Wish list for a camcorder

S

scottfs

Well-known member
I've been looking for months for an affordable camera that can do...everything.

All I want is 4k, camcorder body most of the features controlled by buttons, wheels, sliders, etc. Internal ND filters. Fantastic in low-light. Global shutter. EF mount. Full frame/Super 35 sensor. Up to 120fps. Viewfinder visible in bright sunlight. 2 XLR inputs with excellent quality pre-amps, phantom power. Optical stabilization. Great color, natively. Dual SD or CF cards. Capable of external SSD. Great build quality where customers are not beta, or even alpha testers (yeah, we'll have a firmware update...shortly). Little or no menu hunting. Shoots in RAW or lossless. 4:2:2. Top handle for ergonomic ease. Metal chassis.

For $3500, or less.

I know it's out there, somewhere.
 
Anything that has all that for 3.5k today is cutting corners somewhere or in multiple places along the chain, so what would be the point if it doesnt produce the images?
 
Maybe I can't get everything at that price, but I REALLY like the form factor of a camcorder rather than a DSLR.
 
The closest thing to your list is an Ursa Mini 4K. Just missing the internal ND filters, has a smaller than s35 sensor and only an LCD screen.
 
I actually think the A7sII is a pretty close contender (at least, with a few accessories)
A7sII with an EF adapter, cage and the XLR adapter has many of those things covered. Couple it with a Shogun and you get SSD, ProRes 4:2:2 (okay, it's not raw, and it's still 8-bit). The only thing it would be missing is a camcorder body, internal ND and global shutter.

Then again, for that price you could probably just buy an FS5 which would also give you a large amount of the requested features.

About double your requested price, but that's fine IMO. Better half-decent quality at a more premium price than corners cut and the price driven down.

Maybe an URSA mini...
 
I like low prices, even if that means cutting corners. So, I'd settle for: a7S III with everything the a7S II has plus 4K at 60 fps, phase-detect AF with great face detection, and slog3 that actually records all the DR that can be put into slog3 (i.e. DR on par with FS7).

In fact I like low prices so much that the next thing I'd ask for is for this not to be the a7S III, but the a7 III, with 24 Mpix and slightly worse super-high-ISO performance but still clean 4K (unlike the a7 II). There's very little chance the DR thing would be there on such a model, but if it goes for <$2000 I'd still be a happy camper.
 
Since we are submitting requests to the camera gods, I would like to ask for a two in one style camcorder. If I could have a switch on my Panasonic PX270 that changed the sensor size from 1/3" mode to a larger mode like m4/3rds THAT would be a useful camera. I often want both styles of shooting on the same job but do not want to carry two cameras. The PX270 has 10bit 4:2:2 codecs and records 1080p60 along with 24bit audio, everything I need in a handholdable package. Panasonic tried with the DVX200 but I wish they would have called me first!

If I can't get that camera then I want what Combat wants - a palm-corder sized camera with great specs. I don't care about global shutter as much as I care about great color, codecs and audio. And it has to have a kick ass viewfinder, yes a viewfinder!

If the camera world can fit all of the processing inside these still cameras that are in the world today, there is plenty of room for a little bit larger ergonomic masterpiece.
 
scottfs said:
I've been looking for months for an affordable camera that can do...everything.

All I want is 4k, camcorder body most of the features controlled by buttons, wheels, sliders, etc. Internal ND filters. Fantastic in low-light. Global shutter. EF mount. Full frame/Super 35 sensor. Up to 120fps. Viewfinder visible in bright sunlight. 2 XLR inputs with excellent quality pre-amps, phantom power. Optical stabilization. Great color, natively. Dual SD or CF cards. Capable of external SSD. Great build quality where customers are not beta, or even alpha testers (yeah, we'll have a firmware update...shortly). Little or no menu hunting. Shoots in RAW or lossless. 4:2:2. Top handle for ergonomic ease. Metal chassis.

For $3500, or less.

I know it's out there, somewhere.
Click to expand...

With everything you are asking for, your wishlist makes no mention of the most important thing...the color rendition. Photography is the drawing of light, yet the first priority people have is wether the camera can shoot in 4k or at 120fps. Camera manufacturers know that we take it for granted which is why they market silly things like resolution to make people think that is the secret sauce to why an image looks good. All you have to do is look at Black Magic, they are the winners at making specs a moot point. Canon on the other hand has a relativly lack of features yet my 5D still has better color than any of the other brands new cameras (aside from maybe Arri)
 
True, but as RAW gains more of a foothold, company specific color will diminish. In the still world, comparisons of different cameras all shot in RAW and processed look very similar. The Ursa Mini 4.6k really does have some great stuff and I think one could get a lot of different color looks out of it but the size is just too big for me. Heat is the enemy but that should improve over time. Also, as resolution becomes less of a calling card hopefully the focus will turn to data and how much is recorded as opposed to thrown away in today's cameras.
 
Bassman2003 said:
True, but as RAW gains more of a foothold, company specific color will diminish.
Click to expand...

Not true. Raw just means that all the data was captured off the sensor and not compressed or debayered/demosaiced in camera. There can still be major differences in different sensors. Black Magic sensors have real issues.

Bassman2003 said:
In the still world, comparisons of different cameras all shot in RAW and processed look very similar.
Click to expand...

Most of what you see in the stills world comes from Canon and Nikon. Both make excellent sensors, and yes you can push them very far in a grade but the sensors still have inherent attributes that photographers prefer over the other. Don't get me wrong, if you are good at grading it doesn't take too much to match most different cameras but it comes at a price of time and image quality. There are some cameras that you will pay that price more than others.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree but I should have said "diminish in importance". With 14bit data, you can go a long way to cure or alter many sensor specific attributes. Not real issues like "video look" or sun spots etc... I have just noticed color accuracy converging ever since the HD era started. Even these little still cameras have pretty accurate video color. Close to accurate + huge data = success in many cases.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Even these little still cameras have pretty accurate video color. Close to accurate + huge data = success in many cases.
Click to expand...

You are proving my exact point. I understand where you are coming from, however, accurate is not usually a good thing. Unlike technical specifications, where we have seen a steady progression since video was first introduced, there isn't a baseline that camera manufacturers have been trying to achieve when it comes to color. People talk about natural skin tones, however, you shouldn't get that confused with accurate skin tones. Yes, sometimes it's important to replicate an exact color, however, that's typically in the case of branding and doesn't really have any bearing on cinematography which is the reason most cameras (discussed on this forum) are made.

All that being said, different camera manufacturers have different flavors of color rendering. Some people might prefer one of the other, however it can generally be agreed upon when a camera manufacturer has it all wrong. And in those cases, its going to require a lot of color correction to create something that looks nice.
 
I think we all want similar things. Outside of the use of a camera, I want the color to start from a place of accuracy. Purples should be purple, not blueish and reds need to be red not a variety of orange-red. Sure for cinema often a grade will take the look in other directions but I do not think it is too much to ask for the color to be accurate and pleasing when it reaches the edit bay. Bending it depends upon how much data is recorded which is what we often want to see improved.

When it comes to a SDOF camera, I think ergonomics have taken a back seat. It is more difficult to use a large sensor camera in a non-scripted environment therefore the ergonomics need to be excellent to allow you to get the job done. The sensor in a box design is just too common when so many of us want to use these things outside of scripted work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top