Why Aren’t Camcorders More Popular?

Thanks to several people for pointing out that I was totally wrong and the Sony XD Cam DOES have a built-in ND filter. I have absolutely no idea how I missed this over the course of two months, but I did. The switch can clearly be seen at 15:36 next to the battery on the back of the camera. The good news is that this makes the camcorder even better! As I said in the video, this isn't a review of this specific camcorder, but rather a look at modern camcorders in general. I wish I would've done a better job in being aware of the ND option, but I also don't want to get too bogged down in the specifics of any one camcorder model for this video.

The camcorder form factor is the most versatile setup for many workflows. Especially multicam and live situations and sports. The integrated lense and XLR inputs make it very useful in those situations. And for b-roll it can be extremely useful. There is definitely a benefit to having everything integrated and running from a single battery. So much to like about it. It is definitely not “cool” - but who really cares about that.

I’m really quite sad camcorders haven’t continued to evolve. I built my channel in the early years on a Sony camcorder and miss it dearly. The freedom and flexibility of insane zoom, crazy good stabilization, etc. The lack of shallow DOF and a few other issues, I ventured to a7s3. If Casey Neistat switched to a camcorder, I bet these companies would start developing them again.

It’s funny to see this video. I live in Japan and the Japanese tend to use camcorders a lot, especially at school events. I questioned why they still are using them until I looked the specs and decided to order one. It’s been one of my best purchases.

Dude... in 1985 I was a US Army Combat Photographer stationed in South Korea, documenting the Peace talks between SK and NK on the DMZ. Then I went into portrait work and from there, video..... which you here have brought back memories...

I have a Sony camcorder very very similar to the one you show, and it DOES have infrared night vision and it has a built-in ND (3 levels), so I'd be very surprised to find that yours does not. The way I can ease in and out of zooms is much appreciated. It is also much easier to hold when shooting video than a stills camera.

Ive never understood the obsession with blurry backgrounds on youtube. I want to see all the cool posters and knivk knacks and shit in your room! It adds character and ambience to a youtubers usual recording space.

Tom, I used to repair camcorders in the 80's and 90's. You mentioned "parfocal" lenses on camcorders. There are actually 2 different meaning to that term. A traditional camcorder lens was parfocal in that the lens elements for focus and zoom were separate, so that when you moved the zoom lenses it stayed in focus. In the early 90's, a lot of manufacturers switched to a new system that used fewer and lighter lens elements so that the zoom lenses affected the focus, and had to move the focus lens during zoom to keep it in focus which was determined electronically on a predetermined curve. So technically, they no longer used parfocal lenses. They could only stay in focus due to being motor driven. If your lens has a focal distance scale on it, it's a traditional parfocal lens. If it's buried, and only motor driven, it's probably the later version.

Ever since DSLRs started recording videos, more focus was put on making them achieve the function of camcorders. First it was about achieving 30, 24, and 60 fps. Then they had to include autofocus on their lenses that worked with video modes and create new motors of smoother fluid autofocus control. They needed to add on additional ports for connecting to monitors, audio jacks, and power. They needed to start including image stabilization which worked actively in video mode. And later they had to add on different monitoring features like waveform monitors, RGB parades, and other interfaces. Also, they needed to add in video color profiles such as LOG and REC 709, REC 2020 for better color and contrast control. More lenes had to be created specifically designed to work with video features such as power zooming and quiet smooth aperture adjustments. The handle grip is still a rangefinder style handle rather than an underhand rest and ND filters are usually placed in front of most lenses. And now, after all these years the 2 types are very similar. Cameras have their advantage for having customizability of lenses, attachments, and hybrid capability of taking great photos as well. Their low light performance due to larger sensor sizes as well and shallower depth of field attracts more attention. And versatility can be achieved through purchasing of more versatile lenses for those specific situations. But probably the largest factor in my opinion that drives people towards these is the community of users and designers. There are more tutorials, recommendations, articles, and guides about using a camera (typically of these styles rather than a camcorder.) And when more new creators get their first camera, they pick the one that they feel they will get more support and recommendation from. However, camcorders (not cinema cameras) do still have their place still. They are a one size integrated solution. That's because of their unique body design. It's all about the body. Mirrorless cameras can outperform these camcorders now for picture quality, low light performance, and weight. But camcorders have everything built to work together with minimal need to setup or put a rig together. The microphone setup, handles, shoulder straps, XLR inputs, cooling functions, and power managements are designed to work seamlessly together for long recording sessions. Access to your controls is usually present with buttons located right on the camera for instant access and can be changed during recording. You can achieve a similar workflow with a camera, but you may need to buy all the necessary parts to make it work similarly as well as rig it all together. Though you still may be missing a few features like waveform monitors, ND filters, broadcast delivery functions, timecode generators, depending on the camera. When you buy a camcorder, you are buying a bundle of devices that work together for a well-rounded video focused system. Rather than a single piece. Cinema cameras are like mirrorless cameras, but more expensive and focused on customizable video capabilities. Camcorders are best for their simplicity and reliability for capturing videos. You have decent functionality for more use cases and some changes can still be made with easy integration. The form factor is also designed for long constant recordings, making quick changes while recording. Which means they are better built for continuous recoding while swapping batteries, media, microphones, preventing overheating, and on the fly changes (usually without digging deep into the menu settings. That's their biggest strength over mirrorless cameras. You may not have as much creative control, but for run and gun situations, where time and speed is crucial, they are a great tool to have, since the setup is kept to a minimal.

I went through this a couple years ago trying to figure out why every YouTuber was recommending photography cameras. I had always used camcorders growing up. And I came to the same conclusion that you did; image quality is so much better at an affordable price point.

Something else to mention: Batteries are much easier to change. The battery is mounted externally at the back whereas photo cameras will use a battery in the grip. This means that on camcorders, you can use larger batteries and swap them more easily. You also get the anti-rotation pin so the camcorder doesn't spin on a tripod.

The Sony z90v does have night shot, but you have to shoot in auto by flipping up the physical switch on the back. And also did you say that your z90v doesn’t have built-in ND’s? Because it definitely does, that is also another physical switch on the back.

I've been using the exact Sony camcorder for the last couple of months and it's been really nice to not have to worry about getting the perfect combination of mirrorless camera and lens, and having to mess around with accessories. Really surprised how much I like it

I still use 2 camcorders to this day for my wedding capture. They are the last backup resort when filming ceremonies and entire reception events. They are absolute workhorses and have been extremely reliable when capturing moments in a wedding. They are placed high-up on very high light stands and act like "security cameras" in my opinion. I only cut to my camcorders when there are shaky shots/transition shots/failed shots from my A, B, or C cameras, but I at least know they are recording reliably every time. It gives me peace of mind that my camcorders are recording the wide angle of a space or venue and I make sure to hit record on those cameras first before I turn on my A, B, or C cameras. Thanks for the nostalgia on all those old school cameras. That is what I grew up on - VHS, Super 8mm, Mini-DV - and now I have the FX3 and FX30. I appreciate your vids and now I just subscribed!

I remember my friends and I desperately wanting a GL2, it’s amazing how much video cameras have improved over time.

Tom you've absolutely nailed it! I really like the new style, bringing your own personality even more into the video. From someone who shoots with a NX80, ZV-E10 and a DJI Mini Pro 3 editing all together it's good for people to understand the pros and cons of each and when each might have a role. Having the view from the side of the usual table makes it feel more like an educational chat with an old friend, and as always excellent b roll and demo shots. Love to see you're still exploring new styles, keeps it fresh!

Hi Tom, the thing about camcorders at a base level is that they were designed for family use. So you go from Australia with the kids when they were little to Disneyland, Universal Studios, San Diago Zoo etc... you want the background in full focus, not blurred. Adjusting settings was secondary. So if you understand the design for purpose limitations and work within them then you should expect the results you get and be happy with that. I think camcorders no matter how sophisticated still maintain this premise. Having said that. Mirrorless cameras...wow. I guess I am saying use each to their best advantage that is fit for purpose and you can't go wrong. A thoroughly enjoyable vid, mate.

As a videojournalist for a newspaper I use the Sony XD Z-150 for video, it's an amazing piece of tool and I was shocked myself. 2x XLR outputs, 3 different ND filters and adjust for sound and manual settings on top of that. And that is just top of the iceberg. I would have to spend 2000 dollar to get the same on my A7III

I used Camcorders all through college myself. I don't mind them, but I think it really is the lens interchangeability that does it these days for the mirrorless dominance. However that seems to be more because of the trendy lenses that youtubers recommend and such. I know for me I like to have a particular look and especially lately I have been expanding creatively into other lensing options, and I have a justified reason to get other lenses for the use of creative direction. If you didn't want that, or need that. I.E. you were going to buy a 24-105 or a 24-70 and roll with basically just that with one fast prime as well, I find it very hard to justify that setup when you are spending an extra couple thousand on those lens options (depending on your price point) for something you could get for far cheaper that would do nearly the same job.

What camara would you recomend for filming a podcast. I mean filming long periods of time in one shot! Amazing content!