cheap camcorder or (more)expensive dslr?

[Hermione]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some guidance here. I own an xsi and for the most part it meets all of my needs. I've recently decided to get a camcordeer. Nothing fancy, just something that will take good videos of my family, christmas, vacations, etc. I figured that in the future I would probably invest in something of better quality and more money, however right now, money is an issue. Anyways, is it worth buying something such as:
http://www.henrys.ca/58583-CANON-FS3...SH-CAMCDR.aspx
(Canon fs3000
or would I get much better results out of a new dslr with video capabilities? In which case I could upgrade. As much as I like photography, I'm also not interested in anything too complicated in the way of video. While I would enjoy making nice videos, some times you just want to "point and shoot".

Thanks for the help.

[MCB]

Do you have an HD TV? Anything to play HD content on it (like a blu-ray or PS3)? Do you want to buy both of those things sometime soon (if you don't have them)? Do you have a computer and software capable of editing HD video?

If the answer is "no" then go ahead and get the standard definition camcorder.

If the answer is "yes" then consider a more expensive HD camcorder or the DSLR with video.

For family stuff, kids at birthdays etc, you'll be better off with a camcorder. It's way easier and you can basically just point and shoot. The DSLR gives better quality but is more work (especially due to the lack of autofocus).

That's my opinion, anyway. Good luck.

[sxotty]

I am debating between a $150ish camcorder device and a t2i body.

I found this thread searching for advice on the same topic. Basically the boat I am in is that I have a Xti (400d). I have been hankering for a newer body such as the t2i especially for low light conditions as the XTi just cannot shoot decent quality at high ISO speed. We also need a video camera. So at first I thought aha! salvation is at hand I can have an excuse to get the t2i, but more reading up on the topic makes me a bit leery that it will actually work out. When people say "shaky cam" I have seen reviews saying "it will look like amateur camcorder video" and if that is the case then I don't care. I get the same thing as the camcorder (if it is worse then that is something to think about), but there are obviously other drawbacks like autofocus.

If I were to run the aperture down though the depth of field should increase and the focus issue should cease to be problematic. For normal lighting situations how well does this work?

Last night I took some photos with my XTi with aperture closed up and at 1600 iso and it seemed the focus issue would not be much of a problem, but how is the video at 1600 in a t2i (reviews of still images show much less noise than my 400d)? Is the overheating issue related to ISO? I searched and found people stating it wasn't related to shutter speed, or aperture, but I thought that ISO might actually make sense if they pump more current through the CCD to get more sensitivity or something like that.

If I bought a t2i and a Hoodman Loupe (so I could see the LCD) how would the results compare to a $150-200 camcorder indoor and outdoor?

[rxjohn]

Here's my set up. Canon Vixia HF200 with an external mic, extra battery (lasts 300 minutes) and Tiffen Hollywood Filters for that film look. This little camcorder records in 30p..and the quality is good in HD and it'll do for any casual gathering of family and friends.

But, I wanted to get into DSLR video... so Kiss X4 (T2i) is on its way today or tomorrow. I'll let you know if it satisfies the craving.

[Daship]

Get a camcorder, DSLRs are fun but are not easy like a normal camcorder. No easy focus, and unless you manually focus with the DSLR you will hear the focus noise.

[MikeFairbanks]

I've just started learning video (Canon T2i) and it's really hard, but it's also fun.

I'd suggest using a tripod religiously. Handholding a DSLR is very difficult. Lots of shaking.

[sxotty]

Originally Posted by MikeFairbanks

I've just started learning video (Canon T2i) and it's really hard, but it's also fun.

I'd suggest using a tripod religiously. Handholding a DSLR is very difficult. Lots of shaking.

More shaking than a cheap camcorder though? That is the comparison I am trying to make. Thanks.


rxjohn, I will look forward to your impressions when you get your set up. Basically I would be happy to spend more on a DSLR setup b/c I already have lenses and want a new DSLR anyway so the additional cost for the loupe and such are basically the cost I see. The magic lantern focus assist for the t2i was incredibly cool too if anyone has seen that.

I wish my current DSLR did some minute amount of video so I could just try it and see how it turned out... I am pretty decent at holding steady this photo I just took with no tripod or anything.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

[Chippy569]

ultimately, a camcorder will be better for video than an slr, but then the camcorder will be inconvenient for stills. Camcorders use completely different sensors and focus systems. SLR video is a sort of adaptation of DSLR's equipment.

A camcorder is significantly easier to hand-hold because it's designed to be. An SLR is meant to be held against your eye for stability but you can't do that in video mode, so you either need to acquire some extra gear or just deal with it.

a photo handheld is no problem but video handheld is an entirely different beast. For an example, take a burst-mode shot of something for 5 seconds or whatever. Then, open up all the pictures and scroll through them. Notice how much of the edges move from picture to picture. (note also that the longer your focal length the more profound this effect will be). Holding acceptably still for a picture shot at 1/250 of a second is no biggie, but in video you're usually hanging out at 1/50 or 1/60 depending on your frame rate. So now not only do you need to be perfectly still for 1/60, but you need to be perfectly still for 30 pictures at 1/60 all in a row. Quite simply, this is impossible for humans to do.

That was a bit of a tangent, so I digress. Camcorder will shoot better video, at least for the time being. As DSLR video technology improves, perhaps there will be a time where that changes, however if Sony's new NEX-VG10 is a glimpse of what's to come I think the camcorder technology will improve better sooner.

[peter nap]

Originally Posted by Chippy569

ultimately, a camcorder will be better for video than an slr, but then the camcorder will be inconvenient for stills. Camcorders use completely different sensors and focus systems. SLR video is a sort of adaptation of DSLR's equipment.

A camcorder is significantly easier to hand-hold because it's designed to be. An SLR is meant to be held against your eye for stability but you can't do that in video mode, so you either need to acquire some extra gear or just deal with it.

a photo handheld is no problem but video handheld is an entirely different beast. For an example, take a burst-mode shot of something for 5 seconds or whatever. Then, open up all the pictures and scroll through them. Notice how much of the edges move from picture to picture. (note also that the longer your focal length the more profound this effect will be). Holding acceptably still for a picture shot at 1/250 of a second is no biggie, but in video you're usually hanging out at 1/50 or 1/60 depending on your frame rate. So now not only do you need to be perfectly still for 1/60, but you need to be perfectly still for 30 pictures at 1/60 all in a row. Quite simply, this is impossible for humans to do.

That was a bit of a tangent, so I digress. Camcorder will shoot better video, at least for the time being. As DSLR video technology improves, perhaps there will be a time where that changes, however if Sony's new NEX-VG10 is a glimpse of what's to come I think the camcorder technology will improve better sooner.

Chippy...I have to disagree and agree.
My DSLR (7D) is what I consider my best quality under controlled conditions, video camera. It's not my high end still camera but I could live with it for that.

I have several Camcorders including two very Good HD Consumer camcorders (One is the Vixia 200 pictured above) and a higher end Sony.

I also have two GoPro's and as of two hours ago, a Zoom Q3HD.

They all have different uses and it's hard to fathom doing everything with just one camera.

I agree that for the OP a Camcorder is the way to go since he already has a good serviceable still camera.

[rxjohn]

To my untrained eyes, DSLR video quality seems much better than Camcorder video. Of course DSLR requires much more gizmos (Tripod, rail, follow focus, ext mic) to deliver...

[sxotty]

The photo I linked had a 1s shutter speed, and it was just in my hand so that means I can hold it steady for 60 frames at 60fps

Of course that doesn't involve panning or anything like that. I was actually surprised it did not blur myself, but at the time thought what the heck.

It is still not quite clear since you are bringing up stuff like the NEX-VG10 that costs an arm and a leg.

I am comparing to
Sanyo GH4 or Flip Ultra

<$200 camcorders don't seem that special, but they may be.

[davidfig]

It depends on your usage. I would like a good video system that takes good pictures. This leave out camcorders as they take like 1mp pictures. But my wife has the Nikon S8100 and it takes good pictures and good movies. Its IS handles fairly well and the 10mp back illuminated sensor does pretty good. Its small and she can drive it to 10x zoom.

[Chippy569]

Those sub-$200 cameras give you very little control over exposure. They're basically permanently on "auto" mode. They're good for taking a very simple shots but not much else. In that case, the HDSLR is better.

[sxotty]

Chippy what about stability of image (shaking)? I am trying to figure out how those sub $200 camcorders compare all around. Obviously the DSLR will take way better quality footage if done right, but if hand held I am not sure how it would turn out. Maybe the problem is normally people are not cross shopping between these sorts of items so reviews don't compare them very well. Hmmm I think one of my friends cameras might do video I will have to call him and see what he has. I know his SLR is newer than mine, but it might be a 450d which I don't think does video either.

edit:

BTW when thinking about this I figured I would get a wide angle lens as well then focus should not be an issue at all on the DSLR. That would only leave the shakiness as a potential issue.

[Chippy569]

the heavier the camera, the more taught your muscles have to be, the less shaky they'll end up.

also, the more attachment points (your hands, your elbows to your sides, your forehead, etc) between you and the camera, the less shaky. With those little cams like the flip, it's tough to get close and tight because they're so small.