Camcorder or DSLR for 4 k video and editing....??

Hi,

Not sure if I can frame this question correctly and apologise for the length of the message: but here goes.

I have a Panasonic HC-X1000 4k Video Camera with a “small” 1/2.3-inch sensor which shoot 4k at up to 50 fps.

It is used predominantly for filming my daughter at equestrian events, many of which can be indoor, in less than perfect/bright lighting, but some events can also be outdoor in better lighting.

I previously had a Panasonic FZ2000 which had a 1” sensor and loved it except that for some reason, if I was following her around an arena, the moment a pole came between me and her, the camera seemed to lose focus on horse and rider, lock onto the pole for a split second and then have to lock on to the subject again, seeming to hung very quickly to do so.

The 1” sensor did provide some beautiful images though; sadly affected by the above issue.

I shoot a lot of stills and have a Nikon d750 which is superb, bit not 4k: it is however full frame, so dwarfs the sensor size of both Panasonics.

The drawback for me in shooting video with a DSLR such as the Nikon would be the need to be able to “power” zoom, as the subject can move some considerable distance to and from my position. Obviously trying to zoom manually by hand is a no go as it would be jittery if I used a DSLR.

However, I am now using Power Director for my video editing and found how easy zooming with keyframes is which leads me to my question.

If I were to exchange my Nikon D750 for say a D780 or even an D850, which have 4k Video, if I left the zoom at a focal point which would allow the nearest point to fill the screen but where the furthest point away meant she and horse were much smaller (perhaps 60 yards away) and did not attempt to zoom in camera: if I did all the zoom and crop after the event, on the PC, would the image quality be better or worse using the DSLR with the much larger sensor?

Has anyone tried this for example and what results.

In short, am I better to use a/my camcorder with its tiny sensor to capture video with zoom at the point of filming, or am I better to shoot with a DSLR with a much larger sensor in 4k and do the zoom etc on the computer in processing etc?

Hope that makes sense.

Best wishes and thank you in advance

Ray

Your asking about digital zoom.

I'd start out if you're wanting to do this you'd be better off getting a Z mount camera. The 780 is supposedly the best of the Nikon DSLR for video but it still suffers.

Is your end goal 4K or FHD? If you start with 4K and use the image to zoom or reframe and zoom you're essentially cropping just like with stills. You can with some software than upsize it again .

The problem with giving you a straight answer is camcorders (the few that are left) range from high end pro models to really crappy consumer models. The high end models you might find the ease of use makes your life easier. In camera ND filters for example. A wide range quality lens maybe.

The low end don't really compete on quality. The low camcorders have battery life,form factor and maybe some other video centric features. But they tend to be 8 bit. Some lack basic manual controls.

The reason the AF is getting confused by the pole is the sensitivity is too high. Some cameras let you lower (or even increase ) this. The lower you set it the less twitchy the AF will be but if you're dealing with something unpredictable it'll react slower.

Thank you very much Nick…

My end goal is to keep my final cut at 4K as I can see progress going only one way and 1080p seems to be already lost in terms of quality now compared to 4 and now 8K.

The camcorder I have, the Panasonic HC-X1000, is actually a semi-pro model, clearly one up from consumer models BUT, with that small sensor.


I know they have brought out effectively the same camera but with the 1” sensor but I was thinking that, the full frame sensor with 4K would be even better and also, cur back on equipment to carry etc….I would effectively have photos and video all in one body..

Had I realised about the AF I would probably have kept the FZ2000 which did actually produce some great video apart from that focus/hunting issue etc.

Thanks very much for your helpful reply….really appreciated.

Best wishes Ray

Canon and Sony have the best AF systems, but last I checked, they hadn't implemented phase detect AF into their prosumer camcorders. Mirrorless cameras have the most cutting-edge AF, but only Sony has some servo zoom lenses available for their mirrorless cameras.

You could get a Sony APS-C camera & an 18-105mm power zoom lens, for a hybrid stills and video setup.

Sony also has a digital zoom feature called Clear Image Zoom, which I think is a sensor crop and maybe some interpolation to digitally zoom without losing quality.

I prefer Nikon cameras, but Sony has more video oriented features, so I begrudgingly use a Sony for video now.

RayGuselli said:

If I were to exchange my Nikon D750 for say a D780 or even an D850, which have 4k Video, if I left the zoom at a focal point which would allow the nearest point to fill the screen but where the furthest point away meant she and horse were much smaller (perhaps 60 yards away) and did not attempt to zoom in camera: if I did all the zoom and crop after the event, on the PC, would the image quality be better or worse using the DSLR with the much larger sensor?

Has anyone tried this for example and what results.

Click to expand...

That CAN work if you are shooting at 4K or a higher resolution (6K or 8K for example), but are delivering in a lower resolution, namely, 1080p.

If you shoot in 4K and then zoom in post then render / export the video in 4K, you might notice that the image looks worse when you zoom in using keyframes.

I think you will get more VERSATILITY overall with a mirrorless camera. Sony's aps-c cameras do quite well in dark situations. Their autofocus is quite good as well. I don't know whether they will alleviate the issue of jumping the focus point from the rider to a pole or other object that appears briefly in front of the rider. I know they have some adjustable parameters and I imagine that one could fine tune the af system to avoid jumping around between objects.

Don't get me wrong: There are some pretty nice camcorders out there and I am always thinking of getting one. If i were out shooting surfers at the beach that extreme zoom range might come in handy, and I wouldn't have to deal with lower light conditions, and the built in ND filters would be nice. But I got too many cameras as it is, so, there is that.

Andrew S10 said:

I prefer Nikon cameras, but Sony has more video oriented features, so I begrudgingly use a Sony for video now.

Click to expand...

I am curious to know which particular features the Nikon cameras lack but that you find Sony has? And which Sony camera are you using?

My main reason for not getting a Z6 when it came out was the lack of internal LOG recording.

The reason I went with Panasonic (instead of a7 III at the time) was the 10-bit color depth. (I shoot a lot of real estate video where I am dealing with all sorts of mixed lighting and weird color casts from LED or florescent lights so the 10-bit color depth helps me out a lot).

Off The Mark said:

Andrew S10 said:

I prefer Nikon cameras, but Sony has more video oriented features, so I begrudgingly use a Sony for video now.

Click to expand...

I am curious to know which particular features the Nikon cameras lack but that you find Sony has? And which Sony camera are you using?

My main reason for not getting a Z6 when it came out was the lack of internal LOG recording.

The reason I went with Panasonic (instead of a7 III at the time) was the 10-bit color depth. (I shoot a lot of real estate video where I am dealing with all sorts of mixed lighting and weird color casts from LED or florescent lights so the 10-bit color depth helps me out a lot).

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, there's a really long list of drawback to the Sonys, but their good key video features give them an edge as a hybrid camera.

I believe all but the newest Nikon DSLRs had a 30 minute record time limit, and lacked built-in log, zebras, and focus peaking. The Nikon mirrorless cameras added zebras & peaking, but still no internal log or unlimited record time.

Sony advantages:

• Among the best AF.
• Power-zoom lenses, at least for their APS-C cameras.
• Internal S-Log, albeit 8-bit on most of their cameras.
• K3M hot-shoe XLR audio interface.
• Resolution oversampling, at least on some of their cameras.
• Clear Image Zoom feature.
• No record time limit, at least on most of their recent cameras.
• Lens mount that can accomodate a focal reducer and be adapted to almost any lens.

I have a A6300 & have rented A6400s for multicam jobs. The A6400 is really what the A6300 should have been in the first place, but I've found workarounds for most of the issues.

I believe that Sony has better AF, but Nikon has certainly come a long way from the AF in my D7000.

I prefer to use my D7000 for photography, and use the A6300 almost exclusively for video.

I like the APS-C sensor size, and am waiting for a 10-bit camera with good AF, and hopefully Nikon will come through.

Andrew S10 said:

Off The Mark said:

Andrew S10 said:

I prefer Nikon cameras, but Sony has more video oriented features, so I begrudgingly use a Sony for video now.

Click to expand...

I am curious to know which particular features the Nikon cameras lack but that you find Sony has? And which Sony camera are you using?

My main reason for not getting a Z6 when it came out was the lack of internal LOG recording.

The reason I went with Panasonic (instead of a7 III at the time) was the 10-bit color depth. (I shoot a lot of real estate video where I am dealing with all sorts of mixed lighting and weird color casts from LED or florescent lights so the 10-bit color depth helps me out a lot).

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, there's a really long list of drawback to the Sonys, but their good key video features give them an edge as a hybrid camera.

I believe all but the newest Nikon DSLRs had a 30 minute record time limit, and lacked built-in log, zebras, and focus peaking. The Nikon mirrorless cameras added zebras & peaking, but still no internal log or unlimited record time.

Sony advantages:

• Among the best AF.
• Power-zoom lenses, at least for their APS-C cameras.
• Internal S-Log, albeit 8-bit on most of their cameras.
• K3M hot-shoe XLR audio interface.
• Resolution oversampling, at least on some of their cameras.
• Clear Image Zoom feature.
• No record time limit, at least on most of their recent cameras.
• Lens mount that can accomodate a focal reducer and be adapted to almost any lens.

I have a A6300 & have rented A6400s for multicam jobs. The A6400 is really what the A6300 should have been in the first place, but I've found workarounds for most of the issues.

I believe that Sony has better AF, but Nikon has certainly come a long way from the AF in my D7000.

I prefer to use my D7000 for photography, and use the A6300 almost exclusively for video.

I like the APS-C sensor size, and am waiting for a 10-bit camera with good AF, and hopefully Nikon will come through.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Good points about the feasibility of using Nikon cameras for video.

I have an a6500 (and had an a6300, since deceased) and an a6000 and an a5100. As you know, those first and second generation a6x00 cameras have some "issues."

I kept waiting for Sony to come out with a 10-bit aps-c camera. There were rumors aplenty before the a6100 and a6400 launches, but no such luck.

I don't know if they ever will. Are people going to buy a 10-bit aps-c camera if it costs the same (or more) than an a7 III (which, admittedly, is only 8-bit).

Especially now that people are selling their a7 III cameras for $1,200 to $1,500 on craigslist.

Off The Mark said:

Andrew S10 said:

Off The Mark said:

Andrew S10 said:

I prefer Nikon cameras, but Sony has more video oriented features, so I begrudgingly use a Sony for video now.

Click to expand...

I am curious to know which particular features the Nikon cameras lack but that you find Sony has? And which Sony camera are you using?

My main reason for not getting a Z6 when it came out was the lack of internal LOG recording.

The reason I went with Panasonic (instead of a7 III at the time) was the 10-bit color depth. (I shoot a lot of real estate video where I am dealing with all sorts of mixed lighting and weird color casts from LED or florescent lights so the 10-bit color depth helps me out a lot).

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, there's a really long list of drawback to the Sonys, but their good key video features give them an edge as a hybrid camera.

I believe all but the newest Nikon DSLRs had a 30 minute record time limit, and lacked built-in log, zebras, and focus peaking. The Nikon mirrorless cameras added zebras & peaking, but still no internal log or unlimited record time.

Sony advantages:

• Among the best AF.
• Power-zoom lenses, at least for their APS-C cameras.
• Internal S-Log, albeit 8-bit on most of their cameras.
• K3M hot-shoe XLR audio interface.
• Resolution oversampling, at least on some of their cameras.
• Clear Image Zoom feature.
• No record time limit, at least on most of their recent cameras.
• Lens mount that can accomodate a focal reducer and be adapted to almost any lens.

I have a A6300 & have rented A6400s for multicam jobs. The A6400 is really what the A6300 should have been in the first place, but I've found workarounds for most of the issues.

I believe that Sony has better AF, but Nikon has certainly come a long way from the AF in my D7000.

I prefer to use my D7000 for photography, and use the A6300 almost exclusively for video.

I like the APS-C sensor size, and am waiting for a 10-bit camera with good AF, and hopefully Nikon will come through.

Click to expand...

I kept waiting for Sony to come out with a 10-bit aps-c camera. There were rumors aplenty before the a6100 and a6400 launches, but no such luck.

I don't know if they ever will. Are people going to buy a 10-bit aps-c camera if it costs the same (or more) than an a7 III (which, admittedly, is only 8-bit).

Especially now that people are selling their a7 III cameras for $1,200 to $1,500 on craigslist.

Click to expand...

There is a good reason to want a 10bit APS-C Sony: one can then use those Sony E power zoom lenses, which are quite good - used by those FS5 and FS7 videographers. With good AF, 10-bit and the larger sensor than most camcorders, and the power zoom ability (if parfocal) a mirrorless camera may finally obsolesce camcorders (except the built-in ND's). Right now, only the Sony ZV-1 comes close, but with a 1" sensor, and limited and fixed power zoom and no 10bit.

Hi all,

What can I say but massive thanks for so many replies and all the different options, ideas, pros and cons.

The3 one thing that did bother me was

“If you shoot in 4K and then zoom in post then render / export the video in 4K, you might notice that the image looks worse when you zoom in using keyframes.”

That I would not want to happen and it pushes me to retaining something with a power zoom, which I know is available on some lenses, the Sony ones being particularly useful because although Panasonic have them, the ranges are not workable as I would need to be changing half way through a zoom if that makes sense.

The other option I liked was as Andre suggested…

You could get a Sony APS-C camera & an 18-105mm power zoom lens, for a hybrid stills and video setup.

That sounds good but I think the zoom is not enough unfortunately.

Seeking a larger sensor, I think this might push me back to a Panasonic FZ2000 (but the crop factor is against it) or, upgrade my current Panasonic HC-X1000 to one of their latest models with a 1” sensor.

I think the upgrade might be the way forward for me at the moment….

But it is a case of watch this space I think….

Sincere thanks once again to all you knowledgeable people whose advice is much appreciated.

Best wishes Ray

Just adding one of the reasons for shooting 8K is to do exactly what you want. Post zoom or reframe.

The other thing is don't assume power zoom lenses are smooth . Some are but it's not a given. My old Sony camcorder using the on camera zoom switch isn't that smooth. That's why you see the suggestions to get the add on multi control cable. But I'm not sure even that is 100% perfect. Long continuous clips are likely still a problem.

If your lens is parfocal (or close to it) you could try just getting better at zooming . Maybe edit out starts and stops

Thank you Nick,

I did not realise that about power zoom lenses that they may not be smooth.,

It may not be possible to edit out parts of the video as my daughter uses the videos to learn from and as her instructor tells her to do things, it is recorded, if that makes sense.
I am rethinking the whole process now and looking perhaps simply for a camcorder with a 1” sensor or a bridge camera with a power zoom and minimal crop factor…..

Appreciate the help, as always

Thank you
Ray

RayGuselli said:

The other option I liked was as Andre suggested…

You could get a Sony APS-C camera & an 18-105mm power zoom lens, for a hybrid stills and video setup.

That sounds good but I think the zoom is not enough unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Well you could get a Sony E PZ 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3, but the aperture stops down as you zoom, and f/6.3 is pretty slow at the long end, but you'd be in a similar boat with a camcorder that has a built-in f/2.8-5.6 lens.

Hi Andrew,

Many thanks once again for you kind help and observations.

I guess stopping down so much would be an issue with any camera/lens combination.

However, I used my camcorder today albeit in good light and whilst the videos are not really interesting to anyone who does not appreciate their purpose, the quality seems excellent and plenty of zoom left over, making me think I should focus on a camcorder with a 1” sensor if that would be an improvement.

The videos are primarily for my daughter to see exactly what she and her horse are doing, how they look and especially how he is recovering after doing very well and then having serious back and leg issues making him unrideable for 12 months.

For home videos, primarily doing this type of shooting: to keep a full record of progress etc, I suspect I am worrying too much because, to my eye, the quality of the video camera looks good enough, but it is “me” who must learn more about videography.

I need to get into the habit of using a tripod (which I did not take toady) because I am moving between photo with my Nikon and Video with the Panasonic. However, I guess sometimes handheld has to be done.

I am very grateful for your help and that of others here….might even be brave enough to post what I have done, bearing in mind its purpose.

Very best wishes and sincere thanks again, Ray

1" sensor, 24-200 power zoom, much better AF than any Panasonic camcorder. 4K. Excellent 1080 120p. Clear image zoom gives you power zoom to 300mm, and you do not lose perceptible resolution from 4K. 4K is oversampled, so higher quality than the the 4K from camcorders.

RayGuselli said:

For home videos, primarily doing this type of shooting: to keep a full record of progress etc, I suspect I am worrying too much because, to my eye, the quality of the video camera looks good enough, but it is “me” who must learn more about videography.

Click to expand...

Take a moment to admire the progress you have made.

The main cameras used in sports are these giant broadcast cameras that are on hydraulic pedestals that the camera operator sits on.

A lot of the sideline cameras are expensive Electronic News Gathering (ENG) cameras that cost thousands of dollars and set on a shoulder rig that can also cost a thousand dollars as well.

Some are used on a mechanical stabilizer that are supported by a mechanical arm that is embedded in a rather beefy vest (more like a corset I guess).

We don't generally have access to that.

RayGuselli said:

I need to get into the habit of using a tripod (which I did not take toady) because I am moving between photo with my Nikon and Video with the Panasonic. However, I guess sometimes handheld has to be done.

Click to expand...

In the meantime, you MIGHT think about getting a monopod, despite the fact that you already have a tripod.

It won't get you smoother shots than a tripod.

However, you might be less inclined to leave it at home compared to a tripod, since they are more convenient.

If you don't have a tripod or monopod, there is always the "neck strap stabilization" method. And if you don't have a neck strap, then bring your arms close to your body and press your elbows in against your sides. Then when you have to pan, don't move your arms, but instead rotate your entire body (or at least your torso). Much smoother than trying to make panning or tilting moves with just the arms alone. You can combine this with the neck strap stabilization.

...plus an Anker external battery taped to one tripod leg, plugged in to the usb port on the camera.

Joe Lynch said:

...plus an Anker external battery taped to one tripod leg, plugged in to the usb port on the camera.

Click to expand...

Yes, those batteries are tiny!

Markr041 said:

1" sensor, 24-200 power zoom, much better AF than any Panasonic camcorder. 4K. Excellent 1080 120p. Clear image zoom gives you power zoom to 300mm, and you do not lose perceptible resolution from 4K. 4K is oversampled, so higher quality than the the 4K from camcorders.

Click to expand...

Does the rz100 vii overheat under normal useage? My three Sony aps-c cameras all overheat (a6500, a6000, a5100)

Off The Mark said:

Markr041 said:

1" sensor, 24-200 power zoom, much better AF than any Panasonic camcorder. 4K. Excellent 1080 120p. Clear image zoom gives you power zoom to 300mm, and you do not lose perceptible resolution from 4K. 4K is oversampled, so higher quality than the the 4K from camcorders.

Click to expand...

Does the rz100 vii overheat under normal useage? My three Sony aps-c cameras all overheat (a6500, a6000, a5100)

Click to expand...

No, it has the new overheating control (which lets the camera get hot without stopping) plus a newer chip. Those three Sony cameras have older technology.