Scenario:

1. You have a budget of $4500.
2. It will be your only camera for multi-use, run and gun, and documentary work.
3. Formats need to be accepted by major broadcasting companies.
4. It needs to be portable for carrying on aircraft.

Please respond with the camera you believe would be best suited for this roll and why you chose it. Or if you already own a camera that you believe accomplishes this better than the current offerings please tell us what it is and why you believe it is the best choice for you.

Cheers,
Greg

Nobody has any idea of what camcorder they would buy with $4500??? Nor does anyone currently have one they use for ENG/documentary work that they believe is ideal for what they do? I must be in the wrong place...

You could make a list of camera's that have the broadcast approved formats you need which are within your budget, should be easy enough just by looking on the manufacturers website and go through the specifications. Size of the camera is also mentioned so you can see what camera's fit, incl accessories, your camerabag.
If you list those camera's here I"m sure you will get more response.

Hi Noa,

I am trying to get people to post what THEY would purchase with the $4500. To me that seems more appropriate than have people guess what my needs are. Plus I believe you get a better sense of the equipment that way because people that are already using the gear have a better idea of what they want. They would probably recommend something entirely different for someone else. It always amazes me when I put up posts like this on various forums. It seems people are more willing to tell others what to buy but have no idea what they themselves would buy. Either that or they simply don't read the post and what is actually asking. I guess it goes beyond the 10 second attention span. *shrug*

Cheers,
Greg

Just trying to help you get an answer, if you would list all available camera's that have broadcast approved codecs and cost less then 4,5K (I guess there are just a few so would not be that hard to make a list) then the owners of these camera's might jump in and give you real world advice.

I love these questions... AND I have an answer!

Since you didn't mention 4k being important, nor high frame rates... my answer is...

A

used

Canon

C300!

Is your proposed budget of $4500 just for a camera, or does it include the other items you would need as well, like batteries, media cards, lenses, tripod, so forth?

I believe the Canon xf300 is on the BBC HD approved list and you can get it now for 4K so within Greg's budget, the c300 is out of the question I think as you have to factor lenses in as well and that will bring it quickly above 4,5K.

Eventhough the xf300 has some years on it it should be well suited for "multi-use, run and gun, and documentary work" and still small enough to fit a small bag for airtravel.

Okay, controversial choice, but I'd settle for the camera I have, the GH4r. Yeah, I know not very run n gun, but I've gotten use to working it that way. Great codec. Use the extra dosh to invest in glass for a variety of situations. However that's a very personal choice than a recommended one.

Looking further, I'd be torn between the DX200 from Panasonic and the URSA mini. Perhaps more expensive than the budget suggested, but both are worth it. With the Blackmagic mini, alas I'm still on the fence with this company. The DVX200 feels like a great run n gun camera and its predecessor was highly thought of. I'd lean to that if I had the cash.

But the main question is, do any of these camera's have codecs that are accepted by major broadcasting companies?

This is what I use.

Sony Alpha a7S
Sony E PZ 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS Lens
Sony XLR-K1M Adapter and Microphone Kit
Sony NP-FW50 Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batterys
Cards.

I also have the Sony 28-135 f4 lens

Goes in a backpack on a plane

I use this for broadcast, no problems. If you need 4:2:2 get some sort of recorder.

But the main question is, do any of these camera's have codecs that are accepted by major broadcasting companies?

I imagine that depends on the broadcaster. Personally I think the budget of $4500 to be too cheap for a true broadcast quality camera. Something like the C300 and in that price range would be considered acceptable. Of course an external recorder could turn cheaper cameras into broadcast worthy cameras, but would this still be considered acceptable. My GH4 can output 4:2:2 via its HDMI port, but no broadcaster would look at this camera except as a B camera for drone and small space use. Up the budget and the options are better.

I never understood what "broadcast quality" actually means,like why is there a list of approved camera's for the BBC where the xf300 is a part of, if you have a dslr and a external recorder that has a codec similar to the xf300, would that then not be accepted because the camera is not on the list?

I never understood what "broadcast quality" actually means,like why is there a list of approved camera's for the BBC where the xf300 is a part of, if you have a dslr and a external recorder that has a codec similar to the xf300, would that then not be accepted because the camera is not on the list?

A very good point! If we are talking about making programmes for broadcast then the required quality levels and acceptable codecs will limit the camera choices, but if we are talking about news footage, then even mobile phones wil be useable. The content will always outweigh quality for news footage, just look at the recent footage from the Paris attacks. I shot a fire on a boat with a Panasonic SD700 and that was broadcast by ITV and BBC on their local news programmes.

Roger

When it comes to news, then there's no criteria as Roger says. It would be silly to even suggest it as even poor mobile phone footage is better than no footage at all.

I haven't seen the BBC's latest list, but I imagine criteria isn't just on codec, but on other factors like handling of noise, any issues or problems with the camera (aliasing or moiré) and dynamic range. Theres no reason a GH4 couldn't be included; in fact I hear its used on Top Gear. However I think when people consider broadcast quality cameras, its functionality must also be taken into consideration. A GH4 isn't run n gun. If broadcast is defined in anything above 50mbps and 4:2:2 colour, then with an external recorder there's plenty of choices. A C100 with external recorder would do the trick, being quite functional and professional. However a DVX200 would do just as well here and has 4K. Still my preferred choice within the $4500 budget. It doesn't have internal 4:2:2 but can output 10 bit 4:2:2 via HDMI if required.

Hey Guys!

I have been shooting with a GH3 in a rig, it's heavy, bulky and not ideal for run and gun. I have been wanting to upgrade for a while now and a camcorder is a better choice for what I am going to be doing. (shooting for a new non-profit org) With that said, the DVX200 has been top on my list of camera choices. I love the features and form factor of this camera. The down side is that shooting 4:2:2 @ 10 bit requires a recorder which tacks on another $1500 and adds bulk which is not ideal for run and gun. It would be fine for documentary work though (aside from the added cost). The other camera I am considering is Sony's PXW-X70. With this camera I loose some features such as the three individual focus rings (since I haven't used a camcorder I'm not sure how much I will need them). It shoots 4:2:2 @ 10 bit internally and it's a small transportable form factor (carry-on). Adding 4K ($499 with only 60mbps?!? WTF Sony?) will allow me to crop and pan in post on a 1080 timeline. Another nice thing about going with Sony is their propitiatory hot shoe will power and transmit audio from their wireless receiver directly into the camera. Cool feature.

Since I am new to shooting video for broadcast I have started to do some research. The BBC's requirements which seem to be the most stringent are located here: http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/specs/bbc/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsBBC.pdf "4.2 Video codec
As described by the AS-11 specification (and the UK DPP HD shim), the video essence in the file
must be encoded as AVC Intra Class 100 as defined by SMPTE RP 2027:2011. This equates to an actual
video essence data rate of approximately 113Mbits/s. AS-11 gives full technical details of how the file should
be constructed." If they need a 113Mbits/s then that rules out the X70. PBS on the other hand has a completely different set of requirements, anemic in comparison. Audio requirements are different as well between 16bit/48k to 24bit/48k. This is not a big deal as I can alter this in ProTools or Cubase Pro if needed.

At this point I am lost. Besides the confusion of what format I need to be shooting in, many of the higher priced camcorders have been around for a while (3 years or more). They have low bit rates 28Mbps, 16 bit audio, use smaller sensors or $280 media cards that shoot for only 15 minutes. Also, I have noticed that the video quality is not up to the newer lower cost versions out there. While all the high end features are nice its the video quality that matters in the end. All the bells and whistles on a camera can't fix a soft image from an older sensor. (I know sharpen in post) Seriously though, the current offerings in $4-6k range (except the DVX200) are sort of off the table. Maybe, some new camcorders will be on the market in January/February which is when I am planning the purchase.

Unfortunately there are no stores that sell this type of equipment locally so I really rely on the knowledgeable people in forums like this to provide constructive advice. With that said maybe you guys can guide me in the right direction.

Cheers,
Greg

The BBC's requirements which seem to be the most stringent

Do you have plans to deliver to the BBC?

Have you considered the jvc-gy-ls300?

Quick look through the BBC guidelines. Its clear they don't accept DSLR's unless for certain shots and under approval by them - comes under single sensor cameras. 100mbps seems to be the minimum recording for HD. I recall reading a 2012 list of requirements from them and they mentioned certain cameras were acceptable as long as an external recorder was used. I think any $4500 camera would need an external recorder to get broadcast quality material. However what is consider acceptable will differ depending on who is broadcasting. Other smaller channels may have less strict guidelines.

You want a proper Broadcast quality camera, then look here:

Buy - Sony PXW-X500 (PXWX500) XDCAM Shoulder mount Camcorder with Three 2/3-inch HyperHAD FX Full HD CCD Sensors and Multi-Format Recording (http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sony_pxw-x500&gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMlms3Ab6mJPjGA2qLlLPB9dPjTSwcwmFpo0gzMx7uysaAlvF8P8HAQ)

This is what you'd be expected to film with to be taken seriously in the BBC world and would be considered a true professional camera. Something like the Panasonic DVX200 is more for event filming, though again with an external recorder could meet the BBC guidelines. However this is just the BBC's guidelines; others as I said could be more forgiving.

Why are the BBC guidelines so important if you don't plan to deliver to the BBC? Or are these guidelines used as a general rule by other broadcast companies?

Noa,

Yes, in the near future I would like to be able to submit content to the BBC in which case I need to meet their requirements. From the little bit of poking around I have done thus far they seem to have the highest minimum standard requirements. So if I can meet them I should be covered. :) Yeah I looked at the JVC pretty hard. However, I'm not sure what lens I would put on it that would give run and capabilities.

Steve,

Unfortunately, I don't have $20,000 laying around for a camera that may or may not pay for itself. It really is unfortunate they charge so much for the gear, targeting corporations rather than the independents. Maybe the DVX200 with an Atomos Shogun is what I need to get in the door. If the money starts coming in then I can shell out the big bucks....

Well that makes a difference then, if you want to play with the big boys then you need to have the right toys :) But if you don' t have the budget yet buy whatever gets you going, or you might rent for that one time job that does require specific equipment. You might want to ask Paul Anderegg for advice on this forum, I know he shoots news with a Sony pmw x70.

Noa,

Yes, in the near future I would like to be able to submit content to the BBC in which case I need to meet their requirements.
Steve,

Unfortunately, I don't have $20,000 laying around for a camera that may or may not pay for itself. It really is unfortunate they charge so much for the gear, targeting corporations rather than the independents. Maybe the DVX200 with an Atomos Shogun is what I need to get in the door. If the money starts coming in then I can shell out the big bucks....

What sort of content are you planning to sell to the BBC? Bare in mind not all BBC programmes are made in house. Other production companies are employed to deliver content and they usually have a larger budget and be expected to confirm with BBC guidelines. So they're in place more for bigger guns than a single videographer. When it does come to individuals selling content, I suppose the standards will depend on what the content is. For news broadcasts it will be less than say a drama, but are you really planning to offer the latter. Ultimately if you can deliver HD at 100mbps with 4:2:2 colour and a picture with no artifacts, moiré and aliasing then you're on the right track. For sub $5000, that is going to mean an external recorder. Unless anyone knows of a camera that offers the above internally. However such a miracle would I'm sure be well known by now.

A lot, I think, depends on exactly what "run-and-gun" means to you. Coming from a TV news background, I am used to a proper ENG camera on my shoulder with a wireless mic system. Any kind of handheld camera, especially one without a proper ENG lens, isn't what I am used to for run-and-gun shooting.

However, I recently purchased a Canon C100 camera. Thought it is quite a bit different from the ENG form factor that I'm used to, I have put together a decent kit for documentary work that I think might fit your criteria.

First, the camera. A Canon C100 without the dual pixel autofocus. I never trust autofocus, none of the ENG cameras I used ever had autofocus, so this feature wasn't important to me.

Next, a used Sigma f2.8 18-50mm EX DC lens. With a constant aperture throughout its zoom range, it is a great lens for video.

Since the lens doesn't have stabilization, and the camera's form factor doesn't make using it on the shoulder possible without all sorts of other gear, I found a monopod an absolute necessity. I've been reasonably happy with the Bogen MVM500A.

To record network TV broadcast specs, you will need an external recorder. I found the Atomos Ninja 2 is a great option for this.

The reason broadcasters have the specifications they do isn't just to ensure the incoming video quality is good enough, but that the video will stand up to all the pipeline they put it through. Broadcasters do terrible, horrible things to their programs before they are sent out to local stations and re-transmitted. Part of the broadcast specifications are to make sure that the program will still look good after it is subjected to this treatment.

So, the price for all this is-

$3000 for the camera
$200 for the lens
$240 for the monopod
$300 for the recorder

That brings you to a total of $3,740, well under your $4,500 goal. You won't need a huge rig, and you'll have money left over for a mic system and media. You'll be able to meet most broadcast specs, and your video will look fantastic because the C100 really is a great little camera.

Good luck!

Ultimately if you can deliver HD at 100mbps with 4:2:2 colour and a picture with no artifacts, moiré and aliasing then you're on the right track. For sub $5000, that is going to mean an external recorder. Unless anyone knows of a camera that offers the above internally. However such a miracle would I'm sure be well known by now.

The Panasonic AJ-PX270 records 4:2:2 AVC-Intra at up to 200 Mbps (24p/30p) or 100 Mbps (60p) and costs $4150 at B&H after the current $1000 rebate. The downside is that you need relatively expensive microP2 media for the higher data rates.

It's an excellent camera that meets just about everybody's broadcast specs, although some will be put off by the 1/3" sensors.

- Greg

Thanks guys I am really soaking up the info and following up on everything you have mentioned. One thing that I didn't realize before a few minutes ago is what an external recorder actually did. I understood that it recorded in an enhanced codec but had no idea that it also could bring up the bit rate to 220Mbps. Wow! That just changed the game... From what I understand, so long as the HDMI out on the camera provides 1080 then the recorder can record that at 1920x1080, 60p, 422 PRO RES 10bit color at up to 220 Mbps... Doesn't that pretty much make any camera broadcast capable? Put one on my GH3 = broadcast quality. If this is the case I can just find a camera with the features I want and forgo the internal recordings. o.0

Hypothetical question... If I was to purchase the Sony HXR-NX3/1 NXCAM which is a 3, 1/2" sensor at 28Mbps and use it with the Atomos record at 100Mbps, wouldn't that increase the image quality tremendously since it is recording more detail?

The main difference would be that these higher bitrate codecs would cause less artifacts or macroblocking with lots of fine detail and motion and the codec would not fall apart so easily when you push the image during grading. From a normal viewing distance you most likely won't be able to tell both low and high bitrate images apart unless you are shooting something that would stress the codec.

Thanks guys I am really soaking up the info and following up on everything you have mentioned. One thing that I didn't realize before a few minutes ago is what an external recorder actually did. I understood that it recorded in an enhanced codec but had no idea that it also could bring up the bit rate to 220Mbps. Wow! That just changed the game... From what I understand, so long as the HDMI out on the camera provides 1080 then the recorder can record that at 1920x1080, 60p, 422 PRO RES 10bit color at up to 220 Mbps... Doesn't that pretty much make any camera broadcast capable? Put one on my GH3 = broadcast quality. If this is the case I can just find a camera with the features I want and forgo the internal recordings. o.0

For the most part, yes, but you really have to make sure the camera is outputting a live broadcast compliant signal. For example, the C100 which I suggested, only outputs a 4:2:2 8-bit live image. Even if you record 422 prores 10bit, since the camera is only outputting an 8bit signal, you would get no extra benefit from recording using a 10bit codec, though you would gain a 4:2:2 image. So you really have to look at what the camera is sending out for its live signal.

I believe the Canon xf300 is on the BBC HD approved list and you can get it now for 4K so within Greg's budget, the c300 is out of the question I think as you have to factor lenses in as well and that will bring it quickly above 4,5K.

He didn't mention lenses so I assumed that was on top. However... I have the answer still. ;)

What he should do is buy a CANADIAN C300 then... With our dollar at 73% that makes one here around $3200usd! (actually a friend of mine just sold his for $5k cdn, I should have bought it). That leaves enough money for a 24-105L IS, batteries and memory!

However, I do like your JVC LS300 idea, that's nearly perfect. Plus, add a Speedbooster and a 24-105L and you're pretty close to spot on budget (buying used of course).

The reason broadcasters have the specifications they do isn't just to ensure the incoming video quality is good enough, but that the video will stand up to all the pipeline they put it through. Broadcasters do terrible, horrible things to their programs before they are sent out to local stations and re-transmitted. Part of the broadcast specifications are to make sure that the program will still look good after it is subjected to this treatment.

This. This right here is exactly why broadcast standards exist.

You would cry if you knew exactly what they were going to do to your video before it hits air.

Thanks for all the help guys! I am still considering how exactly this setup will be used for a majority of the work I'm going to be doing. I have two trips planned, one to San Francisco in March and another to Brazil in June. This means portability is a big concern as I do not want to check any baggage, especially camera gear. The LS300, C100MKii, or even pushing my budget with the Sony FS5 will make great documentary cameras but also require additional lenses etc. However, the options they give me outside of run and gun are huge. Of those three I would prefer the FS5 (it's tiny), of coarse I would be broke with that purchase. :-) At this point I am very much considering these cameras and looking at ways to get the most performance in the smallest one man shooting scenario I can come up with. The DVX200 is also on the list as it seems to be a good contender in the "all around" category. For portability I am considering the Sony PXW-X70 with 4K upgrade. Although I sacrifice features I get a small package with a large sensor capable of outputting 4:2:2 @10bit to a recorder via HMDI. At less than 2 pounds it will be easy to fly one steady-cam too.

I will continue to research the LS300 for which lenses work best (crop factors, adaptability etc). The C300 from Canada, hmmm. I'll look into it for sure. Maybe used...

What will January have in store for us? Canon looks they have pulled their older camcorders off their webpage archiving them and introduced two replacement models. Maybe we'll see releases of their 305 series soon. Also hoping to see some mid range camcorders from Sony at the $3000-$3500 price point. Maybe a NX100 variant, 1" sensor with OLED display and viewfinder, 4K in camera, 4:2:2@10bit with a 20x lens would be nice. I would buy it.

Cheers,
Greg

For what it's worth, couple years ago the BBC bought a bunch of JVC GY-Hm650 cameras that fall into your price range, even cheaper on the 600 which lacks only the wireless communication. BBC is Buying 500 JVC ProHD Camcorders | TvTechnology (http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/bbc-is-buying--jvc-prohd-camcorders/218155)

Tagging onto what Mr Vaughan wrote about the HM650, the BBC did a quite comprehensive test report on the HM600 that might be of interest:
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s07.pdf

This is a much more in-depth report than any consumer magazine review I ever read.

Edit: Sony typically releases some new cams in the first week of January so that isn’t far away. As for Canon, they have been awfully quiet and based on what you found about them taking some models off their web page it seems like the handwriting is on the wall.

For a fairly compact cam, and given the short time to get to know it, the X70 (1/2” sensor) would be good to consider, especially with all the postings by Paul Anderegg (and others), including his recent settings. Has a nice cadre of users. Just be aware of the infinity focus “feature.”

Just for information the Sony HXR-NX3/1 has 3, 1/2.8" sensors and the X70 a single 1" sensor.

Ron Evans

Thanks guys! Over the last few months I carefully reviewed both the Sony HXR-NX3/1 and the JVC GY-HM600. Both have what I am looking for in terms of features. However, at 28 + 35Mbps the images both look like they are just out of focus all the time. (soft) I keep yelling at the screen, use the focus ring! lol All the DSLR videos on YouTube has me spoiled I guess. Of course an external recorder may change that... The search continues. :-) In terms of price and the quality of video the Sony X70 seems pretty tough to beat...

Cheers,
Greg

If the footage looks out of focus the user obviously did not know what they where doing, you wanted a camera that was compliant to BBC requiremements and as I understand the JVC GY-HM650 is used by the BBC and I found the camera back with a price below your budget so what are you waiting for? :)

I can make my NX5U look out of focus too by closing down the iris more than F5.6. With 1/3" sensor they need to be, in my experience, no more closed than F5.6, F4 is better and ND needs to be used to stay within this limit. To avoid lens ramping on my NX5U I stay around F3.4 for best results. Before making any decisions based on video you have seen, you need to know how the shot was taken or try them yourself bearing in mind my comments on iris. The X70 is a nice camera too my AX100 is very sharp compared to the other cameras I have too.

Ron Evans

Noa,

First, I am waiting on the cash which I will have in January. Also CES is January 7th thru the 9th which could possible turn up some interesting new stuff. Crossing my fingers for new camcorders since the market is pretty weak right now. :)

Thanks guys! Over the last few months I carefully reviewed both the Sony HXR-NX3/1 and the JVC GY-HM600. Both have what I am looking for in terms of features. However, at 28 + 35Mbps the images both look like they are just out of focus all the time. (soft) I keep yelling at the screen, use the focus ring! lol All the DSLR videos on YouTube has me spoiled I guess. Of course an external recorder may change that... The search continues. :-) In terms of price and the quality of video the Sony X70 seems pretty tough to beat...

Cheers,
Greg

Sony has released updated software for the NX3/NX3/1 that ups the bit rate to 50Mbps.

However, at 28 + 35Mbps the images both look like they are just out of focus all the time. (soft) I keep yelling at the screen, use the focus ring! lol All the DSLR videos on YouTube has me spoiled I guess. Of course an external recorder may change that...

Just that you know, those bitrates have nothing to do with footage that look out of focus and a external recorder will not change that if you use youtube videos as a reference, a external recorder will give you a more robust codec that can withstand post treatment better or that can deal better decreasing motion artifacts or can make your images look a bit sharper but the differences are often very subtle and the average Joe won't even be able to tell footage shot with and without a external recorder apart. I think you still have to high expectations of what a external recorder can do and it won't magically turn a dslr in a broadcast capable camera, it's just one part of a chain that may or may not be important.

Also "dslr" videos are not always a reference for high quality footage, sure there are capable "dslr's" out there but a 5d2 is also a dslr but produces soft moire filled footage, and youtube is also not the place to judge camera footage on. You don't know at what bitrate the footage was uploaded or what youtube has done to it to further decrease the image quality. You should always look at the raw footage to really have an idea how a camera performs. Often you can get a hold of this kind of footage when a user makes it available to download but even then it's not a reference for what a camera can do. With smaller sensor camera's, like a nx5, diffraction will cause soft looking out of focus footage. I have seen users complain about that which only showed they had no clue about camera basics, what f-stops to ideally shoot at or when to use a ND filter etc but at the same time they where misinforming other people about their camera. Lot's of youtube videos out there with "tests" that show the incompetence of people more then the quality of a camera.

Just saying that you need to take this into consideration. I think you would be better off making a list of specifications that you need a camera to be able to meet and that would narrow down your camerachoice considerably. You started this thread to know what others need but then you get many different suggestions because everyone has different needs, you need to figure out what you need for the type of clients you are planning to serve and buy a camera that fits that description but to be honest I do have a feeling you are not sure yet yourself what you exactly are planning to do.

It is my understanding that bit rate is the amount of data recorded by the camera per second. Mbps = (millions of bits per second) and that the more data your gathering the better quality image. I would think that the images would be softer (insert metaphor - fuzzy, out of focus) with lower bit rates. If not then why have the higher bit rates in the first place? Yes, youtube compression I got it. Yes, many people auto shoot. I get it. But what am I supposed to compare stuff to? There is no local store that carries and higher end camcorders within 300 miles of here. Unfortunately I have to use the tools at my disposal.

"I think you still have to high expectations of what a external recorder can do and it won't magically turn a dslr in a broadcast capable camera, it's just one part of a chain that may or may not be important." Yeah I get that too but don't the large full frame sensors crush the 1/3" and 1/2" sensors on the $6000 camcorders in image quality?

"I can make my NX5U look out of focus too by closing down the iris more than F5.6. With 1/3" sensor they need to be, in my experience, no more closed than F5.6, F4 is better and ND needs to be used to stay within this limit." Interesting to learn. On a DSLR lenses seem to show only slight softness usually wide open and get sharper down a stop or two. Nothing like the stuff I have seen. It's like where are my glasses? Oh, I am wearing them.

"to be honest I do have a feeling you are not sure yet yourself what you exactly are planning to do." Actually I do but the offerings are not fitting my requirements. Using a DSLR on rig is not working for recording videos of clients on stage and its not going to work for traveling without creating a lot of extra work. I will also be doing documentary stuff in which I will have people around to help with the shoot. This means load up the vehicles and go. So a cinema camera works. Interviews can go either way. So I am trying to find a larger sensor camera with a long reach. The sensor size dramatically reduces my choices. If I choose a cinema style camera I am back to lenses. I am stuck in the middle right now and getting pissed off since there aren't any offerings other than the DVX200 (only 13x zoom). I'm semi-retired and back in school full time... If I commit $5K to a camera that is going to be it for a while. Maybe I just answered my own question. I'll just buy the one I think I'll use the most and that is most suitable for that task. (Shrug) I'll make something work.

Edit: Sorry for the attitude. I just spent my second 12 hour day working on geospacial analysis problems and I am burnt. I am going to stop worry about this until I have cash in hand. Maybe I'll be back in a month or so.

Hey, don't apologize for an attitude, it's just a healthy discussion :) First to make discussion a bit easier you have to start using quotes when you are using someone else response to comment on, just type [ quote ] at the start and [ /quote ] at the end of whatever you want to enclose (without the empty space between the brackets but I had to do that now to show what you need to write) so that it looks like what I did below

But what am I supposed to compare stuff to?

It's always difficult to choose a camera, especially if you are not able get a hold of one to try or being able to get raw footage shot by someone who knows what he is doing but I was talking more about camera specification based on client expectations. Take my work as example, I do weddings and by now I know exactly what my camera's should be able to do.

Like, do you need xlr, internal nd, motorized zoomlens, long lens reach, live streaming, codec options, shallow dof, high iso performance, control from outside the camera instead of via a software menu, etc, etc. I could make a very long list of camera functions based on my own and my client needs and once that is done you easily could cross reference a wide selection of camera's where you eventually end up with a few camera's that meet both requirements. Then you can see which one fits your budget.

Like I said before, everyones needs are different so asking who is using which camera's will give you many choices and at the end you still won't know what will work for you.

but don't the large full frame sensors crush the 1/3" and 1/2" sensors on the $6000 camcorders in image quality?

Absolutely not, large sensor size does not automatically mean superior image quality, just take a 5D2 as example, there are many much smaller sensor camera's available these days that would "crush" a 5d2. There is much more behind good image quality then sensor size alone. With Dslr's those sensors are sometimes not optimized for videoshooting but more for photography so there is more to consider when buying a camera.

It is my understanding that bit rate is the amount of data recorded by the camera per second. Mbps = (millions of bits per second) and that the more data your gathering the better quality image. I would think that the images would be softer (insert metaphor - fuzzy, out of focus) with lower bit rates. If not then why have the higher bit rates in the first place?

Higher bitrates tend to mean greater scope for editing rather than out of focus shots. Unless the shot is excessively detailed like a vast field of flowers, generally a low bitrate even of 17mbps will give you a sharp image. True there maybe jagged lines if you pixel peep, compression artifacts, banding maybe and poorer colour, but its only when you try to grade the footage, the image falls apart.

Poor focus could be down as others have said, to diffraction, excessive noise in low light scenes or poor focusing on the operator. There is another cause. I own a Panasonic AF101a; on buying it I consulted several websites for recommended settings. The AF101a has a plethora of custom settings that dictate the look of the video as do most Professional cameras. Those settings I applied resulted in a very soft looking image that to my eyes looked mushy. No amount of sharpening could restore the lack of detail.

Now maybe as I was capturing via AVCHD rather than say a Prores codec via an external recorder, those settings I used were not intended for internal recording. However what was clear to me was that having a professional camera, I needed to be clued up on what this camera could offer and what each setting did to the image before customising the settings.

My best suggestion is that in attending the CES in January, that you try various cameras and see which one works best for you. Bring along some cards, and if allowed, record some footage and compare before committing. As you say its a big purchase. No one here can make the choice for you.

Low bit rates don't necessarily make things look softer. Often it makes things look sharper! (...but in a negative way.)

For instance, imaging filming cobblestones. Each stone has a soft, convex profile with a sharp oval edge. If you lose focus, the edges blur. But if the image in in focus and you starve the bit rate, the first thing you're likely to lose is the smooth profile. Instead, you'll get harsh, contour lines due to losing subtle shades of gray. As you keep starving the rate, the oval stone edges turn into rectangular shapes. It's more of a case of adding noise and error, rather than losing sharpness. It's more like losing the accuracy of the edges and color values rather than just blurring the edges.

Quick look through the BBC guidelines. Its clear they don't accept DSLR's unless for certain shots and under approval by them - comes under single sensor cameras. 100mbps seems to be the minimum recording for HD. I recall reading a 2012 list of requirements from them and they mentioned certain cameras were acceptable as long as an external recorder was used. I think any $4500 camera would need an external recorder to get broadcast quality material. However what is consider acceptable will differ depending on who is broadcasting. Other smaller channels may have less strict guidelines.

You want a proper Broadcast quality camera, then look here:

Buy - Sony PXW-X500 (PXWX500) XDCAM Shoulder mount Camcorder with Three 2/3-inch HyperHAD FX Full HD CCD Sensors and Multi-Format Recording (http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sony_pxw-x500&gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMlms3Ab6mJPjGA2qLlLPB9dPjTSwcwmFpo0gzMx7uysaAlvF8P8HAQ)

This is what you'd be expected to film with to be taken seriously in the BBC world and would be considered a true professional camera. Something like the Panasonic DVX200 is more for event filming, though again with an external recorder could meet the BBC guidelines. However this is just the BBC's guidelines; others as I said could be more forgiving.

Just for general interest (I realise this is quite an old thread) - I see the Beeb are using iPhone 6 footage on their news website now, shown in the clip below, which is well wide of their white paper specs.

New job 'helped me heal my broken heart' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36735084)

IPhones do get used as backups or major news materiel caught at the time by a member of the public. They do get used by web sites, however, they do have disadvantages such as variable frame rates which make this less than ideal for post. If you're planning to shoot broadcast news professionally as a cameraperson, or videojournalist you need to use camera that meets the appropriate Tier 2J , which are less demanding than for Teir2L, although the latter can be preferred.

"EBU

Tier 2 Journalism cameras are fundamentally the same as Tier2L however there is a relaxation of
some of the criteria to take account of the balance between speed to air and quality that News
programmes may have to make."

You don't need to buy a new camera, a suitable used camera, in good condition, will meet the requirements for news.

So. if a major news event happens around you and you capture some unique footage, the broadcasters will be interested in your phone footage.

Thanks, for clarifying that Brian. I have no vested interest in using an iPhone in this context, just thought it interesting.