Are you referring to a DSLR? From your descriptions, you are not referring to FILM cameras, but you might referring to a DSLR.

"So far I have understood that there are lossless and lossy/compressed formats."

As a practical matter, you should not be looking at lossless as a requirement for acquisition in a camera unless you have a clearly defined revenue source that you plan to use to pay for all the costs associated with such high bit rates.

XAVC-I for UHD capture can be >300 Mbps. Usually CFAST-2 (or other equally esoteric) cards are used to capture those bit rates. CFAST-2 cards are expensive. External uncompressed capture devices are also expensive. Though hard disks are not terribly expensive these days, one can burn through lots of them with uncompressed UHD video.

The cameras that appear to be in the sweet spot these days for pro-sumer folks are the ones that record at or around100 Mbps so SD cards can be used. Your Vegas Pro 12 will handle these formats of XAVC.

Phrases like "tape the show" and "make a film" still slip into all-digital discussions. 

How to find out which format is hidden inside a container?

Existing file: MediaInfo. When shopping for a camera: Camera specifications web page.

And why must there be containers, what is their raison d'être?

In simple terms, to contain video stream(s), audio stream(s), meta data such as exposure info etc. etc., and data to tell players how to play these.

Do you want a traditional camcorder shape, or a "stills camera shape" (dSLR/compact)? A Google for "camcorder vs dslr" will find many articles that talk about the general disadvantages/advantages of each. But bear in mind that the technologies have merged in recent years to the point that maybe the only defining difference in technology (not shape) between these categories is the presence of internal ND filters, which many camcorders have, but dSLRs & compacts don't (as far as I know).

In general, at a $1500 budget, you can achieve higher quality with a dSLR/compact if you get everything right (settings (e.g. picture style), camera support/movement, exposure, focus). A camcorder may be easier to use and more forgiving (controls, focus, ND filters, stabilisation).

Thank you all for your answers. I realise that my last night post is a bit confusing, sorry about that. The fact is I just don't know what sort of "filming device" would be the best for me, and the huge number of different types of digital cameras/camcorders on the market doesn't help…

Musicvid: "Your question relates to tape camcorders, not film cameras, which use a chemical process."

Thanks a lot for commenting on my post, and sorry for causing confusion. Mentioning the MiniDV Sony VX2000 was just a sort of a nostalgic sigh. Before buying it I didn't need to spend weeks on reading ultra-complicated and sometimes contradictory reviews. I entered a store, spent one hour listening to a professional seller and that was it, no hesitation – I paid and left carrying a metallic Sony hard case with a real jewel inside, quite an expensive one but I could afford it at that time. I never regretted the purchase. Far from considering myself an exceptional video-camerawoman  (videographer? don't know which is the correct term to use in English) I did shoot some really beautiful footage while living in Madagascar, New Caledonia, Southern America, etc., the conditions were never the same yet the result was always great, the colours were amazingly natural due to the 3CCD optical sensor, evening scenes were as clear as daylight scenes thanks to the low 2 lux… and to say that most of the time I was using automatic settings! The MiniDV era is over now, replaced by much better resolution standards, and I do not use the VX2000 anymore except for converting analog to digital with pass-through. Yet I still wanted to mention the model in my last night post because of the 100% satisfaction it had given me. I would like to find something similar – in the sense that it should be easy to use, compact… and technically up to the task.

David-tu: "Are you referring to a DSLR? From your descriptions, you are not referring to FILM cameras, but you might be referring to a DSLR."

Thanks a lot. The thing is I am totally lost in the enormous choice of various models available on the market. I don't know what would be best for me. Among the three devices that I have owned (the tape recorder, the bridge camera and now the tiny camcorder) it is the last one I like the least, mainly because of the AVCHD format.

A friend of mine who recently started working as a wedding planner bought a DSLR camera, she seems to be satisfied with it for the time-being and has told me I should get one too… but do I need to take photos? Not really. I mostly shoot. Still pictures captured from hq footage are quite sufficient for my needs. Yet you are right – my Canon PowerShot SX1 is a camera, not a video camera, and I did use it for shooting and editing, and although I was not particularly enthusiastic about its noisy zoom and absence of 'night mode' I loved the natural colours of the footage, and liked the grip too. Do you know the DSLR cameras very well? Is there a particular model you would recommend?

John Dennis, Thanks a lot for the concrete examples. Oh my, a ten-second file of 3,79Gb?? And 3182 Mbs!! Gosh… this is impressive. My AVCHD files were recorded at some 20 Mbs. The lossless quality is definitely not for me (yet); my actual laptop would choke on such heavy files. It has just become quite clear to me that with my budget of only about $1500 I should stop dreaming. I wish I could put more money in it… but everything is a question of priorities, isn't it, and although the purchase of a new camera/camcorder is very important, it is not on the top of my list right now.

So to sum it up, if I understand well, the best format for me would be XAVC – because it is better for my work than AVCHD, and because it can be stored /captured on a SD card. Am I right? If so, then it is an enormous jump forward, in my search for a solution. Would you know which models of video cameras /camcorders use this particular format?

Nick Hope, Thanks a lot. 'Mediainfo'... of course! How silly of me to have forgotten about this useful program that I installed on my laptop already a week ago, following your advice.  As for the containers, your explanation is very helpful.

"In general, at a $1500 budget, you can achieve higher quality with a dSLR/compact if you get everything right (settings e.g. picture style, camera support/movement, exposure, focus). A camcorder may be easier to use and more forgiving (controls, focus, ND filters, stabilisation)."

By "higher quality" you mean that dSRL cameras use a better format than camcorders, right?  I have read that Canon DSLRs use a variation of the MOV file format, Nikon and Olympus cameras use the AVI format, and Panasonic and Sony use the AVCHD format. No more AVCHD for me. So if I were to choose between the two remaining formats, what would be your advice: variation of MOV, or AVI?

I want the best possible video file quality but you are right, I may not be able to change the settings every time I shoot. Often I do not have the time to even think. E.g. while driving across beautiful countryside I suddenly see two deer in a meadow – I slow down, quickly grab the camera/camcorder and start filming through the window. No time to lose on trying to find the right settings. Moreover I am not a pro; it always takes me several minutes to figure things out. So maybe I should just get another camcorder despite their shape that do not like much. What I absolutely need is a viewfinder though (hopefully camcorders with viewfinders haven't disappeared completely yet).

If I opt for a camcorder, then which format? Are there some camcorders that use the XAVC format John Dennis is talking about? If not, which camcorder format (the less lossy one) should I be looking for?

YouTube murders the quality of everything you upload. Standard YouTube footage displayed from a Red looks the same as from an iPhone. Not saying this is a bad thing - content is king, and it's a level playing field for everyone. Forget lossless codecs, just follow the YouTube guidelines, render and upload to that standard.

Number of subscribers and views is unrelated to camera quality. Pewds, approaching 60 million subscribers, shoots everything on a $50 webcam.

Only a very, very tiny fraction of YouTube viewers ever view anything in 4K.

If you put your camera on a tripod, stabiliser, gimbal, slider, shape doesn't matter.

If you must, the current favorite among the "if I get a quality camera more people will watch my channel" camera, and some other top YouTubers, is a Panasonic GH5, a really excellent quality, value, all purpose camera, never mind YouTube, would be ideal, except bit out of your budget. However you can get a GH4 kit in your price range, which is the second best option.

I suggest stick with your PJ810 until you get your first million subscribers, at which stage YouTube will have paid you enough to afford the GH5 (or by that stage GH6,7,8, whatever).

Meantime, especially since you're apparently focused on music videos, you might think about shifting your priority to audio.

All this really depends on your needs and what you shoot mostly. Do you need good zoom range, good audio, long battery live, low light ability, 4K and all in one camera? Do you have time to setup a shot or do you need it in the moment. Are you willing to carry camera with some lenses, maybe an external recorder and so on.

I own a Sony a6300 with a few lenses and a Sony AX100. On my last vacation I had the a6300 with a 18-105mm lens and a variable ND filter. It was a pain to use and I regret not having my AX100. By the time I had the camera dialed in for a certain shot the object moved or the lighting changed. I event brought along the Sony XLR-K2M with the mic along to improve the audio on the a6300 which makes the camera rather bulky and difficult to hold. I use the XLR-K2M on the AX100 and it is a much better fit for it. The AX100 has build in ND filters and much better stabilization too. The only other camera I could see myself using on vacations is the Sony RX-10iii but again, it doesn't have build in ND filters. If your distribution is via YouTube only, a camera with an 8-bit XAVC codec is sufficient. How about a used Sony PXW-X70?

well written old smoke....

it's always a matter of WHAT you need the camera for. i couldn't see myself ever shooting events (if i did them) on anything but a dedicated camcorder (in my case ex1r), on the other hand, i have used my nex7 with nikon glass on my jib and also as a b rollwith excellent results in both cases.

Though it's vaporware for a few more weeks, the Sony RX10 IV is just a little over budget but will be close to the AX100's price when it is in general availability. I went to the camera store earlier this year to buy an RX10 iii but they didn't have one. The next day the GH5 was announced and I spent quite a bit of time dawdling. By the time the summer sports season started, I still had not upgraded my camera and I just stuck with the one that I have.

The hybrid / touch autofocus on the RX10 IV appeals to me as I shoot mostly swimmers and children running around like gazelles. I generally don't need all the zoom the camera has, but cropping into a UHD frame for a 1080 close-up appeals to me when the delivery is 1080 for Blu-ray and youtube.

There are many good cameras out there. I could probably do all my shooting with a Canon 80D but I can't get over the fact that it captures audio with a lossy codec (256 Kbps AAC). I love the feel of the GH4 / GH5 but I've been counseled about the auto focus. I rented a Canon XC15 that shoots 300 Mbps XAVC-I. The storage overhead was not justified in my mind for the quality of the output. With $0.00 revenue for my video endeavor, it's unlikely that I'll be shooting over 100 Mbps anytime soon.

Mediainfo for some of the cameras I mentioned:

RX10 III

Canon 80D

Panasonic GH4

...I own a Sony a6300 with a few lenses and a Sony AX100. On my last vacation I had the a6300 with a 18-105mm lens and a variable ND filter. It was a pain to use and I regret not having my AX100. By the time I had the camera dialed in for a certain shot the object moved or the lighting changed...

This is really important. It's the same reason I hanker after my old "ENG" video cameras (Sony VX2000, Z1 etc.) when I'm attempting run'n'gun shooting with my GH4.

There are a number of new camcorders on the way from Sony (e.g.) and Canon (e.g.), but they're mostly around $1900 to $2800. Might help bring down the prices of a used PXW-X70 though.

There is also the upcoming Sony FDR-AX700 with HLG! I am already cleaning my AX100 and putting it in the box, soon to be seen on eBay.

There is also the upcoming Sony FDR-AX700 with HLG! I am already cleaning my AX100 and putting it in the box, soon to be seen on eBay.

Same family as the NX80 I linked above but without the XLR mic inputs.

https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-unveils-3-1inch-sensor-camcorders-ax700-nx80-z90/

I currently use Canon EOS 80D . However, there are other cheaper options available as Panasonic Fz80

Here is a short video that shows just how frugal you can be. You might also check out a Facebook page called "Frugal Filmmaker." https://www.facebook.com/groups/thefrugalfilmmaker/ Your concerns are discussed there frequently. And you find a lot of good "hacks." Over 84,000 members. Suggest you search the site before posting. You might find your answer already there.

I'd like to thank you all for the time you spend helping me find solutions.

When publishing my post on this forum last month (my very first post on any forum ever: http://hyperurl.co/BlurryFadesOnYoutube) I was thinking "stop being naive, none of these top-level professionals will ever bother to react to you amateurish post". But I was so wrong! John Dennis commented almost immediately and it just made my day. And then more of you wrote, and you tried to put yourself on my level to make things easy for me to understand, and finally, thanks to your patience and kindness, I was able to render my project using several different methods which were much better than my old/previous ones. Once uploaded on youtube the vids were not pixelated anymore, and I had a whole bunch of uploads to pick from. 😄

I am reading your comments about the different types of cameras /camcorders now… lots of new material to immerse myself in and many interesting things to learn. I will be back after having narrowed my choice to two or three models.

Again, thank you sooo much, you rock! Beautiful weekend to everyone!

There are many resources on YouTube where you can find what your looking for as far as equipment. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC38epF8KuULetqYw0ezCNYg

https://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCovtFObhY9NypXcyHxAS7-Q

Rainer: "I suggest stick with your PJ810 until you get your first million subscribers, at which stage YouTube will have paid you enough to afford the GH5 (or by that stage GH6,7,8, whatever). Meantime, especially since you're apparently focused on music videos, you might think about shifting your priority to audio." Thank you. The thing is I am not the owner of the YouTube channel in question; it belongs to the singer-songwriter. Each time one of her new songs is ready, i.e. recorded, mixed & mastered, she gives me the sound track and I add video tracks to it. I shoot, edit, render and upload the finished product on her YouTube channel. That's why I need a good video camera/camcorder, good editing software, and a good laptop. Vegas Pro offers amazing possibilities and I do not intend to switch to anything else. As for the shooting device, AVCHD gave me a hard time during my recent video creation… I would like to find a more suitable format.

OldSmoke: "All this really depends on your needs and what you shoot mostly. Do you need good zoom range, good audio, long battery live, low light ability, 4K and all in one camera? Do you have time to setup a shot or do you need it in the moment. Are you willing to carry camera with some lenses, maybe an external recorder and so on." Thank you, your questions are very constructive.

• All in one camera: YES.
• Good zoom range: YES
• Low light ability: YES.
• Good audio: YES, mainly for behind-the-scenes interviews.
• Long battery life:  2-3 hours is sufficient.
• Willing to carry lenses, recorder, etc.? No.
• Time to setup a shot? Not often.
• 4K: No (1080p is perfect for me)

OldSmoke: "If your distribution is via YouTube only, a camera with an 8-bit XAVC codec is sufficient. How about a used Sony PXW-X70?" Yes, the distribution is via YouTube only. A used Sony PXW-X70 is a great idea, it has the XAVC codec John Dennis was talking about, and it looks like my old VX2000, similar shape, grip, viewfinder, etc., thank you!

Ushere: "it's always a matter of WHAT you need the camera for. i couldn't see myself ever shooting events (if i did them) on anything but a dedicated camcorder (in my case ex1r)…" Thank you. Unfortunately the Sony PMW-EX1R XDCAM EX full HD camcorder doesn't seem to be available anymore. And I've been wondering… why XDCAM and not XAVC?

John Dennis: "The hybrid / touch autofocus on the RX10 IV appeals to me as I shoot mostly swimmers and children running around like gazelles. I generally don't need all the zoom the camera has, but cropping into a UHD frame for a 1080 close-up appeals to me when the delivery is 1080 for Blu-ray and youtube." Thank you for the precious mediainfo files. And I've been thinking about the RX10 IV a lot… it looks so amazing! with the Zeiss lens, the impressive zoom, the touch autofocus, etc. But I have come to the conclusion that it would probably be too sophisticated for me. E.g. I wouldn't even use the touch autofocus as I only know how to shoot with a traditional viewfinder.

Nick Hope: "This is really important. It's the same reason I hanker after my old "ENG" video cameras (Sony VX2000, Z1 etc.) when I'm attempting run'n'gun shooting with my GH4. There are a number of new camcorders on the way from Sony (e.g.) and Canon (e.g.), but they're mostly around $1900 to $2800. Might help bring down the prices of a used PXW-X70 though." Thanks!!

nirbhay-s: "I currently use Canon EOS 80D." Thanks for the link. I really like the features of your Canon EOS 80D a lot! Pity the 70D, which is cheaper, can only record 30 frames per second; I need 50fps for slow motions.

Len Kaufman: "Here is a short video that shows just how frugal you can be. You might also check out a Facebook page called Frugal Filmmaker." Thank you! A string tripod, haha, how very ingenious.  

Tchak: "There are many resources on YouTube where you can find what your looking for as far as equipment." Thanks! I will watch the three videos for sure. One thing though: before publishing my first post on this forum I had already spent weeks /months watching various videos on YouTube, and I was just lost in the amount of details I couldn't understand… while here, in a couple of days only, I was able to make gigantic steps forward. :)

Have a look at the FDR-AX700 specs on B&H! I am also a bit reluctant to use a large 4K sensor camera for HD video. While this doesn’t apply to all DSLR/Mirrorless cameras, the a6300 for example records amazing 4K footage but HD is a disaster. It’s soft to the point where is becomes unusable.

Hi everyone,

I need to buy a film camera but am not sure which kind/brand/model/format would suit best my purpose, which is the following:

Lots of clarifications already about the rest, so I'll just relay my experience. I use multiple cameras to shoot. First I bought a Panasonic G6, new - micro four thirds, hence light and easy to transport with a complement of prime lenses. . Then I found a used G5 for less than a fourth of what I'd payed for the G6, and these are my main cameras - which I use together with a shoulder rig and of course a complement of lights. I like photography and the stills are great, but the video taking capabilities are awesome for the price. The only con of MFT is that you have to work a bit harder on t he bokeh; the only real limitation of the G series is that you don't have live output to video (unlike the step up, the GH4 and GH5, which are way more expensive tough). I had considered the Sony A7s for full frame, but the cost - even second hand -is many times over.

From a practical movie-making point of view, in a busy shot-day with lots of scenes to capture, what matters most is speed and precision, so you need to learn your camera interface well, and have two of the same brand/type helps a lot as the interfaces are very similar.

As others said, once you upload on YouTube it doesn't matter - my mts files look crazy better than what's on YouTube, but nobody but me sees them :)

Hope it helps.

Nick said:

”This is really important. It's the same reason I hanker after my old "ENG" video cameras (Sony VX2000, Z1 etc.) when I'm attempting run'n'gun shooting with my GH4.”

I’m partial to having everything in one package. That’s one reason I prefer a “bridge” camera rather than a body with removable lenses. Been there, done that with SLRs. I don’t usually have time to pick a lens. No one waits for me to get set up. The camcorder ticks all the boxes of the “bridge” camera except form factor (sometimes more). I’m just not fond of the camcorder form factor. Different strokes, different folks.

For me the major advantage of a camcorder are built in ND filters.

My current camera has a built-in ND Filter as did the RX10 i and RX10 ii. The 600 mm equivalent lens forced it out of the RX10 iii and iv. They cost real money and they do get scratched.

While waiting for two renders to finish I watched this. 80D vs GH5 Autofocus Test.