This is going to be a long, rambling post...
I play in two different sandboxes, each requiring a completely different type of approach:
Filming crazy stuff on the streets, such as protests, riots, fights/brawls, police scenes, sort of like a news stringer, but more determined to get a full and complete story. Legacy media is limited to a 2 minute report of a 2 hour event, and it has to fit between traffic and weather, whereas YouTube is unlimited, and blogs can embed however many videos they want. This is a distinct advantage for me and a very niche market that I've carved out for myself. For these things I like to use cheap cameras, such as Sony Handycams. I like the Sonys because they seem to have the longest lasting batteries (FV70 battery lasts over 5 hours). I will very soon be updating to something with the internal multi axis physical stabilization. Sony calls theirs the Balanced Optical Steadyshot. I'm sure other companies call it different things. So, the question is, is there any camera like this that's small and cheap that can broadcast wifi to YouTube through a cell phone or other wifi connection? I would really like to livestream some of these events. I am aware of the Cerevo Live Shell, and that's what I'll probably end up with, but if I can eliminate a point of potential failure in the signal chain, I would like to do that. I do NOT want to bring anything over $1000 to these types of events, nor anything that's big and bulky or that requires a lot of attention (ruling out DLSRs completely). I'm less concerned about image quality, and more concerned about the content of what is happening. I don't get to frame the shot or try different takes, and everything needs to be in focus.
The other sandbox that I'm starting to play in is more formal video production. Weddings, high quality web videos, business ads, possibly TV commercials, product demonstrations, kickstarter projects, and what I really want to do is make affordable videos for low budget political candidates whom I agree with, to help them have a stronger online presence (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube...). For these, of course, I would often times have the chance to frame the shot and try multiple takes, and image quality would be equally important to content. I don't have much intention in working on films, but I would like that to be an option and wouldn't mind working on that sort of thing from time to time.
For the latter, I have been using a GH3 for the past year. I REALLY LIKE the feel of the imagery of this camera. I am looking to make a substantial upgrade in the near future, and that has me looking at the DVX200 and the GH5. Is the DVX200 already discontinued? It is no longer listed on the Panasonic webpage. As I understand it, the DVX200 is essentially the GH4 guts put into what looks like a more traditional camera, with the ergonomic functions of such. I would also consider offerings from Sony and Canon, but the sensors seems to be smaller, as is the case with the HX1 and HX1000. Not sure if I can afford something like the URSA or Super 35.
Why doesn't anyone stuff a full frame sensor into a camcorder?
I want something that's closer to the beginning of its life cycle than the end. Future-proofing is something I am putting high value on. 4K is a MUST HAVE, both cinema and UHD. I want something that will still be relevant in 5 years. I have little intention on taking this high end camera to film riots, as it's too expensive, too big, too heavy.
Do clients perceive proper video cameras as being more professional than someone who shows up with a DSLR or something similar? Do they look at the GH4 or 5D IV and think "Well, that looks just like the camera that my 19 year old kid has. Is this an actual professional videographer?" or are they becoming more and more accepting of such as these cameras become more and more common on video shoots? I imagine the GH5 would look more serious when peripherals are added (cage, steadycam/stabilizer of some sort, XLR ports, microphone, external monitor....) If I show up with a DVX200 or an XDCam, are they more likely to perceive me as a professional with professional gear?
Going the GH5 route, I already have 3 lenses that will work with, and would likely get a couple more. In either case, I will probably keep the GH3 for B roll. I think it would be more versatile in that regard, but also require more attention. I also would probably take some advantage of the GH5's better still photos, but the GH3 would probably suffice.
Going the DVX200 route, I really like the XLR inputs, as I'll probably buy a nice shotgun mic and a wireless lav or two, and the ability to tap into a signal distro on formal events without needing a bunch of adapters. I also really like the ergonomic layout of a proper camera, with BUTTONS! Damn do I hate flipping through menus on a touchscreen! I WANT BUTTONS AND KNOBS! I also like having the built in ND filters. And I like have the servo based zoom, rather than manual. I imagine the DVX200 has auto focus and can stay focused on an object as it moves around?
As far as price is concerned, I imagine that they will work out to be similar once the GH5 is outfitted properly. If they made a version of the DVX200 with interchangeable MFT lenses that could respond to the electronic or servo zoom, then that would probably seal the deal for me.
I do post production in Premiere and sometimes iMovie, if that matters.
So.... Am I living in a pipe dream with my hopes for getting further in the professional market? If my goals are realistic, then should I go DVX200, GH5, or something from Canon or Sony? (NO JVC)
I play in two different sandboxes, each requiring a completely different type of approach:
Filming crazy stuff on the streets, such as protests, riots, fights/brawls, police scenes, sort of like a news stringer, but more determined to get a full and complete story. Legacy media is limited to a 2 minute report of a 2 hour event, and it has to fit between traffic and weather, whereas YouTube is unlimited, and blogs can embed however many videos they want. This is a distinct advantage for me and a very niche market that I've carved out for myself. For these things I like to use cheap cameras, such as Sony Handycams. I like the Sonys because they seem to have the longest lasting batteries (FV70 battery lasts over 5 hours). I will very soon be updating to something with the internal multi axis physical stabilization. Sony calls theirs the Balanced Optical Steadyshot. I'm sure other companies call it different things. So, the question is, is there any camera like this that's small and cheap that can broadcast wifi to YouTube through a cell phone or other wifi connection? I would really like to livestream some of these events. I am aware of the Cerevo Live Shell, and that's what I'll probably end up with, but if I can eliminate a point of potential failure in the signal chain, I would like to do that. I do NOT want to bring anything over $1000 to these types of events, nor anything that's big and bulky or that requires a lot of attention (ruling out DLSRs completely). I'm less concerned about image quality, and more concerned about the content of what is happening. I don't get to frame the shot or try different takes, and everything needs to be in focus.
The other sandbox that I'm starting to play in is more formal video production. Weddings, high quality web videos, business ads, possibly TV commercials, product demonstrations, kickstarter projects, and what I really want to do is make affordable videos for low budget political candidates whom I agree with, to help them have a stronger online presence (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube...). For these, of course, I would often times have the chance to frame the shot and try multiple takes, and image quality would be equally important to content. I don't have much intention in working on films, but I would like that to be an option and wouldn't mind working on that sort of thing from time to time.
For the latter, I have been using a GH3 for the past year. I REALLY LIKE the feel of the imagery of this camera. I am looking to make a substantial upgrade in the near future, and that has me looking at the DVX200 and the GH5. Is the DVX200 already discontinued? It is no longer listed on the Panasonic webpage. As I understand it, the DVX200 is essentially the GH4 guts put into what looks like a more traditional camera, with the ergonomic functions of such. I would also consider offerings from Sony and Canon, but the sensors seems to be smaller, as is the case with the HX1 and HX1000. Not sure if I can afford something like the URSA or Super 35.
Why doesn't anyone stuff a full frame sensor into a camcorder?
I want something that's closer to the beginning of its life cycle than the end. Future-proofing is something I am putting high value on. 4K is a MUST HAVE, both cinema and UHD. I want something that will still be relevant in 5 years. I have little intention on taking this high end camera to film riots, as it's too expensive, too big, too heavy.
Do clients perceive proper video cameras as being more professional than someone who shows up with a DSLR or something similar? Do they look at the GH4 or 5D IV and think "Well, that looks just like the camera that my 19 year old kid has. Is this an actual professional videographer?" or are they becoming more and more accepting of such as these cameras become more and more common on video shoots? I imagine the GH5 would look more serious when peripherals are added (cage, steadycam/stabilizer of some sort, XLR ports, microphone, external monitor....) If I show up with a DVX200 or an XDCam, are they more likely to perceive me as a professional with professional gear?
Going the GH5 route, I already have 3 lenses that will work with, and would likely get a couple more. In either case, I will probably keep the GH3 for B roll. I think it would be more versatile in that regard, but also require more attention. I also would probably take some advantage of the GH5's better still photos, but the GH3 would probably suffice.
Going the DVX200 route, I really like the XLR inputs, as I'll probably buy a nice shotgun mic and a wireless lav or two, and the ability to tap into a signal distro on formal events without needing a bunch of adapters. I also really like the ergonomic layout of a proper camera, with BUTTONS! Damn do I hate flipping through menus on a touchscreen! I WANT BUTTONS AND KNOBS! I also like having the built in ND filters. And I like have the servo based zoom, rather than manual. I imagine the DVX200 has auto focus and can stay focused on an object as it moves around?
As far as price is concerned, I imagine that they will work out to be similar once the GH5 is outfitted properly. If they made a version of the DVX200 with interchangeable MFT lenses that could respond to the electronic or servo zoom, then that would probably seal the deal for me.
I do post production in Premiere and sometimes iMovie, if that matters.
So.... Am I living in a pipe dream with my hopes for getting further in the professional market? If my goals are realistic, then should I go DVX200, GH5, or something from Canon or Sony? (NO JVC)