camcorder help

  • Thread starter steleb
  • 18 comments
  • 1,052 views
399
Canada
NB
rifleguy20
hey i don't know where to post this but here it is. i got a bunch of graduation money over the weekend and i'm planning on getting myself a decent camcorder but i'm not sure what camcorder to get since there so many types. So i'm setting myself with a budget of 600$.

And sorry for my english it's not my first language.
 
Save 200 more and get the Nikon D3200

24 MegaPixel

Movie:
HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 fps
HD 1,920x1,080 / 25 fps
HD 1,920x1,080 / 24 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 60 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 50 fps
VGA 640x424 / 30 fps
VGA 640x424 / 25 fps


http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ....html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs


Seriously worth considering imho. And if you do buy 1. I'd then save up for either the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX or the 50mm f1.8 AF-S
Both retail at around $180-190 dollars out of my head and their performances are just worth $600-700
 
Last edited:
Save 200 more and get the Nikon D3200

24 MegaPixel

Movie:
HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 fps
HD 1,920x1,080 / 25 fps
HD 1,920x1,080 / 24 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 60 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 50 fps
VGA 640x424 / 30 fps
VGA 640x424 / 25 fps


http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ....html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs


Seriously worth considering imho. And if you do buy 1. I'd then save up for either the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX or the 50mm f1.8 AF-S
Both retail at around $180-190 dollars out of my head and their performances are just worth $600-700

that's a great idea but i really don't want to get over 600$ and i'm now starting to consider DSLR's as for the lens that's something that i can buy eventually.

so my question now is what is a great DSLR that takes full HD video and and high quality photos. the camera needs to come with a lens.
 
that's a great idea but i really don't want to get over 600$ and i'm now starting to consider DSLR's as for the lens that's something that i can buy eventually.

so my question now is what is a great DSLR that takes full HD video and and high quality photos. the camera needs to come with a lens.

As a Canon guy, my first instinct would be the T3, which comes at $530 with a solid 18-55 lens, which should be relatively useful for video, especially indoors at the 18mm end. The body itself takes reasonably good video and will offer a narrower depth-of-field, allowing you to get more creative.

http://estore.canon.ca/eStore/product?pid=8850&#_020

Canon also offers a 55-250 for around $200. It's an awesome lens for the price and it complements the kit lens well.

However, consider that your DLSR will require a tripod and a microphone if you want to take anything at a serious quality level. That'll probably run at least $200 for the pair.

Canon's offering free shipping if you order on their website before July 2nd.

I'm sure Nikon offers a comparable option, but I wouldn't recommend it because Nikon sucks :dopey:
 
Skyline49
As a Canon guy, my first instinct would be the T3, which comes at $530 with a solid 18-55 lens, which should be relatively useful for video, especially indoors at the 18mm end. The body itself takes reasonably good video and will offer a narrower depth-of-field, allowing you to get more creative.

http://estore.canon.ca/eStore/product?pid=8850&#_020

Canon also offers a 55-250 for around $200. It's an awesome lens for the price and it complements the kit lens well.

However, consider that your DLSR will require a tripod and a microphone if you want to take anything at a serious quality level. That'll probably run at least $200 for the pair.

Canon's offering free shipping if you order on their website before July 2nd.

I'm sure Nikon offers a comparable option, but I wouldn't recommend it because Nikon sucks :dopey:

Blasphemy! Nikon rules haha.

No both brands are very good just go to the local store and get a feel of both brands. Just pick what feels better. Nikon used to have better ISO perfomance over megapixel quantity but nowadays since the release of the D800/E they completely turned around.

I myself am more of a Nikon man but it really doesn't make that much of a difference. Performance wise they are always close.
 
You also might be better off with a small camcorder because focusing with a DSLR isnt very fast whil filming it depends on what you are shooting.

May I ask for what purpose you want a camcorder/DSLR
 
You also might be better off with a small camcorder because focusing with a DSLR isnt very fast whil filming it depends on what you are shooting.

May I ask for what purpose you want a camcorder/DSLR

well i just graduated last weekend and got a bunch of graduation money and i feel that i need a camera/camcorder mostly for taking videos and pictures of events and whatever else pops up.

it's not for professional use if that's why you're asking

plus now that i think about it i'd really like some high quality pictures and still have hd video, and from what i understand DSLR are a good choice, but with a camcorder (tell me if i'm wrong) you get high quality video but a lower quality photo

and please keep throwing those suggestions at me
 
The difference is in your main theme/focus. If you need fast autofocus while filming get a camcorder. If need to take videos like interviews i would suggest a DSLR on a tripod. For pictures DSLR is obvious.
 
The difference is in your main theme/focus. If you need fast autofocus while filming get a camcorder. If need to take videos like interviews i would suggest a DSLR on a tripod. For pictures DSLR is obvious.
the filming i am planning to do is no more complicated than what is done in this video from 0:16 - 2:28

and yes i'm aware that there is a boat load of editing in the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2ucgnzcBM&feature=related

would the Nikon D3100 be any good?
 
Last edited:
I think that won't be easy with a DSLR. So if that video is the way you want to film I think you would be better off with a camcorder.

I suggest you go to a local shop ask a salesman or specialist there and get a good feel off those camera's. I do not know much about camcorders to be honest so I won't bother you with my posts anymore haha. Good luck with your search and hope you make the right choice!
 
You will have to understand that the autofocus on a DSLR takes time to focus it will be hard to get things good right away so editing is a must I think.

But if you search youtube you might find some usefull tips for filming with DSLR's. But if your main thing is filming I think a camcorder is better
 
Take a look at this video, which was shot with a T2i (550D)



From your video posted this might be what you want and a dslr is very capable of that.
If you want both video and pic, go dslr.
Only if you want the main focus on video and do that at a high level, then get camcorder. (I think most of the camcorders owners never use the potential of what they have in handf. They just film away,...)
 
how about the Sony a37 would that be any good even tho I'll be going over my budget a little bit because of taxes but it's OK it would come to 677.99 about.

i like this one better than the d3100 because the a37 has a external mic input and the d3100 doesn't and i don't like the auto focus when filming with the D3100.

and the lens is not important for me right now it can wait
 
how about the Sony a37 would that be any good even tho I'll be going over my budget a little bit because of taxes but it's OK it would come to 677.99 about.

i like this one better than the d3100 because the a37 has a external mic input and the d3100 doesn't and i don't like the auto focus when filming with the D3100.

and the lens is not important for me right now it can wait

On paper the a37 (which I hadn't heard of until now) could definitely be a very good choice.

However, definitely go and find one to try first. On several occasions, I've used a Sony a700, which is their best camera outside of their full-format options, but I can't stand the thing. I find it incredibly clunky to use and I hate the feel of the scroll wheels and buttons. Compared even to my entry-level Canon T3i and my friend's Nikon D7000, it feels like a piece of junk even though it's a far superior camera (especially to mine). Even the lenses feel unsavory in a way. I just really don't like using it at all and I'd rather use even a basic Nikon (like a D3100) than it.

However, many people I know love the general feel of it and its operation. They especially like how it feels (and is) more heavy-duty so they enjoy using it. Just because of my experience, I wouldn't buy the a37 blind whereas I'd feel reasonably comfortable buying a Canon or Nikon (*spit*) product without having tried it first.

But if you like it, I think it could very well be the best DSLR for what you want to do with it. Don't take my experience as a knock on the a37, just as a warning that if you're just a hobbyist (and at this price point, you'd better be!), a "better" camera might be a worse option. It's hard to take good photos if you resent your camera, so make sure you pick one that you like. Whether it's Nikon, Canon, or Sony, you're definitely getting a great product with very similar capabilities to other cameras at a similar price point. (***Note that other companies, like Panasonic, typically don't offer as many lenses etc. as the three I'm mentioning. That doesn't mean avoid, but it could and should be a turn-off.) Consider what you're going to do with the camera. Remember that you probably won't exceed the limits of the body you pick unless you're going to do serious commercial work, in which case no camera in this category is really a legitimate option. In my opinion, once you eliminate all cameras that have "non-starters" (eg. D3100 mic issues), then pick the one that's most ergonomic, regardless of minor variations in the bumf. You'll enjoy your camera more that way.
 
Back