When you're a beginner, you don't have the skills or equipment to use shallow depth of field so you gain experience and save for equipment because you believe that's what makes good cinematography. Then, once you have the equipment you start learning and use shallow depth of field to put together some films, and work to become a master. But then you realize that only true masters can make great films with deep focus. John Ford, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa all made their stunning films using deep focus. Lately, I've been enjoying Wes Anderson films again and appreciate his use of deep focus. Looking back, I realize that choosing shallow depth of field is just a cheap way to avoid learning how to light and layer a set, avoid complex blocking and so-on. I'm not a cinematographer by any means but I'm betting that canon xf100 is better in all regards to the equipment used by the old masters above... so perhaps the limitation is skill, not equipment, for young filmmakers today.
Nice to see this - i know some theater buddys here in my area they use still up to now 4x Canon XF100 and they work great - in combine a Blackmagic Videoswticher/hub ...
I had the "consumer" version of this camcorder, the Canon HF-G10. It had the same sensor as the XF100 so the image quality was the same but it had few of the "pro" features such as XLR inputs and more video codecs. As you mention using these camcorders are extremely versatile to record events where you have little to no control of the event. Lectures, concerts, weddings have people and lighting that you might not be able to predict. As Random One for Stuff mentioned. If you might use a cellphone to record a video a camcorder will be much more versatile. Camcorders are not DESIGNED for still photos or cinematic videos! I wish I didn't sell mine.
DUDE, I have THREE Canon XF100's. I love them. I use them in studio. I do have a Canon EOS200D. However, with my three UA-cam channels I exclusively use my XF100's. Filming Elephants or rhinos at my neighbors ranch or my art or even my HOMESTEAD shows for DISCOVERY CHANNEL. When I as an executive producer for movies, I hire professionals whom all use the Black Magic series of cameras. Thanks for your info. I actually enjoyed this.
I still use my XF100 today. The long zoom lens with rocker switch and handheld stabilizer are what make it my go to for b-roll capture. I love to shoot super fast and this camera gives me that ability. I bought a used C100 to get that shallow depth of field and I use it for interviews but I went back to my favorite run and gun XF100 for the b-roll.
I actually feel that people are more accustomed to the wide depth of field look nowadays with how much video is shot on phones (think tik toks) that have the even smaller sensors than most 'prosumer' camcorders.
The large amount of video shot on phones (with even less shallow depth of field capability than camcorders) would kinda reinforce the perception that sharp-background footage is synonymous with amateur recording - thus heightening the PLABB effect.
I bought the Canon Vixia HF g70 camcorder for documentaries in railroading because you can get a train as the zoom and pan will be in focus it is really reliable
I love the look of today's mirrorless, and wow, some of them can even shoot Apple ProRes in-camera, others not, but still at 10-bit 4:2:2 like a cinema camera. Only things that still hold me back from taking the plunge to ditching the handheld camcorder: 1. The biggest disadvantage - it's hard (and expensive) to get the kind of zoom range you get in a typical pro camcorder, like 15x or 20x zoom (even with so-called all-in-one lenses that maybe only go to 10x) - and you need that for shooting in dangerous situations like construction zones where you can't be too close. Or if you're shooting helicopters from the ground and *can't* get a close shot otherwise. And when running and gunning, you don't have time to change lenses, and in dirty dusty situations, you don't want contaminants getting on the sensor or into your camera body when changing lenses anyway. You need a lens that can cover it all in a snap. 2. The viewfinder doesn't rotate on mirrorless cameras (except for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K Pro and G2 optional viewfinder), so you can't use it for low-angle shots. And unless they start making the LCD displays on mirrorless cameras super-bright for working in direct sunlight, and I mean at least 2000 nits, it's a no-go for seeing anything you're shooting. 3. Since mirrorless cameras typically don't have built-in ND filters (except for the BMPCC 6K Pro), if you use a variable ND filter screwed onto the front of the lens, you can't operate it if you use a matte box. 4. In a mirrorless (or DSLR), the batteries are slot-mounted, not externally-mounted, so you can't just slap on a larger size battery for longer life; all you can do is put on a battery grip, but then you have to change out each individual battery (2 or 3 total, depending on whether the battery grip takes up the whole built-in battery compartment of the camera or not). 5. Traditionally, mirrorless cameras have been facing overheating issues, particularly at high resolutions and frame rates, but thankfully, some manufacturers (thank you, Panasonic/Lumix, for the S5 II/IIX!) have recently addressed that issue with fan cooling as there's always been in camcorders. They've also only recently addressed the artificial recording time limit for video. 6. No power (servo) zoom in mirrorless cameras (at least not without some expensive and bulky cinema rigging with motors, etc.), including with a tripod-mount remote zoom control, so you can't do those nice slow zoom ins/outs like you used to on a camcorder. When shooting certain events A-Z (not B-roll style like news) single-camera, graceful transitions from wide shots to close-ups (e.g., speaker at a podium) are pretty much necessary. 6. I was going to say no XLR inputs, but some of today's cameras have solved that problem by offering optional XLR handle units (e.g., Canon, Sony, Panasonic Lumix).
This was helpful - thanks. I had some reservations about sending our station intern out with our Canon XF-105 but it's a good introduction to the basics.
I had the GL1 which was nice. I made a big upgrade to the Sony Z1U which shot an incredible image... at 1080i. But it had the ability to zoom in with a remote or set the start and end, plus the speed, and it would zoom with the push of a button. But it used tape, and the first time I used a Panasonic P2 camera at school I never wanted to go back to tape. Imagine vlogging if people had to constantly buy video tape. eventually the VTR stopped working, and I couldn't record on it. There was a product to allow recording to CF card, but I didn't want to spend more money on the camera by then. But one of the things not mentioned here that I miss the most is being able to zoom all the way in, set focus, and it would stay focused no matter where I was in the zoom lens. with a DSLR (the lenses I have owned), if I zoom in or out even a little, I lose focus. Also, white balance was so much easier to set manually. Also, since I carry a lot of gear, the size of a mirrorless is nice too. I use a RØDE Wireless Go II, so I don't even need the XLR anymore. Though before buying the A7sIII, I did look to switching back to a video camera, but my #1 goal was low light, and from what I read, no camcorder beats the A7sIII.
The Canon GL1, which I bought new back in 2000, was my first "prosumer' video camera. I got lots of great shots of my kids in sports, plays, etc., and I still have it, although the recording heads are completely worn out.
Some camcorders do offer the shallow depth of field. Sometimes it's nice, but sometimes it doesn't bother me. The Sony PXW-X70 (1080HD) did have it though. I wouldn't mind trying the 4K version of that Sony Camera. I also have tried the Canon XF 4K camera, the Canon XF400 and I enjoyed it a lot. I shot the Chicago Marathon in 2021 on the Canon XF 400 4K camera. Feel free to take a look at that to see how that looks.
I work in news (photographer) and everyone who does video in any capacity carries a camcorder, usually on a monopod or handheld. Its biggest advantage is the fact you just get it out of the bag and it's ready to shoot. No mounting lenses, no mounting filters, no attaching microphones, nothing. The focal range (and thus versatility) is unmatched, you might have an interview in a cramped room at 10 am and have to snipe a politician visiting some construction site from afar at 11 am and you wouldn't need to carry any extra accessories. Files are lighter and the codec are broadcast-friendly as well. Of course you don't get a "cinematic" image but that's a trade off you have to just live with.
All my videos on my UA-cam channel are recorded with this camera. Trying to get the most out of its 4:2:2 compression. Advantages of the camera, I already have it. Disadvantages: The sensor is a little short for certain things. But I will learn photography.
One thing I like with camcorders is the ability to film longer than 30 minutes at a time. As a classical musician that feature is really important when filming live concerts or performances. Especially when you just need to have it set up and running the whole time. Do you still think for example a Cannon XF305 is suitable for live concerts? Especially when light can be on the darker side? I'm on the hunt for a camera for my self and these aren't to pricy second hand here in Sweden.
I shoot live sports so shallow depth of field doesn’t work. I’ve tried filming events with a dslr but it looks awful from distance. An old school camcorder works better in that scenario every time.
modern DSLR's and mirrorless have an advantage in low light situations. That is why they dominate event videography. The shallow depth of field is a byproduct. You don't actually have to use them the way. I've worked in the field for almost 18 years and i noticed something else regarding event filming. Years ago you could use a light on the camcorder to help you in low light situations. Nowadays people don't tolerate them generaly.
I have an a7s3 but decided a video camera is so useful when zooming in optically to 600 mm without having to change lenses (heavy lenses).Canon Vixia HF G70 beautiful image. Small sensor but it does the job very well. I wish they at least made an apsc sensor on a camcorder. I hope they will one day.
For our final project in a film class, other students are using the Canon C 300 which is beautiful but there is a learning curve and they might find a bit to much when shooting actually begins. I’m using my own Canon HG F 30 camcorder which I know like the back of my hand and an external sound recorder. I’ll be less frustrated and done shooting before the others and probably less frustrated. I hope!
YES INDEED! The XF line are good for BROADCAST even in today's arena. I covered NBA, NFL, and MLB, for years with the camera (ENG). Fox Sports production teams used the XF200 for World Series. This should let you know the quality of this line. The XF including this camera was the first camcorder approved by the BBC UK to use in documentaries, I show all videographers the value of a camcorder. I show people how much easy money you can make covering events from games to lectures. There are for more events and lectures to make money from than other types of activities. I started off with the XF300 which came out before the XF100. I followed with selling the XF300 and Xf100 to XF200s. Now, I film with the XF605. (Disclaimer: I am also in cinematography with C70s) I STILL tell videographers to pick up one of these from eBay for a few hundred. Many of them will not have much mileage on them. Get some good lights, mics, and other accessories. I can give you a road map to start making money even in today's video spectrum. You CAN make this camera your primary depending on what you are filming.
@@airmetalmedia If you do not have a wireless lavalier. Get one with adapter cables that will allow you to connect to any audio or PA systems at airshows or motorsports events. (Cables: 3.5 to male XLR, 3.5 to female XLR, 3.5 to 3.5, and 1/4 adapter = all the cables should cost about $30).
Some of your comments have disappeared been deleted I couldn't read them all in time. I'm using a canon 250D. I do a 50/50 split between photography & video. I mainly shoot cars/bikes & motorsports, then aircraft and aviation with some nature & wildlife too. I'm just venturing in to the 'cinematic' film making genre too. Would you suggest trying to invest in a high end mirrorless system which can do video and photo well or just get a photo camera for photo and a video camera for video?
I use both mirrorless cameras and camcorders. Each for different purposes. But If only they could put a full frame sensor in a camcorder…it’d be such a beast!
Very good video! I myself have Canon XF-105, Canon XF-205 and old Canon XH A1, but I have a question. What do you think about that DSLR cameras have this video recording limit and Professional Camcorders are much more quicker to use because they have always lot of physical buttons and professional camcorders have also customable functions / menus that DSLR cameras not have and also you can use and change all your cameras settings and menus while recording if you use Professional camcorders! Then camcorders are better image stabilizer and some professional camcorders are also waveform monitor, edge monitor and vectorscope and those are very useful! Also professional camcorders saves much more useful metadata to it own video files and DSLRS not. And of course DSLR cameras biggest drawbacks is that you need almost you need a lens almost like a broadcast lens, that you can reach that kind of zoom range and also if you have many lenses it is kinda slow to always change the lens to the situation and it means you can can loose that very important moment what you want to shoot! And by the way Canon XF-100 and Canon XF-105 are professional camcorders. And hey...This is almost only good video on the benefits of camcorders! :)
I had Sony AX43 camcorder, used it for news coverage for a year. It was a good camera to record as it also had built in IBIS system. Had to sell it due to its colour prone to greenish and less sharp in 1080p. It hasd great zoom and battery life,though. Yes the PLABB syndrome hit me and bought myself ZVE10 but sold it later as the video was limited to 4K 25p and expensive lens. Hence, now i use GH5ii. A perfect camera for me.
SLR cameras are designed to shoot still photos, period. The only people that use them to shoot professional looking motion pictures are people that can’t afford a camera that is designed specifically to shoot professional motion pictures.
“Professional” motion pictures today look like hyper-realistic cam corder videos with some cheap ass digital plug-in color grading. Might as well just use your iPhone SE.
II cut a video to discuss topic in my manuscript. It was horrible. I need a good stable recorder and mic. No noisy sounds from computer or odd angles. The one you had seems excellant on a tripod, external mic, and lighting. I als suffer from budget issues.
It's hard to believe I know, but hobbyists use camcorders like this - some even use shock horror the domestic versions of Canon's camcorder range. The majority in the UK video club circuit I've known for the last 20 years fall into this group.
I'm looking at recording a small conference(less than 100 people) for our company (insurance broker). We might hire someone to do it, but would like to have that capability in house, as we will be doing more of this. Not looking for anything cinematic, just good quality video and audio, so we can put it on our YT and social.. We have someone in house that records and edits our Vlogs for YT, so there fairly knowledgeable, but not a photographer. If there is a camcorder that can make filming easier, maybe we'll give it a shot. Even better, if there is a quality camcorder that might work at sub $1,000 - I would rather have 2 of those than one spectacular camera. Thoughts? Thanks for the helpful video.
That’s one problem with the X100, the picture doesn’t have a lot of dynamic range. You can’t push it very far. I was really blown away when I got a C100 and started grading that.
I have 2 xf100s. I've been thinking of pulling them out to do some run and gun filming for fun, its has nostalgia look to it a bit, which is the vibe I want... but I still use them to record audio, I can get more complex audio running a boom into them then my a73
I shoot inside and used camcorders for almost 30yrs and was not impressed with DSLR's but Mirrorless Cameras IMHO has killed camcorders for indoor shooting. That said outdoor daytime event video like your kids sports or yard party or news gathering are perfect for Camorders and the better ones have built in ND, microphones and XLR ports and some of the latest PAnny Camcorders tdo 4K 60 and have almost 5hrs on a battery but don't take it inside or even on a night shoot. I think if we did not have cell phones Camcorders would still have the casual video market but why when your cell phone can do it. PS: Stay away from the Panasonic HC 1500, 2000 Cameras. They are basically GH5's with a sensor from a 2018 cell phone. The video is noisy in even a well lit studio. Outside day it is great and even tells you what internal ND setting to pick but again Camcorders are dead to me for indoor and night shooting in 2023
every one who buys video cameras does not buy them to do film making. you can not run&gun with a DSLR or mirrorless. when your shooting wild life you only have so much time to shoot. when your shooting racing you can not zoom and pull back with a DSLR. there is a tool for every purpose. by the way ,1080p is a great format.it looks great and takes up less space on your hard drive. there is not enough support for 4k yet. and what ever types of support there is ,is pricey. the latest and greatest these days is not always the best.
I have shot with Camcorders for 20 years . tryed DSLR its a complete waist off money wrong formfactor and mostly useless on the field . I recommend you to grab any DSLR / systemcamera use it at a airshow film some fighterjets doing a demofly where you need to zoom alot have focus and follow it . That dont work with a DSLR , they are not build or shaped / formed for that in any way . And no i m not a fan off a blurry background "cinema wannabe something" the eyes on a normal person dont see like that anyway . its something made up . Good thing when people get on the hypetrain get there DSLR cameras is you can find very nice & very cood camcorders for very nice cheap prices . And shuld you keep post on youtube and edit in your homecomputer stay FULL HD . saves space easy to work with and gets very good results . Best regards :) And most bigger broadcast companies use PRO Camcorders . Wish i could afford one off those :)
UGH honestly bokeh is soooooo over rated. Our eyes don't see things that way in real life. I'd go nuts and see my eye doctor if everything in the background was blurry while focusing on something up close. Blurry backgrounds are actually annoying, I'd rather see the context of where a subject is but I guess that's just me. Also, DLRs are fine for static shots but god help you if you want to zoom in or out while recording. Give me a smooth motor with a zoom rocker and parfocal lens any day if you're running and gunning.
we still use this camcorder on a live stream. It is great to do a live broadcast from a conference or a sport event.
Hey. Do you have any streams that I could look at to see its quality?
When you're a beginner, you don't have the skills or equipment to use shallow depth of field so you gain experience and save for equipment because you believe that's what makes good cinematography. Then, once you have the equipment you start learning and use shallow depth of field to put together some films, and work to become a master. But then you realize that only true masters can make great films with deep focus.
John Ford, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa all made their stunning films using deep focus. Lately, I've been enjoying Wes Anderson films again and appreciate his use of deep focus. Looking back, I realize that choosing shallow depth of field is just a cheap way to avoid learning how to light and layer a set, avoid complex blocking and so-on.
I'm not a cinematographer by any means but I'm betting that canon xf100 is better in all regards to the equipment used by the old masters above... so perhaps the limitation is skill, not equipment, for young filmmakers today.
Dude! I remember the Canon XL1 being THE camera everyone wanted. Oh, how times have changed.
Nice to see this - i know some theater buddys here in my area they use still up to now 4x Canon XF100 and they work great - in combine a Blackmagic Videoswticher/hub ...
I had the "consumer" version of this camcorder, the Canon HF-G10. It had the same sensor as the XF100 so the image quality was the same but it had few of the "pro" features such as XLR inputs and more video codecs.
As you mention using these camcorders are extremely versatile to record events where you have little to no control of the event. Lectures, concerts, weddings have people and lighting that you might not be able to predict.
As Random One for Stuff mentioned. If you might use a cellphone to record a video a camcorder will be much more versatile.
Camcorders are not DESIGNED for still photos or cinematic videos!
I wish I didn't sell mine.
DUDE, I have THREE Canon XF100's. I love them. I use them in studio. I do have a Canon EOS200D. However, with my three UA-cam channels I exclusively use my XF100's. Filming Elephants or rhinos at my neighbors ranch or my art or even my HOMESTEAD shows for DISCOVERY CHANNEL. When I as an executive producer for movies, I hire professionals whom all use the Black Magic series of cameras. Thanks for your info. I actually enjoyed this.
I still use my XF100 today. The long zoom lens with rocker switch and handheld stabilizer are what make it my go to for b-roll capture. I love to shoot super fast and this camera gives me that ability. I bought a used C100 to get that shallow depth of field and I use it for interviews but I went back to my favorite run and gun XF100 for the b-roll.
I actually feel that people are more accustomed to the wide depth of field look nowadays with how much video is shot on phones (think tik toks) that have the even smaller sensors than most 'prosumer' camcorders.
The large amount of video shot on phones (with even less shallow depth of field capability than camcorders) would kinda reinforce the perception that sharp-background footage is synonymous with amateur recording - thus heightening the PLABB effect.
I bought the Canon Vixia HF g70 camcorder for documentaries in railroading because you can get a train as the zoom and pan will be in focus it is really reliable
I love the look of today's mirrorless, and wow, some of them can even shoot Apple ProRes in-camera, others not, but still at 10-bit 4:2:2 like a cinema camera. Only things that still hold me back from taking the plunge to ditching the handheld camcorder:
1. The biggest disadvantage - it's hard (and expensive) to get the kind of zoom range you get in a typical pro camcorder, like 15x or 20x zoom (even with so-called all-in-one lenses that maybe only go to 10x) - and you need that for shooting in dangerous situations like construction zones where you can't be too close. Or if you're shooting helicopters from the ground and *can't* get a close shot otherwise. And when running and gunning, you don't have time to change lenses, and in dirty dusty situations, you don't want contaminants getting on the sensor or into your camera body when changing lenses anyway. You need a lens that can cover it all in a snap.
2. The viewfinder doesn't rotate on mirrorless cameras (except for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K Pro and G2 optional viewfinder), so you can't use it for low-angle shots. And unless they start making the LCD displays on mirrorless cameras super-bright for working in direct sunlight, and I mean at least 2000 nits, it's a no-go for seeing anything you're shooting.
3. Since mirrorless cameras typically don't have built-in ND filters (except for the BMPCC 6K Pro), if you use a variable ND filter screwed onto the front of the lens, you can't operate it if you use a matte box.
4. In a mirrorless (or DSLR), the batteries are slot-mounted, not externally-mounted, so you can't just slap on a larger size battery for longer life; all you can do is put on a battery grip, but then you have to change out each individual battery (2 or 3 total, depending on whether the battery grip takes up the whole built-in battery compartment of the camera or not).
5. Traditionally, mirrorless cameras have been facing overheating issues, particularly at high resolutions and frame rates, but thankfully, some manufacturers (thank you, Panasonic/Lumix, for the S5 II/IIX!) have recently addressed that issue with fan cooling as there's always been in camcorders. They've also only recently addressed the artificial recording time limit for video.
6. No power (servo) zoom in mirrorless cameras (at least not without some expensive and bulky cinema rigging with motors, etc.), including with a tripod-mount remote zoom control, so you can't do those nice slow zoom ins/outs like you used to on a camcorder. When shooting certain events A-Z (not B-roll style like news) single-camera, graceful transitions from wide shots to close-ups (e.g., speaker at a podium) are pretty much necessary.
6. I was going to say no XLR inputs, but some of today's cameras have solved that problem by offering optional XLR handle units (e.g., Canon, Sony, Panasonic Lumix).
This was helpful - thanks. I had some reservations about sending our station intern out with our Canon XF-105 but it's a good introduction to the basics.
I enjoyed using the XF100 back over ten years ago now, geez time flies by, while doing a documentary film it was pretty cool at the time.
I had the GL1 which was nice. I made a big upgrade to the Sony Z1U which shot an incredible image... at 1080i. But it had the ability to zoom in with a remote or set the start and end, plus the speed, and it would zoom with the push of a button. But it used tape, and the first time I used a Panasonic P2 camera at school I never wanted to go back to tape. Imagine vlogging if people had to constantly buy video tape. eventually the VTR stopped working, and I couldn't record on it. There was a product to allow recording to CF card, but I didn't want to spend more money on the camera by then. But one of the things not mentioned here that I miss the most is being able to zoom all the way in, set focus, and it would stay focused no matter where I was in the zoom lens. with a DSLR (the lenses I have owned), if I zoom in or out even a little, I lose focus. Also, white balance was so much easier to set manually. Also, since I carry a lot of gear, the size of a mirrorless is nice too. I use a RØDE Wireless Go II, so I don't even need the XLR anymore. Though before buying the A7sIII, I did look to switching back to a video camera, but my #1 goal was low light, and from what I read, no camcorder beats the A7sIII.
The Canon GL1, which I bought new back in 2000, was my first "prosumer' video camera. I got lots of great shots of my kids in sports, plays, etc., and I still have it, although the recording heads are completely worn out.
Also, you can film as long you have space on the memory card. Not limited as DSLR used to be.
Some camcorders do offer the shallow depth of field. Sometimes it's nice, but sometimes it doesn't bother me. The Sony PXW-X70 (1080HD) did have it though. I wouldn't mind trying the 4K version of that Sony Camera. I also have tried the Canon XF 4K camera, the Canon XF400 and I enjoyed it a lot. I shot the Chicago Marathon in 2021 on the Canon XF 400 4K camera. Feel free to take a look at that to see how that looks.
I work in news (photographer) and everyone who does video in any capacity carries a camcorder, usually on a monopod or handheld. Its biggest advantage is the fact you just get it out of the bag and it's ready to shoot. No mounting lenses, no mounting filters, no attaching microphones, nothing. The focal range (and thus versatility) is unmatched, you might have an interview in a cramped room at 10 am and have to snipe a politician visiting some construction site from afar at 11 am and you wouldn't need to carry any extra accessories. Files are lighter and the codec are broadcast-friendly as well. Of course you don't get a "cinematic" image but that's a trade off you have to just live with.
And you definitely don't need that for news. It's better to get a more realistic look anyway for news
All my videos on my UA-cam channel are recorded with this camera. Trying to get the most out of its 4:2:2 compression.
Advantages of the camera, I already have it. Disadvantages: The sensor is a little short for certain things. But I will learn photography.
One thing I like with camcorders is the ability to film longer than 30 minutes at a time. As a classical musician that feature is really important when filming live concerts or performances. Especially when you just need to have it set up and running the whole time. Do you still think for example a Cannon XF305 is suitable for live concerts? Especially when light can be on the darker side? I'm on the hunt for a camera for my self and these aren't to pricy second hand here in Sweden.
yeah if you don't need shallow depth of field, there's a lot of benefits to a camcorder and lots available 2nd hand.
I just bought a canon XA70 that I paid 2400 dollars for. I love the image quality. Im using it for my game reviews. It was money well spent.
awesome!
I shoot live sports so shallow depth of field doesn’t work. I’ve tried filming events with a dslr but it looks awful from distance.
An old school camcorder works better in that scenario every time.
Yeah that makes sense. The only time shallow depth of field works is if its for a documentary style coverage like NFL films.
modern DSLR's and mirrorless have an advantage in low light situations. That is why they dominate event videography. The shallow depth of field is a byproduct. You don't actually have to use them the way. I've worked in the field for almost 18 years and i noticed something else regarding event filming. Years ago you could use a light on the camcorder to help you in low light situations. Nowadays people don't tolerate them generaly.
I have an a7s3 but decided a video camera is so useful when zooming in optically to 600 mm without having to change lenses (heavy lenses).Canon Vixia HF G70 beautiful image. Small sensor but it does the job very well. I wish they at least made an apsc sensor on a camcorder. I hope they will one day.
For our final project in a film class, other students are using the Canon C 300 which is beautiful but there is a learning curve and they might find a bit to much when shooting actually begins. I’m using my own Canon HG F 30 camcorder which I know like the back of my hand and an external sound recorder. I’ll be less frustrated and done shooting before the others and probably less frustrated. I hope!
YES INDEED! The XF line are good for BROADCAST even in today's arena. I covered NBA, NFL, and MLB, for years with the camera (ENG). Fox Sports production teams used the XF200 for World Series. This should let you know the quality of this line. The XF including this camera was the first camcorder approved by the BBC UK to use in documentaries,
I show all videographers the value of a camcorder. I show people how much easy money you can make covering events from games to lectures. There are for more events and lectures to make money from than other types of activities. I started off with the XF300 which came out before the XF100. I followed with selling the XF300 and Xf100 to XF200s. Now, I film with the XF605. (Disclaimer: I am also in cinematography with C70s)
I STILL tell videographers to pick up one of these from eBay for a few hundred. Many of them will not have much mileage on them. Get some good lights, mics, and other accessories. I can give you a road map to start making money even in today's video spectrum.
You CAN make this camera your primary depending on what you are filming.
I'd like to hear more, any tips would be appreciated. I shoot airshows & motorsport mainly.
@@airmetalmedia If you do not have a wireless lavalier. Get one with adapter cables that will allow you to connect to any audio or PA systems at airshows or motorsports events. (Cables: 3.5 to male XLR, 3.5 to female XLR, 3.5 to 3.5, and 1/4 adapter = all the cables should cost about $30).
Some of your comments have disappeared been deleted I couldn't read them all in time. I'm using a canon 250D. I do a 50/50 split between photography & video. I mainly shoot cars/bikes & motorsports, then aircraft and aviation with some nature & wildlife too. I'm just venturing in to the 'cinematic' film making genre too. Would you suggest trying to invest in a high end mirrorless system which can do video and photo well or just get a photo camera for photo and a video camera for video?
Also what camcorders would you recommend? Would any of the lower priced ones be worth it or avoid?
@@airmetalmedia Oh, I guess the channel owner deleted them.
I appreciate this video! Thank you. Really good advice.
A Canon XA70 camcorder has the features of the XF100 but also better autofocus, a 1-inch sensor, and a blurry background.
the top handle of your camera can i put it on my canon Legria HF G70
I use both mirrorless cameras and camcorders. Each for different purposes. But If only they could put a full frame sensor in a camcorder…it’d be such a beast!
That's what the Canon C series is basically! Like the c100, C200, etc
then you will have a cinema camera...
The zoom lens would be bigger than your car, to do pro sports. Chuckles the little white pig in a puddle of mud.
Very good video! I myself have Canon XF-105, Canon XF-205 and old Canon XH A1, but I have a question. What do you think about that DSLR cameras have this video recording limit and Professional Camcorders are much more quicker to use because they have always lot of physical buttons and professional camcorders have also customable functions / menus that DSLR cameras not have and also you can use and change all your cameras settings and menus while recording if you use Professional camcorders! Then camcorders are better image stabilizer and some professional camcorders are also waveform monitor, edge monitor and vectorscope and those are very useful! Also professional camcorders saves much more useful metadata to it own video files and DSLRS not. And of course DSLR cameras biggest drawbacks is that you need almost you need a lens almost like a broadcast lens, that you can reach that kind of zoom range and also if you have many lenses it is kinda slow to always change the lens to the situation and it means you can can loose that very important moment what you want to shoot! And by the way Canon XF-100 and Canon XF-105 are professional camcorders.
And hey...This is almost only good video on the benefits of camcorders! :)
Now I know. Brilliant explanation! thank you
I had Sony AX43 camcorder, used it for news coverage for a year. It was a good camera to record as it also had built in IBIS system. Had to sell it due to its colour prone to greenish and less sharp in 1080p. It hasd great zoom and battery life,though. Yes the PLABB syndrome hit me and bought myself ZVE10 but sold it later as the video was limited to 4K 25p and expensive lens. Hence, now i use GH5ii. A perfect camera for me.
SLR cameras are designed to shoot still photos, period. The only people that use them to shoot professional looking motion pictures are people that can’t afford a camera that is designed specifically to shoot professional motion pictures.
Like me
“Professional” motion pictures today look like hyper-realistic cam corder videos with some cheap ass digital plug-in color grading. Might as well just use your iPhone SE.
This is true C70 FX3 super expensive plus lens and rigs and everything else way too much.
Nah
THANKS FROM CHICAGO
YOU'RE WELCOME! love chicago
The autofocus was always garbage in that. I’ve owned two of them.
II cut a video to discuss topic in my manuscript. It was horrible. I need a good stable recorder and mic. No noisy sounds from computer or odd angles. The one you had seems excellant on a tripod, external mic, and lighting. I als suffer from budget issues.
It's hard to believe I know, but hobbyists use camcorders like this - some even use shock horror the domestic versions of Canon's camcorder range. The majority in the UK video club circuit I've known for the last 20 years fall into this group.
Oustanding video.
This is helpful video. I can't lie might invest in one as a B camera?
Not a bad idea
I would buy a full frame camcorder if it was made
Fx6 😂
Yes, I have a Vixia HF G40 why would I spend thousands for a mirrorless camera when the Vixia is too a mirrorless.
lolol I didnt realize you also went to IC! recognized Hood and the various bit of campus here haha
Nice! I didn't end up graduating there, but I went there for a little bit
I'm looking at recording a small conference(less than 100 people) for our company (insurance broker). We might hire someone to do it, but would like to have that capability in house, as we will be doing more of this. Not looking for anything cinematic, just good quality video and audio, so we can put it on our YT and social.. We have someone in house that records and edits our Vlogs for YT, so there fairly knowledgeable, but not a photographer. If there is a camcorder that can make filming easier, maybe we'll give it a shot. Even better, if there is a quality camcorder that might work at sub $1,000 - I would rather have 2 of those than one spectacular camera. Thoughts? Thanks for the helpful video.
Hi, what would be a good picture profile to use for this canon xf100. I am using it for church & having trouble getting good color in davinci
That’s one problem with the X100, the picture doesn’t have a lot of dynamic range. You can’t push it very far. I was really blown away when I got a C100 and started grading that.
are we able to make the screen facing forward?
Yes!
I have 2 xf100s. I've been thinking of pulling them out to do some run and gun filming for fun, its has nostalgia look to it a bit, which is the vibe I want... but I still use them to record audio, I can get more complex audio running a boom into them then my a73
read my comment above. You could make easy money by covering lectures and events especially with two camcorders.
Would you sell or donate?
I'm sick of the sharp videos. I like a high quality camcorder video over dslr any day. a high quality camcorder has a real and warm look to video
You should check out the Sony NEX-VG900
Camcorders are underrated af nowadays
Great to learn on I agree, but let's also agree that the image is pretty garbage.
I have one worth every penny
The positive thing with the XF100 being a "dinosaur" is that you can get it used at a bargain price. And it still is a decent camera ...
I shoot inside and used camcorders for almost 30yrs and was not impressed with DSLR's but Mirrorless Cameras IMHO has killed camcorders for indoor shooting. That said outdoor daytime event video like your kids sports or yard party or news gathering are perfect for Camorders and the better ones have built in ND, microphones and XLR ports and some of the latest PAnny Camcorders tdo 4K 60 and have almost 5hrs on a battery but don't take it inside or even on a night shoot. I think if we did not have cell phones Camcorders would still have the casual video market but why when your cell phone can do it.
PS: Stay away from the Panasonic HC 1500, 2000 Cameras. They are basically GH5's with a sensor from a 2018 cell phone. The video is noisy in even a well lit studio. Outside day it is great and even tells you what internal ND setting to pick but again Camcorders are dead to me for indoor and night shooting in 2023
every one who buys video cameras does not buy them to do film making. you can not run&gun with a DSLR or mirrorless. when your shooting wild life you only have so much time to shoot. when your shooting racing you can not zoom and pull back with a DSLR. there is a tool for every purpose. by the way ,1080p is a great format.it looks great and takes up less space on your hard drive. there is not enough support for 4k yet. and what ever types of support there is ,is pricey. the latest and greatest these days is not always the best.
I have shot with Camcorders for 20 years . tryed DSLR its a complete waist off money wrong formfactor and mostly useless on the field .
I recommend you to grab any DSLR / systemcamera use it at a airshow film some fighterjets doing a demofly where you need to zoom alot have focus and follow it . That dont work with a DSLR , they are not build or shaped / formed for that in any way .
And no i m not a fan off a blurry background "cinema wannabe something" the eyes on a normal person dont see like that anyway . its something made up .
Good thing when people get on the hypetrain get there DSLR cameras is you can find very nice & very cood camcorders for very nice cheap prices .
And shuld you keep post on youtube and edit in your homecomputer stay FULL HD . saves space easy to work with and gets very good results .
Best regards :)
And most bigger broadcast companies use PRO Camcorders . Wish i could afford one off those :)
10x zoom is NOT HUGE..........They had 10x zoom lens in the 70's
on cine cameras, i should know, i had one!
Camcorders are still used in skateboard videos
I still have my Canon L2…ha…
UGH honestly bokeh is soooooo over rated. Our eyes don't see things that way in real life. I'd go nuts and see my eye doctor if everything in the background was blurry while focusing on something up close. Blurry backgrounds are actually annoying, I'd rather see the context of where a subject is but I guess that's just me. Also, DLRs are fine for static shots but god help you if you want to zoom in or out while recording. Give me a smooth motor with a zoom rocker and parfocal lens any day if you're running and gunning.
Better to go for Panasonic gh6
dji p3 is better
Can I have it lol
PLABB 😂😂👍👍