MiniDV Camcorder vs. little Canon camera for video footage?

[c627627]

Somebody asked me to film something with a camcorder and I figure, maybe I'm better off using this little camera and filming full HD footage with it onto an SD card instead of this good old MiniDV camcorder?


• http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/PV-GS320?t=specs

• http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_elph...Specifications


What are the advantages/disadvantages b/w old school decent camcorder and the new cameras with HD camcorder abilities, specifically this Canon. Both are pictured here:

[Richard_G]

While the camcorder is only SD, it is MiniDV so far less compression on what you record. It has a nice big lens to get plenty of light in too, so is optically superior. Personally I've not seen any HD footage from a camera that isn't full of compression artefacts unless we are talking about a proper HD camcorder but you're looking at having to spend at least 10x what that Canon will cost you.

[smrpix]

Both are deeply flawed for "filming something" in 2013 except maybe insurance documentation or static talking head web video. Maybe you should tell us more about why these are your only choices.

[Cornucopia]

Also, what is your budget, what "something" are you intending to film & where, and what other equipment & software & manpower do you have at your disposal?

Scott

[c627627]

I believe the question was misunderstood. I've had the camcorder for years.

I came a across a good deal for the camera last year, it retails for $230, one day sale sale special came out to be $89, which was an excellent deal for what this camera is and can do.


I am not going to go out to buy another camcorder for what I use it for.


It simply occurred to me that this 2012 camera has full HD capabilities. It is a good camera. All things being equal, resolution and everything, which would take better footage. I will end up using both then probably posting back here and then we will see but feel free to post opinions, but I do know there is better hardware out there... of course.

[poisondeathray]

Other big difference besides resolution: CCD vs CMOS sensor

The canon produced image will have jello and skewing if you move the camera or shake it or vibrations . Search for CMOS "rolling shutter" artifacts if you want more information . Basically all new consumer level cameras use CMOS sensors without a global shutter (some more expensive pro cameras have global shutters, or some don't but have minimal skew)

So yes, more information is important. What are you shooting, the conditions, etc...


The other obvious differences, tape vs sd card workflow

[smrpix]

Given that cornucopia and I both apparantly misunderstood your question in the same way, I'd have to agree, you didn't ask it very clearly So what are you looking for here exactly?

Is that little canon worth $90? Sure. Will the video it shoots suit your needs? You've been unforthcoming about what those needs are -- but it sounds like it will. (edit: and pdr just asked you again while I was typing)

Post back with your thoughts when you've tried it out.

[c627627]

I will take actual footage and see. You guys did post some pros & cons. Usage will be general family usage. Obviously not all situations will be the same.


A lot of people have decent but relatively old camcorders and they may look at these new cameras and think hey why not shoot in full HD with my new camera... that's what I did and am looking for pros/cons for that.


With the way modern cameras are developing, maybe we will have to revisit this question in a few years, at some point those small cameras may outperform old camcorders. Right now I am looking to gain knowledge on how to tell.

[hech54]

Me personally I'd rather grab my little Canon Ixus 90 than my Nikon D90 for "general purpose" video.

[c627627]

Right. It would be helpful if you posted why? That's what I'm trying to find out.

[smrpix]

Inexpensive new cameras mostly blow away inexpensive old cameras for picture quality. But that's obviously not the only consideration. I completely agree with Hech that my small camera is a lot more convenienient than my big one on family vacations, but I would never use it on a client's gig (except as a no-expectations b camera.) Ergonomics are generally superior on a camcorder than a point and shoot.

Many of us have an ever-evolving array of camcorders, dslrs, point-and-shoots and phones (leaving out pro gear for the moment) Which is best at any given moment depends on picture quality, convenience, sound quality, lighting, helping hands, safety, discreetness, professional appearance, need for manual control... you get the idea.

Today's right answer is quickly superceded by tomorrow's better solution.

[Cornucopia]

I would say the main tradeoff is the HD quality & short transfer time vs. the GOP (and bitrate)-related editing/processing difficulties, with much weight given to how good (or not) the optics & zoom on the SD cam might be.

Scott

[c627627]

Note that post#1 contains links to specs of both. Thanks for your opinion. It will be interesting to compare the actual footage, I will be importing both into editing software and will see the pros & cons for both making DVD and posting online.

[c627627]

Direct comparison, scene was shot simultaneously from the same position using both:

Camera Camera Canon ELPH 110 HS:
http://youtu.be/bpYoJx8gcsU

Camcorder Panasonic PV-GS320
http://youtu.be/flhgZNY2zko


It would be nice to play both side by side, anyone knows how to do that?


Little HD Camera obviously wins, the Camcorder is very dark.

However, later on I found out that the picture on the little HD camera tends to be more shaky if you physically move the camera a lot vs. you standing still when taking moving footage. So if you are able to stand still when filming then use the HD camera, if you are moving a lot, then Camcorder would win because its picture is more stable if you yourself move while taking footage.