Fixed lens camcorders still hold value for filmmakers despite technological advancements and shifting market trends. Roland Denning on their unique benefits and ongoing relevance.
In a recent feature about Panasonic launching four new 4K pro camcorders, Simon Wyndham wrote that 'The traditional fixed lens camcorder is just viewed pretty much as the camera equivalent of a bearded geography teacher proudly wearing a jacket with elbow patches.’ As someone free from elbow patches and who is crap at geography (ok, I admit, I do have a scruffy beard,) I would like to speak up for the unfashionable camcorder. It was, after all, small camcorders like the Sony VX1000 that spearheaded the digital revolution, and camcorders (in all their forms) dominated until the realisation that digital stills cameras could also shoot pretty good video.
If you look at websites aimed at filmmakers looking to buy their first camera you might think the fixed-lens camcorder no longer exists. But there are things you can do with fixed-lens camcorders you simply cannot do with other types of camera: for less than $3000 you can own a lightweight, 4K camera with built in stabilisation and autofocus, internal NDs, decent XLR audio inputs and a 15-1 zoom. That long zoom lens – which could be something like 24-360mm if you like to think in 35mm stills terms – is essential for certain styles of observational documentary and filming performance. Lightweight and reasonably priced zoom lenses of that range simply don’t exist outside the world of the fixed-lens camcorder. For the pioneering cinema verité filmmakers of the 1960s, these would be their dream cameras.
If there are drawbacks to the fixed lens camcorder, it has little to do with the fundamental quality of the pictures. I’ve seen the results of my Sony Z90 on a large cinema screen and they hold up great. You wouldn’t want to shoot a feature on a camcorder, although some have (David Lynch’s Inland Empire was shot entirely on a Sony PD150) but they are a better bet for this purpose than an iPhone.
But there are issues. In technology terms, these cameras have fallen behind. Sensors are out of date and slow. Many will only deliver 4K in 8-bit. The still-current Sony Z90 and the Canon XA75 (below) were introduced in 2017 and 2018 respectively. A lot has happened in camera technology in the intervening years and it seems only Panasonic is respecting the camcorder tradition.
There are also ergonomic problems. Controls tend to be fiddly and viewfinders are in line with the lens rather than to the side, perhaps to differentiate them from shoulder mounted ENG cameras that can be priced much higher. And, to be frank, camcorder design is hampered by the fact the manufacturers are not always clear whether they are targeting a professional, semi-pro or amateur market. And, yes, despite the advantages of small, light cameras it could be argued that, even with full stabilisation, they lack the steadiness of a heavier but well-balanced camera.
The market has moved inexorably towards mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses and larger sensors. We all, it seems, demand shallow Depth of Field. The largest viable sensor for the sort of camera I am talking about is 1” – which is scandalously small by current predilections, even though it is significantly larger than the 2/3” chips that dominated broadcast video for many years (strange that indie filmmakers think the S35 format is somehow crippled while the Alexa 35 is a huge success). But for observational docs shallow DoF is a drawback not an advantage.
By definition, the lens on a fixed lens camcorder can’t be changed. Currently, choice of lens is seen as the key to cinematic artistry (it isn’t, but that might be the theme of another article). The DSLR/Mirrorless video revolution brought mass produced, cheap stills lenses to filmmakers and then spurred many enterprising Far East companies to offer a vast range low cost video and cinema lenses. In this company, the fixed lens camcorder looks like a relic of a bygone era.
Documentary filmmakers, previously committed to camcorders, are moving away because the technology has fallen behind. This exacerbates the problem as the market for professional camcorders declines. This move away forces us to shoot in a different way. Documentaries today are more studied, less spontaneous. The tendency to shoot on wider lenses and the use of gimbals and drones is part of this shift. Long-lens closeups in docs are becoming rare. Agile camerawork where the filmmaker changes angle and frame size to create a wide range of shots for the editor is not quite in fashion. The decline of the camcorder could herald the loss of a whole way of shooting.
I don’t want to offend any geography teachers, but fixed lens camcorders don’t look sexy. A small ‘handheld’ camera might not impress a client in the way that big fat lenses and matte boxes do. This can be a genuine issue; the client is (hopefully) paying good money for your skills and don’t expect you to turn up with something that looks suspiciously like a home movie camera.
Of course, in other contexts it is a huge advantage to have a discreet, unassuming camera. The camcorder might be nearing retirement, but perhaps it has a few relevant lessons to teach yet, elbow patches and all.