If you think a larger camcorder is “better”, you’re not alone. When most of the video world was analog, the larger cameras meant three tubes or later on three chips which definitely meant better depth and quality of image. This was true of tapes as well. One and two inch tapes were professional quality, U-Matic ¾ inch industrial, Betamax and VHS ¾ inch for consumers.
When everything went digital, all of a sudden, size wasn’t an issue anymore. Today’s tiny palmcorders and handicams produce substantially better quality images than a lot of the larger cameras of the 80’s and 90’s. Who would have thought that a tiny miniDV tape shot in a camcorder no bigger than a kitten would be capable of such clarity and be so good in low light?
There is another downside to using the miniaturized camcorders of today besides the “lightweight” (pun intended) reputation smaller devices have with the public. That is the weight of these machines being so light, that it is sometimes difficult for the shooter to hold a steady shot without a tripod.
As a video professional at Higher Dreams Productions I myself prefer medium sized, three chip camcorders for the added weight and balance that they have. But I never discount the value of their baby lightweight siblings to take along on a shoot for a backup camera in case the unthinkable happens and the main camera suddenly develops a problem that makes it unusable.
Whatever the size camera, there is a definite place for both in the world of videography and always will be.
Posts
