SONY Camcorder use

[DonSchap]

Folks,

I've been wondering if anyone was shooting VIDEO along with their still shots. After reviewing the developing "DSLR/Video combo" market that seems to be creeping in ... I guess I was just wondering if any of the SONY users really had this concern, using their DSLR?

Obviously, if Nikon and Canon have decided to go with this ... SONY may do likewise.

Nikon did it with the Prosumer APS-C sensor D90.

Canon decided to go to a much more "limited market" and placed it inside the EOS 5D MkII Full Frame camera ($2699), instead of the more reasonable decision of the EOS 50D APS-C ($1399). This may have been a timing issue, I do not know. The fact is, the EOS 5D MkII is a grunch more expensive for this particular option than the Nikon D90 ($999) is.

I recently compared the SONY HDR-SR12 versus the Canon HF11 Vixia HD just to get a price range ... and the SONY is about $100 less and offers nearly all the same features. The point is, these camcorders are independent of the DSLR you would match them with. That independence, to me, seems to be more of an advantage, than a detriment.

If, for argument sake, we went the Canon route ... bought the EOS 50D and the Vixia HD Camcorder ... your total cost would be nearly that of the EOS 5D MkII. A few more accessories and it would be.

Nikon doesn't make a camcorder. So that comparison is unavailable.

That leaves us with SONY ... also making both. The A700 is $1099 ... and the HDR-SR12 is $969 (Beach Camera) ... still just reaching over the $2000 mark. So, if you do the math ... that just might bring a FF DSLR/Video Combo camera in at $2200? Less than the A900?

Hey ... just musing ...

Now, throw in SONY's Super SteadyShot (SSS) and a CZ 135mm f/1.8 lens on that! "Are you ready for some football?"

[Rooz]

sonys HD, (or any camcorder), cannot be compared to dslr video. they are certianly better to have in full light with their ease of use, flip screens and long zoom ranges but in anything oither than full light they are found wanting. i have a 1year old HD sony camcorder, and placed against the d90 in average light the d90 smoked it. completely. thats not LOW light, thats average light. in low light the camcroders are quite simply...shithouse.

this is not even taking into account the creative control you have with dslr video using awesome lens', narrow dof and their impeccable hi iso quality. personally i dont think one replaces the other BUT having it on a dslr is brilliant. i didnt want to give the d90 back.

i know you are trying to downplay the significance of this feature, but you are just plain wrong. sony is behind, and they need to catch up. end of story.

[seanhoxx]

Or even some Futbol! We have a Samsung mini cam for about 5 years now, It's a lot of fun but nothing like a DSLR! It's small and light enough to tuck into your gear bag if you fiond yourself with the need for vid. I know 2 people who in the last month have bought the Sony video cam one with I think its a 20GB drive, and the other with a 60 GB and hi-def. it is really a sweet outfit, but I have glass and gear to buy!!

[DonSchap]

I was just trying to come up with a SONY price ... not buy one. LOL But thanks for the insight, Rooz!

[sparkie1263]

I never got into taking video. We had a few camcorders over the years and I always had the SLR in hand. I don't think If you watch the video once after you take it you are lucky. Then you get the persons voice who is taking the video telling everybody to look at them. I never seen a good home video. Now for kids sports that is a different story. Give me my SLR and I am fine. I just think you will be missing alot of shots. Then we are going to need a video program.LOL
Frank

[dr4gon]

yeah, video takes a lot of time to put clips together and make a nice presentable presentation otherwise, it just looks average and eh... boring most of the time (unless the subject is really interesting).

I'd like to see HD video in a Sony slr, but that's just me coming from a p&s that had a video function (non-HD). I wasn't too impressed with the D90, had some wobble in the video (perhaps that's why SONY didn't include it? I don't know...) It also had manual focusing if you were going to zoom or move it around. That can be slow and painful to get used to. I wonder if the Canon is any better? I doubt it has AF and is faster.