bobbydvideo

I have been shooting with Canon products for years. For stills I still shoot with the Canon T7i. My question is about a Canon video camcorder the Canon HF G60 4K. What do you think of this unit? Right now I video with the Canon HF G40.

Thank You

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

That will shoot marvelous video.

But, with the progress in mirrorless cameras, the 'camcorder' format choices have gradually dwindled because mirrorless cameras are now so good at video. The one you picked will do very well. But for the price you can look at cameras like the Sony RX 10 IV or one of the Panasonic M4/3 cameras. Those will also be good at expanding your stills capabilities.

If you feel a need for the camcorder form factor, buy it!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

My brother is the videographer in our family and has been for the past 30+ years. He always uses a dedicated video camera when shooting video (unless he is just caught without it) and says that he does so for three reasons:

The first is that the ergonomics of video cameras are much better suited to extended shooting with video cameras than with still cameras. Notwithstanding the current fad of shooting movies and other products with still cameras, he says that is simply silly. As an industrial engineer, I can see exactly why this is true for anything beyond short video clips. There ae some nice fixtures and accessories available to reduce this gap, but they tend to be fairly pricey.

Whether by using parfocal (or near parfocal) lenses or via optimized processor chips, dedicated video cameras also do a much better job of maintaining focus while zooming. Their wide-range zooms also perform better than wide range zooms on cameras requiring a larger image circle.

They generally do better than still cameras when shooting video in low light situations. We've not tested this with my newest cameras that are good in low light (D850, D500), because he has recently been shooting less video and more stills. (He uses Sony cameras. I don't know about Canon here.)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I agree that that the ergonomics of video cameras may be much better for extended shooting. And, if one wants to spend a thousand or two, they can get a specialized camcorder. It would be a good choice.

My first video capable camera was the top of the line $1000 Panasonic when HD 1920x1080p60 was the best it got. Then along came mirrorless and 4K. My Panasonic sits idle as I get more usable footage from other cameras.

My most recent video specific camera is a derivative of a drone. The 'DJI Pocket 2' is under $500 with creative accessories. It solves several video problems, including stability.

I emphasize that I agree with you. If one wants a traditional camcorder form factor, there are good ones to buy. I'm trying to only point out that since that form factor was the only thing that worked, we have lots of other choices now that range from very capable mirrorless cameras to action cameras and even bridge cameras.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

As a professional news, feature and documentary video shooter for almost 40 years (and I am proud to say that I just won first place for best camerawork at this year's Mountainfilm Festival), I would take issue with all of the above assertions. In fact, unless you are moving to a high end prosumer or professional video camera, you will get much better video quality from any decent modern dslr or mirrorless camera than you will from something like the Canon mentioned by the OP. The only real advantage to a dedicated consumer video camera is the convenience, specifically because they usually come with a reasonably fast, wide focal range zoom lens, and the higher end ones are often better for manual audio management. Let's take it point by point.

Ergonomics: It is true that with a hand strap and some button placements, a dedicated videocam is slightly easier to operate, but I have never found them to be any better for extended use. It's important though, to compare apples with apples. The Canon mentioned, for example, has a 1" sensor. Something that small means that the lens can small and light as well as the body. The question of parfocality is really moot here, since modern zooms are all pretty parfocal. A good mft camera such as the Panasonic GH has a sensor substantially larger, with all the advantages that has, which we will go into later. The only downside is the fact that very large range zoom lenses are impractical, so you will probably have to carry two lenses to get the same range. In fact, if you are satisfied with a 1" chip, you could go with a camera like the Sony RX100 VII, with a very decent focal range and a bright lens, which you can slip in your pocket when not shooting, and has specs that far exceed the Canon dedicated videocam. Of course the ergos are not as good, but there are always tradeoffs. Step up to mft, and you will get some professional quality features, such as gamma and log settings, in case you want to grade your video afterwards for extended dynamic range. And if not, you can shoot standard ready-to-air video with many different picture style settings (the RX100 actually does all this as well, and I used it for a reportage in North Korea where it had to be inconspicuous).

New Sony mirrorless cameras allow customizing all settings and buttons differently for still and video shooting, so arguably the ergos for such a camera are better than for a dedicated videocamera, as you can set it up exactly as it fits your shooting style. It does take a bit of time to familiarize yourself with all the buttons, but after you have that it is absolutely effortless to call up what you need when you need it.

Only in the last couple of years has there been a videocamera at any price that shoots full frame. The advantages of this are manifold. The reason that many professional productions are using cameras such as the Sony A7s3 is that one can use a whole range of professional full frame lenses at wide apertures, allowing for an incredible cinematic look with very shallow depth of field for subject isolation. This is impossible on a consumer videocamera. And I have no idea why you believe that a videocamera with a tiny sensor could have better low light response. The exact opposite is true. Consumer videocams have horrible low light response, and cannot hold a candle to modern mirrorless or dslr hybrid cameras.

Of course once you get to APS-C and full frame, the camera and lens combo is going to get heavier, in which case you can take some weight off and increase stability with a shoulder rig or a brace. Decent ones can be had for one hundred dollars, hardly a major investment.

There will always be tradeoffs. You can't have quality, convenience and portability all in one package, they are to some extent mutually exclusive. But most of what your brother says is untrue in my experience and that of my professional colleagues. I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail.

Canisdirus

If you have decided to be video centric...buy a dedicated video setup.
It will absolutely crush any hybrid system for around the same coin...crush.
I might suggest this model for the same money...even better specs.

Canon XA40 4K

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Thanks for your perspective. Shooting in N. Korea must have been an amazing experience.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Thank you for your observations. I am aware that many of the picture control choices available on my Nikon DSLRSs are also available for preprocessing video, and don't think that he has nearly as much flexibility on his dedicated video camera. I need to understand the full frame issue a little better, though. Are you referring to 16:10 aspect ratio vs. 16:9? I can't recall that we've ever had any issue viewing the videos from his HD camera...either from the camera itself or by plugging the memory card into the TV or computer.

We may just have to agree to disagree on the ergonomics question. I learned a long time ago as an industrial engineer that the people doing the eork, especially the ones who were best and most experienced at their jobs, were the ones most likely to be resistant to adopting best methods and ergonomics. It seemed to be a combination of "let me do it like I do it" and an attitude of "that's why they call it work." Unfortunately, I was at the job long enough to see some of those folks develop arthritis or repetitive motion injury down the road. (And yes, the company had to pay for treatment.) Hand and wrist angles required to maintain traditional cameras in shooting position for extended periods are simply not healthy, absent aids and fixtures to provide better support and operational postures.

I will continue using my cameras to make an occasional video clip (probably not beyond 1080P). I'm sure he will continue to use his to make videos, even though he is doing much less of that now that his daughter is grown.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Look for reviews and comparisons.

rcarol

In addition, a dedicated video camera does not have the 30 minute recording limit that most still cameras have.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I think some things to consider are:
The sensor size. A one inch or larger (eg., MFT or APS-C) sensor is considerably better quality than a 1/2.3" sensor.
The focal length range. Shooting indoors in small areas I find the wider angle lens available, the more I can do. Also, how much telephoto do you want.
4K. 4K gives sharper images than HD. 4K is also useful for cropping during the edit.
How much control do you want during shooting. If you just want to press the button and let the camera set the exposure, most cameras will do that. If you want control of aperture and iso and shutter speed during shooting, not all cameras do.
Do you want to change lenses or have a built in lens. Changeable lenses have a wider selections of focal length and apertures than fixed lenses. Fixed lenses are more convenient.
8 bit or 10 bit or raw video. Within your price range you can get any of them, but can you see the difference in dynamic range, and is that important to you.
Time limit. Unless you plan on leaving the camera shooting unattended on a tripod for more than 30 minutes, it shouldn't matter. You can stop the video before the 30 minutes are up and start a new clip in just a few seconds.
Low light. Some cameras handle higher iso's with much less noise than others.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

This is a nice little camera, and excellent for what it does. The advantages with a camera like this is that you have good control of your audio plus XLR inputs. A 20x optical zoom makes it quick. For ENG and quick work in the field it is a good choice, but you cannot compare the video quality with what you can get with a larger sensor. It is much worse in low light situations, and with a 1/2.3 sensor you will never get the "cinematic" look that is the coin of the realm in higher end productions. While it is nice to have a motorized zoom, the servo on these inexpensive cameras never starts smoothly, and has stepped rather than continuously variable zoom rate. It is nearly impossible to use a camera like this manually, as the focus ring is electronic and the aperture stepped as well in manual. If you use it full auto it is competent, but not if you are a serious filmmaker. Still, it is always a question of what your priorities are. This is the perfect camera for situations in good light where speed and ease of capture is the primary concern, but don't expect the result to equal what is possible with a hybrid camera with good lenses.

That being said, though, working with a hybrid will slow you down considerably, as you will sometimes need to stop and change lenses, and capturing good audio is challenging on a hybrid without an external audio adapter, though those are not expensive. But make no mistake in terms of video image quality--a camera like this cannot touch a good hybrid. When we shoot documentaries with professional video cameras like the Sony FX9, we also carry smaller FF hybrids like the A7s which offer in almost all respects (except recording 10 bit audio internally) the same quality and look as the cameras costing 10K or more body only.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Notable indeed. I didn't have much time for stills but here is what I managed to shoot with my Sony RX 100 when I could put the video camera down. I would have given my eye teeth for a FF, because of the abysmal low light sensitivity of the little Sony, but I couldn't carry that plus 20 kg of video gear.

https://toby-marshall.com/galleries/north-korea/

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

This was an artificial limitation imposed for tax reasons in Europe. These days most hybrids have dropped it, or there are hacks to get around it. What is true that because of the size and the processing going on, some hybrids will overheat in certain conditions, especially shooting 4K for extended periods. In any case, if you are going to be shooting extended interviews or stage productions, which is generally the only time that you will be shooting for 30 minutes uninterrupted, you'd probably not need the look of a large sensor camera. How often does anyone actually shoot a single clip 30 minutes long?

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Most consumer video cameras do not shoot 10 bit, and I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who is using a consumer video camera would not know what to do with it. It is not so much a question of more dynamic range as it is a question of ability to grade without getting banding in smooth gradients. The video you get off a 1 inch or smaller sensor will not have near the dynamic range of that of any any of the larger sensor hybrids. There won't be much there to post process afterwards.