Gone through several still cameras: Do I need a dedicated camcorder?

[Dave2ic]

I've gone through several still cameras looking for something that will not only give me the best stills quality but also great video. I'm starting to realise that maybe I need to accept that any camera optimised for stills is always going to be compromised for video in some ways, and maybe I need to invest in a dedicated camcorder.

I currently have an NEX-6, which is actually great for video in most ways but for aliasing/moire artifacts. I'm only doing casual family videos so I'm not looking for any pro gear, but all the same it's nice to be able to shoot video that pleasing to the eye.

Of course with an NEX-6 I have very good low light performance and wide angle (24mm equivalent with the 16-50mm PZ lens), so I am concerned that a lot of the consumer camcorders start at much longer focal lengths and their low light performance won't be anything like the NEX has given me.

I know very little about the consumer camcorder market, but from what I have read the Canon HF-M52 seems to be the best low light performer, but it starts at 43mm (35mm equivalent), which seems a bit tight for me indoors.

The Panasonic HC-V700 looks a good option as from what I can see it starts at 28mm (35mm equivalent). I don't know if the low light performance is going to be as good as the Canon M52.

Of course there's always the wide angle adapter for the M52, but that adds to cost and bulk.

Are there any other options I should consider - both in terms of a dedicated camcorder or good stills/video camera?

Thanks for any advice.

[racer-x]

I own and use a Panasonic HC-V700. I like it very much with it's long zoom range. It uses noise suppression during low light shooting as probably does your Sony. I find it exceptable for the low light I use.

It's very good in good light. Being full progressive camera is a plus for what I use it for. I always shoot 60p and you can always extract clean video frames like this:

[Dave2ic]

I own and use a Panasonic HC-V700. I like it very much with it's long zoom range. It uses noise suppression during low light shooting as probably does your Sony. I find it exceptable for the low light I use.

It's very good in good light. Being full progressive camera is a plus for what I use it for. I always shoot 60p and you can always extract clean video frames like this:

That looks great - you could get a half decent print from one of those 60p frames!

Actually I see there is the V720 out now which has even better low light performance - still not up to the Canon M52 but I couldn't live with the 43mm (35mm equivalent) at its widest angle. And it's at a realistic price for me - the Canon G10/G20 look great but they are frightfully expensive for me.

When I say 'low light', I'm referring to normal indoor lighting and filming the kids performances at school. While these stage performances are in a dark hall the stage is generally well lit, so what I film isn't that dark. Would you say your V700 gives decent performance in such situations? If it does then it looks like the V720 will be even better, so I'm sure it would be fine for me.