GoPro is not meeting my needs. (More megapixel, cropping, zoom, etc)

[GoodEnough]

I record sports scenes.
I mount the GoPro in a static location.
I choose 720p/60FPS.

It has to be far, due to obstruction issues. (Camera can't be on the field)
Often, I need to crop out 1/2 of the display to zoom into the action.
The result is very grainy.

I think I need higher megapixels, in order to have a quality cropped video.
What sort of category of recorder am I looking at?
I don't even know where to begin. 4k?

[johnmeyer]

Use a camera with a "real" lens (i.e., not the wide angle, no focus, fixed focal length you get with an action camera like the GoPro). GoPro is a great camera for first-person POV (point of view) video, but an absolutely awful camera for most other tasks. For sports, unless you are going to mount it on one of the players, it is completely the wrong thing to use. One exception would be if you want to use it as a "pylon cam" like they now have in the NFL football games. For that you need a camera that is physically tiny, and which can take a beating.

Also, as a general rule, it is a really lousy idea to try to take video with a wide angle lens and then try to zoom in to get the shot you really wanted in the first place. It really doesn't matter how many pixels you have: the result will ALWAYS be much worse than if you had used a proper lens. This isn't a subtle thing, and is not some form of snobbery: it is quite real and is due to the fact that if the lens doesn't resolve the image in the first place, you can't suddenly make it appear just by zooming in post production. This is why, for instance, we can't create a billion pixel sensor for the Hubble Telescope, and then zoom in to find the end of the galaxy.

[GoodEnough]

I agree is has nothing to do with snobbery.
The resulting video is total garbage. It's grainy like something from 1967.
It's an utter embarrassment

Yes, GoPro is the wrong camera for anything besides POV footage.

I need a DSLR that I can pre-zoom to crop the frame, right?
This way, I do not need to crop afterwards. That is the key to clear video, right?

My current DSLR only takes 32GB cards, and seems to stop after 7 mins.
I need to take about 30 mins. of continuous footage.

[GoodEnough]

So, should I get a DSLR or a "camcorder" ?
What are the pros and cons?
If I am using a real lens and do not have to crop, do I need 4k ?

[johnmeyer]

If you Google "DSLR camcorder video comparison" you will probably come up with some good answers.

My own answer is this:

The biggest advantage of a DSLR is the ability to use interchangeable lenses. Also, the higher end DSLR cameras have 35mm sensors ("full sized" sensors) which gives you all sorts of low-light advantages. The combination of the lenses and large sensor size lets you do shallow focus, something that is really important if you are trying to mimic cinematic cameras, where you can have the foreground in focus, and the background totally out of focus (or vice versa). Shallow focus is impossible with a traditional camcorder because of the relationship between their smaller sensor size and the optics.

The disadvantages of DSLR cameras compared to traditional video camcorders has to do with controls and zoom. A traditional camcorder usually has a really good, multi-speed zoom. The controls you use often have dedicated buttons. The audio on a dedicated camcorder is usually better, although for both DSLR and camcorder, if audio is important, you most definitely want to invest in a good external microphone. The auto focus on a camcorder may be better than a DSLR.

I can go on, but most DSLRs are still photo cameras to which video was added, whereas camcorders were designed for video, with the ability to take a lousy still photo, if you really must.

Finally, having shot hundreds and hundreds of hours of sports video -- in almost every sport you can think of -- I would never consider using a DSLR for that task, even though I'd love to have one for some of my videos of stage productions.

[hech54]

Professional lenses used to broadcast sports on television are $60,000 EACH and you can fit a small adult's head inside of it if you were to remove the glass.
Use common sense.

[GoodEnough]

Why would you never use a DSLR for sports?
I don't want shallow DOF, since I am not isolating a subject, but want to capture the entire court/field.

I have an old 2005 camcorder, but it's Mini-DV tape.
I don't want to bother with transfer. New ones are based on SD cards right?

[GoodEnough]

Professional lenses used to broadcast sports on television are $60,000 EACH and you can fit a small adult's head inside of it if you were to remove the glass.
Use common sense.

Do you have a point?
Clearly, millions of parents film rec sports without $60k lenses, you idiot.
Why don't YOU use common sense when posting on a forum?

[aedipuss]

using a DSLR for action video is challenging. most have a time/size recording limit and can cause interruptions in recording. the large sensors can also overheat, and their autofocus capabilities are limited. get a decent videocam with a good zoom lens and a heavy pro tripod and have fun.

[GoodEnough]

Problem is that I need it sort of wide, since I am close to the action, and will be using fixed frame (not zooming live or panning)

[hech54]

Do you have a point?
Clearly, millions of parents film rec sports without $60k lenses, you idiot.
Why don't YOU use common sense when posting on a forum?

Yes I have a point:

I mount the GoPro in a static location.
Often, I need to crop out 1/2 of the display to zoom into the action.
The result is very grainy.

A GoPro lens is the size of a quarter maybe?
Your expectations are RIDICULOUS.

[GoodEnough]

I need a wide angle since I'm close to the action (and will not be panning)

[smrpix]

I need a wide angle since I'm close to the action (and will not be panning)

Depending on how close and how far out the action goes -- most consumer camcorders, especially Sony, have pretty decent wide angle these days.