genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

Would you use a Canon 80d with a 24-105 or a Sony FDR-AX53 4K Ultra HD Handycam Camcorder? Why?

I know the 80d does not record 4k, but otherwise it is a terrific setup imo. Probably will use a monopod with either.

The wedding will probably be outside weather permitting, but could shift inside if weather turns bad, which is always a possibility in June in PA.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

I know lots of videographers who prefer to shoot with a camcorder because of the flip out screen. It lets them see their surroundings as well as the subject. But outdoors, the screen is often impossible to see in bright sunlight...much like a phone's screen. An eye level finder provides far greater isolation from sunlight. I much prefer shooting with my eye to the camera. The only trick is to see where you're going if you have to move with the action. You need to scope out the surroundings before you take the shot. Bottom line? I'd go with the 80D unless the 4k is a requirement.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Camcorders generally have stabilization, zoom control and auto-focus more tuned to shooting video.

The use smaller sensors and smaller lenses so the focus math is easier for the camera to solve. DSLRs will have the ability to blur the background better, but since the depthof focus is narrower it can be hard to keep the subject in focus.

DSLRs need you to zoom by twisting a lens ring. It is very hard to do while keeping the camera steady. Camcorders have very smooth toggle switches for zoom.

Newer camcorders like the AX-53 have such good stabilization you won't need or use a monopod.

The AX-53 has an eyepiece. You "see" the video while holding the camera with arms tucked in. The stabilization get a huge helping hand.

For a DSLR to shoot video, the mirror has to come up an you have to use the screen. To do that, you have to hold the camera away from you so it is suspended on shaky arms. A monopod may be needed.

There is the argument that a lot of video pros use DSLRs. For good results they assemble "rigs" to hold follow focus gizmos and monitors for composition control.

Camcorders generally work pretty good in "lower" interior light levels. Sony (and others) have good led lamp modules that mount on the camera.

Then there is audio! Bad audio will ruin an video. The mics on a DSLR are an afterthought. The mics on camcorders are designed for the purpose. Camcorders also have options for a variety of mics. If you use a DSLR, you will need a video mic such as a Rode.

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

Good and helpful observations. Thanks.

I looked at your videos and liked them very much. Taken with camcorder or dslr?

What did you use to make the movie, incorporating both stills and video?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Two great tips!
A mirrorless camera has advantages here: the in-body stablilzation some have is a big help.
My Olympus EM-1 shot great video- looked like I used a gimbal.
Adobe Premiere can help shaky video quite a bit in post, probably other programs as well.

Audio is really important and often overlooked.
I wasn't aware of background noise until I started shooting video.
A well placed good mic will help there, along with some post processing.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

4K is a game changer. It lets you zoom in on the frame in the editor with less loss of sharpness than with 1080P. For the 4K alone, I'd go with the camcorder.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

A couple of other considerations. DSLRs typically have a max recording time before you need to stop and restart the video. Secondly, if you intend to zoom, it’s very difficult to zoom smoothly and manually with a DSLR, while the video camera typically has power zoom. Finally depending on the body and zoom lens, that can be an issue for the DSLR as many will not AF as you zoom, so if your zoom lens focus breathes, then it will lose focus as you zoom. Finally, if a tripod isn’t feasible, the DSLR, which is likely considerably heavier than the video camera, can be very difficult to hold after long periods. For those reasons, and after several video “experiences” with my 5D3, I use my small and convenient JVC video camera for videos.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Camcorder or DSLR? Yes and no! But not a DSLR. Without hacks, gagets and gizmos, I don't think I could get a DSLR to do what I like. Besides, they are too big and bulky to shoot where I want.

I have a favorite Panasonic camcorder that is limited to 1080p60 HD. It is wonderful to shoot with.

Then came a schizophrenic problem. I like to shoot stills and video. And, I wanted to take advantage of 4K. So with the generosity of my DW at Christmas and birthdays, I have a couple of Panasonic M4/3 mirrorless cameras that are equally schizophrenic. Panasonic is very good at making cameras that include features for both videography and photography.

Tell me which video you looked at and I can tell you which camera I used.

That said, even Panasonic M4/3 cameras are not quite there for zoom control and continuous auto focus like a camcorder from either Sony or Panasonic. Canon consumer priced camcorders seem to always be a little behind. It is like they don't want to impact their pro line by making the consumer models too capable.

For editing I started using Adobe Premier Elements a half decade ago. For "home video" it does everything exceptionally well without getting overly complicated. Oddly, at the bottom of the Adobe line, it has some tricks built in for "composite" videos that include still images. Recently I gained access to Premiere Pro. It has tempting tools in it, but I keep coming back to the cheap Premiere Elements because it does a better job at what I want to do.

Drifter

I just shot an outdoor wedding with my D7200. Awesome results, I would recommend an on board monitor for sure. I'm a retired TV News Photographer an still prefer the ENG camera but hey the DSLR's these days are very close in quality!! Do it MAn!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would not use either. But if I had do, I'd use whichever one had the wider aperture lens and best low light performance. (FYI, I can't stand that 24-105mm f/4 Canon zoom. I once had one on a 7D.) I would also take care to record decent audio, probably with an external recorder and wireless mics.

If I were a wedding photographer/videographer, I'd use a Lumix GH5 for stills and video, and/or a Lumix GH5s exclusively for video.

Why? The GH5 is actually made for hybrid (stills plus video) photographers. The GH5s is made for filmmakers:

• The GH5 and GH5s EVF is a real-time viewfinder for video (and you can drag focus on the OLED screen while using the EVF to view the scene!)

• The GH5 and GH5s have really great audio recording tools (switchable limiters, meters, level controls, potential to add XLR mic inputs...)

• The GH5 and GH5s have UNLIMITED recording time (hot-swappable, dual card slots, NO overheating, AC adapter available, and NO 30 minute tariff limit on recording time)

• The Dual IS II allows over five f/stops of image stabilization (GH5 only) with the right Panasonic/Panasonic Leica lenses.

• The GH5s is a low light beast, with "dual native ISO" (400/2500) technology.

• Video recording options are extensive. Lots of bit rates, flexible frame rates (including slow motion) plus 10-bit, 4:2:2 internal 4K recording, plus V-log L for extending dynamic range, means GREAT color under difficult lighting.

• The availability of a good set of Panasonic Leica lenses means rich, creamy-dreamy color, great bokeh, and high resolution.

• Using one camera body design for video and stills means less to learn, less to remember, less confusion. The same Micro 4/3 lenses work for both purposes.

The Canon 80D is a very, very good stills camera, with great autofocus for YouTube vloggers. But for serious video work of a "filmic" nature, I'd pass.

I'll never buy another camcorder, when I can use the same body for all my stills and video work. A decade ago, I used a Canon GL2 and a Canon EOS 50D for training content development. That workflow sucked! I had to set up two different cameras and record everything twice, for video and PDF or print documents! With the Lumix cameras, I can record once in 4K, and copy frames from the video to use as stills in my documents. That's a huge efficiency improvement. And I don't compromise a thing in the video, either... in fact, the workflow is MUCH better and quality far superior. Travel is easy, since my entire stills/video kit fits under an airline seat (unless I'm traveling with lots of lights).

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

But Bill, that Panasonic stuff you use has such a small sensor. Don't you understand you need full frame for your stills?

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Why not use both! I would use the camcorder if you already had it and know how to shoot, etc. You get a lot more memories from video and the Canon 80d with that good lens would make some great stills for the most important moments! You can use both? or have a knowledgeable friend use one and you the other.
P.S. I have the Sony HDR-CX240 handycam and enjoy using it -- of course you can shoot stills too.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Heh, heh, heh!

Yeah, right. Micro 4/3 IS a full frame... just a smaller frame!

It is interesting how many independent filmmakers are using Lumix cameras. They're great for weddings, commercials, documentaries, news coverage, and more. A lot of higher end producers use them as 'B' roll cameras, because they don't cost an arm and a leg compared to the Red and Arri options, and they're not as much of an audio inconvenience to use as Canons and Nikons. They work better on drones than the dSLR and full frame Sony options, too.

Griffin Hammond, an indy filmmaker known for Sriracha (movie), and political coverage for Bloomberg during the 2016 election cycle, has used GH1, GH2, GH3, GH4, and both GH5 systems. He used the GH3 for Sriracha, and the GH4 for the Bloomberg work. Panasonic hired him to do the introductory films about the GH5. If you haven't seen his work, take a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXOAx58LBDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoYbqSxPWrA&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hCyiMhuRmk&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTaKY4saQsE&t=0s

His YouTube channel is at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfWCXDzWvNR260TE700bIQ

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

His work with the gh5 is amazing.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

We can't stress the importance of good audio enough. Probably 60 to 70 percent of the meaning in a video comes from its audio! That's easy to see... just mute the sound on your TV and watch for a while.

The inverse square law is the most important thing to understand about audio. "Obey" it, and you can make a $30 mic in the right position sound better than a $1000 mic in the wrong position.

1/dˆ2... Sound (and radio and heat and light and x-rays and gamma rays) all dissipate as the inverse of the square of the distance from the source.

You have ONE PERCENT of the sound at ten feet (1/10^2) that you did at one foot. That means, when you turn up the gain to compensate, you're picking up ONE HUNDRED TIMES the background noise that you would have recorded if the mic were just a foot away from the source.

So, wedding filmmakers, use wireless mics, placed VERY close to the sound sources. The rule of thumb is between six inches and three feet. Closer is better.