So, my little Sony point and shoot does great 720P imo.  But it has an autofocus, so that creates problems sometimes.  Plus I'd like to upgrade to 1080p.  My screen capture software that I just started using (Bandicam) and Sony Vegas do a nice job together, so I'd like the camera to at least compare in quality..
I'm mostly doing YouTubes, but have been asked to also do some [non pro-type] video shoots for web pages and the like of outside stuff.  I can see using a tripod most of the time AND also being outside.  I have some good indoor lighting too.
 
Obviously, bang for the buck is nice and stuff like external mic for remote stuff.  Still pictures aren't that important and the point and shoot does fine for that really.
 
There are SO many choices, that when being uniformed, make it overwhelming.  I don't really know what format to look for....ie camera, camcorder, etc.
 
Budget...well of course cheap as possible,..but if it can be kept under $400, that would be great. 

I'm also currently in search for a camera / camcorder.
 
Last year, I've got myself my first digital camcorder, the Panasonic HC-V510, with the biggest zoom (I think) at that time and it also does full HD video. The reason I got the camcorder instead of a camera is I can let the video run none stop till the memory is full (with a power adapter, instead of the battery, video files split into 4 gig chunks). Most camera imposed a 20 min or so limit when shooting videos. Panasonic just updated the camcorder range with 2014 release with improved features, and if you do not need a big zoom, go for higher range for better image quality.
 
At that time, my other option is the Canon Powershot SX50 HS - everything is better with Canon, except that it can't shoot video none stop.
 
This year, I'm eyeing at the soon to be released Canon Powershot SX60 with rumor of 100x (edit : optical) zoom !! ..i'm easily excited by large zooms :)

I'm also experimenting with multiple cam view editing, and I'm going to add a cheap action camera copy to my projects : http://youtu.be/xnHDu-oW7_Y
 
I'm not too concern with audio recording with the above choices as I'll be using a portable Tascam multi track to do out-door audio recording if I'm not with Sonar.
 
If audio quality is of concern, have a look at the Zoom Q3/Q2HD units - but the video option would be limited.

Well, I am a little behind the times on this. But if I'm shooting video, I use a camcorder.
One thing I'm pretty sure still holds true is that optical zoom range is all that really counts. Anything beyond that is kind of bs.  It may not be overtly noticeable, but the picture quality is degrading, so a 1080 image becomes 720(or less, depending on the range the camera allows). The software may do an ok job of interpolating, but beyond the optical range, it is still faking it.
I do miss using my old VHS camcorder. Yes, the picture quality sucked by today's standards, but it was a significant bit of hardware, and you could hold onto it. Now it's just a relic of a bygone era.

When I shoot concert video, I use Canon HF-G10's and HF-G30.  Which is kind of the high end consumer, bordering on "pro-sumer" camcorders from the company.
 
The most important features in a video camera for concert shooting I think are:
Manual controls of focus, white balance, shutter speed and aperture.
Continuous recording.  (most DSLR's stop recording at 15-30 minutes)
Good zoom range.  20x is ideal.
Good low light sensitivity.  
 
The G30 fits the bill for all of these.  The G10 is limited by 10x zoom.  
 
Point and shoots, basic consumer camcorders, and DSLR's simply don't cut it for longer, and live productions.  

For $400 ain't gonna get much, but if perhaps you can look around, and get an external mic connection (3.5mm plug - stereo - records in equilivant 48000 -16 bit still to this day as far as I have found out). If not I have a cheap Nikon camera which can record (it is a camera not a camcorder) up to 25 minutes of video. Of course, cameras like that are only HD ready which means 1280x720 (maybe 800 at the most) and mine has a built-in mic. It works okay, because Nikon is better recording audio than Canon (or so they say). I had some videos up but took them down, I can put one back up for ya at utube in perhaps a couple of hours. Now, a camcorder with HD full resolution at 1920 x 1080 whatever will take a lot of memory even compressed, and all those devices will compress or else you never get it on tape if a long long video shoot.
It works okay but really is not made for night camera work or real low-light (or much low-light actually probably - I have not got that far yet).
So look in my signature and go to my utube channel (user) and look at the Samatha Fish video from last year's Blues Fest. The sound almost wanted to distort and I was a ways back (by the sound engineer messing up the audio PA anyway to me) and the bass will want to distort first. An external mic I can use on my old video camera is better and sounds fine ($300 at Sweetwater) but the camera is 10 years old and neither HD anything except the sound is still the same as listed in the first part of this post.
I had over 400 views on the video but took it down, I suppose I should not have done that, but then there is this year also. (Blues Fest if I make it even).
 
So, the question is how good do you want to record audio if that good at all (?) and an external connection for a video mic will make the video sound better, in fact I can put up a video of that Rodes Video Stereo Mic Pro also at a blues club also but the video is with my old camera.
 
So give a few hours and I will put up both videos again, which I probably should have just kept up. One with the cheap new camera of Samatha Fish and the other video with the external mic of the James Armstrong band.
 
The Blues Fest was fine with any camera or whatever there, but the blues club does not allow that so I got told about that - but hey, I am not making money off of any video so that will be that. They are just videos, and better ones exist that is for sure. But without spending over $1100 for a really good camcorder and like I said with an external mic, then with a cheapy camera (on sale $250 about maybe $300) then that is about it for videos.
Actually a really good camcorder costs $3000 nowadays actually.
 
Well, enough babbling, check into my utube link in the signature, and I hopefully if utube is not busy, have them up tonight (Saturday May 17th for awhile again).
Cheap camera not great and wind noise can be a problem as well as people talking around (Blues Fest), video mic way better, but I need a camcorder to plug it into instead of old 10 year old Sony.
 

Okay that was enough of uploading those videos again.
But here they are and how they were done (as far I as can remember).
 
Blues, Blues, Blues James Armstrong Band
10/22/2012
https://www.youtube.com/w...o&feature=youtu.be

71.5mB - AVI file from *.mpg file of old camera to preserve the audio of original file.
4:3 picture for video (otherwise video codecs are not so great even to this day).
Sony Camcorder (11 years old now) used for video (DV tape camcorder). (ah camera could
have been brighter - yes it could have been - my fault). Have to use XP to capture
video or else there are no drivers for Windows 7 for the old camcorder. It was a good
camera, just did not sell that many so Sony quit supporting the drivers for it. Bah!


Goin'Down Slow - Samatha Fish Band
07/05/2013 Blues Fest
https://www.youtube.com/w...w&feature=youtu.be

386mB file video from camera as it was taken (*.mov file) 16:9 for video
HD Ready Camera used. (Nikon L120).

Both videos should be equivalent 48000 sample rate - 16bit for audio.
(except for streaming on utube which only streams at 128 bits (like *.mp3) if not HD,
which streams at 192 bits if HD).

Not much has changed in 10 years actually (all that much - sure there is HD) but the
picture is bigger and not using DV Tape like old camcorder just SD memory card - class
10 or 12 - has to be fast enough to take a video or else it only be for photos.
HD full resolution would be even more memory to make a video in a HD camcorder.
(60 frames/second instead of 30 frames/sec like HD Ready cheapie camera, and old
camcorder, ah, I guess I have forgot whatever that is probably 30 frames/second I am
guessing.)

If you change video codecs then you are at the audio resolution of the video codec
which may and usually does mean that the audio is not lossless. (Lossless video codecs
used here as far as I know - old camcorder definitely, and I guess also the new cheapie
camera also I suppose).

I am done with this~!
 
Oh, old Sony vidcam is only 320x240 picture size, cheapie Nikon camera is 1280 x 720 which is only HD Ready not HD full which is 1920x1080 picture size.
And way bigger video file in the end.
 
 

Oh, the headaches. They are all about the same, but I do not need Wi-Fi or GPS in anything. I need a accesory shoe (hot shoe used to be called) and an external mic (stereo) plug-in. They still make like a built-in mic can handle it, but music usually is loud and that is why for me.
 
As far as I see a camera for $550 takes better photos, but not as long a video.
Somewhere there I guess or more. A camcoder may not take better video maybe and perhaps not as good a photo.
Anyway, they were about the same at that price point or so. 9 Megapixels video about and with a camera 12.2 megapixels photo. Actually I have to re-look everything over because it does vary depending and some video-cams were only 2.07 megapixels whatever it all is. My old vidcam was I think 1.07 or so or something like that. Heck with it, I just need an external mic (mini-plug) plug in and maybe for a light, since they really are not that great at low-light either in that price range.
 
Oh, well, spend more I guess, and get more maybe but GPS and Wi-fi whatever is just not what I want anyway.
 
 

A

The unit has to have those connections included in the camcorder (or some cameras) first or else you have to use the unit as is, and if doing good sound work is needed, built-in mics included with a camcorder (or camera) will not cut the mustard on that.
 
I found out that a bigger chip (for the video forget what it is called and an APS-C if I remember the designation ) can be used in a camcorder so that a lower megapixel count does not necessarily mean that the camcorder will be worse making the video part of the recording and with a bigger chip will actually be better in the end (for low light conditions and whatever) making the video.
 
I just wanted to include the fact that with some cameras you can record up to 29minutes 59 seconds of video length time and perhaps on how you use the equipment (more for photos than videos) then perhaps a camera can be used instead of a video camcorder instead and sometimes make even a better video than a camcorder if it has the connections like the camcorder needs also to do that in the first place.
(but built-in mics on a camera or camcorder aren't so good for music and such, usually only for voice, etc.)
 
But people making a better video (or even a better photo) are spending way more (10 times more maybe or even more than that) for such a unit then $400. Well, if you watched my ($300 camera) video with the cheapie camera, I was surprised it even looked that good, but in the end the audio suffers in a camera and usually distorts with built-in mics.
 
And on that video with my cheapie camera (bought on sale actually) I was not close to that stage. I was way back there where the sound person also was (he was center though), although that camera has a 21X zoom on it which was about maxed out from where I actually was just seeing how that camera would work at the Blues Fest (which was held on a near street that year in 2013 because the river was a little flooded and the place where the Blues Fest usually takes place was under water by a foot or so).
 
 

For concert recording.  The audio should always be recorded separately from the video.  Even in professional cameras, the on board audio is meant for sync reference, not for the finished product.  Major productions don't even record audio to cameras, they use SMTPE time code and record to external Sound Devices, Nagra, or similar recorders.  Unfortunately many bargain video guys don't know this.
 
Date and time will do nothing to help sync the audio or video, I may help you keep track of which files are which, but it is not timecode.  Modern software can easily and automatically sync multi-camera files with the corresponding audio by examining the audio waveforms.  
 
Camera audio distorts easily because of wildly high gain and crappy limiters.  If you can reduce the gain of the audio from the built in microphone you can substantially increase the audio quality.  It also help the editing software sync the audio because of stronger peaks. 
 
In truth, the built in microphones of the Zoom and Tascam recorders are not much different than what is built into a standard consumer camera, they are cheap, off-the-shelf electrets, but they are amplified and implemented better with higher quality conversion.
 
For the best results a separate audio setup with standard microphones is the way to go.   
 
For video quality concerns, remember that good lighting is good video.  It doesn't matter how cheap or how expensive the camera is, it will look crappy in bad light.   With modern technology the way it is,  even a cheapo camera can look decent in good lighting.