in 5.1!) than any DSLR. The surroundsound of kids laughing puts you in the picture.
A very good point - sound can be very important.

Using a DSLR for video, I select the right lens for the scene, and the right microphone for the scene - makes sense, no ?

For instance, when I am filming @ an airshow, there is no way the on-board mic on my DSLRs will do the sound track justice. A camcorder built in mic isn't up to the task either.

When good audio is needed, my current technique is to use the Sony D50 stereo recorder with the built in stereo cardiod mics in 90deg x-y config using the on board recorder plus a line out to the DSLR mic input for a little insurance and for easier syncing in post. Note: distorted, overloaded DSLR audio generally doesn't sync well with automatic syncing tools like PLURALEYES.

In post, I convert the 90deg x-y sound to a simulated mid-side mic sound using the free Voxengo MSED plugin for adobe audition, then I open a second session of Voxengo MSED and convert back to regular x-y stereo, but now with the control m-s micing gives, eg, reduce ambient sounds and reflections relative to the main forward mono source, adjust stereo width, create a virtual shot gun mic, etc. To pull all this magic off, you need a clean, well defined 90deg x-y cardiod audio source, or a true mid-side mic source, or 2 separate mics arrange in m-s config. DSLR & Camcorder mics are not up to this task.

I filmed a 3year old birthday party in a house with typical hard reflective surfaces with a CANON 60D DSLR and the Sony D50 in 90deg x-y config stereo. The original stereo was a jumbled mess due the highly reflective nature of the room, however, with some processing of the audio, I dropped the reflected sounds 20dB, and used a little compession and limiting (used the 'broadcast' preset in Adobe Audition) and suddenly grandma could be heard clearly talking to the birthday boy, above all the other din. Good audio is worth the effort.

A cheaper solution is the $100 Zoom H1.
post #37 of 89
post #38 of 89
It's a myth that DSLRs would lower the cost of producing a TV show or feature film. They used the Canon 5D MKII for an episode of House over three years ago and they did not save any money and resumed using their usual camera setup after that.


View the Original .MOV file (4096x2160 / 1GB)
post #39 of 89
My current go to casual system is a Nikon D7000, Sigma 18-250 OS macro HSM, Rhode Video Mic, and a loupe with a crane (hot shoe mount) to hold the mic. Why? because I'm basically a still photographer with lots of Nikkor glass and I use a tripod with fluid head for lots of wildlife imaging. My next camera will be the D7100 with HDMI recorder on a cage mounted on my tripod. Why - because I live in both worlds and need to maximize my investment in lenses with very high quality output. The D7K and the Sigma make for a wonderful stabilized system, I have other lens where I can follow focus and control the aperture, and nothing under a $10K camera has the dynamic range I get.

DSLR make great video cameras, they are however system cameras and not a "unified one piece imaging" video camera. I have an older HD camcorder and for many people I can see that it would be a better choice. But for me and many others the DSLR is the choice because of the lens and quality of the video that the lens and sensor produce.
post #40 of 89
Most of the SLR feature films have had their color corrected,using black magic the low resolution problem that Canon dslr video has is not so bad,but for me having used canon dslrs + panasonic micro four third cameras for video a good camcorder is my preference.
post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

Most of the SLR feature films have had their color corrected,using black magic the low resolution problem that Canon dslr video has is not so bad,but for me having used canon dslrs + panasonic micro four third cameras for video a good camcorder is my preference.

You mean the Canon Magic Lantern RAW hack, I believe. BlackMagic is an entirely different dedicated cinema camera. smile.gif
post #42 of 89
DSLRs were the hot setup in 2008 when Vincent Laforet started it all with Reverie but most like him have moved on to true cinema cameras that don't have a worthless OVF like most DSLRs.
Quote:
Vincent Laforet’s thoughts on 5D Mark III raw

Vincent Laforet is a photographer and filmmaker with a high profile track record in using DSLRs at the high end of video and movie production.

I asked his thoughts about the recent developments -

Vincent: Too little too late in my opinion. C Series and other cameras are what people should be focusing on… but I am looking into it to be honest… the RAW (sic) is cool – just the HDSLR limitations are still pretty severe relative to other cameras and production needs.

EOSHD: What do you think the biggest hindrance is – Hack reliability? File sizes?

Vincent: Hack reliability – and can the body TRULY survive doing this over time (heat/damage?)
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10407/the-impact-of-5d-mark-iii-raw-video-and-what-does-vincent-laforet-think-of-it
post #43 of 89
I don't know Jogiba; sounds like you have some camera envy somewhere.
To me the VG900 is about the most pointless camera made. Why? It's not "great" at anything IMO.

1. Cost = as much as a Sony a99. $3k.
2. No in-body stabilization like Sony DSLT's.
3. If you're buying it for autofocus, then it's only with the adapter (LA-EA2) and cropped 1.5x mode. No point to the full frame there. Plus limited to F/3.5.
4. It's not good at stills; too awkward to mount flashes / use vertically etc.
5. The LA-EA3 adapter uses SLOW CDAF and is basically a stop-gap to use A-Mount lenses on this E-Mount camera.
6. There are no true full frame E-Mount lenses that I'm aware of.
7. No contrast/saturation/sharpness adjustments a la A99
8. Low detail in wide shots. Since you're quoting Andrew Reid's site, read this:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9214/the-eoshd-blackmagic-cinema-camera-shootout

"The NEX VG-900 is such a disappointment. By far the worst camera in the test, the video is a step back from the NEX 7 – which I find frankly bizarre.

Resolution on wide angle shots is very poorly rendered and extremely unstable. Resolving power is more like standard definition VHS than full HD. Aliasing and moire is produced not just by fine textures but by pretty much any vertical or horizontal line. Any fine lines shimmer and bounce. Colour is atrocious with a real lack of customisable image profiles compared to the A99 and NEX 7, yet the VG-900 is Sony’s most expensive full frame camera to date. Despite the full frame sensor, the camera delivers what seems like the dynamic range of Mini DV.

This is a $3000 (€3000 in Europe!) flagship camcorder. Some of Sony’s $500 camcorders have more resolution and less aliasing. In light of this, it appears the full frame sensor seems rather to be a marketing lead decision not an engineering one. A sensor designed for stills and not optimised for video, but shoehorned into a camcorder to grab some attention. Frankly this attitude disgusts me and it damages the Sony brand for me. Sony is about technology and performance, not the kind of chronic faults in the image that the VG-900 displays here. "

8. Video exhibits moire and aliasing easily - take a look at this...wow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuuxoRnYjc8

Other than throwing old manual lenses that lack chromatic aberration correction / have poor flare control / NO IS ! what is the point again of the VG900?
post #44 of 89
Whatever floats your boat , what do you see in your OVF when shooting video with your 5D ? My adjustable OLED EVF is a dream compared to and DSLR OVF. I could use any of my Pentax full frame or APS-C lenses on my VG900. Why should I envy the 5D ? I don't like jumping through hoops just to watch my 1080p60 videos. BTW does the 5D MKIII shoot 1080p60 anyway ? It sounds to me you are having second thoughts about that 5D RAW workflow and trying to find VG900 problems to make you feel better, too bad for getting into to 5D as a video camera.
post #45 of 89
Returning to the OP, I reckon that if someone at present primarily wants to take still pix, they're better to choose a good D-SLR, or a point-and-shoot. If the person wants mostly to record video, they're better with a good camcorder. Admittedly, a camcorder can do stills and a D-SLR can do videos. But in the long run, technology will change this.

In the long run, it is camcorders that will dominate the camera market and D-SLRs will disappear. Why? For the same reason that fly-by-wire planes now dominate aircraft, and Panavision no longer makes cameras and well, SLRs no longer exist.

Technology.
Edited by August1991 - 7/2/13 at 2:51pm
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

Whatever floats your boat , what do you see in your OVF when shooting video with your 5D ? My adjustable OLED EVF is a dream compared to and DSLR OVF. I could use any of my Pentax full frame or APS-C lenses on my VG900. Why should I envy the 5D ? I don't like jumping through hoops just to watch my 1080p60 videos. BTW does the 5D MKIII shoot 1080p60 anyway ? It sounds to me you are having second thoughts about that 5D RAW workflow and trying to find VG900 problems to make you feel better, too bad for getting into to 5D as a video camera.

Joe, do you assume we're all shooting video at weird angles and can't just use the LCD to pull focus? Raw video has been a GODSEND - now I can crank up the in-body sharpness, enable focus peaking with Magic Lantern and it's a snap to manually focus. If not, I can throw my $200 800x480 5" LCD onto the shoe and twist it however I need to. Electronic viewfinders suck - give me a nice big OVF any day of the week. Again, you can use your cheap 3rd party lenses with the VG900 - no in body "corrections" with any of them. Why bother with using APS-C crop lenses on a full frame anyway? You don't have to envy the 5d; but you certainly should respect it. 60p is nice for slow motion and it will do it in 720p - still far more resolution than the "VHS-like" quality of the VG900.
Sorry Joe, I'm not angry at YOU per se, just fed up with Sony and they way they hype up products that don't deliver. I owned an a99 for about a month after it first came out and saw the lousy video it and the VG900 produces. It was quite a hassle selling off all my Sony gear.
I would love to hear you address my points about the VG900 from my earlier post though. In my view it's just a marketing ploy; no more no less. Sony has crippled that thing to protect their FS line. You know it and I know it...)
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

You mean the Canon Magic Lantern RAW hack, I believe. BlackMagic is an entirely different dedicated cinema camera. smile.gif

Yes [age]rolleyes.gif:regarding black magic films like https://vimeo.com/groups/blackmagic/videos/66996517 https://vimeo.com/55887965 i have downloaded a good number and put on Blu Ray,they look superb .smile.gif
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

Joe, do you assume we're all shooting video at weird angles and can't just use the LCD to pull focus? Raw video has been a GODSEND - now I can crank up the in-body sharpness, enable focus peaking with Magic Lantern and it's a snap to manually focus. If not, I can throw my $200 800x480 5" LCD onto the shoe and twist it however I need to. Electronic viewfinders suck - give me a nice big OVF any day of the week. Again, you can use your cheap 3rd party lenses with the VG900 - no in body "corrections" with any of them. Why bother with using APS-C crop lenses on a full frame anyway? You don't have to envy the 5d; but you certainly should respect it. 60p is nice for slow motion and it will do it in 720p - still far more resolution than the "VHS-like" quality of the VG900.
Sorry Joe, I'm not angry at YOU per se, just fed up with Sony and they way they hype up products that don't deliver. I owned an a99 for about a month after it first came out and saw the lousy video it and the VG900 produces. It was quite a hassle selling off all my Sony gear.
I would love to hear you address my points about the VG900 from my earlier post though. In my view it's just a marketing ploy; no more no less. Sony has crippled that thing to protect their FS line. You know it and I know it...)
The Sony OLED EVF sucks ? Really ? What do you see in your OVF when shooting video ? The VG900 is the perfect camera for me since it lets me shoot FF stills and FF 1080p60 video with my PK mount lenses in a camcorder body without dealing with a DSLR ergonomics and RAW workflow .Like I said before whatever floats your boat.




post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

The Sony OLED EVF sucks ? Really ? What do you see in your OVF when shooting video ?


Why do I need to use any viewfinder for video? There's an LCD panel and/or external LCD monitors. You mention the form factor? People think I'm shooting STILLS - the 5d3 is much more stealth. If you like your VG900 then enjoy.
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

Why do I need to use any viewfinder for video? There's an LCD panel and/or external LCD monitors
The lcd panel is completely useless on bright sunny days... can't see a dammed thing. Now I suppose you could toil over one of those little lcd hoods (what a pain in the A$$ that is)... OR you can simply peer through the evf. In fact when we replaced our cam just recently, the included evf was a big selling point to us.
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by VixiaHF100 View Post

My current go to casual system is a Nikon D7000, Sigma 18-250 OS macro HSM, Rhode Video Mic, and a loupe with a crane (hot shoe mount) to hold the mic. Why? because I'm basically a still photographer with lots of Nikkor glass and I use a tripod with fluid head for lots of wildlife imaging. My next camera will be the D7100 with HDMI recorder on a cage mounted on my tripod. Why - because I live in both worlds and need to maximize my investment in lenses with very high quality output. The D7K and the Sigma make for a wonderful stabilized system, I have other lens where I can follow focus and control the aperture, and nothing under a $10K camera has the dynamic range I get.

DSLR make great video cameras, they are however system cameras and not a "unified one piece imaging" video camera. I have an older HD camcorder and for many people I can see that it would be a better choice. But for me and many others the DSLR is the choice because of the lens and quality of the video that the lens and sensor produce.
Vixia, I'm "sort of" impressed with your use of jargon and letters/numbers - in the same way that I'm impressed with someone who can speak several languages. But as Somerset Maugham said, "I know someone who speaks seven languages. Unfortunately, he can't say anything intelligent in any one of them."


Let me take this quote: "I'm basically a still photographer with lots of Nikkor glass and I use a tripod with fluid head for lots of wildlife imaging."

Calculators replaced slide rules, and ATMs replaced tellers. Digital cameras have replaced Kodak/Fuji stock. Movies replaced theatre. Still photography replaced oil paintings.

Camcorders will replace still cameras.

Why? The result is better, and cheaper.


I think Marshall McLuhan said that all older technology becomes an art form. The D-SLR has become an art.
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

The lcd panel is completely useless on bright sunny days... can't see a dammed thing. Now I suppose you could toil over one of those little lcd hoods (what a pain in the A$$ that is)... OR you can simply peer through the evf. In fact when we replaced our cam just recently, the included evf was a big selling point to us.

It's a pain in the ass for 3 seconds to put over the sunshade? Mine attaches with velcro. Or, I use a LCD viewfinder attachment. There are workarounds for everything...
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

It's a pain in the ass for 3 seconds to put over the sunshade?
It is. I would never use a camera without a viewfinder. But then, I would never (now) use a camera without a largish pull-out screen.
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

Hi Delirium - if you get a camcorder, would you carry the P&S for stills, the TS4 for the water and the camcorder for video?

I recommend you get a $490 Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera for stills and video and sell the Canon P&S.

It is just as good a camcorder as the V720 (without the wi-fi) or the PJ380 (without the projector) - but it is a much better still camera than either of them (it can shoot 12 still frames per second, for example, to capture your kids' best moments).

It also shoots 720/120p slow motion - something the camcorders cannot do. Note the kids playing in slow motion here (please watch at 720p):




With the FZ200, you only have to carry around two cameras - not three smile.gif

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

The video, although smooth, looked soft to me. Perhaps that's a byproduct of the slo mo.
post #55 of 89
Yes, the slo-mo video the camera produces is definitely lower resolution (and not just because it is 72030p). The normal 108060p is much sharper, and less artifacts.
post #56 of 89
I think there is no easy answer as to what's the 'best' camera for video, a camcorder or DSLR.

I've had both and each has it's advantages and disadvantages. If it's any indication, I always seem to gravitate back toward a dedicated camcorder. Since most of what I shoot is run n gun, the DSLR is not the ideal 'camcorder' IMO. I've also never been impressed that because a given TV show or movie used camera "A", that's an indication that it's a best fit for what a typical buyer would use it for.

TV shows, movies etc., take considerable time in setting up each shot. Generally they'll have the luxury of multiple takes for each scene.There is a tremendous amount of time & effort (as well as people) that goes in to each of those shots. Most of us don't have that time, manpower or desire to expend that much effort for a given shot.

To me, the main plus for a DSLR is DOF. I just recently went back to the latest iteration of Panasonic camcorders and there's just no question that you can't beat this type of camcorder for sharpness, detail, OIS and form factor. They also can't be beat for freedom from artifacts, an issue that bothered me more and more as I used either a DSLR or large sensor camera like the VG30. Sure, for many scenes where artifacts may not rear their ugly head, you can come away with the thought there are no artifacts to be overly concerned about in the DSLR's video. But take the 'wrong' video, and those artifacts are there for sure. So I found myself thinking before each shot 'uh oh, there's a roof with a lot of fine detail, I'll probably get artifacts'.

For me shooting video should be fun and not prone to concerns about the kind of content in the video and whether or not the shot will be ruined because of fine lines, detail or autofocus that doesn't follow subjects well. But that's me.

If you're really in to movie-making, take the time to set up each shot, are not concerned about run n gun type shooting and can avoid the kinds of scenes that are artifact-inducing, then yes, the DSLR may be the camera of choice with it's ability to control DOF.
post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

The video, although smooth, looked soft to me. Perhaps that's a byproduct of the slo mo.

The video my FZ150 produces is soft low resolution,if the FZ200 has more i dont know but all the info i have read mainly gives it better low light.
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

It's a pain in the ass for 3 seconds to put over the sunshade? Mine attaches with velcro. Or, I use a LCD viewfinder attachment. There are workarounds for everything...
Yup... great work around... gotta put the dammed thing on every time you open the lcd... and take it off every time you close it. But what the heck, it only takes 3 seconds rolleyes.gif
post #59 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Yup... great work around... gotta put the dammed thing on every time you open the lcd... and take it off every time you close it. But what the heck, it only takes 3 seconds rolleyes.gif
If you're outside, you just leave the LCD shade on.
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

It's a pain in the ass for 3 seconds to put over the sunshade? Mine attaches with velcro. Or, I use a LCD viewfinder attachment. There are workarounds for everything...
Yup... great work around... gotta put the dammed thing on every time you open the lcd... and take it off every time you close it. But what the heck, it only takes 3 seconds rolleyes.gif
This is not a problem. The problem is using touch-sensitive LCD with the shade on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Camcorder or DSLR for Video?