DSLR for stills / video or separate DSLR and camcorder? (1 Viewer)

[schan1269]

This is the camcorder I got my wife since she doesn't feel comfortable using one of dslrs because of how big they are: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Stabilized-Optical-Camcorder-Internal/dp/B00AWZFI8C/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1394814477&sr=8-25&keywords=camcorder. It does a decent job and the zoom is a nice feature, but doesn't quite get the quality of sound and video I like, but the convenience factor is nice I must say and it is easier to hold with a tripod or monopod. I always find a place for at least a monopod no matter where I am though

That camcorder is on my radar(as well as a few others). I need a new one as mine is before the "wifi revolution".

I tried that one in a store...and for me, it was too small. I have long fingers though. My first digital camera was a medium format as the DSLR were too small for my liking. I'm liking the control over wifi. Got into that with the ability to have live feed from our security cameras. Lots of coyote, some leopard and deer around and we like to make sure animals aren't missing. We set up two cameras with "disturbance monitor". Essentially facial recognition(of sorts) that can see abnormal movement and sends an alert to the phone.

 

[Citizen87645]

For a camcorder in that price range it does a great job and my wife loves it. What do you think of it?

I like it. I use the Canon M500 at work, which is what inspired me to get one like it for my personal use. Well, that and impending fatherhood. After doing video production for work, I came to the conclusion I'd only want a camcorder for personal use if I had kids.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

One of the factors you have to consider is image stabilization, which many above have pointed out. The reason I bring it up again is becuase image stabilization is built into the body of the Sony I recommended. Why is this a big deal? Its because you no longer have to pay extra for EVERY lens to get this feature. Some argue that having the image stabilization in the lens works slightly better, but through experience of many of my photographer friends and employees of mine have shown the extra costs doesn't give you enough to argue for it.

There is a downside to in-body stabilization versus having it in the lens - in-body IS does not stabilize the image in the viewfinder, while lens-based IS does. This may not sound like a big deal, but it is quite noticeable with telephoto lenses. My Canon 100-400L lens has an older version of IS that requires it to be turned off when using a tripod. A few times I have forgotten to turn it back on, and couldn't figure out why the image was moving around so much while I was trying to compose a shot. I thought I had too much caffeine! Then I realized I had the IS turned off -- switching it back on made a huge difference.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I'm sorta in the similar boat now, but already been using my daughter's Nikon D5100 for occasional video shooting -- mainly just the kids' recitals/concerts where focus, exposure, composition, etc. are all relatively static.

Actually been using her D5100 a lot as my main camera and am now considering upgrading from the old D200 (that has loosened, unreliable AF screw-drive after taking a bad tumble a long while ago) in part so I can have 2 bodies for shooting the occasional videos -- will be returning the D5100 to my daughter for all other instances. Of course, I really miss shooting w/ the much fuller featured, solid D200 too... but not sure what to get now since all the options don't quite live upto what I want... maybe not even the D800, if I splurge for that...

I'm thinking w/ a bit more careful coordination, using 2 bodies plus editing will solve at least some of the problems mentioned here (plus yield less boring final cut )... at least for what I'm doing anyway. Will probably keep one body (w/ the main stereo, external mic) on tripod and maybe move around w/ the other on monopod for different POVs.

Also, if you're not really looking to produce pro-quality results, do you really need 1080p for the final cut? IF not, maybe you can achieve some of the needed image stabilization in post instead. Even the rather basic capability in Adobe Premiere Elements seems to work fairly well provided you don't mine the zoomed-in reframing -- maybe shoot w/ decent safety border -- and reduced quality output. The rendered 720p output from 1080p footage seems pretty good to me.


RE: the old camcorder route, I've also considered that on and off, but unless you're spending enough to get something w/ full manual controls, headphone monitoring and good ergo on top of good 1080p output and low-light capability, not sure it's really worthwhile. I haven't really seen anything w/ all that in price ranges at or below the cost of say a Nikon D5200... though I haven't been actively looking lately either...


Somethings to consider...

_Man_

 

[Sam Posten]

Bloom on taking the next step:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct4ao5hKN-s&feature=youtu.be