Answers.Body: <p>If you record speeches that are longer than 30 minutes, the 29m59s limitation of non-video cameras is going to drive you crazy, despite all the other wonderful things they can do.  Interviews can be broken up every 30 minutes.  Speeches not.</p>
  
  <p>If you have ambitions to encompass art projects with your camera, the interchangeable lens feature of the SONY camera opens a world of possibilities (and and bottomless pit of budget requirements).  If you are really focused on ENG then the JVC packs an incredible punch in a single package.  Plus, small sensors are your friend for ENG because of deep depth of field.  It's incredibly annoying to have a speaker in front of a screen and the camera can only focus either on the speaker or their slides.</p>
  
  <p>Based on the things you say you want to <em>do</em>, not the things you say you <em>want</em>, the JVC is the more sensible choice.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-17T09:43:34.597Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-17T09:43:34.597Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael Tiemann
Answers.Body: <p>If you hope to record ENG footage for TV submission, make sure that the camera can record in a format that is permitted by the stations you hope to be working for. In the case of the station I work for, news footage can only be submitted as interlaced (1080i50) and a lot of photocameras with video function can not shoot interlace video.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-05T21:07:09.733Z
Answers.Text: My main target is youtube but thanks for the comment because I had an idea to submit some of my material to TV. In that case I would convert the progressive video to interlace during the post production.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nandor
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-05T05:01:28.977Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-05-05T05:01:28.977Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hans Meiser
Answers.Body: <p>Another point that Michael didn't mention is ergonomics. Using a MILC camera means that you will need an external monitor (the viewfinders are never good enough to judge critical focus, and with the short DOF you need to be on top of that), which means some sort of rig to hold it, maybe an external battery, external sound recorder, shoulder mount… so you end up with something that looks like it was built out of meccano. Fine for a studio or film set, atrocious for documentary work.</p>
  
  <p>Mind you, I'm not liking the shape of that JVC camera in this regard. Looks too much like an SLR for my money. Where's the eyepiece?</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-28T14:23:29.723Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-28T14:30:29.023Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-04-28T14:30:29.023Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: stib
Body: <p>I'm going to shoot a lot of <em>Electronic News Gathering</em> stuff like demonstrations, reports. But also interviews and longer events like speeches and talks. I can't decide between a camcorder and a MILC (mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) because both have their pros and cons. I like in the MILC that it has a lot of possibilities to develop later.
  I have a candidate for both categories. The <a href="http://procisioncam.jvc.com/" rel="nofollow">JVC Everio GC-PX100</a> as a general camcorder and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_A7" rel="nofollow">Sony Alpha 7</a> as a MILC. I like about the Sony that it's a full-frame, very serious camera. But I'm afraid that it lacks some important features or not very good at some fields, like OIS or autofocus. I never worked with a DSLR or MILC before.
  The JVC would be a safe bet but also a great loss in features due to the fixed lens and small sensor.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-12T17:59:40.560Z
Comments.Text: You'd probably be best off with a shoulder mount or large size camcorder. The Sony most likely has too shallow depth of field so it will be harder to keep things in focus. If something unexpected happens you want to be able to react quickly. Camcorders are made for this.
Comments.UserDisplayName: The Movie Man
Tags: <dslr><camcorder>
Title: MILC or camcorder for ENG?
UserDisplayName: Nandor
ThreadText: # MILC or camcorder for ENG?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-17)
  
  I'm going to shoot a lot of *Electronic News Gathering* stuff like demonstrations, reports. But also interviews and longer events like speeches and talks. I can't decide between a camcorder and a MILC (mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) because both have their pros and cons. I like in the MILC that it has a lot of possibilities to develop later.
  I have a candidate for both categories. The [JVC Everio GC-PX100](http://procisioncam.jvc.com/) as a general camcorder and the [Sony Alpha 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_A7) as a MILC. I like about the Sony that it's a full-frame, very serious camera. But I'm afraid that it lacks some important features or not very good at some fields, like OIS or autofocus. I never worked with a DSLR or MILC before.
  The JVC would be a safe bet but also a great loss in features due to the fixed lens and small sensor.
  
  **Tags:** dslr, camcorder
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: You'd probably be best off with a shoulder mount or large size camcorder. The Sony most likely has too shallow depth of field so it will be harder to keep things in focus. If something unexpected happens you want to be able to react quickly. Camcorders are made for this.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-04-17. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  If you record speeches that are longer than 30 minutes, the 29m59s limitation of non-video cameras is going to drive you crazy, despite all the other wonderful things they can do. Interviews can be broken up every 30 minutes. Speeches not.
  
  If you have ambitions to encompass art projects with your camera, the interchangeable lens feature of the SONY camera opens a world of possibilities (and and bottomless pit of budget requirements). If you are really focused on ENG then the JVC packs an incredible punch in a single package. Plus, small sensors are your friend for ENG because of deep depth of field. It's incredibly annoying to have a speaker in front of a screen and the camera can only focus either on the speaker or their slides.
  
  Based on the things you say you want to *do*, not the things you say you *want*, the JVC is the more sensible choice.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-05. Score: 0
  
  If you hope to record ENG footage for TV submission, make sure that the camera can record in a format that is permitted by the stations you hope to be working for. In the case of the station I work for, news footage can only be submitted as interlaced (1080i50) and a lot of photocameras with video function can not shoot interlace video.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: My main target is youtube but thanks for the comment because I had an idea to submit some of my material to TV. In that case I would convert the progressive video to interlace during the post production.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-04-28. Score: 0
  
  Another point that username_2 didn't mention is ergonomics. Using a MILC camera means that you will need an external monitor (the viewfinders are never good enough to judge critical focus, and with the short DOF you need to be on top of that), which means some sort of rig to hold it, maybe an external battery, external sound recorder, shoulder mount… so you end up with something that looks like it was built out of meccano. Fine for a studio or film set, atrocious for documentary work.
  
  Mind you, I'm not liking the shape of that JVC camera in this regard. Looks too much like an SLR for my money. Where's the eyepiece?
  
  
  ---
  
  