Decent video camera

Noiz2

Noiz2

Sound Ninja
I know this might sound like the wrong place to ask this question but I think it might actually be the best.
I do sound post and some production. But occasionally I get asked to film a talk or an interview. I figure other sound folks might have similar experiences and might have some good recommendations. There is usually close to zero$ for these things so I don't want a lot of camera. If I can have enough control I can use my T2i, but the time limit on video makes it very problematic for covering an interview etc. Don't need 4K (obviously) would really like something as close to point and shoot as possible. I don't shoot often and I don't want something I will need a day to relearn everytime I pick it up. 1080p is as high as I need, but I would like to be able to use an external mic.

Anyway I did a quick search on Amazon and such and there are just a ton of super cheap cameras, that are probably total junk. We were figuring something in the couple of hundred dollar range should be doable.

So what is a sound person recommended video camera?
 
Perhaps a used M50, and if needing longer record time record externally or to a laptop. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1393461-REG/canon_2680c011_eos_m50_mirrorless_digital.html

Or a used Sony a6400. That’s about it on the low end with decent AF (possibly X-T30 if Fuji fixes firmware).

80D also good but no clean HDMI for longer record time.

Cheap camcorders don’t look so good compared to DSLR/Mirrorless.

Canon and Sony can use preamps into camera to get ok sound if you don’t want/need separate sound.
 
What is the most you would like to spend?

(One note about the Sonys is you can't turn off the automatic limiter in those cameras if it matters. I don't know if the Canons have one built-in.)
 
DSLR's are out because they all have a record limit. I don't really care about the sound quality because if I'm recording sound it will be to a seperate recorder. The desire for a mic in is to either slap something a bit better on the camera or to do a hop from the audio recorder. If it has decent audio in then great but not a show stopper.

I also am not going to record out of the camera to a laptop. We did that to extend the usability of a creaky sony digital8 camcorder and it was a PITA. If the gigs Im looking at were able to be done in 15-20 hunks I would stick with the T2i, but these are like an hour or two of talking heads.

We are either going for a decent camcorder, which looks like that would be in the under $500 range. Everything under $300 or so looks like real junk.

Or if we can't find anything decent in the above range then I would skip over the mid range cameras and go to the BMD Pocket Cinema which is going for ~$1200. I figure spending much more than $500 and not going to a camera that has interchangeable lenses is stupid. It breaks my "point and shoot" rule but if we are spending than money then we will need to drum up some business to pay for it.
 
If you’re not recording audio to camera as a primary source, then I’m honestly not sure what a sound person’s recommendation has to do with it. A G3/G4 system with 1/8” out can provide a reliable hop from mixer/recorder to any cheap camera.

The Canon VIXIA line could be a viable option within a couple hundred +/- of your $500 target for point-and-shoot. If they’re lit properly, they can provide perfectly workable images for ultra-low-budget head shots.

Noiz2 said:
Or if we can't find anything decent in the above range then I would skip over the mid range cameras and go to the BMD Pocket Cinema which is going for ~$1200.
Click to expand...

Sure, $1200 for the camera. Plus $650 for the speed booster to be able to use your EF-S lenses, unless you want to invest in all-new glass to fit M4/3. Plus a better power solution (battery life on the MBPCC4K is pretty lousy).

You’re looking at up to $3k for a functional camera kit.

For ~$1800 (as of today on B&H) you could get a Panasonic AG-UX90 and be ready to roll, aside from memory cards and extra batteries.

Noiz2 said:
I figure spending much more than $500 and not going to a camera that has interchangeable lenses is stupid. It breaks my "point and shoot" rule but if we are spending than money then we will need to drum up some business to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Which is always a quandry. If you build it, will they come? Or do you buy it only when incoming work demands it?

If you have established clients that keep coming back, how long will it take for any one of these camera options to pay itself off? That’s something only you can answer, because everyone’s situation is different. There may be a niche market there that you’re pulling in a little but haven’t fully tapped. Or not.

You say you don’t need 4K, but you’ll eventually get to that point. Plus, if you’re editing and delivering in 1080, the biggest advantage of shooting 4K is being able to crop in post. That means you have your wide and your CU in the same shot.
 
For your consideration...

- Some mirrorless' don't have the recording limit anymore.
- The best bang-for-buck camera on the planet for less than $500 (used) is a Sony a6300 or the original BM Pocket (if 4K is not necessary).
- Any fixed-lens camera for less than $1000 will be garbage.

The new Sony a6400 DOES NOT have a recording limit and is the best $900 4K camera available (IMO).

And here's a small list of other cameras (probably missing some) with a mic input and no recording limit that are all under $1K used:

Blackmagic BMCC
BMPC
Panasonic GH5 (maybe a bit over $1K used)

If you can live without a mic input AND a recording limit, the Sony a5100/a6000 offer the best HD image on the planet for less than $300 (used).

But I would agree with spending a bit more than a bit less for something MUCH BETTER. Will be better in the long run.
 
Agree with NorBro- +a6400 is a killer deal with top of the line AF.

Sony’s also have market leading preamps for the price along with decent hotshoe mics for better post sync, nat sound, and even vlogging.

Will take serious $$ to match the a6400 in a pro camera, and you’ll lose AF (unless going Canon).

You can also stick the little guy on low cost gimbals.
 
The reason to ask other sound people is that I figure they may have had similar things come up and asking in the camera section would be like coming here and asking for the cheapest recorder that does great sound. I figure more people here would understand what I was looking for.

Great insight all. The Sony a6400 was not even on my radar. The BMPC and such, yes I would need adapters and or new lenses, and I had heard about the battery life issues. I have a slew of lenses for the T2i and a bunch of those are really Nikon lenses with adapter plates. Many years ago I did a lot of still portrait work (with actual film!). Anything other than a cheap camcorder I would be also getting lenses for.

A friend who was doing well as a still photographer and was all Cannon, switch a couple of years ago to all Sony and swears by them. He is also doing a lot of short films with them. Is body is like $4,000 so not quite apples to apples. But he had decided against the BM cameras for a number of reasons.

If we decide to go Sony then I would offset the cost by selling off the Canon stuff. And be back with just one camera to think about.

I'll resist adding it to the camera museum we have upstairs... If actual film ever comes back we are ready!
 
I have a little cannon HF11 as well as a full sized P2 ENG camera.

The HF11 is great as it is small and compact but can record good quality HD pictures, it also has the added bonus of an external mic input and the ability to adjust the levels.
 
While I always bought adapters for Sony's, I ultimately used native Sony lenses most of the time. While Sony/Zeiss are a bit cooler / more clinical than e.g. Canon on adapters, a touch of post work gets you a warmer look (or adjust WB offset in camera). Especially for an audio person, the Sony lenses are silent vs. the noisy Canons! (the new RF 24-105 I'm using on the EOS R is almost silent, however Sony is quieter). For general use on APS-C, the Sony 18-200 is a great lens (was the kit lens on the FS700); also owned the servo version and the full-frame 24-240 version. All were silent and work well. For shallow DOF, perhaps get the 35 & 50mm Sony primes (F1.8, $448 & $298 respectively (both are OSS too)).
 
THanks everyone! The options and diversity have been great. And in true "learning mode" neither of my original leanings are left at the finnish. The HF11 looks pretty decent but can only be had used so? With so few moving parts used is probably an option. With tape based systems used was very problematic.

I'm going to assume the Sonys are using about the same crop factor so the 50 is closer to an 85 and the 35 is closer to a 50. When doing portraits my go to's were an 85 and a 35. A 1.8f 85 for $300 is not a bad deal at all!
 
Crop factor is all over the place with choices in this thread, but as far as APS-C and FF, yes; 35 is a 50 and 50 is a 85, so to speak.

But even the a6400 has a different crop factor in its 4K 30p mode vs. 24p mode (a little tighter). HD is normal.
 
Noiz2 said:
THanks everyone! The options and diversity have been great. And in true "learning mode" neither of my original leanings are left at the finnish. The HF11 looks pretty decent but can only be had used so? With so few moving parts used is probably an option. With tape based systems used was very problematic.

I'm going to assume the Sonys are using about the same crop factor so the 50 is closer to an 85 and the 35 is closer to a 50. When doing portraits my go to's were an 85 and a 35. A 1.8f 85 for $300 is not a bad deal at all!
Click to expand...

I had a Canon HF11 and it was a decent camera however even my (still on hand) Panasonic TM700 camcorder is much better (has decent 60P too (HF11 was interlaced)), where the 80D is vastly superior to the TM700, and the A6400 is so much better it's not in the same league (especially if needing 4K and high DR (HD & 4K)). I've reviewed the recent camcorder footage on YouTube: still a long way to go to match DSLR/mirrorless. They could certainly make a killer S35/FF camcorder; they're saving those updates until the market demands them (and we're not there yet).

Regarding the Sony 1.8 50 OSS on the a6400: it has a 5 star review average on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-50mm-F1-8-Portrait-SEL50F18/dp/B00EPWC30O/ . The 35 & 50 were listed as the (closest) crop equivalents for FF 50 & 85: 'normal' eye POV & pleasing portraits (looks like the a6400 has 1.53 & 1.6 CFs).

While you'll have a blast upgrading from the Canon T2i to an a6400 + lenses level camera, suggest keeping the Canon around for a bit to shoot reference frames to help with color grading the Sony for skin tones. Sony's can look fantastic for skin tones, however it does take a little practice vs. Canon which tends to be easier (though incredibly soft and aliased). a6400 level cameras provide much better real resolution and detail: also worth getting something like a Black Pro Mist 1/4 (or similar) if you need something more flattering straight from camera (can also do diffusion/blur in post).
 
Last edited:
The cheapest camera that produces a good image with no recording limit is the Panasonic GX85 that currently sells for $500 with two kit lenses. But keep in mind that ONLY the 4K profiles have unlimited shooting time. ( 4K also produces the best IQ from this camera too ) The AF is not great, but it's usable with some care.

I own one as my compact travel camera, and a year ago I was spontaneously recruited to shoot an $800 video while I was shooting BTS photos for a friend at a live event. Footage was great and I was a little surprised at how good it was. Not far off the footage my GH5 produces. There's no mic or headphone jacks, but I have no problems syncing to external recorders.
 
Haven't heard this yet....
Since audio doesn't much matter....how bout a Canon DSLR upgrade to a 5d3 since you already have Canon glass. And maybe run Magic Lantern. Great stills cam also.
 
I use a Panasonic AC90 for interviews. Fixed lens wide to long zoom and two XLR inputs. This is the sort of thing used by non-broadcast ENG and corporate.

Panasonic have discontinued the AC90 as it did not do 4K (you can still plick them up 2nd hand but not far off their original street price, they hold their value) however their replacemet cameras are equally inexpensive and they can be used at 1080p. eg https://business.panasonic.ae/professional-camera/professional-camera-products-and-accessories-from-panasonic/broadcast-professional-av-camera-range/ag-ux90br4k-uhd-/-fhd-camcorder-with-wide-angle-245mm-15x-optical-zoom-lens-and-10-type-mos-sensor/br-4
I am sure there are similar cameras from other makes.

This gives an all in one professional solution that you can plug in your decent sound kit. All you need is a tripod and it looks professional enough. You probably could to a good enough job with an iPhone or very small hand held but this is not what your employer is going to expect. It would confuse them. Scott Kelby when singing the praises of a small Fuji mirrorless said if he didn't turn up on location with a peli full of big, heavy imposing DSLR's and glass he would not get booked.

Also unlike DSLRS video cameras do not have the 29min per shot limit. This is not a problem for a most people but in a cooperate world if you are shooting conference presentations the slot is usually 40-60 minutes (and even on 25-30 minute slots people over run). Yes you can press stop/start (and miss the cruciual two words) but unlike the DSLRS video cameras are designed to record for extended periods without over heating.
 
Last edited:
Buy a used Canon C100 from B&H. That would cost you 1600. New will cost you 2k. Add a lens for another 300-400. You are good to go with excellent IQ.
 
Now folks are getting a bit carried away, which is why I asked this on an audio list rather than a camera list. Forget anything that is much over $1,000. We have a T2i and a 5D mark II and both have MagicLantern installed. I agree that I like them a lot BUT they have time limits that make them unusable for what I set out in the original post. I am not doing a bunch of production shooting and the "proffesionalness" of the camera is not really an issue. This stuff is destined to be streamed off a web site so super high resolution is not a must.

The Sony A6400 seems the best fit at the moment. The other Sony at a much lower price would work except it has the time limit, so no deal.
The A6400 makes more sense since it would replace my still camera, which gets a bunch more use, and offer a video camera with out the time limit.

Other than the odd personal project the interview/ press announcement shoots are lockdown shots that are probably going to end up at 720 MP4's streamed from a server.
If I were a shooter then big old video cameras are very sexy. I actually many years ago had a monster Sony camera with a 12" or so long Fujitron lense. It fed a portable 3/4" recorder. Bloody sexy to haul that monster around, but that is not what I need now and I don't think my back could take it these days.

Anyway thanks all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top