# own a camera AND a camcorder



## anon125 (Oct 25, 2009)

what is the advantage - if any - of owning both today.
even cheaper cameras record HD movies and HD camcorders can take high res pics?
thanks all


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 25, 2009)

Sorry but it is obvious you aim never to come back here therefore I will not contribute to you.

However FOR the others who may wish for this information,

DSLR are made for Still frame photography, that is what it is good at, Sure it takes a good video however it is better to buy a £4000 video recorded (The ones with removable lenses) for video as it is made for video and will out perform any still camera in todays age. 

Its like saying, Why use a camera to take pictures when a phone can take pictures.


----------



## anon125 (Oct 25, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> Sorry but it is obvious you aim never to come back here therefore I will not contribute to you.
> 
> However FOR the others who may wish for this information,
> 
> ...


 
thanks - but you totally fail at mind reading!
you have no idea whether i will come back or not.
This is a hobby - not professional so i don't have the budget for your prices - continue the snobbery - very british!
BTW i note that although i set ti to email twhen a reply came in -it did not do so - any ideas - HELPFUL ones?


----------



## skieur (Oct 25, 2009)

Unless you are a pro who gets paid for your video productions, there is really no need for a camcorder. Most amateur content needs for video include a child's first steps, the main part of a wedding ceremony, blowing out the candles on a cake, and other short length video segments.  These kinds of video can easily be handled by a still camera with video capability.

Longer videos require planning, scripting, direction and most often more than one person: a production crew.  Most amateurs and some professionals do not have the training or the skills necessary to produce a high quality longer video that would require a camcorder.

As a result, for a lot of buyers, a camcorder is a waste of money and spends a lot of time in a drawer.

skieur


----------



## JamesMason (Oct 25, 2009)

I shoot photos with pro photo gear and video with a pro video gear. If you want something for light amatuer use, i would say get a slr that shoots vid not the other way round.


----------



## icassell (Oct 25, 2009)

Take a look at this professional's videos with the 7D and read his comments ...

http://blog.planet5d.com/2009/09/dublins-people-a-new-canon-eos-7d-short-from-philip-bloom/

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/09/07/dublins-people-shot-on-a-canon-7d-in-native-24p/


----------



## anon125 (Oct 25, 2009)

wow thanks all
I wonder if there is a site with HD movies from the [FONT=arial,geneva,helvetica][SIZE=-1]*PowerShot SX1 IS*[/SIZE][/FONT]
PS icassell - what is a supporting member?
thanks
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX1_IS/video_review.shtml


----------



## JamesMason (Oct 25, 2009)

> what is a supporting member?



You can subscribe to the site for a small fee. If you do you get some benefits 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/payments.php


----------



## icassell (Oct 25, 2009)

What I find interesting is the gizmos he uses as accessories, which add up to a hefty piece of change.  He has a cool device to go on his LCD screen   (  Z-Finder - Zacuto  )to act as a better focusing device and he has a great support device ( DSLR Tactical Shooter-Zacuto  ).  Those supports look like lots of fun, but you could buy several carbon fiber tripods for the price of one of them.


----------



## icassell (Oct 25, 2009)

JamesMason said:


> > what is a supporting member?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's the link:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/payments.php


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 25, 2009)

anon125 said:


> This is a hobby - not professional so i don't have the budget for your prices - continue the snobbery - very british!
> BTW i note that although i set ti to email twhen a reply came in -it did not do so - any ideas - HELPFUL ones?




1. I didn't say you HAVE TO buy the profesional SLR Video cameras
2. Snobbish?  I am far from being a snob... Everything I have has been bought with my own money from a job that pays me £4.50 an hour.
3. dont bring America vs Britain into these threads keep that for ou anonymous trolling image boards...
4. sorry you never found my post helpful, MY point was, if you want to do something, Buy a tool dedicated to doing that.
you wouldn't buy a camera for the clock, you would buy a watch.


----------



## anon125 (Oct 25, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> anon125 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a hobby - not professional so i don't have the budget for your prices - continue the snobbery - very british!
> ...


I am British - not a yank.
in the 21st century many products can do several jobs well enough.


----------



## anon125 (Oct 25, 2009)

Thanks for all your help
Much appreciated.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 25, 2009)

I have a D90 and do have a camcorder... however it sits in the closet with dead batteries collecting dust.

No need!


----------



## mrodgers (Oct 25, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> you wouldn't buy a camera for the clock, you would buy a watch.


Funny thing is, sitting outside with the wife and kids not long ago, Wifey asks me if I know what time it was.  Nope, I don't have a watch.  But wait a minute....  I turn the camera on, go through the menu, get to the Date/Time section, and bingo, it's 4:38 pm.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 26, 2009)

anon125 said:


> in the 21st century many products can do several jobs well enough.



So what are you asking? Do you want to do the job well enough, or do you want to do the job properly? I too have hammered a nail into a piece of wood using a spanner, it worked well enough. I definitely wouldn't let my future career as a carpenter depend on the spanner though. (haha I wouldn't let it depend on my carpentry skill even if I had a hammer  )

He makes a valid point. There is a tool for the job. DSLRs as video cameras for even an amateur videographer miss some hugely important features. So much so that some guys wrote custom firmware for the Canon 5DMkII to add some of these features for people who bought it as a video camera.

Sure you can patch together addons and hacks with your DSLR that has custom fudged together firmware but at the end of the day if you want to be a videographer buy a video camera.

Btw I find skiuer's comments most disturbing. How do you think people are going to become professional cameramen if they don't play around with a video camera. Did you learn how to take pictures using a video camera? Most amateurs and some professionals do not have the skill to shoot people's weddings, should they now not buy a camera? Also I wouldn't call filming a child's first steps amateur filming, just like I don't call my sister taking photos of herself by holding the camera at arms length amateur photography. 

Comparing apples to apples, yeah if you're just happy caming your child's first steps then a DSLR will do. Heck a decent point and shoot will do too these days. 

If you're doing actual amateur or professional video recording such as at a wedding that is being professionally filmed or to make a short movie... well try telling the bride the sound is distorted because you don't have level meters on your DSLR. 

Playing with video can be just as much of a fulfilling hobby as photography. But you've come to a biased forum with a loaded question. Biased in the sense that some think video is a plague on the DSLR menu screen, and other's who think that their cameras are gods gift and are looking forward to one day when they can make their breakfast toast. 

So UUilliam is right. If you're serious about video, then an SLR won't cut it. Despite what the very tiny handful of the internet says. That shooter of "Dublin people" that icassell linked to can come back and convince me otherwise when he is working for a movie studio.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 26, 2009)

I think both sides can be right, it just depends on what angle you're looking at it from.

If you want to do professional photography and professional video, then perhaps the answer is no - you can't perform your best with one piece of equipment. That said, there ARE lots of videos on the Internet of people who know what they are doing who have shot some amazing footage with todays DSLR/Video recorder combos. And really, the technology that is in these devices are way ahead of what people were capturing video with years ago - and that seemed good enough.

If you're a parent capturing moments of your childs life, family events, etc... then by all means I believe you can not only get by with one piece of equipment but it's also more likely you'll capture the moments when they happen. With a flick of a switch I can go from taking photos to capturing video and then back again, it's GREAT!


----------



## JamesMason (Oct 26, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> I think both sides can be right, it just depends on what angle you're looking at it from.
> 
> If you want to do professional photography and professional video, then perhaps the answer is no - you can't perform your best with one piece of equipment. That said, there ARE lots of videos on the Internet of people who know what they are doing who have shot some amazing footage with todays DSLR/Video recorder combos. And really, the technology that is in these devices are way ahead of what people were capturing video with years ago - and that seemed good enough.
> 
> If you're a parent capturing moments of your childs life, family events, etc... then by all means I believe you can not only get by with one piece of equipment but it's also more likely you'll capture the moments when they happen. With a flick of a switch I can go from taking photos to capturing video and then back again, it's GREAT!



Think thats about hit the nail on the head, TBH i wouldn't use any pro video gear if my partner was not a tv producer. I have slrs that shoot vid pretty well and thats really all i need. She wouldn't use the slr for her work tho, just wouldn't cut the mustard for pro vid work.


----------



## DeadEye (Oct 26, 2009)

I have read only the first few post and skipped the rest.

 Looks away from the train wreak ahead ~

 There are two Major draw backs of dslr for video~1. Audio and 2.The Iris

 For good video you need stero sound by external mikes and the camera man rolls the Iris for more gass not CLUNK the apature in 1/3 stops.

Cheers Dan


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 26, 2009)

Perfect example of what I was talking about when you know what you're doing:
YouTube - Vincent Munier - Summer Variations - Nikon D3s


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2009)

A working videographer/cinematographer I've made the online acquaintance of is pretty excited about the capabilities of DSLR based video. According to him, "If you don't know video cameras, you might not understand quite how revolutionary this ability is, but it's staggering.  Love the camera. As far as I am concerned, it can do anything..."

Here's a recent vid he made:

Nuit Blanche by Matthew K Nayman

You can see some of his other stuff (made with non-DSLR gear) in the menu on the right at that link.


----------



## skieur (Oct 26, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Btw I find skiuer's comments most disturbing. How do you think people are going to become professional cameramen if they don't play around with a video camera. Did you learn how to take pictures using a video camera? Most amateurs and some professionals do not have the skill to shoot people's weddings, should they now not buy a camera? Also I wouldn't call filming a child's first steps amateur filming, just like I don't call my sister taking photos of herself by holding the camera at arms length amateur photography. .


 
I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.

FYI, I learned to take pictures before video cameras existed, but I learned video in television studios and on-location productions.  I supplemented that by learning movie/film production in studios and on location as well.

Sure, shooting a child's first steps is amateur filming unless you are being paid for it.   And of course, if you have lots of money to burn, then sure buy a video camera, to only drag out on rare occasions when you remember it is in the drawer and the batteries have some charge in them.

On the other hand many relatives and friends have the same reaction to watching video as their parents did to watching Super 8.  As in,...ZZZZ time to fall asleep! :lmao:

skieur


----------



## Actor (Oct 26, 2009)

skieur said:


> I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.
> 
> skieur


Steven Spielberg's and Ron Howard's first movies were made with 8mm cameras.  Robert Rodriguez made about 40 short films on VHS before making a (commercially successful) feature on 16mm.  J.R. Bookwalter made a commercially successful film entirely on super8.  These people got started on the path to "professional movie maker" with 8mm film.

If you can't afford film school or, like Spielberg, can't get accepted, then "playing around with a video camera" is an excellent start.  Even if you can get into film school playing around with a video or 8mm camera is great experience.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 27, 2009)

As a user of a DCR-VX2100 I would have to say ease of use and balance.

It's much easier to pan smoothly with something that is built with some weight and balence vs. something that was designed for still shots.

Just my 2 cents.

NOTE: I did not say impossible just easier.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 27, 2009)

Skieur is forgetting one major difference between the days of the first movie cameras/ early camcorders and the camcorders of today.  Ability to edit.

Why did family ZZZzz when watching those horrible home movies?  No editing.  There was not really any editing techniques readily available for the average joe.  That is not the case today.  Computers are a dime a dozen as is video editing software.  That is part of the movie making process for today's home video entrepreneurs.  If they choose to ignore this step, then sure we are right back in the 70's/80's and ZZZzzz land.  but those who have it together can easily today keep the family from nodding off.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 27, 2009)

skieur said:


> I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.
> 
> FYI, I learned to take pictures before video cameras existed, but I learned video in television studios and on-location productions.  I supplemented that by learning movie/film production in studios and on location as well.



Great. A friend of mine learnt wedding photography by being a second shooter for next to no pay with a professional wedding photographer. I learnt by playing around with my camera.

You're still providing a very one sided view, and that is my point. Just because you don't know any prosumer videographers doesn't mean they don't exist. A classmate from highschool has a video camera now worth more than my SLR, and it's his hobby. 

The choices in the industry aren't:
Crap video cam -> DSLR -> Hollywood grade professional video camera.

You're missing a large range in between the DSLR and the beasts studios use.


----------



## Actor (Oct 27, 2009)

LokiZ said:


> Skieur is forgetting one major difference between the days of the first movie cameras/ early camcorders and the camcorders of today.  Ability to edit.
> 
> Why did family ZZZzz when watching those horrible home movies?  No editing.  There was not really any editing techniques readily available for the average joe.  That is not the case today.  Computers are a dime a dozen as is video editing software.  That is part of the movie making process for today's home video entrepreneurs.  If they choose to ignore this step, then sure we are right back in the 70's/80's and ZZZzzz land.  but those who have it together can easily today keep the family from nodding off.


Editing has been around since cinematography day one.  You don't think Chaplin filmed _The Kid_ in sequence do you? (and in one take?)  8mm editors have been available from the day Kodak introduced the format and a lot of 8mm Joes have them (I do).  But even editing will not stop the family from snoozing when you drag out the projector.  You need a well thought out presentation and some talent.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 27, 2009)

Garbz said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.
> ...



Garbz is correct...

And for a very long time running a prosumer digital camcorder was "THE" camera of choice for wedding videography.  Look it up.  In fact in some circles it still is putting even the HD under it on the list.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 27, 2009)

Actor said:


> Editing has been around since cinematography day one.  You don't think Chaplin filmed _The Kid_ in sequence do you? (and in one take?)  8mm editors have been available from the day Kodak introduced the format and a lot of 8mm Joes have them (I do).  But even editing will not stop the family from snoozing when you drag out the projector.  You need a well thought out presentation and some talent.



Was not talking about those who had been in the buisness for years. (For Charlie it had been about 7 years since first publish by the time "The Kid" was released I do believe)  

But that does not matter... Regardless of there being editing hardware available for those shooting 8mm, double8mm, or super8mm.  The fact remains that with a majority of those using those cameras for home video many did the equivalent of what we call snap shots in the world of still photography.  Meaning just capturing with without prior thoughts to scene setup and preparation.  Those bringing me 8mm film to convert over to digital very rarely bring me anything with more then the only edit being double 8mm spliced after splitting.

The point was not that the editing was not around but that it was not supplied freely and therefore LESS readily available then today.

Hobbyists could purchase books, purchase hardware, purchase splicing supplies.  Today you already have internet, research it freely...  Today you probably have bundled movie editing software that came on the PC you bought for other reasons...  Today you may already have a digital video recorder...  So what do you need to purchase?  hmm, if your PC does not have a fire wire card what? 15$  and a fire wire cable? 3 - 5$?  Oh ouch.  And that is only if your DCR does not support USB2.0 transfer. 

And as for the editing; learn the basics, follow tips and rules others have found useful.  The only thing talent will gain for you is that you will be more versed to creatively use or break a few rules and still come out shining like a star in the end.  That pretty much goes for any of the arts.


----------



## skieur (Oct 28, 2009)

Actor said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.
> ...


 
Haven't seen any specifics about Ron Howard's 8mm movies, but Steven Spielberg indicated quite logically that there was no similarity between 8mm experience and movie making.  In movie making he said, the sensitivity of the film is much higher, there is less need for lighting, a steinbeck editor is on a completely different level, using microphones, mixing music, audio editing, waiting for rushes, colour correction, etc. etc.

With a still camera, you can start off playing with it, join a camera club, subscribe to a photo magazine, join a forum, have your work critiqued etc.
Even if your work is only so,so quality, you are still likely to use your camera, and have shots of your family and some typical tourist shots of the family standing in front of some building or scene.  If it is good, then you can take a course or progress to some pro work.

With the average video camera however, you are already restricted by poor or mediocre audio, small viewfinder, no tripod with wheels, and hydraulics, no live mixing or editing,etc.  When finished, most would not have a super fast 64bit workstation with a large cache and considerable on-line memory for non-linear digital editing.  I think that Spielberg would tend to say that there is no similarity between this and professional videography either.

So, my view is that if the average photographer wants to do a little video segment of a wedding or other family event, then a still camera is perfect for the job.  Anyone who is really serious about video should take a course, learn what it is all about, and particularly the quality and cost of equipment necessary to do it at a professional level. 

skieur


----------



## Actor (Oct 29, 2009)

skieur said:


> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


All Spielberg is really saying here is that there is a big difference between one guy (like Rodriguez) or one guy with a small crew (Bookwalter) trying to make a feature film vs. someone with a big crew and a big budget.  No argument.  One small note: the reason he perceives the sensitivity of film being much higher is because he broke into the biz at a time when the industry was making great strides in increased film speed.  Today you can get ASA 500 in 8mm.  I doubt the pros use anything faster.  Also, are you sure he said there is "less need for lighting?"  Hollywood crews are manic about lighting.  They have huge reflectors and 10,000 watt lamps.





> With the average video camera however, you are already restricted by poor or mediocre audio, small viewfinder, no tripod with wheels, and hydraulics, no live mixing or editing,etc.  When finished, most would not have a super fast 64bit workstation with a large cache and considerable on-line memory for non-linear digital editing.  I think that Spielberg would tend to say that there is no similarity between this and professional videography either.


My post was about the possibilities of 8mm film as a starting point for an aspiring filmmaker.  Whether he admits it or not Spielberg's experience stood him in good stead when he made his short film _Amblin, _which impressed the right people enough to get him into the big time.  Without his 8mm experience he would not have known what to do.    Put it this way, the #1 ingredient for succeeding at anything is passion.  Don't dream about getting into the big time some day.  Grab whatever equipment you can and do something today.  Kubrick made a statement along these lines.





> So, my view is that if the average photographer wants to do a little video segment of a wedding or other family event, then a still camera is perfect for the job.  Anyone who is really serious about video should take a course, learn what it is all about, and particularly the quality and cost of equipment necessary to do it at a professional level.
> 
> skieur


As Spielberg and Rodriguez found out, taking a course in cinema is next to impossible.  Universities tend to let only cinema majors take cinema courses, and they don't let just anybody be a cinema major.  Rodriguez and Spielberg could not get into film school and neither ever took a cinema course.  There are a few commercial courses that you can take if you have enough money but IMHO those are rip offs.

My advice to a young person aspiring to be a filmmaker is to buy the best video camera you can, even if it's a cheap single chip job from eBay.  Get a library card and read every book about filmmaking they have.  Get out there and shoot a short subject.  Edit it on Moviemaker or iMovie.  Put it on Youtube.  Repeat until you are confident enough to attempt a feature.  Don't give up.


----------



## skieur (Oct 30, 2009)

*From Actor:* As Spielberg and Rodriguez found out, taking a course in cinema is next to impossible. Universities tend to let only cinema majors take cinema courses, and they don't let just anybody be a cinema major. Rodriguez and Spielberg could not get into film school and neither ever took a cinema course[/QUOTE]

Mmm. I guess I must have been lucky, but then I already had a university degree in a completely different area of study and was majoring in television production while also working on my second go round.
BTW, it was during the same time period as Spielburg.

skieur


----------



## Actor (Oct 31, 2009)

skieur said:


> > *From Actor:* As Spielberg and Rodriguez found out, taking a course in cinema is next to impossible. Universities tend to let only cinema majors take cinema courses, and they don't let just anybody be a cinema major. Rodriguez and Spielberg could not get into film school and neither ever took a cinema course
> 
> 
> Mmm. I guess I must have been lucky, but then I already had a university degree in a completely different area of study and was majoring in television production while also working on my second go round.
> ...


When I worked for the university I had the perk of taking one course per semester tuition free.  Since I was working as an A/V technician my boss and a lot of others suggested suggested I take some cinema courses.  I could not get in.  All cinema courses were "permission of instructor required."  I never got permission and gave up asking.

I also have a degree in a completely different field.


----------



## skieur (Oct 31, 2009)

Actor said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > > *From Actor:* As Spielberg and Rodriguez found out, taking a course in cinema is next to impossible. Universities tend to let only cinema majors take cinema courses, and they don't let just anybody be a cinema major. Rodriguez and Spielberg could not get into film school and neither ever took a cinema course
> ...


 
I probably had the same perk when I was teaching on the French side of a bilingual university but teaching a 4 hour course, once a week, as well as working was heavy enough.  I did not have the energy or time to take a course as well.

skieur


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Oct 31, 2009)

anon125 said:


> I am British - not a yank.



 LOL . ZIIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG.   
I love it when arrogance gets zapped!   

 Now back to the show ----------->  
 I have a D700 which does not take video. But I really didn't buy it for that. I also have a little $500 DV recorder that takes wonderful video.


----------

