Static Camcorder Options - An Up To Date Thread

[Clive McLaughlin]

So yea, I know this has been talked about plenty over the years, but I just wonder if there's anything I've missed. I've not been paying too much attention to the camcorder market.

Yesterday for the first time I had clients unhappy with my wides and cutaway shots. I use Sony CX730s for safety net wide shots, and point it at guest tables during the speeches.

I guess to those booking me based on my highlights videos, they might turn their noses up when they see their edits cut to CX730 footage even if only briefly.

SO... is it time to upgrade? How much better will the AX100 look over the CX730s? Is it worth the price? Has anything else come out that competes? 4k would be useful but not immediately necessary for me.

I've also been setting up my RX10ii for some secondary static shots. The 30 minute clip limit adds stress during a ceremony though. I downloaded the Play Memories Remote Control app though earlier today, so I can stop and restart the recordings. (As long as I remember!)

I'm still wondering about buying Atomos Ninja and recording out of an RX10 or Sony a6000/a6300.

How can it be that a Camcorder can still be almost double the price of an a6300???

[Kyle Root]

Man I am really curious. What did hey actually say about it?

I mix HD camcorders and DSLR and have not yet had anyone say anything.

I always debate upgrading to the CX900, AX100, or FZ1000 or similar 1" cams... But still mixing my Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras.

Is the cx730 footage that different looking?

[Rob Cantwell]

I was using a three half inch sensor cam along with two CX type cams and then I got a AX100 that is almost too sharp in comparison.
The Ax100 4K is great for the extra resolution and mix well with the smaller cams.

If i use the PM200 with the AX100s I have to grade a little on the AX100 stuff, soften it a bit etc. bit time-consuming to match

[Jon Robertson]

Can't comment on the 730 but the AX100 and CX900 are great little cams. I use one of each with my X70. Did have an RX10 as a third cam but it looked horrible to my eyes compared with the CX900 and X70 (replaced it it with AX100). Impossible to match.

[Steve Burkett]

I'm currently using a GH4, GH4r, GH3 and a hacked GH2 that gives continuous recording. That said I too had 1 client pick up on the difference, more so with the GH2. This year I'm looking to add another GH4r, so 3 of my cameras are the same.

If I was to go down the camcorder route, it would be the AX100. However I prefer to keep my cameras of the same make and the GH4r works very well on that regard, plus I can switch between the 2 GH4s for other sections of the day, with 1 on a gimbal and the other on a slider.

[Jeff Harper]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

How can it be that a Camcorder can still be almost double the price of an a6300???

Because the most expensive part of a decent camcorder is a quality zoom lens, which the A6300 doesn't have come with. True, there are cheap camcorders with zoom lenses, but I'm sure you get the idea.

[Steven Davis]

Make it b/w and sharpen it.... lol. Well, we are a slave to our client's feed back to an extent. So it might be worth while thinking about changing things up. Ours is an industry that continues to change, so I expect to upgrade every 5 years or so.

All that being said, take your clients feed back to heart, rinse and repeat.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

How much better will the AX100 look over the CX730s?

The colors are very similar which is why I use my cx730's together with my ax100 to shoot a ceremony and they match fine, I only need to lift the saturation and contrast a little bit on the ax100 and add some sharpness on the cx730, the most obvious difference is the detail, the cx730 can get soft in the edges at certain focal lengths while the ax100 remains pinsharp. Both camera's are equally light sensitive, only the cx730's are cleaner at the highest iso, the ax100 can get quite noisy, so noisy that I had to use neatvideo on occasion. I always shoot in 4K with the ax100 and shoot wide most of the time on a fixed tripod and then choose my compositions in post by cropping, the cx730 is still the better camera for handheld because the stabilization is much better.

I also have mixed ax100 footage with my gh4 that shot in a standard preset and had to add considerable contrast and saturation to make both match, compared to my gh4 the ax100 looked quite flat.

[Clive McLaughlin]

I think with this couple that complained, it was partly to do with quality, but also probably to do with it being static and unexciting.
The camera exists primarily as a safety net - a backup as you will, secondly it exists for me to cutaway to if I need to move quickly, or whip around suddenly to frame up somebody at another table. But also, sometimes during toasts or applause, it just makes sense to show the fuller room picture.

This couple came back and asked me to only use the static footage where it was absolutely necessary. It did make me begin to wonder if I'm cutting corners in terms of quality in the one area.

I made up a screenshot comparison (after grading), so maybe you good folk can give me your thoughts.

Is it below par? Would an AX100 raise the bar adequately? Or am I worry too much about one fussy client?

[Roger Gunkel]

Showing an example of a shot from each camera doesn't really give a great insight into what they might be unhappy with. If all three camera shots are basically unchanging throughout the speeches, then it might be down to being unexciting as you suggested. Speeches are boring from a visual point of view and you need to be very imaginative with your manned camera to try to keep it more interesting.

If you have wireless connectivity with backup cameras, try varying the zoom so that the shots are not the same each time you cut away. Even with HD footage, you can still get away with small ammounts of cropping and frame zooming in post to add a bit of movement. Perhaps the occasional PIP or split screen to show both speaker and reaction at the same time, anything to add variation.

I would be surprised if the negative comments were about the technical quality of the footage unless they are very technically minded.

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Sounds to me like 1 fussy client. I use 4 cameras and cut inbetween when needed, though stick to 1 and 2 for majority, which are on the person speaking and audience reactions. Wide shots are for toasts and another covers a wide shot of the table incase camera 1 and 2 controlled by me are obscured. Whatever you do, someone will complain about it - thats what people do.

[Noa Put]

I don't see anything wrong with the cx730 shot, you might sharpen it up a bit more to match better with the other camera's but other then that it just looks fine, you just have a bridezilla, no-one should tell you how to do your edit unless they are paying for a custom-made film.

[Bruce Dempsey]

Use the smallest sensor for the tight work and the big sensors for medium and wide

[Noa Put]

I actually would suggest the opposite, the only camera to shoot wide for me would be a 4K one as it gives more options in post and sensor size doesn't matter then. If you zoom in with small sensor camera's the f-stop ramps quicker causing low light issues.

[Steven Davis]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I don't see anything wrong with the cx730 shot, you might sharpen it up a bit more to match better with the other camera's but other then that it just looks fine, you just have a bridezilla, no-one should tell you how to do your edit unless they are paying for a custom-made film.

Yeah, if they want even lighting, hire a lighting company to provide it.