Hey guys, I haven't done much video capturing other than on my iphone 4.
I want to start making a Youtube channel for profit later and I am looking for a good camcorder to start out with.
Youtube brings down the quality of the video and most people only view in 240p or 360p, but it supports up to 1080p HD.
Will having a more expensive camera make the quality better on a low 240 or 360p, or will that just make the 720/1080 more clear and better quality? If that is the case, I could just use my Iphone with external mic/recorder.
My budget for a camera is around 400 dollars, and I can also afford the external mic and such. This is ONLY for Youtube and related sites, I will not make DVDs. I only want to pay for a nicer personal camera (I know its nothing compared to professional one, but I'm a starving student haa), if it will truly help the quality of the video at lower resolutions as well. Let's assume I have good lighting for this.
I was looking at this one mainly:
Sony HDR CX260V Handycam
Also saw something like this, but no external mic, would have to use recorder, audio is just as important.
Canon Powershot SX50
-Iphone 4 seems to have pretty bad quality to me, of course I was outside in the shade when I filmed, but the video didn't turn out that great... it goes up to 720p HD on youtube. I saw a comparison between this and flip ultrahd, and it was more clear than the flip, however, the flip has more fps or something, so movement is better on that.
So can you guys recommend a perfect camera for me (maybe a range of prices) if you know? Just for youtube, no real movies, but I want a very clear picture. Also, is an external lapel microphone good for audio, or would I be better off with an expensive audio recorder?
Thanks for your help! I'm new to all of this, if someone has time to explain the reasons.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Thread: Best camcorder for Youtube?
You Tube is like everything else, the better the camera, the better the picture -- that's why Hollywood trailers look better than cat videos.
Now, within your budget. The sony is ergonomically superior for shooting video -- that's what it was designed for. The Canon will likely give you a sharper picture but not as long a continuous run.
The sony will take an external mic -- the canon doesn't appear to.
(For the record, I use that sony frequently -- with the small sensor, the picture's a little softer than I prefer. I have not used that canon.)
I was just going to buy it refurbished to save money, and if I get very serious I will save up a few thousand for a better camera. I just want something now to start with that will be very clear, I don't want it grainy like most of those videos on youtube, I want it clear at low resolution like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcqdXS_FG54
Actually I posted this on one other forum, and I was recommended the Pentax K-01, which I like the most. After going through a bunch of cameras and looking at their video on youtube, I was trying to decide between the Pentax and the Sony cx260v.
I don't really need to take still photos ever, but I feel like the Pentax will give me more range, although a little harder to shoot, I thought I would try to make something like this for it: http://www.amazon.com/Glidecam-HD-20.../dp/B0020LB0MO
Which of these 2 do you guys think would be better for shooting pictures of people talking like the first youtube link I posted and occasional sports related how-to, where I would need a little bit larger view, maybe 10-15 ft. diameter or so?
If you're shooting only video, use a video camera. The ergonomics are better. The glidecam is enough of a PIA to use that you'll end up not using it, so pay attention to your steadiness as you shoot and move in physically rather than zooming. A decent tripod can be had for $80-150.
Your sample video was shot with an expensive canon with a good lens -- can't tell which one. Look how close the cameraman is.
Last edited by smrpix; 25th Feb 2013 at 18:34.
But what about if I only care about the sharpness of the picture at low and high resolution (240-360p and 1080p)? Is that still better? Most of my videos the camera will be on a tripod and I will be talking or moving in place, I don't need to zoom. To me the k-01 seems much better for that, but I have never really used cameras before so I have no real idea. It makes sense to me that the sony would be better for videos, since it was made for that, but it seem that all of the people who make more professional videos on youtube use a dslr type camera for clear video.
This is an example of the Sony:
This is Pentax
--Of course the video of Pentax was done by professionals, and the Sony just used the internal microphone, but all of the videos about that Sony on youtube appear pretty grainy at 360p (even when on tripod), and this Pentax is pretty clear. How much of this is how they edit the video, and how much is it the camera itself?
thanks for your help.
None of it is in how they edit the video. It's in how they light it.
Take a look around the web, I'm not overly impressed by the smoothness of the auto-iris changes on the K-01 and there's a lot of jello-wobble. As long as you use manual controls and keep it steady these won't be issues -- but is that realistic? In theory it should give you a better picture, but compare the reality of these to that sony clip you posted earlier.
Last edited by smrpix; 25th Feb 2013 at 19:31.
Ok, that puts it into perspective better....
Would you still recommend the sony if I do not plan to make videos on the go like this? I will use an iphone for travels etc. This is solely for youtube videos, how-to etc. I will probably only be using with a tripod or glide-cam/stabilizer-like device. I like the shallow depth or whatever makes dslr so that it can focus on something and make the background blurry, but being a clear video especially at low resolution is my main goal. I will have tripod and good natural or artificial lighting.
Uh-oh. Here I go shilling for Sony again.
The 260 has its own issues -- the pictures aren't super-sharp, but it's convenient and works well. There is a portrait mode to cut down the depth of field, but no, it will never be as good as a real dslr with real lenses.
I do NOT recommend the iphone for anything other than instant web clips that do not need to be edited together. The reason: variable frame rate -- a semi-brilliant solution to variable lighting conditions and minimizing bandwidth when sharing, but an absolute pain to edit. You ALWAYS end up with frame-blending or jerky motion. (That will change in a few years.) You can get apps like filmic pro to get a constant frame rate, but by the time you stabilize the camera well enough to defeat the jello-effect you're better off using the sony. (It doesn't weigh much more than the iphone either.)
I use a Nikon dslr for serious shooting and the pictures are certainly better than my 260. But , I use a shoulder brace for handheld shots, and rails and a follow-focus, and an external mic and recorder (and a Rode mic on the camera in a pinch.) That sony (and it's slightly bigger brothers) is reliable and simple. Use the hiighest quality or the picture feels a little flimsy.
All that being said, the pentax looks intriguing and I'm sure you can make it work. You'll want something more than the kit lens.
If I order the Pentax, just for starting out, what is a good lens to use? I can order the Pentax for 300 just body, or for 400 with a 40mm lens.
I also saw these with high ratings. I just want one that is good all-around for a beginner to do youtube videos of mainly up close talking and then a little further back for how-to style.
I'm not sure if the Sony lens fits or not, I like that the 40mm the Pentax can come with is so small, but would the first lens give me a lot more flexibility, or would 40mm fit most of my needs. The 30mm also has great reviews on clear image, but I'm not sure what to look for, when just shooting video not so much still photos.
edit: I was just reading about the number f/2.8 thing, and it said lower was better, so the first link would be more flexible but worse in low light etc.? And the second is the same, but 30mm instead of 40mm basically?
If this is the case, how much better would another with f/2.4 be, like this one from pentax for $175
or this for $50 used at f/1.8
If you compare the original 40mm lens at f/2.8 it sells for about $250 but that might just be because it is so small. Am I right on any of this?
Last edited by gtxrla; 25th Feb 2013 at 22:50.
The ideal starter package would be the k-01 with the stock 40mm lens and the 18-55. You're losing about 2 to 2.5 stops of light with the zoom, but you're going to want the ability to zoom.
Here's the lens you really want: http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/detail/PTX+21650
The difference in price is what it takes to squeeze a little more light into it.
Ok i'll get the 40mm first.
Haa, I'm not there yet.... How much of a difference in video under the same circumstances would there be with f/2.8 an f/2.4?
About a quarter of a stop. Negligible these days.
I found one more lens after looking through all of them, and now I am deciding between this for only 100 dollars which is a good value:
40mm XS (I might be able to sell this online for more than I bought actually lol)
And this one, which also has f/2.8 but it is 2x the price. It's much bigger, is it worth the extra money or will most of my applications be met with the 40mm?
These might be stupid questions... I've just never bought a lens before so I want to make sure and a limited budget. I want something that I will always have a need for at some point basically. It seems like the slim lens would be much easier to carry around, I could put it in a bag, so I am kind of leaning towards getting that one if it will meet most of my needs, I don't need macro shots or anything, but I do need full body shots sometimes for video, maybe a few people.
-If I film a few people farther away, the 40mm will basically become a wider angle, or if I need a large angle I need a 24mm or something to make it look good?
You know your needs better than I do, but I really think you 'll want a zoom lens. 40mm is not very wide with that camera's chip, so handhelds will be tend to be shaky.
Hey guys... I'm back haha.
I just sold my guitar, so I have about 1000 to spend on a camera now.. Does this change anything in terms of what you would recommend?
I care about 2 things- good depth of field for when I do interview/how to style video, and VERY CLEAR at 360p. This is the main point. If I have dslr I will use tripod/glidecam so that is not an issue. If I don't have to spend 1000 dollars to get a very clear picture, I would prefer not to, but if necessary to get very clear at 360p, then I will.
---t2i-$550 (kit lens is only 3.5 aperture.. is that enough for indoors?)
---Pentax k-01-$400 very good on paper.. but unprofessional videos look very bad on youtube with this so I'm no so sure....
---Gh2 $1000 used (with kit) -here it says pentax is better... but the youtube videos of this look sweet... though spending all 1000 is a little frightening for my first camera and no job.
---XH A1- $1300 used (this thing is huge though... that is turn-off, but it also saves me 200-300 for recorder/pre amp)
I just looked up a few of these. Which one (doesn't have to be these) would anyone recommend? I like smaller better, but not the most important thing. In my head I'm leaning toward t2i/t3i for some reason, but I have no friggin idea, I've never had anything better than a point and shoot camera.