Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What video camera should I buy?

L

leandroc76

macrumors regular
Oct 27, 2003
152
0
garirry said:
I'm shooting tech stuff, unboxings, programs on-screen. Like I film installing OSes on computers, so I need a camera appropriate for on-screen filming, AND a camera that doesn't have those little random-color dots when I'm filming in low-light.
Click to expand...

Ok, now we're talkin'.

Unboxings... product reviews. I'd go with a T3i, install Magic Lantern. Audio is your biggest concern. Get a lavelier mic or a Rhode, or any decent Condensor mic. Plug it into your iphone or ipod. The iPod should have iTalk installed. you can sync the audio later.

On screen, I wouldn't record on screen computer actions using a camera. I'd record the computer actions with something like CamStudio. Its free.

As fars as those "those little random-color dots", that's noise. A DSLR and a fast lens allows you to shoot at low ISO in low light. New DSLR's have amazing High ISO performance. Even ISO 3200, the noise is minimal.
 
garirry

garirry

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 27, 2013
1,543
3,904
Canada is my city
leandroc76 said:
Ok, now we're talkin'.

Unboxings... product reviews. I'd go with a T3i, install Magic Lantern. Audio is your biggest concern. Get a lavelier mic or a Rhode, or any decent Condensor mic. Plug it into your iphone or ipod. The iPod should have iTalk installed. you can sync the audio later.

On screen, I wouldn't record on screen computer actions using a camera. I'd record the computer actions with something like CamStudio. Its free.

As fars as those "those little random-color dots", that's noise. A DSLR and a fast lens allows you to shoot at low ISO in low light. New DSLR's have amazing High ISO performance. Even ISO 3200, the noise is minimal.
Click to expand...

Well, OK, suppose I go with an T3i. What is the Magic Lattern? Why should I spend more money on a T3i when I can buy an T2i that has my requirements including a mic input? What are the advantages of the T3i over T2i? As for the screen, the problem is I record not just average programs, I record things like installing OSes that requires not-using a program. And why should I use my iPod Touch to record audio instead of the built-in mic port in the camera?
 
L

leandroc76

macrumors regular
Oct 27, 2003
152
0
garirry said:
Well, OK, suppose I go with an T3i. What is the Magic Lattern? Why should I spend more money on a T3i when I can buy an T2i that has my requirements including a mic input? What are the advantages of the T3i over T2i? As for the screen, the problem is I record not just average programs, I record things like installing OSes that requires not-using a program. And why should I use my iPod Touch to record audio instead of the built-in mic port in the camera?
Click to expand...

Then get the T2i.

Do you not have google, we are spoon feeding you, you lazy bastard.

The built-in mic is the worse possible way to record audio. It picks up every camera noise, including zooming, focus racking, dials. You already have an iPod. Use it. If anything mount a mic on your camera, then plug it in to your line in.

You're gonna do product reviews, and OS installs yet you sound like the last person in the world who is qualified to do this.

GOYA, and do some research.
 
garirry

garirry

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 27, 2013
1,543
3,904
Canada is my city
leandroc76 said:
Then get the T2i.

Do you not have google, we are spoon feeding you, you lazy bastard.

The built-in mic is the worse possible way to record audio. It picks up every camera noise, including zooming, focus racking, dials. You already have an iPod. Use it. If anything mount a mic on your camera, then plug it in to your line in.

You're gonna do product reviews, and OS installs yet you sound like the last person in the world who is qualified to do this.

GOYA, and do some research.
Click to expand...

Well, I am not an expert with camera. I can't really choose myself because I don't have really much money to spend and I want to buy something I'm satisfed with. I really want for a cheap camera like the V201: It is a camera made for video? Yes. Can it film in 1080p at at least 24 fps? Yes. Can it film displays? Yes. In my search request for a camera is two words: QUALITY and PRICE. So I want to try a camera I want, from cheaper to more expensive. If the HC-V201 would suck, I would sell it and buy another one.

So, thanks, your info was useful, but I prefer trying my own choice before I decide if you were right or I did.
 
P

Policar

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2004
662
7
dSLRs sound like a poor option for that kind of stuff unless you're willing to adapt to them and their quirks... Not actually that fast (light sensitive) unless you buy a fast lens, which adds to the price, and the lack of autofocus is a pain. Also the resolution is poor, but they do have a good look which, combined with some simple lighting, gives a higher production value than other similarly priced cameras. Audio is HORRIBLE.

I really dig the Canon and Panasonic stuff in the $1000 price range, at least I did when I used it a few years back and I continue to hear good stuff.

You are being a little unfair to some people who are trying to post. A lot of the terminology you're using is very wrong and confusing and a lot of your needs have been vaguely articulated.

The VIXIA HF G20 looks really cute, but it's a consumer camera, which means it will have poor manual controls.
 
garirry

garirry

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 27, 2013
1,543
3,904
Canada is my city
Policar said:
dSLRs sound like a poor option for that kind of stuff unless you're willing to adapt to them and their quirks... Not actually that fast (light sensitive) unless you buy a fast lens, which adds to the price, and the lack of autofocus is a pain. Also the resolution is poor, but they do have a good look which, combined with some simple lighting, gives a higher production value than other similarly priced cameras. Audio is HORRIBLE.

I really dig the Canon and Panasonic stuff in the $1000 price range, at least I did when I used it a few years back and I continue to hear good stuff.

You are being a little unfair to some people who are trying to post. A lot of the terminology you're using is very wrong and confusing and a lot of your needs have been vaguely articulated.

The VIXIA HF G20 looks really cute, but it's a consumer camera, which means it will have poor manual controls.
Click to expand...

I'm becoming confused... What is DSLR and what is not DSLR? Everyone tell me: Get the T3i! But I don't want that since it's more a "picture camera" rather than "video camera". I can be a pro having a huge camera on an tripod with a pro microphone on the camera or I can be a nerd having a crappy camera that films in 480p that the video looks and sounds like s*** and that I directly post the video without editing. Or I can simply be consumer that is in-between the Pro and Nerd. I want to be between the Pro and Consumer.

Let's recap my requirements:
-Under 500$
-Films in 1080p at at least 24fps
-Manual focusing or something like "tap to focus"
-Ability to film displays
-Camcorder, not camera
-Mountable to tripod and movable display (so I can see when I'm filming myself)
-Good audio and/or input jack
-Good optical zoom

Anyone have suggestions?
 
P

Policar

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2004
662
7
You should do more research of your own, but that doesn't sound like a dSLR to me.

dSLRs are still cameras, but conveniently have a similar sensor size (very large) to super35mm film (or in the case of the 5D, vistavision), and that fact combined with the fact that they use lenses designed for that sensor size, means the video they produce has some of the properties of very high end content shot on 35mm film. But most dSLRs aren't designed for video, and have compromises such as poor sound and other weirdness and the ergonomics are poor. So this puts them in a weird category because if you shoot extremely well on one it can look extremely high end, but they're kind of inept for basic video functionality on the other hand.

"Professional" means one thing... you get paid to make content. Stop worrying about meaningless labels. Borrow a dSLR from a friend if you want to try out the video mode on them. I sold my video cameras and bought a dSLR for video and really liked it, but now I've gone back to a video camera for my main camera and there are tradeoffs either way. dSLRs are great if you want to get a "film look" to your video, but not so good for run and gun or documentary. Anything can record a video off a screen although many cameras will flicker with certain screens; it has more to do with the screen (refresh rate of the CFL or LED backlights) than the camera. Fwiw shoot LCDs at 100% brightness to mitigate flicker if it becomes an issue; LEDs and CFLs dim their output temporally.
 
garirry

garirry

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 27, 2013
1,543
3,904
Canada is my city
Policar said:
You should do more research of your own, but that doesn't sound like a dSLR to me.

dSLRs are still cameras, but conveniently have a similar sensor size (very large) to super35mm film (or in the case of the 5D, vistavision), and that fact combined with the fact that they use lenses designed for that sensor size, means the video they produce has some of the properties of very high end content shot on 35mm film. But most dSLRs aren't designed for video, and have compromises such as poor sound and other weirdness and the ergonomics are poor.

"Professional" means one thing... you get paid to make content. Stop worrying about meaningless categories. Borrow a dSLR from a friend if you want to try out the video mode on them. I sold my video cameras and bought a dSLR for video and really liked it, but now I've gone back to a video camera for my main camera and there are tradeoffs either way.
Click to expand...

Does a HC-V201 fits my requirements? I don't have any friends that has a good video camera. Only my sister have a video camera, but it really sucks because it can't record in HD, and believe me, my iPod Nano 5th gen is better.
 
P

Policar

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2004
662
7
I don't know... someone else here might. It looks like it has a very small sensor so it won't be good in low light.

Any of these cameras will look good if you shoot well and light well (or at least turn on all the lights in the room).

My last inexpensive camera was the Canon HV30 and it was very good! So I'm a big fan of the Canon 1/3'' sensor line, the VIXIA HF M500/M50/M52 looks nice (1/3'' sensor and fast lens on the wide end), but there are so many models that get updated so quickly I doubt anyone has much experience with them all. Just google reviews, keeping in mind what you need. Sample footage can lie, unfortunately, since you don't know how much light was present or the operator's skill. The Canon G20 people seem to like and if it's anything like the HV30 it's mighty impressive. I really like Canon's video line, though their customer service is bad. Panny is good, too, but sometimes noisier in my experience and that small sensor on the one you picked would have me wary. Then again if you're shooting unboxings you can buy studio lights or just swap out your bulbs for 100w bulbs and turn all the lights in the room on.
 
A

adamneer

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2013
420
747
Chicago, IL
While 5 or 6 years ago, you may have looked "nerdy" using a "picture camera" for shooting video, things have changed quite a bit. DSLRs have all but taken over the video market because the video quality they produce is on a completely different level than a comparably priced camcorder. DSLRs have been used on Major television productions and many full length films, from small indies to big studio productions. I bought my Nikon D5100 specifically for video, with the added bonus of being able to take great photos. I also bought a 50mm prime lens, shotgun mic and a bunch of other add-ones and kept the total below $1000. To compare, the last camcorder I used on a regular basis was a Canon XF100 which certainly has its advantages (mostly the faster constant autofocus and electronic zoom, audio monitoring and XLR inputs, zebra stripes and a couple other convenience features that most camcorder users are used to) but it is a $2000 camera and since it has a non removable lens and a small 1/3" sensor, the footage comes out very "flat" and basically looks like a very nice handycam. And even though it shoots at a much higher bitrate and has a 4:2:2 color depth, my $600 Nikon produces better "looking" video. Actually, there is no comparison.

The deciding factor and the only real reason I can see someone buying a prosumer ($2000) camcorder is for the automatic features that make them easier and faster to use for quick shoots. But when you compare the final outputs of that with a $500 DSLR, you'd be crazy to think you could do better for the money.

I suggest you check out YouTube and Vimeo for examples of videos shot with any number of cameras you are considering. There are TONS of demos out there from people who own the camera and all you have to do is type the name in the search field.
 
L

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,480
7,232
adamneer said:
The deciding factor and the only real reason I can see someone buying a prosumer ($2000) camcorder is for the automatic features that make them easier and faster to use for quick shoots. But when you compare the final outputs of that with a $500 DSLR, you'd be crazy to think you could do better for the money.
Click to expand...

While a DSLR has a superior video, has its own set of problems. You can get camcorders with Pro XLR connections that add much better audio and better connection possibilities. Usually some sort of rig is needed. A DSLR small form factor makes it too hard for steady shots for long periods of time and a rig might be needed for better external audio. That adds considerably to the price. its not only automatic settings, but the use of multiple manual button settings that are much quicker to set rather then menu settings.

DSLR's tend to use automatic gain control that can be hard to set audio levels rather then manually. It also makes it harder to monitor audio while shooting, unless use some sort of external audio setup.

If you work in video that is in a run and gun situation such as weddings, reality shows ect, a camcorder might be a better option.

Its really depends on what situations you shoot in and are willing to compromise on both types of cameras.

The footage comes out very "flat" and basically looks like a very nice handycam. And even though it shoots at a much higher bitrate and has a 4:2:2 color depth, my $600 Nikon produces better "looking" video. Actually, there is no comparison.
Click to expand...

The high bit rate at 4:2:2 is an advantage in post edit. Not sure how DSLR's fair on this...
 
Last edited:
C

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,561
1,672
Redondo Beach, California
garirry said:
700$ is too expensive to me, 200$ for a good enough camera is a good price.
Click to expand...

The guys recommending a Canon SLR are not serious (I hope) You seem like you need something that is fully automatic and easy to use. An SLR based rig is not that.

ANY of the entry level camera camcorders will produce outstanding video images if (big IF, so do this) If you have enough light, lots of light AND you place them on a tripod. So you get your $250 or $300 camcorder and some big lights and a tripod.

Next comes sound. It is REALLY hard to gt good sound, harder than getting good video. the rules are (1) place the microphone closer to the subject. (2) find a way to get it even closer, use a lavaliere microphone or a boom mic. (3) NEVER use the camera mic. EXCEPT for synchronizing an externally recorded sound track in post. (4) after doing the above, upgrade the Microphone, good ones start at well over $100,

As an example, I can get good interview footage with 1000 Watts of light, a $250 camcorder and a $400 Tram TR50 microphone. My Rode N1a mic is outstanding for void over recording and glands eel with the tiny Tram mic.

Where the Cheap $250 cam corder falls down is if you take it ti places with poor lighting, that is either to dim or uncontrolled, light bright noon sun on a clear day. the low-end camcorders need you to think always about the light.

Things to look for #1. A microphone jack. No jack is a 100% deal breaker. Althought I have recorded without it, I use a portable audio recorded to record sound then attach it to the video later editing. But most of my shots will have voice over that is recored days later after the video is shot. I do instructional stuff.

Next feature is a good "OPTICAL" image stabilizer for those times when you must shoot hand held.

Best camera that has all this at the best price is the Canon - VIXIA HF R400 HD Flash Memory Camcorder. It is on sale right now for $200. just get it and be done with it.

Or really if yu are serious about film, buy two. It make editing easier if you shoot with multiple cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom