Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Video recording rugby. BridgeCamera or Camcorder
  • Premier Icon Earl
    Free Member

    I want to start recording my kids games. Phones don’t have enough optical zoom so new device it is.

    I don’t know much about the dp world so help please.

    For £200 I can get:
    -A budget camcorder.
    -A budget bridge camara.
    -A 7 year old used mid+ range bridge that got 5 stars in its day (from CEX with 3month warranty)
    All with 30x zoom and optical stabilization.

    Will a bridgecam take the same quality video as a camcorder? Has trickle down tech in the camera world made 6y olds units not good any more? Do I need to inc budget?

    Not that fussed on 4k. Just want things stable and in focus for watching off a laptop.

    Premier Icon chrispoffer
    Free Member

    I’d probably look for something with a viewfinder – cheap camcorder maybe? If it’s just got a screen you’ll struggle in the sunshine.

    Premier Icon MartynS
    Full Member

    Bridge or dslr lenses are difficult to zoom and focus nicely. They may have auto focus which can help it may look a bit crappy
    A camcorder would be better, but you’ll need a tripod as well.

    The other issue is chid protection. Are you getting permission from all the childrens guardians to record them.. you may find some are not keen on you filming.

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Full Member

    What MartynS said, photography lenses are different to ones designed for video. Following a game with a stills camera will be difficult.

    Also, with the market for camcorders basically being none existent I imagine you’ll get more for your money?

    Premier Icon desperatebicycle
    Free Member

    child protection. Are you getting permission from all the childrens guardians to record them.. you may find some are not keen on you filming

    Tis true. I never had it questioned with rugby, but did with my son’s football. And that was just photos not videos.
    But with the original question – camcorder or a decent DSLR that is recommended for video. Seem to recall Sony Alphas are good.

    Premier Icon dannybgoode
    Full Member

    Due to some weird law non-camcorders are limited to 30 minute clips whereas a full camcorder can record for as long as the memory card allows.

    If you need/want to shoot for more than 30 mins at a time therefore you really should go with a camcorder

    Premier Icon Earl
    Free Member

    I never thought about child protection. There as always been plenty of parents taking photos and filming – though not the whole game. I don’t want the whole game – but I do want a tripod so I don’t throw up when rewatch it.

    My kid got a lot out of reviewing this weekend phone footage. Best learning tool they say.

    So if a camcorder focuses better then that’s the answer. And like bike parts, much is out of stock.

    Premier Icon jag61
    Full Member

    I use a Sony bridge camera hand held cos I try to follow the action Tend to do lots of shorter clips lots of vids of the grass while moving about forgetting to pause find that it can take a while to download to card after each pause no problems with child protection as daughter is playing senior championship ( go Barnsley ladies) go through clips with coach sometimes,quality is ok prob better with proper vid camera

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Full Member

    But with the original question – camcorder or a decent DSLR that is recommended for video. Seem to recall Sony Alphas are good.

    This is, in part, a trickle-down effect from professional users. Sony have the best (XDCAM, which is a variation on the AVID MXF format) codec’s, and they stopped selling the chips that could encode them to anyone else 10+ years ago because everyone just bought a nanoflash recorder and strapped it to the back of their existing camera for a fraction of whatever XDCAM Sony was selling at the time. You won’t be recording at 50Mbit, and won’t be imported into an AVID workflow, so it’s mostly irrelevant.

    It’s mostly a lense issue though. A photography lense is designed to offer the sharpest image above all other criteria because it’s sat in front of a 10+ megapixel sensor and people will pixlepeep at it.

    A film/cine lense is designed to sit in front of a HD sensor (2 megapixles), and the result isn’t viewed the same way, so you have a lot more leeway. The quality of the glass is likely the same as a stills lens at the same at any price point, but you have constraints like the focus absolutely cannot breathe (the field of view can’t change), and the focus has to track with the zoom so when the subject is in focus and you zoom in, they stay in focus.

    Obviously, there’s a huge range of lenses available, but that’s the broad extremes. And you’re not looking at buying separate cine lenses. Bu for filming sport you’re probably going to want something that sits at the video end as it will make your life easier, and a camcorder will have been designed around that set of compromises for that use.

    Premier Icon Earl
    Free Member

    Spoon.
    Amazing reply. Thank you

    Premier Icon dropoff
    Free Member

    You may find that a monopod will work better, once you get used to it.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.