dslr camera with xlr input image
Matthew
Regarding film, what is the diffrence between say, a 5d and an hvx200a, it seems like some of the cannon cameras offer very good video and picture quality. Why wouldn't you get one of those instead of a bulky camcorder that can't even get pictures. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?
Answer
First, a few clarifications:
1) Current dSLR cameras and camcorders record to digital media. There is no film involved.
2) A "cannon" is a weapon. "Canon" is the name of the company that makes various electronics items.
Now for my opinion...
A dSLR is designed to capture still images. Capturing video (an audio is a secondary "convenience feature". This is why most have known problems overheating when capturing video for long periods and have poor manual audio-gain control. This is not to say they cannot capture good video, they can - but using this secondary convenience feature requires the user to workaround these and other known issues. Along with this is the fact that they mostly capture video compressed video. More compression = reduced video quality.
A camcorder - in this case, you selected a pro-grade Panasonic AF-HVX200. It is designed to capture high quality, low compression video. It has a lens diameter of 82mm (which is much wider than most dSLRs) and a very large 3CCD imaging chip system (also much larger than most dSLRs). This combination allows the HVX200 to operate in a much wider lighting window - its low light video capture is great where a dSLR would normally record video grainy video. The HVX200 has pro-grade XLR audio inputs (a dSLR with only a 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo audio input can add an XLR adapter like those from BeachTek or juicedLink) and manual audio gain control on the outside of the camcorder. The camcorder can capture video for as long as there is available memory and power with little worry of overheating.
If the primary reason for the equipment is digital stills, then the dSLR is preferred. Video capture is an afterthought. If the primary reason for the equipment There is no single device that can provide both functions (especially for a prolonged period) well.
If the goal is "best available quality", then use the proper tool to meet the goal. If the goal is to compromise based on bulk, then video quality is irrelevant... For example, if I want loud music, using a small boombox is silly if I have access to a 2,000 watt PA system... or... using a CTS to haul 1,000 pounds of stuff is silly when a large pickup would do a much better job. In both examples, both "tools" can do the job - one is right for the task, the other is not.
First, a few clarifications:
1) Current dSLR cameras and camcorders record to digital media. There is no film involved.
2) A "cannon" is a weapon. "Canon" is the name of the company that makes various electronics items.
Now for my opinion...
A dSLR is designed to capture still images. Capturing video (an audio is a secondary "convenience feature". This is why most have known problems overheating when capturing video for long periods and have poor manual audio-gain control. This is not to say they cannot capture good video, they can - but using this secondary convenience feature requires the user to workaround these and other known issues. Along with this is the fact that they mostly capture video compressed video. More compression = reduced video quality.
A camcorder - in this case, you selected a pro-grade Panasonic AF-HVX200. It is designed to capture high quality, low compression video. It has a lens diameter of 82mm (which is much wider than most dSLRs) and a very large 3CCD imaging chip system (also much larger than most dSLRs). This combination allows the HVX200 to operate in a much wider lighting window - its low light video capture is great where a dSLR would normally record video grainy video. The HVX200 has pro-grade XLR audio inputs (a dSLR with only a 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo audio input can add an XLR adapter like those from BeachTek or juicedLink) and manual audio gain control on the outside of the camcorder. The camcorder can capture video for as long as there is available memory and power with little worry of overheating.
If the primary reason for the equipment is digital stills, then the dSLR is preferred. Video capture is an afterthought. If the primary reason for the equipment There is no single device that can provide both functions (especially for a prolonged period) well.
If the goal is "best available quality", then use the proper tool to meet the goal. If the goal is to compromise based on bulk, then video quality is irrelevant... For example, if I want loud music, using a small boombox is silly if I have access to a 2,000 watt PA system... or... using a CTS to haul 1,000 pounds of stuff is silly when a large pickup would do a much better job. In both examples, both "tools" can do the job - one is right for the task, the other is not.
I am looking to buy a nice video camera for filming short videos for college portfolios. Any suggestions?
hailey
I would like HD and under $800. I would like video to come first and pictures to come second if that helps. I also already own a nikon lens so if theres a good nikon video camera around that would work great with the interchangeable lenses! Thanks!
Answer
If video is important, then a camcorder is preferred. It is designed to capture video. And audio. capturing still images is a secondary "convenience feature".
If stills are important, than use a still image capture device. Like a dSLR. Capturing video (and audio) is a secondary "convenience feature". For example, if you read the documentation available for download from the dSLR manufacturer's web sites, you will find they will overheat when capturing video "for prolonged periods" (about 15 minutes maximum) and stop video capture until it cools down (takes a long time)... or... check their built-in (mono) mic and no (or extremely limited) manual audio control. This means no stereo without an external stereo mic and adding something like a XLR adapter (~$350) to plug into the stereo audio input + use the audio gain controls... or... use an external audio recording device like a Zoom H2, H2n, H4n and take the extra steps to import and sync the audio when editing.
There are no camcorders under about $1,500 that have an interchangeable lens system (Sony NEX VG series).
I am not saying dSLRs can't capture good video - they can - but they cannot be treated like a camcorder and they cannot replace a camcorder. For example, if you take a bunch of short duration videos because the project is scripted and you are using a shot list, then you should be OK. The time between the short sequences *might* be enough time for the dSLR to cool down. There are workarounds for lots of things that you normally don't need to worry about when using a camcorder... If you can plan properly, the Nikon D3200 might work - but we don't know which lens you have and that has a huge impact on what is possible.
Be sure to include lighting (flash and video) requirements, steadying devices (tripod - especially for video), power supplies... and lots of other "accessories" needed for successful video capture.
For $800 you are in the mid range of consumer camcorders. Something in the Canon HF M and HF R series should fit quite well. We assume your computer and video editor can deal with the AVCHD compressed video for editing...
If video is important, then a camcorder is preferred. It is designed to capture video. And audio. capturing still images is a secondary "convenience feature".
If stills are important, than use a still image capture device. Like a dSLR. Capturing video (and audio) is a secondary "convenience feature". For example, if you read the documentation available for download from the dSLR manufacturer's web sites, you will find they will overheat when capturing video "for prolonged periods" (about 15 minutes maximum) and stop video capture until it cools down (takes a long time)... or... check their built-in (mono) mic and no (or extremely limited) manual audio control. This means no stereo without an external stereo mic and adding something like a XLR adapter (~$350) to plug into the stereo audio input + use the audio gain controls... or... use an external audio recording device like a Zoom H2, H2n, H4n and take the extra steps to import and sync the audio when editing.
There are no camcorders under about $1,500 that have an interchangeable lens system (Sony NEX VG series).
I am not saying dSLRs can't capture good video - they can - but they cannot be treated like a camcorder and they cannot replace a camcorder. For example, if you take a bunch of short duration videos because the project is scripted and you are using a shot list, then you should be OK. The time between the short sequences *might* be enough time for the dSLR to cool down. There are workarounds for lots of things that you normally don't need to worry about when using a camcorder... If you can plan properly, the Nikon D3200 might work - but we don't know which lens you have and that has a huge impact on what is possible.
Be sure to include lighting (flash and video) requirements, steadying devices (tripod - especially for video), power supplies... and lots of other "accessories" needed for successful video capture.
For $800 you are in the mid range of consumer camcorders. Something in the Canon HF M and HF R series should fit quite well. We assume your computer and video editor can deal with the AVCHD compressed video for editing...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: What is the diffrence between d-slr cameras and camcorders?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment