I stirred up a bit of a hornets' nest last week by suggesting - based on independent research, I hasten to add - that video content created by an external company tended to be more effective than video content created in-house. Surely, many of you suggested, given the quality of the current crop of affordable video cameras, there was very little to choose between internally and externally generated video.

Well, I agree that these video cameras do produce amazing results, although you have to be able to work around their limitations. (With that in mind, I have another top tip for you below). You also have to be fully conversant with your editing software in order for the process to be time-efficient. But I think the real issue is one of objectivity.

Specifically, it's far easier for someone external to the company to suggest to one of your colleagues that a take wasn't quite right and that perhaps we should go again. By the same token, it's far easier for you to tell an external supplier that a finished video still needs changes than it is for one of your colleagues to suggest that to you.

And that is why I believe the quality of externally generated video tends to be better. It's not that you can't do it as well yourself; it's just that the artificial and awkward conditions of making a video (perhaps, dare I say, combined with a bit of internal politics), mean that people tend to accept products that, if they're honest, they know are flawed because it gets the whole thing out of the way as quickly as possible with the minimum embarrassment.

Top tip for the week: zoom with the feet

One of the things that separates the more affordable cameras from the high end is the size of the sensor. And the smaller the sensor, the worse its performance in non-ideal lighting conditions. I would suggest that most of us, in an office or plant environment, will end up filming in non-ideal lighting conditions. So what do you do if your sensor size is 1/4in or smaller?

If you look at the specs on your video camera, you'll find some information about the lens. Perhaps it will say something along the lines of "motorised 12x zoom: F1.8 to 2.8". That tells us some very interesting things. First off, at its widest setting, it's letting in light to an F stop (iris aperture) of F1.8. A lower number is better (equating to a wider aperture, and therefore an ability to let in more light), and if you're lucky, your specs might say F1.5 or lower. That's good. But the F2.8 is the figure for the amount of light being let in when you're at full zoom. An in low light conditions, F2.8 is significantly worse. When it can't open the iris any further, the camera compensates by adding gain, which inevitably adds noise to your video.

So if you want to zoom in on something, don't use the motorised zoom on the lens; instead, zoom with your feet, or cut the take and move the camera, or use it as an opportunity for a change in camera angle, or film the close-ups in a separate session at the end. In short, give the camera the best opportunity to produce the best results.

Another benefit of keeping the lens as wide as it will go is that you maintain the deepest depth of field. With small sensors you're never going to get a really shallow depth of field, but with the lens a wide as it will go your subject will stay in focus even they move forward or back by an appreciable distance. At full zoom, you won't be so lucky.