Should I get a CAMCORDER ?

Adam_Fitz

Adam_Fitz

Dog Crazy
Earlier on another thread someone recommended I get a camcorder rather than a dslr
I had planned on saving for the canon 600D

But is anyone able to recommend a good camcorder?
so that I can compare it to the 600D

and what will I need for it?
I've already got an external dslr mic, will this work? most camcorders I've looked at dont have an input
I'd also like to get a deep focus with blurred background
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, DSLRs are better, for the price and image quallity. You can buy a good dslr with many manual features, with both video and pictures. With a camcorder at the same price, you will only get video (maybe stills), and probably not as good quality, without being able to change lenses for the same price as a dslr. You'd need to be going up quite high in the price range to get a decent camcorder when there are DSLRs for less and can do just as good. I've worked with both camcorders and DSLRS, and I've always preferred dslrs over camcorders, especially canon dslrs. It can come down to prersonal preference, on what you need, as do you want pictures and video or just one? I can say though, you'll get more for your money with a dslr.
 
I got a camcorder ages ago and I regretted it. The quality doesn't seem as high on cameras compared to DSLRs.

I'm saving myself for a DSLR so I'd just recommend the same.
 
I had said that based on the fact that I didn't know he already had a DSLR. If he is just wanting it for video then there is no specific advantage to a DSLR. Camcorders are after all for filming videos whereas the main aim of a DSLR is photography and video is an after-thought more than anything.
DSLRs are limited in a number of ways:
- 30 minute recording limit (some are even less)
- Not all do 1080p 30fps, some of the cheaper/ older ones won't
- Not all have a rotating screen which is useful if filming yourself (some do)

With camcorders you can get 1080p, 60+fps (if that's what you want), generally have a rotating screen. You can get a decent camcorder for a lot less than a decent DSLR and it sounds like it's more suited to your needs. The interchangeable lens of a DSLR isn't really a benefit in this scenario, nor is full manual controls. I wouldn't have thought quality is a major issue either given that you're uploading to Youtube which will compress anyway.

If you have little money, keep the DSLR you've got but if you're going to splash out then I would get a decent camcorder first.
 
Foam Toaster said:
I had said that based on the fact that I didn't know he already had a DSLR. If he is just wanting it for video then there is no specific advantage to a DSLR. Camcorders are after all for filming videos whereas the main aim of a DSLR is photography and video is an after-thought more than anything.
DSLRs are limited in a number of ways:
- 30 minute recording limit (some are even less)
- Not all do 1080p 30fps, some of the cheaper/ older ones won't
- Not all have a rotating screen which is useful if filming yourself (some do)

With camcorders you can get 1080p, 60+fps (if that's what you want), generally have a rotating screen. You can get a decent camcorder for a lot less than a decent DSLR and it sounds like it's more suited to your needs. The interchangeable lens of a DSLR isn't really a benefit in this scenario, nor is full manual controls. I wouldn't have thought quality is a major issue either given that you're uploading to Youtube which will compress anyway.

If you have little money, keep the DSLR you've got but if you're going to splash out then I would get a decent camcorder first.
Click to expand...
The 600D has a rotating screen, can do 1080p and the quality will more than likely beat up any camcorder in the price rang[DOUBLEPOST=1400328612,1400328551][/DOUBLEPOST]
Foam Toaster said:
I had said that based on the fact that I didn't know he already had a DSLR. If he is just wanting it for video then there is no specific advantage to a DSLR. Camcorders are after all for filming videos whereas the main aim of a DSLR is photography and video is an after-thought more than anything.
DSLRs are limited in a number of ways:
- 30 minute recording limit (some are even less)
- Not all do 1080p 30fps, some of the cheaper/ older ones won't
- Not all have a rotating screen which is useful if filming yourself (some do)

With camcorders you can get 1080p, 60+fps (if that's what you want), generally have a rotating screen. You can get a decent camcorder for a lot less than a decent DSLR and it sounds like it's more suited to your needs. The interchangeable lens of a DSLR isn't really a benefit in this scenario, nor is full manual controls. I wouldn't have thought quality is a major issue either given that you're uploading to Youtube which will compress anyway.

If you have little money, keep the DSLR you've got but if you're going to splash out then I would get a decent camcorder first.
Click to expand...
The 600D has a rotating screen, can do 1080p and the quality will more than likely beat up any camcorder in the price range. 60fps is useless since youtube is limited to 30fps. You can throw Magic Lantern on the 600D and bypass the recording limit completely. Having interchangeable lenses will always be a benefit. Even on YouTube you can notice the difference in a cheap DSLR vs a cheap camcorder.
 
Styxie said:
The 600D has a rotating screen, can do 1080p and the quality will more than likely beat up any camcorder in the price rang[DOUBLEPOST=1400328612,1400328551][/DOUBLEPOST]
The 600D has a rotating screen, can do 1080p and the quality will more than likely beat up any camcorder in the price range. 60fps is useless since youtube is limited to 30fps. You can throw Magic Lantern on the 600D and bypass the recording limit completely. Having interchangeable lenses will always be a benefit. Even on YouTube you can notice the difference in a cheap DSLR vs a cheap camcorder.
Click to expand...
you need
Still whatever way you look at it, DSLRs aren't good at recording video (at least for now), from the very nature of the design.
Focusing is a big issue, when recording the mirror is locked up and the camera is in Live View mode, therefore the fast, reliable and accurate phase-detection autofocus that you get when taking still photogaphy doesn't work. You end up limited to contrast based autofocus...which can be slow and not especially accurate.
Sure, you can use manual focus but still...then you have to stay the same distance from the sensor or you'll drop out of focus.

I mentioned the 60fps because even if Youtube is limited to 30, it won't necessarily always be and also if you are doing any slow motion or whatever then you have double the number of frames to play with. Slowing down 30fps isn't ideal.

Also Magic Lantern won't be for everyone, some people will be concerned about warranty, etc. Plus there is a theoretical risk of prolonged exposure to the DSLR sensor, it won't have been tested for greater than 30min exposures so as I've said there's a theoretical risk of damage due to sensor heat.

Camcorders primary function is video as opposed to stills photography and you're not really going to be worried about bokeh, dynamic sensor range etc. on a Youtube video so any arguments of the sort are a bit irrelevant.

Besides I'd recommended a camcorder based on the fact that I didn't know he had a DSLR already. What is more suitable for a particular person obviously depends on what they want it for too. Also I say this as someone with several DSLRs and lenses and stuff if that counts for anything! :D My stuff:
ZEqizEil.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top