Best Camcorder For Music Video's Under £2k?

TM19

Standard Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
3
Hi,

Hope someone can help me with advice!

I'm on the market for a camcorder for use in making music video's for our band, generally the Camcorder will remain on a tripod for filming.

I need a camcoder capable of HD quality pictures and wont be using the onboard mic as the video's will be mimed to a music CD so picture quality is more important than sound features.

Someone recommended going for a 3ccd lense?

My budget is £1,000-£2,000 incl tripod.

I currently use Pinnacle Studio 11 for video editing but will have to upgrade to get more track counts etc.

If you need any more info. please let me know.

Many thanks, TM
 
Hi there & Welcome - that's a great budget but I wonder that you have the necesary time and/or skills to match your expectations . . . don't take that the wrong way - getting a moving image with sound is easy ehough and knowing a decent Editor means that's not a hurdle.
The problem as I see it, is the style of vid and the potential viewer . . .

((Obviously if this is just for yourselves to check that everyone was playing to the beat, then almost any camera will de - and your budget is toppy )),
- However, I suspect that your requirement is more towards a marketing DVD . . .. ((Just checking: the copyright belongs to you, right?)).

Typically here you can get very decent cameras like the Canons arrounf £1k5 and that still leave soemthing for a heavy tripod - although I'd Rec. a decent tripod and crane, so you can achieve overhead views without moving the tripod....

Er, how many Vid/Audio track-counts do you need?


Good luck.
 
Hi Harry, thanks for your reply.

Yes video's are for selling to the public at gigs etc and yes copyrights belong to us.

Video's are very simple in that they are just basically shots of us miming songs in countryside etc as opposed to up tech pop video's.

I'd say about 6-8 tracks would do us.

Someone recommendations I've had so far have been SONY-HXR-NX30E, sony HXR-MC2000E & a JVCGy-HM150E.

Thanks, Tm
 
Thanks, I don't know these camcorders but at yr budget-level I think you should either Rent, or try to find folks that own these camcorders - invite them to a gig - but let them understand the intention.... as I'm sure you will.

Are you saying 6-8 tracks = different songs on one DVD (are CD's out these days?)
 
I wonder if there is a local video club that you may want to approach, they would have equipment and be proficient in using it. The offer of a few quid for their time may be a sweetener :) and save you a load at the same time!
 
Chelters, that's good advice (wish I'd thought of that), at a Film Making club he will be able to see how the group manage to get their thoughts onto a disc.
 
A lot of independent music videos these days are filmed on DSLR cameras rather than camcorder as the lenses give a smaller depth of field which is perceived as a more professional look (as a bonus you also get a great camera for shooting publicity stills or gig images).

I can't link because I'm at work but there are some "making of" videos for some of The King Blues (RIP) videos on YouTube and you can see the film makers using Canon DSLRs (5D?).

The full frame DSLRs will give a better picture but for your needs something like a Canon D600 or the new D650 would be ideal. These can be picked up with a stock lens for around £600...

... which is a good saving as you may need to invest in a new PC or editing software to handle the files generated by the DSLR cameras as these are large and can be unwieldy for some editing software.

Even a good camcorder (I have a Panasonic SD900 which is a 3 chip model) will produce videos that look like they were filmed on a camcorder. The use of a DSLR will give you potentially better image quality and more importantly a "professional look". You'll still need to invest some time in learning the language of film however if you've not shot video before.
 
Shallow depth of field, overused, over-rated and unnatural IMHO.
 
I didn't say better quality I said better picture... The larger sensor on a full frame DSLR will capture more light and so give a better picture in low light situations.
Shallow depth of field, overused, over-rated and unnatural IMHO.
I agree with the comment from chrishull3, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Any aspect of image construction, such as shallow or extreme depth of field, should be used for a purpose.

One of the main differences between video and film is the perceived depth of field (usually much larger with video cameras, especially consumer video cameras). The majority of shots in a Hollywood movies will use a shallow depth of field to isolate an element of the image and focus the viewers attention. Westerns are a classic exception to this where traditionally extreme depth of field through the use of wide angle lenses is deliberately employed to accentuate the scale of the landscape as a backdrop for the action.

It's horses for courses (if you'll excuse the pun). The depth of field employed for any shot or sequence should be relevant and there to assist with the message or narrative that the film maker is trying to convey. You can achieve large depth of field with a DSLR, you can't achieve small depth of field with most consumer camcorders. That's great for home movies where you don't want to have to worry about children running in and out of focus for example but creatively it's limiting.
 
Last edited:
Links to a King Blues making of - watch closely to check out the cameras used :)



And the finished video

 
As this is the Camcorder Section, I wonder that we shouldn't reflect on why cinema shots were considered to have shallow depth of field.
Personal view:
IN the early days of silver-based filming (which probably influence us even now), film stock was very slow - this meant that large aperture lenses were needed for indoor (ie Stage) filming. The consequence of this was that the lens was left fully open, hence the shallow DOF, since more light was a downer, needing more wires, generators and stands littering the floor.
It was discovered that shallow DoF helped the "creative" aspect of the movie - and so it become normal to add neutral density filters to outdoor filming, so the lenses can be used wide-open.

SLR's
Before digital (remember?), we had optical viewfinders and wide-open focussing - so most cameras came with a wide-aperture prime lens so the camera was easy to focus. More recently we had AF and most zooms were modest apertures (Cost!) so the viewfinder image was dimmer, but AF saved the day.....but in general SLR (and DSLR) lenses will offer a reasonable aperture to make focussing/composition easier.

Now:
Whilst I read and hear folks saying was has been said earlier in this thread....that DSLR produce more-professional-looking videos - there are some folks that will disagree. A good quality (ie Pro-sumer) camcorder will beat a DSLR, - my reasoning is this...they are easier to handle, being arranged for the purpose. They offer focus and exposure features to help the photographer and they have a ability to change gain, as well as offering very acceptable on-camera Audio recording, perhaps using an external XLR pair of mics. Very few of these features are available in DSLRs, mainly because the manufacturers still think their customers are taking Silent Stills.

Professional films
We've seen mobile-phones used for filmmaking - and they can be good in situations where poorly exposed/focussed footage helps the storyline....but I doubt anyone can point to any serious technical advantage, other than they can be destroyed (being cheap) . .. indeed sometimes this applies to DSLRs used in film production (eg 1-off Stunts - who wouldn't strap "just one-more" DSLR to the crash-scene, to be sure?), esp. knowing that a large frame video will have plenty of definition to fool most audiences, after some processing in Post.

Back in Post#2 I questioned if OP had the necessary skills to produce/edit their Promo vids - and (for me), that is still an issue, whatever camera is chosen . . . . but I think a camcorder at that budget probably comes out on top UNLESS the cameraman is attempting something experimantal - and has the necessary skill to know how to achieve the effect . . . . the quality of footage from say a Z1 will nearly always beat a DSLR, despite it being "only" a camcorder. Mindyou one can still tire of it, as they weigh quite a bit compared with compact and APS-C non-mirror DSLR.

Stated Budgets
OP suggested "under £2k" so I wonder if Posters might give their choice(s) at this level ? . . . may I suggest as a second choice we can vote for a cheaper solution that will include a second camera, within that budget. Bear in mind that ideally the cameras are "the same" to make scene-matching easier.
 
Last edited:
Links to a King Blues making of - watch closely to check out the cameras used :)

The King Blues: Set The World On Fire- Making The Video - YouTube

And the finished video

The King Blues - Set The World On Fire (OFFICIAL VIDEO) OUT NOW! - YouTube

Nice and Interesting Pete pitty its not in HD,regarding the afformentioned DOF i can acheive what DOF i want with most of my micro four third lenses,shallow or large,with vg AF,and as you have shown any footage can be made to look what you want,i tend to just edit what i take from camera set footage.Cheers Chris
 
When making suggestions remember to factor in that the OP wants to upgrade his editing software which may mean a computer upgrade to handle the captured video, especially if he is shooting in HD.

In the early days of film making movies were shot with a fixed lens camera aimed at a set and were effectively little more than single shot recordings of stage plays until pioneers such as Sergei Eisenstein invented the concept of editing and set the basic rules for film grammar. The use of close ups, cutaways, point of view shots had to be developed and audiences educated to understand the concepts. Prior to use of depth of field directors were forced to use heavy handed techniques such as vignetting to isolate elements within a composition and focus the audience's attention. These days we grow up on a diet of television and film that makes these visual rules second nature.

It's important to remember that (whether digital or celluloid) what we are talking about is movie photography and not lose sight of the fact that it is a subset of photography. Still photographers use depth of field and varying focal length creatively to achieve a desired effect. As movie photographers we should do the same but the majority of camcorders have non-interchangeable zoom lenses which limit that creativity. Using a 50mm prime lens isn't a limitation it's a choice. It's not the same as having a 28-100mm zoom lens set at the 50mm setting.

Camcorder v DSLR debates such as these can get very partisan but for me that misses the point - a camera is just a tool and you need to choose the right tool for the job. For many types of filming a camcorder is the best tool. For music videos (where sync sound is not required) I would argue that the additional flexibility in image creation offered by a DSLR makes it the better choice.

I would also recommend that the OP adds a couple of good books on film making to his shopping list. Too few people bother to learn the basics and then wonder why sequences don't flow or editing is difficult.
 
A couple of observations...
SLR's
Before digital (remember?), we had optical viewfinders and wide-open focussing - so most cameras came with a wide-aperture prime lens so the camera was easy to focus.
A wide aperture would make depth of field smaller and focussing more difficult. Cheap cameras tend to restrict the maximum aperture size accordingly.
A good quality (ie Pro-sumer) camcorder will beat a DSLR, - my reasoning is this...they are easier to handle, being arranged for the purpose. They offer focus and exposure features to help the photographer and they have a ability to change gain, as well as offering very acceptable on-camera Audio recording, perhaps using an external XLR pair of mics. Very few of these features are available in DSLRs, mainly because the manufacturers still think their customers are taking Silent Stills.
I agree that audio recording is very limited on most DSLRs but how many camcorders offer something as basic as a proper graduated manual focussing ring or a comparable degree of control over ASA, aperture or shutter speed?

Back in Post#2 I questioned if OP had the necessary skills to produce/edit their Promo vids - and (for me), that is still an issue, whatever camera is chosen . . . . but I think a camcorder at that budget probably comes out on top UNLESS the cameraman is attempting something experimantal
I would argue that music videos are one of the most experimental forms of modern film making which is why in my opinion a DSLR is more flexible.
 
Whilst I'm bound to disagree with yr conclusions (in a friendly manner, ) I have to agree with some of the main points you make,
except
Para#1 I did say SLRs - there weren't many that would be considered "cheap" and the early models would often have f/2.8 - the larger the aperture the "easier" is it to find the point of focus - since it snaps-in-out very obviously. The brighter image is easier to see, for example indoors . . that was why frenel lenses repalaced earlier ground-glass (as used in my Zenith) - oh and that did come with an f/3.5 varient, but mine was Body-only. Later-on I bought a SLR with f/2 and my Nikon was(is) f/1.8 all of these have focus scales.

Para#2 - Yep have to agree we prosumers can't get "proper" focusing lenses - those "rings" are a hopeless fudge IMHO - as I don't have any idea which way to turn it (and how much)..... My NEX5 with "proper" Nikon SLR lenses is a pleasure....

Para#3 - I will agree that Music movies are "probably experimental" - but do you think OP has the necessary skills to produce a good outcome? ((By that I mean of interest to the casual viewer)). That's why I suggested a camcorder . . . . .

However, I'd like OP to respond and let us know their prior experience.... thoughts, etc.
 
Last edited:

GH2 music video,i am no expert on music videos,i wonder if a consumer cam could make one the same though.
 
Whilst I'm bound to disagree with yr conclusions (in a friendly manner, ) I have to agree with some of the main points you make,
except
Para#1 I did say SLRs - there weren't many that would be considered "cheap" and the early models would often have f/2.8 - the larger the aperture the "easier" is it to find the point of focus - since it snaps-in-out very obviously. The brighter image is easier to see, for example indoors . . that was why frenel lenses repalaced earlier ground-glass (as used in my Zenith) - oh and that did come with an f/3.5 varient, but mine was Body-only. Later-on I bought a SLR with f/2 and my Nikon was(is) f/1.8 all of these have focus scales.

Para#2 - Yep have to agree we prosumers can't get "proper" focusing lenses - those "rings" are a hopeless fudge IMHO - as I don't have any idea which way to turn it (and how much)..... My NEX5 with "proper" Nikon SLR lenses is a pleasure....

Para#3 - I will agree that Music movies are "probably experimental" - but do you think OP has the necessary skills to produce a good outcome? ((By that I mean of interest to the casual viewer)). That's why I suggested a camcorder . . . . .

However, I'd like OP to respond and let us know their prior experience.... thoughts, etc.
Without wishing to go too far off track wth the post SLR still cameras have the aperture at it's widest setting so that the viewfinder is at it's brightest until the moment you press the shutter release at which point it contracts to the correct setting for the exposure required. It's why the cameras have a Depth of Field preview button (which closes the aperture to the setting prior to firing the shutter).

I've not used a NEX5 but my main issue with camcorders is the lens so if you are using SLR lenses then I would agree that's a good choice. But to argue a camcorder is best based on that example would be misleading though - the vast majority of camcorders can't use SLR lenses without expensive adaptors and so my arguments re lenses still holds.

I don't think the ability of the OP to create a watchable music video would be affected by the tool they use to capture the images. They would need to take the time to learn how to use the equipment whatever they choose and I don't think shooting video with a DSLR is any more complicated than using a camcorder.
 
Pete66 all of what you say is corect, but DoF preview is a bit pointless since the viewfinder is so dim you may not be able to see the image anyway. At least with a DSLR the viefinder "could" be brightened . . . although My NEX5 goes slightly darker when actually filming.

The reason a camcorder is "better" IMHO is because it handles better, having an electric zoom and it is better suited to long-shoots, for Import Duty reasons....silly but fact. A camcorder is easier to use for sure, but for "creativity" the DSLR is the better choice . . . however, as you mentioned OP will need to learn their craft whichever Tool they choose..... Also most camcorders are "feature-cheaper" than mainstream DSLRs - what price a DSLR with a 12x zoom?
OP has a good budget.

[NEX5 isn't a DSLR - they forgot to put the mirror in...this makes it "faster", quieter and still able to have interchangeable lenses. I use manual Nikon AIS lenses fairly often, but Sony's standard 3:1 zoom is amazingly good _ I was taking stills of a cast-iron kitchen range, using just ambient light - adding the flash really didn't improve things . .. the basic shot was plenty good enough, even zoomed-in to check the maker's name.]
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom