Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Resolved Question

Please Dumb Down Camcorders for me

Aug 3, 2014 9:55AM PDT

I'm getting a camera to begin making mini documentaries, but technology has always been very intimidating to me. So I have been doing the research and these are the things I can't quite figure out.

Is a 1/2 sensor significantly better than a 1/3 censor
The 3 chipsets often advertised, are those the same as the light sensor?
What makes a cinema camera different from a camcorder?
Is a cinema camera just a nice camcorder that has interchangeable lenses?
Is a camcorder defined by the fact it has a variable focal length lens instead of interchangeable ones?
Do cinema camera usually have bigger sensors or full frame sensors?
Is a large sensor what gives you the ability to create a shallower depth of field?
What is a good camera compromise?
Effective Pixel Count
Size of Censor
Lens diameter
Aperture control
Number of chips

Finally, any suggestions for a camera? 3-4k range if necessary though I'd be happier spending 2-3k, if all I am losing are bells and whistles.

Any other details I really need to pay attention to in choosing the right camera?

Discussion is locked

ameagari79 has chosen the best answer to their question. View answer

Best Answer

- Collapse -
I read this a few days ago...
Aug 7, 2014 12:52PM PDT

and will try to respond with as much as I can...

A 1/2 inch sensor can be significantly different from a 1/3 inch sensor. It depends how well each was designed to work with the lens, aperture and "shutter". I've learned that is is all about tradeoffs - a large sensor can work well if the pixel count on the sensor is sufficient, the lens diameter allows enough light in for it to do its job... along with the opening size of the aperture (f-stop), the speed of the shutter and frame rate. Everything needs to work together. Good, large, imaging chips - silicon - are expensive to make. In the 1/2-1/3 inch size, the prosumer and above camcorders are the norm. The good pro camcorders have 2/3 inch imaging sensors... in a 3-chip array.

With a single imaging chip (sensor), the single chip takes care of all three primary colors (Red, Green, Blue - RGB). In a 3CCD or 3CMOS imaging chip array, each chip handles one of the primary colors.

In my opinion: A "cinema camera" is sort of a hybrid between a dSLR and a camcorder. A dSLR is designed to capture digital still images. The decent ones have a single large (APS-C or full frame) imaging chip. These are much larger than most camcorders. A dSLR has an interchangeable lens system - most camcorders rely on a fixed lens (though the better camcorder can add lenses. There are some technical limitations to a dSLR capturing video - for instance, many can overheat during prolonged video capture, there's not much room on the body for useful manual controls (audio gain, zebra, etc.) and they are buried in a menu. And there is a non-technical issue that causes them to automatically stop recording vide at 29 minutes and 30 seconds.

A "cinema cam" is built to be a camcorder, so the file record length is not artificially limited, has the large imaging chip, interchangeable lens system and many times has lots of manual controls on the outside of the camcorder so you don't need to go digging in the menu.

Depth of field is possible through a combination of items working together... again... The long focal length of the lens used helps a LOT. Having a large imaging chip also helps because of the way the aperture and shutter (with the lens and imaging chip) let light in to the imaging chip.

I don't quite understand what is meant by a "good camera compromise". The above missive about dSLRs does not mean they cannot capture good video - they can, and many use them for that purpose. But they do have limitations that have workaround requirements not necessarily geared to a novice.

Generally "pixel count" is a measurement used for digital still image resolution. Video resolution has historically been measured using horizontal line count. For video resolution, 480 is standard definition, 720 and 1080 is high definition... and anything above this is "ultra high definition" (now commonly called "4k"). If you look at the rest of the numbers associated with video resolution (the second number is the horizontal row count; first number is column count):

640 x 480 = 307200 (or 1/3 of a megapixel)
854 x 480 = 409920 (or a little over 1/3 of a megapixel)
1280 x 720 = 921600 (or almost a megapixel)
1440 x 1080 = 1555200 (or 1.5 megapixels)
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 (or 2 megapixels)
3840 x 2160 = "4k" resolution

Lens diameter is important if good low light video is required - but the large lens diameter is not the only thing - it must work with a LARGE imaging chip. In my opinion, "pro grade" starts at about 67mm... Larger is better.

What about "aperture control"? The aperture is the camera's iris. It controls the amount of light that comes in through the lens and hits the imaging sensor and provide for depth of field control.

Frankly, if you have to ask these questions, you may be a little in over your head. I do not want to discourage you, but between being a newbie and technically intimidated, this will be exciting times. And we don't know if your budget includes a good tripod or other steadying gear (never shoot handheld), lighting (camera mounted or on stands), mics (there is no single "best" mic - I have 5 different mics in my kit: 2 shotgun, 1 stereo, 1 handheld dynamic, 2 wireless lavalieres), cables, power supplies and high capacity rechargeable batteries from the camcorder manufacturer, cases... a fairly high end computer for editing and an investment in a decent video editor (and learning how to use it). And there's lots more in the way of accessories: headphones for monitoring audio, larger monitor to see better than using the little LCD screen or through the viewfinder, etc... I've been doing this over about 15 years and learn new stuff every time I shoot or edit.

I don't know what sort of "documentaries" you plan. One way is to press record, get EVER|YTHING, have hours and hours and hours of video to review and edit and maybe end up with about 5 minutes of good stuff. Another way is to write up the documentary script and create a shot list to match your storyboard and ensure you get all the shots on the shot list. I've found using multiple cameras (one wide shot, the other close-ups and medium shots - perhaps form a different angle) can make the editing along and keep it interesting. A shot does not stay on the subject much longer than about 4-5 seconds (occasionally a little longer, but not much and not too often). You can do the math on how many cuts that means in a 4 minute "mini-documentary"...

For what it is worth: My current "main" camcorders are a Sony HDR-FX1 and NEX-EA50UH. I occasionally use a HDR-HC1 - and recently added a HDR-AX30V to the mix. I have a couple of Davis & Sanford Pro Vista tripods with fluid heads and a Steadycam Merlin 2 vest system with counterbalanced, articulating arm. Shure SM58 dynamic handheld mic; Audio Technica AT-875R short shotgun mic; a couple of Sennheiser G3 wireless lavs, Audio Technica AT-822 stereo mic and a long barrel Audio Technica AT8004L ENG mic. I do all my editing on Macintoshes using Final Cut Pro X and a few other supporting apps. All this stuff has taken years to collect and learn - and there's more than this (my spouse thinks I'm nuts, but it was either this or golf for a hobby).

If I missed something or if I was unclear, let me know - and I welcome anyone else out there to please chip in and correct/augment this.

- Collapse -
Thanks!
Aug 7, 2014 2:00PM PDT

Thank you for your reply! I recognize a lot of these questions are very basic, but I have a weird learning style, where sometimes I need to see very basic things stated before I'll register them as true Silly

I am definitely in over my head, but I have found that baby steps never get me anywhere. I did videography in HS and actually produced a couple of amateur news segments I'm still proud of. I also went to film school. So the thing is, I really just have to jump in, at this point, or remain too intimidated to try.

I'm going to keep things on a small scale. No separate audio capture/monitoring equipment, but probably a shotgun mic in addition to whatever the camera has. I'm keeping in mind for the budget that I also need at least one extra battery (3 would probably be better!), a smooth tripod, ample blank media and of course bag/storage/maintenance, probably some other stuff I am forgetting. The post production is covered.

At the end of the day I want a camera I can grow with, however, not one I will quickly outgrow. I'm eventually going t invest in a nicer DSLR than I have, but for now what I do have will be my b camera.

So with that in mind I have narrowed things down, with some help from B&H to the following three cameras-

Panasonic AG-AC130A
Cannon XF200
Sony PXW-X70

My head's still swimming with the various specs, but all these fall below 4k, which leaves me with at least 1k for misc. stuff. Between these three, which one will perform best? I'm looking for what will take me from point A of being a novice to point D of being pretty good (optimism!)

So any advice on what separates these from each other, what would be the best choice?

- Collapse -
4K
Aug 7, 2014 4:52PM PDT

I am amazed that with your budget you are not going 4K, it seems to be the rage in the US.

The Panasonic AG-AC130A is not a camera for a novice, you would be better with an upmarket "point and shoot" such as the 920 or the 750.

- Collapse -
Since I don't know what
Aug 8, 2014 2:16AM PDT

your plans are, is is difficult to say. The Sony and Canon units are "compact". This is neither good or bad - it just is. They use a body similar to one of their high-end prosumer cams (HF G30; HDR-CX900, FDR-AX100?) but different firmware (and throw in XLR mic connectivity via "afterthought" add-on module). Their short fixed lens have a shared single ring that can be used for manual zoom or focus - but not both at the same time. The compact body with fixed lens means depth of field is less lens-controlled, but implemented by a combination of being close to the subject and manipulation of manual aperture and manual shutter settings. This is not unlike my HDR-HC1 that is the consumer sibling of the HVR-A1. The PXW-X70 is not yet released, so there is limited information. It is supposed to be "4k ready". I don't know if that means it will be able to record 4k out of the box or if a later field mod is needed (or a dressed up FDR-AX100 though the press says it is more than that).

My HDR-AS30V comes with the wifi wireless control similar to that which the X70 is supposed to have (but the AS30V has no zoom or focus controls). Debatable whether a wired LANC is better or not, but the wifi display (very short distance - it is near-field only) on a smartphone is pretty cool (same with seeing the video on a tablet).

Assuming it has the same lens diameter as the CX900/AX100, that's a 62mm spec (and in my definition is short of the minimum 67mm diameter that gets us to real "pro" grade of 67mm minimum), the low light behavior should be pretty good. The XF200 has a 58mm lens diameter with a nearly 1/2 inch sensor (again, reference the prosumer HF G series).

The Panny has a larger-footprint design. It is not a "compact" like the XF200 or X70. This allows a longer focal length and lets the lens contribute more to depth of field along with the manipulation of manual aperture and manual shutter settings - it makes it easier if the cam is close to the subject. This is similar to my HDR-FX1 (but a little shorter). Note that all the manual controls are on the outside of the camcorder. The XLR connectors are integrated to the body, not an add-on afterthought. The 72mm lens diameter and 1/3 inch 3CMOS imaging sensor array should provide great images. This combination is similar to my HDR-FX1.

Basically, you are comparing oranges (compact cams) to apples (larger footprint). None are "cinema cam" systems so I'm wondering why you brought that up. None have an interchangeable lens system. BlackMagic and the Canon EOS C100/C300/C500 fall more into that category. Some might claim the Sony NEX-50UH does, too (I don't, but with the interchangeable lens system and APS-C imaging sensor, it does qualify).

I am still concerned with your budget - If you have set $1,000 for accessories, I assume you are not planning on decent wireless gear. If so, then I am not so concerned. $600 for one Sennheiser wireless lav, $200 for a low-end shotgun mic, $200 for a decent fluid head tripod... and we don't have any lighting, cases, stands, boom pole, shock-mount, high capacity rechargeable batteries from the manufacturer, etc... And external audio capture with something like a Zoom H2n would still keep things "small scale" (it isn't a Fostex field recorder, but can do a great job).

And Terfyn makes an interesting point... there could be value getting two higher-end consumer cams for multi-camera shoots - this is why I have not gotten rid of my older cams. I can't afford to get multiples of the same new cameras (which would help reduce color correction work in post).

Having learned through experience, I would rank them (1) AC130; (2) X70 (but you can't buy that for a while) and (3) XF200... but this is merely my opinion... And if you think the spending stops after your initial purchase, you might be fooling yourself... The Panny has "all auto" capability and you can turn on the manual controls one at a time - definitely something to "grow into". Perhaps add a "compact cam" later to augment (not replace).

Oh... and take a look at the Sony NEX-VG30 if you have not already done so. Not quite the NEX EA50UH, but worth a look.