camcorder or camera?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

realspeed

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I actually use both depending on the shoot of course. My main tool is

P1001318.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


mainly due to being able to zoom in up to 600mm without stopping, Doing the same with my Panasonic G9ii more than likely would mean a change of lens.

Oh by the way on the handle is a bluetooth dongle so with a bluetooth headphone so I can do a sound check by myself at a distance, the other is a rocker switch/button for zoom/on/off so less chance of disturb the camecorder.
I could post all about it if anyone is actually interested in this setup.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Please don't think i'm being rude or insulting this is a question that has been bothering me.

I see so many on here using a long heavy lens weighing umpteen lbs to carry around. Why do it??? A decent camcorder such as I use the Panasonic HC-X1500 has the equivelent range of up to 600mm. for even longer reach, there is an adapter one can add.

Video only? no. In actual fact far better than a camera as in playback individual frames can be "captured and taken" within the camcorder
So less chance of missing that "moment" which can easily happen with a camera.

Ii get the general feeling that walking around with a huge lens is more to impress than to use. Or am I wrong? be honest. I used to do more or less the same when I had a FF camera but now gone over MF4 cameras that don't need a huge heavy lens. best move I ever made, makes photography easier.
 
Y'all go ahead and capture individual video frames. Stock agencies' image quality standards have risen, not fallen, so I'll have less competition. I don't care what people think when they see me in the field with my equipment, in fact I'd rather work where nobody can see me.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
One reason is a video still from either a camcorder or a digital camera body generally contains a lot less detail.
Depending on camera settings a video still can have less dynamic range and a narrower colour gamut than a still camera RAW image taken with a long focal length for a skittish subject captured to a high standard.
When it comes to the quality of the result there is often a divergence between taking convenience and image quality.
 
Member's gallery
It depends what you expect from your images. If you’re mainly sharing on social media and not looking for the most detailed, high resolution image you can easily get away with smaller sensors and lenses or all in one. You mention a camcorder and taking stills from video. You could probably make this work for sharing online if you shoot the scene with the sole purpose of capturing frames from video for stills. In video, you want motion blur to make the movement appear smooth. In stills you generally want to freeze the action so you would typically use very different shutter speeds. The RAW files out of a camera have far more information than the compressed video codecs from a camcorder. There are several reasons that make it worth carrying bigger gear but there are also many reasons why someone wouldn’t want to. For example, I know I could get cleaner images at lower iso with a 400 2.8 or 600 4 but I don’t want to carry those (or pay for them) so I have the 400 4.5 and 600 6.3. Much smaller and lighter options with some compromise is light gathering. Others look to M43 and the crop factor to greatly reduce gear size. In the end, use what works for you. But even with M43, you should get better detail and control during editing shooting a RAW file than capturing a Still frame from video from a camcorder.
 
Member's gallery
A big long lens gather several orders of magnitude more light for the same shutter speed as used for video > less noise and/or ability to use much higher shutter speed to freeze action with no or minimal motion blur.
The lens front element size is also directly dependant on the sensor size (and the focal length/aperture ratio), which is often at best a quarter of the area of a full frame camera on a camcorder, most of a time it's even smaller than that.
The bonus is a vastly superior subject isolation with a larger sensor and a larger aperture, which makes for much nicer images.
 
Member's gallery
There are many ways to enjoy photography and people have various approaches depending on their goals, but I think it is generally accepted that nothing beats the image quality of a good telephoto lens combined with a full-sized sensor for still photography. I used to feel self-conscious using a big lens and tripod, but I've mostly gotten over that. I prefer to work without interruptions, so the last thing on my mind is trying to attract attention or impress anyone. For me, that equipment is often the right tool for the job and I enjoy using it, despite the extra weight and inconvenience.
 
Member's gallery
50% of my effort out in the field is trying to find interesting subjects. The other 50% is spent trying to avoid other humans.
So no, lugging my 600/4 around is not to impress. My ideal day is seeing no other humans during my outings.

Stills from video frames is not my ideal type of image. Video is shot at a fairly slow shutter speed. Your 60P camera is probably running 1/120s at best. Your 4K resolution is somewhere around 8MPs. I have 50MPs to get the detail out of.
I'm not going to get any of my ideal BIF shots with great detail extracting stills shot at 1/120s. Heck, even most non-BIF won't be great at those SS if the animal is moving what so ever.
 
Member's gallery
Interesting replies thank you. However I wonder how may that have replied so far have actually used a modern pro camcorder? hands up those that have? not one of those cheapy kiddy toy ones costing a few £.

actually Arbitrage I can work up to 1/8000 sec with that camcorder

P1001484.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.






which with all due respect shows that you are not familiar with camcorders let alone pro ones . This only goes to prove my point. A camcorder can be as good as a stills camera. Oof course at that shutter speed the lighting would have to be at least studio brightnees if not more due to sensor size
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
realspeed said:
Please don't think i'm being rude or insulting this is a question that has been bothering me.

...

Ii get the general feeling that walking around with a huge lens is more to impress than to use. Or am I wrong? be honest. I used to do more or less the same when I had a FF camera but now gone over MF4 cameras that don't need a huge heavy lens. best move I ever made, makes photography easier.
Click to expand...

Tells more of you than from others when walking around with a big lens. I just do not care one bit what others think or say when I shoot with a long lens.
No, I have not used a camcorder.

And why post the same subject in 2 posts?

camcorder or camera?

I actually use both depending on the shoot of course. My main tool is mainly due to being able to zoom in up to 600mm without stopping, Doing the same with my Panasonic G9ii more than likely would mean a change of lens. Oh by the way on the handle is a bluetooth dongle so with a bluetooth...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
realspeed said:
Interesting replies thank you. However I wonder how may that have replied so far have actually used a modern pro camcorder? hands up those that have? not one of those cheapy kiddy toy ones costing a few £.
Click to expand...
I didn't reply but I can confirm the comments above. My husband does superb videos using a high end camcorder. He researches, narrates, edits and applies background music to create videos similar to Nat Geo programs. You can see his work on his website Pleasant Videos. He always prefer to use one of my still images as opposed to trying to use a lower res image taken from his video. My images have far more resolution and detail than his video can capture and can be printed and displayed in large sizes.

Just curious, considering the amazing advancement in video capabilities in cameras, have you tried using a camera for video?
 
Member's gallery
Vincent_VdB said:
Tells more of you than from others when walking around with a big lens. I just do not care one bit what others think or say when I shoot with a long lens.
No, I have not used a camcorder.

And why post the same subject in 2 posts?

camcorder or camera?

I actually use both depending on the shoot of course. My main tool is mainly due to being able to zoom in up to 600mm without stopping, Doing the same with my Panasonic G9ii more than likely would mean a change of lens. Oh by the way on the handle is a bluetooth dongle so with a bluetooth...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
Click to expand...
Threads have been merged.
 
Member's gallery
I have not used a camcorder, new or old. As I said above, there are many ways to enjoy photography and my way is by seeking the highest quality still image possible. Video is a whole different skill set that I have yet to explore in depth. Most camera bodies these days are capable of recording high quality video, so I may try that, but the last thing I need at this point is more equipment.;)
 
Member's gallery
realspeed said:
I actually use both depending on the shoot of course. My main tool is

View attachment 105472

mainly due to being able to zoom in up to 600mm without stopping, Doing the same with my Panasonic G9ii more than likely would mean a change of lens.

Oh by the way on the handle is a bluetooth dongle so with a bluetooth headphone so I can do a sound check by myself at a distance, the other is a rocker switch/button for zoom/on/off so less chance of disturb the camecorder.
I could post all about it if anyone is actually interested in this setup.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why people use elaborate camcorder setups like this. Why not just use a cell phone with its digital zoom function?
 
Member's gallery
realspeed said:
ok I know it is not a sea gull

I was the only one that managed to even get a photo let alone a video out of the group I was with below

Click to expand...
realspeed said:
a closer look
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are trying to demonstrate? Most of the footage seems over exposed - no detail at all in whites. Last image has way too much bouncing/movement for me to watch more than a few seconds.
 
Member's gallery
realspeed said:
ok I know it is not a sea gull

I was the only one that managed to even get a photo let alone a video out of the group I was with below

Click to expand...
The first video it looks like the bird is blown out with no detail. Shooting in raw video would offer more room to bring those down but you could also just drop the exposure and using a polarizer might help. the wing movement also looks twitchy. Using a 90° shutter angle would help that. If shooting at higher shutter speed it’s best to slow the video speed in post. The second video would benefit from the same and would help with the bouncing. These would be true regardless of which camera you use. Check out Mark Smith’s videos of birds to see what the results can look like. I have a modern camcorder that I use for certain types of videos but honestly a modern mirrorless is more capable.
 
Member's gallery

Vincent_VdB​


Exactly my point. You do need see the purpose because it is something you can't do with a camera, without at least lens change. Not wishing to insult anyone on here b ut I do dispare at those who cannot accept that a camcorder often is a better tool for certain types of photography. I don't really understand what they are afraid of? Is it stepping outside a comfort zone maybe? or not wishing to explore photography in its entirity?

Please don't get me wrong I have been taking still photos since the late 1950,s at still will be doing so until ******. However wanting to learn more videoing for the last 13 years have take up more of my interest
 
Member's gallery
ButlerKid said:
Not sure what you are trying to demonstrate? Most of the footage seems over exposed - no detail at all in whites. Last image has way too much bouncing/movement for me to watch more than a few seconds.
Click to expand...
that is because they are unedited. For god sake the sea doesn't stay dead flat to take a video. Maybe a day trip from Tennessee to the seaside will give you a chance to try videoing something on the water. It is only 10 minutes for me to get to the coast here in East Sussex UK
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top