yep. US and UK 3D tv uptake obviously different to Russia!

yep. US and UK 3D tv uptake obviously different to Russia!

Because in Russia, guys always ask if TV plays MKV files and also if it can do it via network (from home server or computer). And, as it is easy to guess, all popular sets can do both :-)

You guys just love Matroska so much.

Yep, it is standard torrents format :-)
Also standard for TVs is special vertical anamorthic 3D RIPs :-)

My next mini domestic project is by using iPhone5. Apply the same post-processing workflow as Gh2. See how far I can push. I'm hoping that it's good enough for me.

You can buy cheapest small compact with 1080 and compare result.

@stonebat

Anyway, difference is very big still, almost all compacts now can shoot 1080 (and I much prefer 30p or 60p and you are not showing it in cinema, but on monitors or TVs) and they have 10x or better zooms.

Galaxy camera gives some hope :-)

I got Gh2, X10, and iPhone :)

All nice. No room for consumer camcorder for me.

@svart

Idea of phones overtaking is quite odd. It is much more complex stuff. Banks and corporations are keeping tight grip on average income, and same guys push smartphones very hard, as they are high marginal product with much shorter life.
In contrast, compacts have tiny margins, with many manufacturers working in minus.
Plus idea to use linear prediction model for phones photo quality is weird.

I didn't mean to started a flame war with this thread. I simply wanted to know if there was something I was missing with these camcorders.

I think @Vitaliy_Kiselev's link to the $300 camcorder with all of the consumer features is a perfect example of why camcorders can't stay forever. If the used $300 camcorder can shoot the same video that the $1400 model does how are these companies going to sell their high profit models?

Also the argument about autofocus isn't really a good one. The sensors are so small they really aren't changing the focus that much. In addition I would compare the camcorders to the FZ200 more so than a GH3. The FZ200 has the same autofocus that a camcorder would and probably similar low light capabilities. The big difference is that the FZ200 can take great RAW stills as well.

I really think this boils down to how many consumers will believe that a hybrid camera can take better video than a camcorder. Once the majority of people believe that then the camcorder will be short lived.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Pick any number between $300 and $1400 and my point will be the same. A comparable Hybrid camera will be less than a camcorder in the same condition(ie: new vs. used).

Are you saying that the difference between a 1/3" sensor and a 1/2.33" sensor is comparable to the difference between full frame and m4/3s? I simply don't follow your logic there.

I bring up stills because that is my argument. Most people shopping for a consumer camcorder think that a camcorder can take better video than a still camera. However, they want both in one camera so they sometimes end up buying the hybrid still camera instead. The more people that realize how good the video is in a hybrid camera the less that will purchase a camcorder.

We shall see. Are there any numbers on whether or not camcorder sales are declining? I will look for those numbers.

Vitaliy, you are correct that my comment on 4K and 3D TV is badly written and wrong.

Today's 3D streams cut either the horizontal or vertical resolution in half (or could cut the frame rate in half) to provide the left and right images inside the existing stream (example - 1920x1080 is used as 960x1080 for side by side). One could also split by frames so that a 1080p/60 stream might hypothetically be encoded as every other frame for the left eye and the other for the right to become two streams of 1080p/30. Don't think anyone is doing that now, though, and it raises some issues with the GOP interframe coding.

A 4k stream supports 4x the screen real estate (both horizontal and vertical are doubled from 2k). 4k is 3840 x 2160.

What I meant to imply is that a 4k video stream can support 3,840x1,080-pixel image per eye (or split the other way - 1920x2160) - which is better for 3D than today's half rate solutions based on 2k.

I have doubts that end consumers will be doing much 4k video recording of their own, for now, as it is a lot of data to play with.

I will just jump in and say I just bought a Sony HDR-CX730 on a recommendation and I wanted a decent zoom and the cam cost about as much as the 14-140mm. Glad I did.

It has 50p,very fast AF,Decent power zoom,very very good lowlight ability (Made comparison with gh2 and its not far off it) and has the most amazing stablisation (its like a built in steadycam).

In many ways cameras like this have their place.

Until one day somebody delivers a good proper video AF orientated lens with kick ass stablisation,smooth aperture and a decent motorised zoom range (4x times dont cut it) for DSLRs in a compact size and reasonable price?

Vitaliy is spot on. There is need for both. And I gotta say video has improved greatly on camcorders of late. certainly in terms of lowlight. For no nonsense run and gun shooting camcorders are just better for this use.

We carry a phone. More likely a smartphone. Plus a key chain, a fat wallet, an e-book or a tablet. What else would you carry in your man bag? A consumer camcorder or RX100 or Gf3 with 20mm 1.7 or X100?

For making plans, why not Gh2? For unplanned stuffs, I think a smartphone or a small hybrid is better for taking both photo/video. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others will find camcorder useful.

Nothing is really dead. Compact isn't dead. FF isn't dead. Crop dslr isn't dead. Mirrorless isn't dead. Camcorder isn't dead either. Only film is dead.