SpotTheCat wrote:DSLRs for video are cumbersome and do not (currently) offer continuous autofocus.
Welch wrote:MMMMM Thats an interesting list but it mostly just lets me shoot in the dark for the correct price range. For instance, is there anything particular that I should know about Sensor sizes... such as a larger one is better for certain uses? One thing im not entirely concerned about is size... if its a slightly larger camcorder I don't mind, not really looking for a pocket camcorder anyhow. Can't say for sure how much I'd be willing to spend but 600.00 seems like a fairly decent starting point.
Well...not exactly. The mostyou can expect to get in terms of still image capability from any remotely affordable camcorder is going to be "like a good point and shoot". The physical constraints imposed by having a significantly smaller sensor than SLRs etc. do impose specific limitations on what you can do, (still or moving) image wise.Welch wrote: I'd more than likely care for it to be primarily a video camera, which most of them can do half decent pictures for stills from what ive seen
Depending on your specific needs, a camcorder or a video-capable slr or m4/3 camera might be the ticket. Certain aspects of "quality" are going to be better with the interchangable lens cameras with larger sensors. Other aspects are going to be better for the video-specific hardware. The camcorder will probably have noteworthy handling advantages for video. The cameras may or may not have specific handling advantages, and the nature of what you shoot may or may not make the advantages and disadvantages of each important.Welch wrote:Yes... short film quality is what im shooting for.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests