-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
difference between camcorder vs cinema camera vs dslr video?
- Thread starter j9300
- Start date
First, let me give you BIG kudos for intuitively understanding that they ARE different.
I can only give you my own conclusions on those differences in several categories.
Camcorder
Camcorders at the low end use a small bayer-pattern or striped chip, typically 1/4" or so. At the high end they use 3 non-bayer chips of 1/2". Most of the cameras have deep depth of field. They also have zoom rockers and great ergonomics for holding long periods of time. My Sony has a Linc connector for driving the lens remotely when on a tripod. Finally, only the highest end cameras can interchange lenses.
But, beware, some of the newest video capture tools, like the Sony NEX vg20 are called camcorders when in reality they are more like repackaged DSLRs having STM lenses. In actual operation, the Sony NEX series is more like the Canon T4i than it is the traditional camcorder.
The formats saved by camcorders also vary from DV, HDV to AVCHD. There are also some professional, less compressed, formats.
But, the primary benefit that keeps me coming back to the Camcorder for video is that the better models generally include a viewfinder as well as a fold out screen making them usable in outdoors in daylight conditions. This is a HUGE factor.
DSLR Video
I have the 5D MK II, which people rave about for video. I don't. The reason people love it and I don't is that our needs are very different. I want a video camera that is all-purpose and easy to use. The very things that make m5D MK II, inappropriate for that application make it great for getting more artistic shots. The large full-frame chip of the DSLR gives it a naturally narrow depth of field where the subject is in focus and the background not.
The chip sizes used in DLSRs vary from Full-frame, 4/3" to the "crop" cameras like the T4i so that depth of field will also vary. Some DLSR cameras (T4i) are designed to work with STM lenses that automatically focus as subjects move. Others require either manual focusing or a button activation to focus.
Cinema Camera
This is a relatively new category that was born from the emergence of DLSR video. They can sport even larger chips and RAW video recording. There is a new "Pocket Cinema" camera from Black Magic that will be debuting soon. Again, the appeal is that shallow depth of field for more dramatic shots. But, also a cleaner final result due to the file formats not being as compressed as some camcorders and DLSRs with shooting 1080p.
While these camera might not have a built-in viewfinder, they usually provide for a mounted viewfinder for outdoor use.
I'm sure that others can provide a more complete response.
What is the application you would like to address?
I can only give you my own conclusions on those differences in several categories.
Camcorder
Camcorders at the low end use a small bayer-pattern or striped chip, typically 1/4" or so. At the high end they use 3 non-bayer chips of 1/2". Most of the cameras have deep depth of field. They also have zoom rockers and great ergonomics for holding long periods of time. My Sony has a Linc connector for driving the lens remotely when on a tripod. Finally, only the highest end cameras can interchange lenses.
But, beware, some of the newest video capture tools, like the Sony NEX vg20 are called camcorders when in reality they are more like repackaged DSLRs having STM lenses. In actual operation, the Sony NEX series is more like the Canon T4i than it is the traditional camcorder.
The formats saved by camcorders also vary from DV, HDV to AVCHD. There are also some professional, less compressed, formats.
But, the primary benefit that keeps me coming back to the Camcorder for video is that the better models generally include a viewfinder as well as a fold out screen making them usable in outdoors in daylight conditions. This is a HUGE factor.
DSLR Video
I have the 5D MK II, which people rave about for video. I don't. The reason people love it and I don't is that our needs are very different. I want a video camera that is all-purpose and easy to use. The very things that make m5D MK II, inappropriate for that application make it great for getting more artistic shots. The large full-frame chip of the DSLR gives it a naturally narrow depth of field where the subject is in focus and the background not.
The chip sizes used in DLSRs vary from Full-frame, 4/3" to the "crop" cameras like the T4i so that depth of field will also vary. Some DLSR cameras (T4i) are designed to work with STM lenses that automatically focus as subjects move. Others require either manual focusing or a button activation to focus.
Cinema Camera
This is a relatively new category that was born from the emergence of DLSR video. They can sport even larger chips and RAW video recording. There is a new "Pocket Cinema" camera from Black Magic that will be debuting soon. Again, the appeal is that shallow depth of field for more dramatic shots. But, also a cleaner final result due to the file formats not being as compressed as some camcorders and DLSRs with shooting 1080p.
While these camera might not have a built-in viewfinder, they usually provide for a mounted viewfinder for outdoor use.
I'm sure that others can provide a more complete response.
What is the application you would like to address?
J
Jeff4500
Guest
Also some DSLR allow for uncompressed video in 4:2:2 specs to be captured to an external recorder. If you want to do easy "good video" I'd stick with the high end consumer/low end Pro camcorders.
I agree. Even though I have the Canon 5D MK II and the T4i, I still prefer a dedicated video camcorder. I have some low-end HD camcorders; but, I'm now considering the Panasonic X920 as the best upgrade to my old Sony VCX2100... a great SD camcorder.
What’s the difference? Less and less as time passes. Ergonomics and functionality perhaps. We are informed here and there that a DSLR is optimized for photography while a camcorder is optimized for video however seems both do both quite well, generally but not always.
Tom has pretty much covered the subject. The key drivers regarding using DSLR’s for video was first price and the second shallow depth of field (DoF). For a person getting into wedding videography, for instance, who might already have a DSLR then it was a no brainer versus purchasing a much more expensive state-of-the-art run ‘n gun video camera such as the hugely popular Sony EX1. The desire for shallow DoF of course was and continues to be a stylistic, or artistic if you like, choice, a fashion fad that is seemingly on the wane and being regulated to its rightful place as a tool to be used, sparingly and appropriately, by the cinematographer. And shallow DoF is easily achieved using a large sensor DSLR versus the aforementioned EX1.
The new yet to be released Blackmagic Pocket Cine Camera that was all the rage at NAB this year is not actually based on a large senor but a medium size one, and its claim to fame is that it delivers 13 stops of dynamic range and enables capture of footage that is designed to be manipulated in post much more so than that produced by most camcorders (other than the very high end expensive models) and DSLR’s. However dramatic shallow DoF is not one of its main features. The image is also likely to be softer we are told, not as sharp, not even as sharp as many low-end camcorders and even point and shoot cameras perhaps. Nevertheless the imagery produced is nice. (I have one on order.)
If you are asking the question in order to make an informed purchasing decision might I suggest you first define, as much as possible, your intended use. Beg borrow or rent and try for yourself is the best way to go in my opinion.
Convergence is the name of the game today. Even some cell phones now deliver half-decent video if push comes to shove.
Tom has pretty much covered the subject. The key drivers regarding using DSLR’s for video was first price and the second shallow depth of field (DoF). For a person getting into wedding videography, for instance, who might already have a DSLR then it was a no brainer versus purchasing a much more expensive state-of-the-art run ‘n gun video camera such as the hugely popular Sony EX1. The desire for shallow DoF of course was and continues to be a stylistic, or artistic if you like, choice, a fashion fad that is seemingly on the wane and being regulated to its rightful place as a tool to be used, sparingly and appropriately, by the cinematographer. And shallow DoF is easily achieved using a large sensor DSLR versus the aforementioned EX1.
The new yet to be released Blackmagic Pocket Cine Camera that was all the rage at NAB this year is not actually based on a large senor but a medium size one, and its claim to fame is that it delivers 13 stops of dynamic range and enables capture of footage that is designed to be manipulated in post much more so than that produced by most camcorders (other than the very high end expensive models) and DSLR’s. However dramatic shallow DoF is not one of its main features. The image is also likely to be softer we are told, not as sharp, not even as sharp as many low-end camcorders and even point and shoot cameras perhaps. Nevertheless the imagery produced is nice. (I have one on order.)
If you are asking the question in order to make an informed purchasing decision might I suggest you first define, as much as possible, your intended use. Beg borrow or rent and try for yourself is the best way to go in my opinion.
Convergence is the name of the game today. Even some cell phones now deliver half-decent video if push comes to shove.
"Convergence is the name of the game today. Even some cell phones now deliver half-decent video if push comes to shove."
You've got that right!!!
My first video camera was purchased on the late 1960's. (My first video recorder was a combination of a CV-2000 and monitor in a single case and a matching camera.) From there I moved to professional 3-tube plumbicon cameras.
There are few phones that cannot outperform both!
Here is a bit of fun to prove the point!
We've come a LONG WAY from my Ikagami HL-35 with backpack! LOL!
You've got that right!!!
My first video camera was purchased on the late 1960's. (My first video recorder was a combination of a CV-2000 and monitor in a single case and a matching camera.) From there I moved to professional 3-tube plumbicon cameras.
There are few phones that cannot outperform both!
Here is a bit of fun to prove the point!
We've come a LONG WAY from my Ikagami HL-35 with backpack! LOL!
Fastfwd01
Forum Enthusiast
I also get the impression that if you are familiar with the function of traditional cinema cameras that a DSLR is more of an equivalent in terms of how it operates with interchangeable lenses, generally manual focus with many lenses, shorter record times, etc. I seem to pick up that DSLR’s have a reputation for overheating and shutting down when used for video too. I may be picking up in reviews that some newer DSLR’s are getting better with overheating and one of the major features of the T5i is the ‘silent’ motor autofocus kit lens; right? So, bridging the gap in that regard. The new Panasonic GH3 is supposed to be less prone to overheating too I believe I saw mentioned.
It’s tempting, but I’m not seeing myself jump over to DSLR for video. The lenses are too expensive for me right now anyway for starters and I would hate to give up Lanc control and a few other convenience features. If a fixed lens big sensor still camera came out that really did video well in addition to stills; I might trade in my Canon G1X. The G1X video is not too shabby btw imho, but it has limited video function.
It’s tempting, but I’m not seeing myself jump over to DSLR for video. The lenses are too expensive for me right now anyway for starters and I would hate to give up Lanc control and a few other convenience features. If a fixed lens big sensor still camera came out that really did video well in addition to stills; I might trade in my Canon G1X. The G1X video is not too shabby btw imho, but it has limited video function.
I'm not at all tempted to jump to a cinema camera and, even though I own a 5D MK II, it's too much trouble to use for 90% of my video needs. Things like being able to actually SEE the image outdoors in the bright sun mean a lot to me. And, that rules out just about everything except a dedicated video camcorder.
But, I also have another bias. And, that is a preference for 3 separate video channels (3 chip cameras) as apposed to the Bayer Pattern chips used in DLSRs and the newer cinema cameras. And, I go a bit beyond that bias and want chips bigger than 1/4".
If my Sony VCX2100 were HD, I would never even feel the need to consider another camera. But, it's not. So, I'm on the hunt. The camera I use; but, am not crazy about, is the Sony NEX VG20. I think the Panasonic HC X920 just might be my next video camera.
But, I also have another bias. And, that is a preference for 3 separate video channels (3 chip cameras) as apposed to the Bayer Pattern chips used in DLSRs and the newer cinema cameras. And, I go a bit beyond that bias and want chips bigger than 1/4".
If my Sony VCX2100 were HD, I would never even feel the need to consider another camera. But, it's not. So, I'm on the hunt. The camera I use; but, am not crazy about, is the Sony NEX VG20. I think the Panasonic HC X920 just might be my next video camera.
jkoch2
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,198
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 584
The main difference between them is the use to which they might be a good or bad choice, which is a function of the type of project or need.
Generally, a good camcorder will have efficient and silent AF, a single lens which is fast (f/1.5 to F/1.8 at the wide (31mm to 35mm) end and still rather fast (f/2.8 f/3.5) at the long (400MM+) end. Sensors will be small, which means relatively deep focus. The optical stabilizer may be good or (as in the case of the latest 5-axis or gyro-based) excellent. They are easy to hold, either because of center of balance or shoulder mount. Consequently, they are ideal for casual or unrehearsed action, or for events which (although perhaps staged) the videographer cannot control or reshoot, and so much "nail" with the first shots. As others have pointed out, a few models allow for use of assorted lenses, but cost more and don't present any compelling advantages.
DSLRs have larger sensors and appeal to people for staged, tripod shots with narrow depth of field. Some also shoot at high ISO with relatively little "noise." This makes them desirable for shooting ads or staged fiction. On the other hand, the autofocus is deficient or impractical. The AF may be noisy. Manual focus is hard to set without a special, shaded monitor. Heaven help you if your subject moves out of the narrow focal plane and you are not nimble enough to adjust the focus fluidly. If shooting sports, you are apt to narrow the iris to avoid this dilemma, which makes the results pretty much like a better camcorer, albeit with heavier "glass." They are not practical to carry around without some sort of harness, since the lens weight can be fatiguing and cause image shake. The high-end videos shot with DSLRs often employ various sliders, jibs, cranes, helicopters, or Steadicams to smooth or enhance the view.
Mirrorless system cameras (sometimes confused with DSLRs) have better AF in video mode. Although some have a good EVF, it may still be difficult to use it for focusing outdoors, unless there is "peaking" and the user has time for trial and error.
A "cinema camera" is a larger device with oodles of manual control buttons that captures in a low compression codec that uses oceans of memory but allows for greater editing features. The cameras may feed to external recorders. Lenses cost plenty too. But production companies are apt to rent cameras, lenses, set decorators, lighting, actors, grips, and audio engineers too. The camera itself is not suitable or sane as a stand-alone investment, unless you lease it (and a whole lot else) to producers.
None of the camera types offers a particularly great audio capture. Often audio must be recorded separately, or with the support of microphones suitable for the circumstance.
Any of the options can drive you bankrupt, or entail squandering too much on camera and leave too little for other needs. All the cameras are sterile unless you have the energy, patience, and time to edit something worth viewing.
Arguably, a phone camera held steadily close to the person you interview beats all the other devices in terms of convenience, optimization for small screen, and audio too.
Many thanks to all with so helpful responses!
My original intention to get video camera was to capture my moving son and dog artificially with shallow depth.
But, I guess it would not be realistic to set the tripod at the moment that I want to capture and take artificial video with my manual focus.
I own micro 4/3 camera (which is not good at videoing) and lenses, so wondered to get cinema camera, but I am not expert of modifying raw file, so it could be a waste to me like amateur.
Anyway, I decided to stick to iPhone video at this moment and take reality.
Thanks much!
My original intention to get video camera was to capture my moving son and dog artificially with shallow depth.
But, I guess it would not be realistic to set the tripod at the moment that I want to capture and take artificial video with my manual focus.
I own micro 4/3 camera (which is not good at videoing) and lenses, so wondered to get cinema camera, but I am not expert of modifying raw file, so it could be a waste to me like amateur.
Anyway, I decided to stick to iPhone video at this moment and take reality.
Thanks much!
Fastfwd01
Forum Enthusiast
I’ve been a Canon Fanboy for quite a while, but I’m warming up to the idea of a Panasonic or other options. The new Canon G30 is really nice, but outside my price range as well frankly.
Actually, I’m not looking to buy anything right at the moment for several reasons. Seems I can’t own a camera without the entire population of the state believing it is an invitation to conspire to burglarize my home, etc. It’s really getting savage around these parts. I don’t believe you should be forced to live in a gated community just because you have a photography hobby or a decent television, etc. I’m getting off topic. Sorry.
Actually, I’m not looking to buy anything right at the moment for several reasons. Seems I can’t own a camera without the entire population of the state believing it is an invitation to conspire to burglarize my home, etc. It’s really getting savage around these parts. I don’t believe you should be forced to live in a gated community just because you have a photography hobby or a decent television, etc. I’m getting off topic. Sorry.
lancespring
Senior Member
Cinema camcorders tend to be very expensive and bulky in size for the most part. Lenses are costly too. Are you really seriously considering spending that much money? The Blackmagic does only cost $3,000, but it records to expensive SSD drives, and the editing/workflow is going to be more difficult.
Since you already own an Olympus camera and some m4/3 lenses, the obvious choice here is for you to go with the Panasonic GH3.
.
Since you already own an Olympus camera and some m4/3 lenses, the obvious choice here is for you to go with the Panasonic GH3.
.
Menneisyys
Senior Member
Generally, IIRC, it's only most (including even the flagship NEX-7) Sony NEX cameras that have major overheating (and shutdown) problems, except for the NEX-6, which, thanks to its larger body, dissipates heat better than its smaller brothers.
Other manufacturers' large-sensor cameras only suffered from the same problem generations ago; for example, the 2008 Nikon D90.
See for example http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51504574 . Note that I don't know for sure whether the NEX-3N is also overheating-proof. Nevertheless, I wouldn't use it for everyday non-cinema shooting as it only supports 1080i60.
Other manufacturers' large-sensor cameras only suffered from the same problem generations ago; for example, the 2008 Nikon D90.
See for example http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51504574 . Note that I don't know for sure whether the NEX-3N is also overheating-proof. Nevertheless, I wouldn't use it for everyday non-cinema shooting as it only supports 1080i60.
jkoch2
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,198
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 584
The OP, perhaps wisely, will use his phone camera for now.
However, the Olympus lenses don't have in-lens stabilization necessary for the Panasonic series. A GH3 is also expensive, a bit big, and not necessarily optimum for casual family video. It might be fine to get by with gear already owned, or wait for a $299 camera+lens special, of the sort that appears from time to time.
lancespring
Senior Member
As far as cost goes, the OP was also discussing in his post the possibility of buying a digital cinema camera and shooting in raw. And doing that would cost many times the cost of the GH3. The GH3 would also be tiny in size in comparison.
The impression I get from the OP is that his focus is on getting much better quality video.
.
Last edited:
O
Ozark Hellbender
Guest
Does anyone have any comments on audio capabilities of the options? For me this is an important aspect of video
I wouldn't be buying into any of this without using an external microphone I'll say that much, ideally you want a camera with a mic jack so you don't have to clap your audio track, but it's not essential.
I'm just looking at grabbing an external microphone for my Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 as an entry level video recorder... It has a sensor size on par with professional HD camcorders, but no mic jack.
It's doable to attach an external sound recorder and you'll get better results than the inputs of a DSLR, but at the same rate it's more of a hassle. For a DSLR I'd probably just go through the audio jack.
I've been looking at the Zoom H2N vs the Zoom H4N for me audio quality is too close to call but the Zoom H4N has the a 4 channel recording desk built into it where as while the Zoom H2N will record 4 channel, but all channels at once. I'd like at the H4N if you were planning on recording music and wanted separate tracks for your guitar, drums, and singers, though it's a bit of overkill I think if you just wanted to record cinematography.
I also looked at the H1N but the bidirectional microphones don't seem to produce the same audio quality as the Omnidirectional, or provide the full stereo range. There is also the Tascam options I looked at but I don't think their as good, or give you the audio channels to play with and are more a pure recording device... Although the audio quality seems to be on par and Tascam is a brand I'm more familiar with.
I'm sure there's more but that's what I've been looking at.
Last edited:
John Brawley
Leading Member
The BMCC is $3K and records to low cost per GB SSDs. SSD's are not expensive at all. A 240 GB sandisk exptreme is $179 on b&H. Thats' 0.74 per gig.
A 32Gb SD extreme pro is $64. So that's more than double the cost per Gb at $2 per gig.
CF and SD cards aren't fast enough to capture RAW. It's wrong to complain about the media being expensive because the actual cost per Gb is actually a lot less. it's just that RAW and even ProRes (more robust professional compression) video is still a lot more than the crappy 8 bit 264 codecs Canon DSLR's and most camcorders use.
The RAW files are 12 bit and uncompressed with the BMCC or 10 Bit ProRes Vs 8 bit high compression. It's like comparing JPEG's to RAW in stills.
And that's exactly WHY you would get one. So to complain about media costs when the main difference is a higher data rate is kind of beside the point.
You can also consider the just announced Blackmagic Pocket cinema camera which has an active m4/3 mount and records to SD, though at slightly less resolution to the original BMCC.
jb
--
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia
www.johnbrawley.com
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum