Are Camcorders Cool Again? Panasonic's New Model Takes On iPhone 16 Pro Max, Galaxy S24

Smartphones, and especially top-tier smartphones, have gotten amazing cameras over the years. It's gotten to the point where most people don't even carry a good camera with them anymore. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have on you, and indeed many of us already have robust image-capture devices in our pockets.

When Panasonic — still a purveyor of photographic and video imagery — released a new camcorder, it got me thinking, "Do we even need camcorders anymore?" Most video creators use a dedicated DSLR or mirrorless camera with an interchangeable lens to capture footage. Meanwhile at soccer games, once the domain for camcorders aplenty, you're more likely to see phones capturing footage over the once-great camcorder.

However, camcorders still exist — Panasonic proves that. I wanted to see how a camcorder stacks up against its fiercest competition, the smartphone. I went on a three-day cruise carrying the iPhone 16 Pro Max, the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, the Pixel 9 Pro, and a Panasonic HC-V900 Full HD Camcorder to try to capture some memories and to see how these all compared to each other.

You might be thinking that I stacked the deck by only picking the best smartphones you can buy, and to an extent, you would be correct. The cheapest among the smartphone competitors is the Pixel 9 Pro (which was sent with thanks from T-Mobile for this experiment) and that starts at $999. That's fair enough, but bear in mind, the Panasonic HC-V900 starts at $699 (available on Amazon), so it's not exactly an impulse buy. Panasonic also has a 4K version of this camera, the HC-VX3, which starts at $899 (also on Amazon), but that's not the one I had for testing.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to be had, for sure. Notably, the optics of the Panasonic camcorder move, so you can refocus the zoom anywhere up to 24x optical (and double that to 48x digital). The camcorder uses an SD card, which is an additional expense, but it can also be swapped in and out quickly if you're shooting a lot of footage. The same could be said for the battery. It comes with a battery, but you can buy more for quick swapping.

The camera can be improved with a number of accessories. There's a hot shoe on the top for additional add-ons and there are ports for a microphone, micro HDMI for a monitor, and even a port for a remote. You can also add wired headphones. Yes, you can buy accessories that make all these ad-ons possible on the phone, but having them built in makes it much nicer.

There are downsides to the camcorder, however. The camcorder is about the size of a large water bottle, so it's not terrible to carry, but it also doesn't slip into your pocket like a phone does. The three-inch view screen is large, but not as large as the viewfinder on a smartphone.

Circling back to the cost, the Camcorder — even the 4K version — is the least expensive of the devices used for this test, but it's also a single-use item. You will carry a smartphone; you can carry a camcorder.

Finally, (and this can be unlearned), I found the experience of using the camcorder to be completely foreign. Aside from the novelty of shooting like that on the Motorola Razr+ or the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6, having a camcorder is a skill that needs to be learned or relearned (depending on how old you are). Capturing video, zooming in and out, and capturing photos all with one hand is a whole set of muscle memory that I no longer have.

Often when I was trying to capture something with the photo capture button, I ended up jostling the whole shot trying to get to the button. Meanwhile, while 48x zoom is possible, as often as not, I lost my subject and zoomed back out just to locate it again. Smartphone viewfinders solve this problem by giving you a picture-in-picture display to show you where your zoom is in context; the camcorder does not do that.

During the cruise, Royal Caribbean arranged a belly-flop competition, which was amusing but also good fodder for capturing footage in full daylight. During the time, I shot footage of myself walking around looking for a good vantage point then shooting the competition itself.

For the walking footage, I was impressed with Samsung's image stabilization. Even the Panasonic's stabilization fell short of the smooth footage I captured with the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra. That's not surprising — Samsung has always captured footage like your phone is on a track, and I adore it.

When shooting the competition from the other side of the boat (about 100 feet away or so), I was able to capture very usable footage from all four phones. iPhone 16 Pro Max had the most grain when zoomed in, while the other three devices did a pretty respectable job in that department. Ultimately, the camcorder got the clearest footage due to its movable optics. I was able to zoom in on the MC of the competition with no grain whatsoever, but I ran into the problem I described before — keep the subject in frame without the context.

Interestingly enough, the Google Pixel Pro recorded the best audio of the four. I was 100 feet away across the cavernous middle of the boat, and the audio recorded sounded like I was standing poolside, with little wind noise.

As for zooming in on very far-away objects, the camcorder takes the gold here, but with the same caveats. As we sailed, we passed by an island a good distance away with what looked like some silos on it. I can't be sure how far exactly, but I'm going to guesstimate it was about half a mile away. Whatever the distance, I sure as heck didn't want to swim to it. In this case, the Panasonic did a respectable job for the few frames I managed to keep them in frame while standing on a moving boat in high winds. The camcorder also could occasionally have trouble focusing on something that didn't take up the entire frame.

Of the three phones, the S24 Ultra captured the best image up to about 30x, but picture quality fell apart quickly after that. The iPhone was a close second, with the Pixel coming in last, the latter two both suffering from quite a bit of grain and maxing out their zoom capability short of the other two devices.

In lower light settings, all device had their challenges. With a subject, all devices did a nice job locking onto the subject and following them down a hallway. The three phones all suffered from the judder I often see with footsteps. Of the three, the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra compensated the best. Once the subject left the frame, all three phones suffered more with that same judder.

The Panasonic HC-V900 did not. Panasonic's issue was the lack of electronic stabilization. When I was walking with the camcorder in my right hand and three phones in a rig with my left hand, the Panasonic was all over the place. A smartphone camera can often correct for a wandering hand while not paying 100% attention to the viewfinder. I know because I've used this setup to evaluate smartphone cameras for years. When I only captured with the camcorder and put the other three phones away, the image stabilized quite a bit, and captured the best video of all the devices due to that lack of judder in the footsteps and wandering focus.

When I stopped walking and just shot the night sky, the camcorder also outperformed its competitors by using its optics and not relying on sensor cropping or digital zoom. There was far less noise (though it certainly was noticeable) in the blacks than on any phone.

The Panasonic also doesn't apply any kind of post-processing on images or video, resulting in a more natural look. That might appeal to you, but when the lighting is not great, there is no automatic brightening. You might be able to fix it in post.

Yes, this is a camcorder, but it can capture still images, which I tested. Again, the obvious advantage here is the 24x optical zoom, which allows you to punch in on your subjects further than any of the phones (without digital zoom). Notably, I captured a closeup of the MC in action from 100 feet away (above left), which wasn't possible with any of the phones. The closest I got was with the iPhone, which still grabbed a nice shot (above right), but not nearly as close and with a touch of blur besides.

Adam Doud/SlashGear

Again, there was a mural across the street from out hotel, probably about 100 feet away or so, and the difference between the iPhone (right) and the Panasonic (left) was almost literally night and day. The iPhone captured a brighter, clearer image of the mural, while the camcorder was left dark and a bit blurry.

That leaves us with whether you need a camcorder in 2025. It's hard to say definitively. There are definite circumstances where a camcorder would come in handy, particularly when you need to zoom in a long way. That being said, if you are going to carry a camcorder for that purpose, you will probably also want a tripod to steady the camera.

Then, there's the form factor. If you want to dedicate yourself to learning how to hold a camcorder again, like dads in the late 90s, then this is a great form factor with everything in reach of one hand — assuming you're also right-handed. There will be a learning curve, however, if it's been literal decades since you held a camera like that.

Finally, there's the cost, and this is where context matters. Put simply, if you don't have a top-tier phone, then yes, a camcorder might be a good investment for you. However, if you already have a flagship smartphone, you can probably save money and not worry about remembering to bring the camcorder everywhere you go.