Videocamera with 4K recommendations

[EduPortas]

Hello again everyone,

I've been a DSLR/MILC user for 20 years. I've worked in media/documentary jobs using these cameras with 1080p and 4K for video and of course taking photos.

In general, I'm very satisfied with the image quality of the 4K video files I'm getting with my current Nikon and Canon gear (R8 and Z50).

However, I'm hating more and more the ergonomics of these cameras for video. I simply cannot get accustomed to them. Newer MILCs have fewer buttons than older DLSRs and this has really started to aggravate me.

Before going the DSLR/MILC route I shot with prosumer Mini DV videocameras 😨 The jump in quality to DSLR/MILCs was undeniable, but I really miss the ergos of tho se ancient machines.

So, if I were to go back to a proper consumer/prosumer videocamera what would you recommend? I'd much prefer you guys give me some options instead of asking the gents over at DV Info and such fora. My requirements are quite basic:

 

- Price between US$1500 and US$2500 new or used

- Good to very good haptics and ergonomics for long form interviews that can last up to 2 hours

- Decent AF

- 4K resolution since I will be exporting to 1080p (I really enjoy the cropping and color correction possibilities of the larger files for lower resolution exports)

- Two XLR inputs and two card slots

- Integrated Power Zoom since I will using LANC device in my tripod

- Unexotic files for easy NLE digestion in Final Cut X

 

That's it.  Other than the obvious Canon XA40, XA50/XA70 and XF400 I'm absolutely swamped by options offered by JVC, Panasonic and Sony, but I'm assuming they have some good stuff.

 

Any recommendation would be much appreciated 😎

[EduPortas]

2 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

 

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

Does it have to be a camcorder with integrated lens?

If not, you might consider a Sony FS5 II, Sony FS7 II, or Canon C300 II.  With a little more budget, it might look like a C70. 

I'm not sure of the price of entry-level power zooms for any of them, though.  I'm also not sure if the Canons support LANC, but I think it's really likely that the Sonys do.

[newfoundmass]

I too miss the ergonomics of the camcorder, though I've never found myself needing more buttons on my Lumix mirrorless cameras. I just miss them because I feel like they are easier and more practical the hold and use for video.

I'd steer clear of any camera that has smaller than a 1" sensor, less because of depth of field and more because of low light. Those smaller sensors, even in newer cameras, just completely fall apart. They don't really even look that great in well lit situations.

If you don't mind used, the Panasonic DVX200 is a great option. It's basically a GH5, complete with M43 sensor, in a camcorder body. When my friend used my GH5 as a b-cam to it, the footage was nearly identical. It looks like it goes for about $1600 used.

Sony PXW-Z90 is a very nice camcorder with a 1" sensor. I built an entire streaming business off these kind of Sony camcorders. Goes for under $2100 used on MPB.

For more advanced cameras:

The Panasonic EVA1 also might be an option. Used options in Excellent condition on MPB go for about $2300. That has a Super 35 sensor and allows you to use EF and cine lenses.

On the Sony side, the Sony PXW-FS5 II is under $1500 in like new condition on MPB.

The Canon Cinema EOS C300 II is under $2200 in Excellent condition on MPB.

 

[EduPortas]

22 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Does it have to be a camcorder with integrated lens?

If not, you might consider a Sony FS5 II, Sony FS7 II, or Canon C300 II.  With a little more budget, it might look like a C70. 

I'm not sure of the price of entry-level power zooms for any of them, though.  I'm also not sure if the Canons support LANC, but I think it's really likely that the Sonys do.

Yes please (Canon does support LANC), I would much rather do with an integrated zoom lens.

I'm tired of waffling around with DSLRs/MICSs and their photo-centric lenses.

As you stated, all those big sensor cine cameras produce beautiful images, but non have integrated zooms. Buying one of their integrated zooms would far exceed my budget,

[EduPortas]

21 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'd steer clear of any camera that has smaller than a 1" sensor, less because of depth of field and more because of low light. Those smaller sensors, even in newer cameras, just completely fall apart. They don't really even look that great in well lit situations.

If you don't mind used, the Panasonic DVX200 is a great option. It's basically a GH5, complete with M43 sensor, in a camcorder body. When my friend used my GH5 as a b-cam to it, the footage was nearly identical. It looks like it goes for about $1600 used.

Sony PXW-Z90 is a very nice camcorder with a 1" sensor. I built an entire streaming business off these kind of Sony camcorders. Goes for under $2100 used on MPB.

For more advanced cameras:

The Panasonic EVA1 also might be an option. Used options in Excellent condition on MPB go for about $2300. That has a Super 35 sensor and allows you to use EF and cine lenses.

On the Sony side, the Sony PXW-FS5 II is under $1500 in like new condition on MPB.

The Canon Cinema EOS C300 II is under $2200 in Excellent condition on MPB.

 

I've debated myself the aesthetic qualities of small sensor videocameras. At this juncture I'm willing ti sacrifice overall "bokeh potential" if the videocamera is more practical than a DSLR/MILC for video.

Yep, coincidentally I'm finding that DVX200 one of the better options out there. It definitely ticks all the boxes.

As for the Sony, I didn't even know to existed. I'll def have a look at it. Not really a Sony fan in the photo world, but they have produced very good vide cams for decades, so that seems like a really good option.

All those cinema camera sound great, but I'm looking for extreme practicality with an integrated zoom lens. So I'm gonna pass on those big censored fiends.

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, EduPortas said:

I've debated myself the aesthetic qualities of small sensor videocameras. At this juncture I'm willing ti sacrifice overall "bokeh potential" if the videocamera is more practical than a DSLR/MILC for video.

Yep, coincidentally I'm finding that DVX200 one of the better options out there. It definitely ticks all the boxes.

As for the Sony, I didn't even know to existed. I'll def have a look at it. Not really a Sony fan in the photo world, but they have produced very good vide cams for decades, so that seems like a really good option.

All those cinema camera sound great, but I'm looking for extreme practicality with an integrated zoom lens. So I'm gonna pass on those big censored fiends.

Yeah, smaller sensors really don't bother me EXCEPT in the low light department. 1" was the minimum I was willing to go, given I would be shooting in a lot of lower light situations without professional lighting. If you WERE looking for shallow depth of field, it's obtainable with a little work.

I tested dozens of camcorders when starting my streaming business in 2016. The DVX200 was by far my favorite, in terms of both use and image, but was just too expensive. So we went the Sony PXW-Z70 route, since we needed 4 and they were half the price of the DVX200 at the time. The DVX200 was an excellent camera, but it's $5000 price tag wasn't feasible for us.

If I was going with a camcorder today I think I'd go with the DVX200 myself. It's everything I love about Lumix cameras, but in a camcorder body. Camcorders really haven't progressed much in the last 10 years. Even the newest models have specs that are essentially the same as the 10 year old DVX200, and most of those are in the $3000 and up price range. The biggest changes since have mostly been 4k60p (DVX200 has that), 10-bit, and more robust streaming options as that's the primary use for a lot of these cameras these days.

Most of the "professional" camcorders in your price range that you can get new are the handycam style and don't really have many more buttons than you'd find on a mirrorless camera. That might not be so much of an issue though if your primary reason is just wanting that ability to power zoom.

JVC also has some decent spec'd cameras for very reasonable prices new, but I'd definitely try them out before going that route, as the camcorders that I did try of theirs were very plasticky. I just wasn't convinced of they'd stand up to heavy use in a combat sports environment. Even the LS300 cinema camera they came out that I owned and loved was very plasticky. Plus their menus were straight out of the 90s!

Frankly my experience starting that streaming company was the reason I ditched camcorders for mirrorless in my other video work. It was hard to justify paying a lot more for a camcorder that was less capable than mirrorless cameras that were half their price. Plus they were just more versatile, being able to change lenses. But boy do I miss those nice chunky camcorder bodies with all buttons on the side of the camera that you needed to change settings without having to dive into the menus. Not to mention the power zoom!

 

Keep us posted and share your thoughts on what you do get!

 

[EduPortas]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Keep us posted and share your thoughts on what you do get!

I will.

Yes, the low-light issue can't be denied. I already have a bunch of lighting, so I'm not too worried about that. These new 1 inchers do seem quite nice and just as in photography the ISO and noise algorithms have advanced in the videocamera world.

There are workarounds for bokeh, as you say. When I used those old Mini DV cams we managed to produce some nice images by playing with length of the zoom and judicious placement of our subjects.

I 100% agree with you that the video cam world has advanced at a snail's pace compared to the photo world. Advancements have been few and far between.

Curiously enough, Panasonic really did innovate with the DVX200 but the competition from the DSLR world and the new MILC challengers proved too fierce. Heck, even their own internal competition was brutal with the GF7, GX80, G9, FZ-2000, GH5, GH5 and GH5s coming around near the launch of the DVX200.  

Those guys in Japan were on a roll back then. As Andrew has said, their photo demise in near. IMO their fatal flaw was launching their own L mount and trying to compete with much more well established players but with 1/100 of their marketing resources and distribution channels. 

They should have stuck with videocameras and, from time to time, integrate their innovations to the M43 line.

Bleh. Right now they much interested selling batteries to Tesla and Toyota.

 

[MrSMW]

I have had this in and out of my shopping basket many MANY times but in the end have stuck with MILC.

https://www.amazon.fr/Panasonic-Caméscope-Semi-Pro-HC-X2000E-Stabilisé/dp/B083SZZ5KR/ref=asc_df_B083SZZ5KR?mcid=232efbbab9903b8186ad70a336860e1b&tag=googshopfr-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=701550460967&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4438915473122340787&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9109877&hvtargid=pla-898734561985&psc=1&gad_source=1

But it would make a lot of sense for static duty.

The deciding factor for me was mixing in and editing the footage alongside full-frame MILC and I'm a bit OCD in not liking that. Even using my drone footage triggers me but no realistic option on that one!

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I have had this in and out of my shopping basket many MANY times but in the end have stuck with MILC.

https://www.amazon.fr/Panasonic-Caméscope-Semi-Pro-HC-X2000E-Stabilisé/dp/B083SZZ5KR/ref=asc_df_B083SZZ5KR?mcid=232efbbab9903b8186ad70a336860e1b&tag=googshopfr-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=701550460967&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4438915473122340787&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9109877&hvtargid=pla-898734561985&psc=1&gad_source=1

But it would make a lot of sense for static duty.

The deciding factor for me was mixing in and editing the footage alongside full-frame MILC and I'm a bit OCD in not liking that. Even using my drone footage triggers me but no realistic option on that one!

This is actually a pretty decent video...

The X1500 and X2000 are the same camera, just without the top handle. He compares/matches it with the S5ii X. It's pretty close. Just the low light isn't good.

[EduPortas]

17 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I have had this in and out of my shopping basket many MANY times but in the end have stuck with MILC.

https://www.amazon.fr/Panasonic-Caméscope-Semi-Pro-HC-X2000E-Stabilisé/dp/B083SZZ5KR/ref=asc_df_B083SZZ5KR?mcid=232efbbab9903b8186ad70a336860e1b&tag=googshopfr-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=701550460967&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4438915473122340787&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9109877&hvtargid=pla-898734561985&psc=1&gad_source=1

But it would make a lot of sense for static duty.

The deciding factor for me was mixing in and editing the footage alongside full-frame MILC and I'm a bit OCD in not liking that. Even using my drone footage triggers me but no realistic option on that one!

And it should, a full-frame MILC sensor is 20x as large LOL

For a 1/2.5-type (inch) sensor it seems really nice, specially the 4K 200mbps codec

[EduPortas]

16 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

This is actually a pretty decent video...

The X1500 and X2000 are the same camera, just without the top handle. He compares/matches it with the S5ii X. It's pretty close. Just the low light isn't good.

I gather 4K 4:2:2 10bit is something rare at this price point in the videocamera world.

Impressive for such a tiny machine with an extremely long lens.

 

[newfoundmass]

9 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

I gather 4K 4:2:2 10bit is something rare at this price point in the videocamera world.

Impressive for such a tiny machine with an extremely long lens.

 

Yeah, I was actually pretty impressed watching it. Low light wasn't great, but that's to be expected. There's still a lot to like about that camera. 

[MrSMW]

15 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Low light wasn't great

That was my other dealbreaker. In fact the principal one as I need to shoot a lot in low light and even with OK lighting, my previous camcorder experiences including 1" sensor, was trash. I just could not go back now.

[Tim Sewell]

On 5/10/2025 at 8:15 PM, EduPortas said:

Buying one of their integrated zooms would far exceed my budget,

The Sony 18-105mm f4 PZ works on the FS& via the camera's zoom rocker, so I guess it will on the FS5 as well.

[Al Dolega]

Yes the 18-105 works on the FS5, that was the kit lens for the FS5 as I remember.

[EduPortas]

14 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

The Sony 18-105mm f4 PZ works on the FS& via the camera's zoom rocker, so I guess it will on the FS5 as well.

 

That's a US$3,500 lens on top of a camera that requires a bunch of add-ons to use properly. So even if it's an older model that's a US$4,500 expenditure at the very least.

That's way way over my budget.

[EduPortas]

10 hours ago, Al Dolega said:

Yes the 18-105 works on the FS5, that was the kit lens for the FS5 as I remember.

No, he's talking about the 18-110mm  F4 Power Zoom which is a very expensive item. Much more so than the "normal" F4 zoom of similar focal length. About 5x more expensive.

[Tim Sewell]

8 hours ago, EduPortas said:

No, he's talking about the 18-110mm  F4 Power Zoom which is a very expensive item. Much more so than the "normal" F4 zoom of similar focal length. About 5x more expensive.

Er no, I'm very much talking about the relatively inexpensive 18-105 f4 - worked on the zoom rocker on both my FS7 and FX30. Excellent little lens for the price.

[BTM_Pix]

Out of interest, here is a "6x the price, 6x better?" comparison of the two lenses.

I have the cheaper one and it is indeed a great little lens.