|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Best $1000 CamcorderI'm sure this is a perennial question, but I'm looking for
recommendations for a camcorder costing around $1000. My priorities are excellent video quality, good sound quality, and good performance under low-light conditions. I'd be exporting the video to my Mac so Firewire would be a must. Are there any stand-outs in the market right now? Thanks. -Fleemo <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1179185903.005967.43770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... You should worry less about cost and more about what you plan to do with it > I'm sure this is a perennial question, but I'm looking for > recommendations for a camcorder costing around $1000. My priorities > are excellent video quality, good sound quality, and good performance > under low-light conditions. I'd be exporting the video to my Mac so > Firewire would be a must. Are there any stand-outs in the market > right now? > > Thanks. > > -Fleemo > and the video you capture. Once you have done that you can start to look at cameras that will allow you do what you want and then from their deal with price. =(8) > You should worry less about cost and more about what you plan to do with it Thanks for the response. My scenario is that I was given a Sony DCR-> and the video you capture. TRV280 as a gift. Online reviews report that it's a mediocre camera, and I think I'd like to return it while I can and put the cash toward a better quality unit. My research online hasn't pointed to any particular stand-out camcorder so picking one is a daunting task, particularly for a novice. My initial use would be to capture family events, which the DCR-TRV280 would probably be fine for. But I've always had an interest in film making and would love to have a unit that would allow me to be a bit creative and explore that pursuit before getting frustrated with a cheap camera's limitations. I'm particulary interested in low-light ability, which seems to be a real stumbling block in most consumer units. So should I stick with the DCR-TRV280 and see how far it takes me, or take the opportunity and upgrade to a superior camcorder? -Fleemo P.S. David, thanks for the reply, but I think I'd prefer to go with new equipment. <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message
Show quote news:1179250325.202029.277340@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96. I just bought one and like it a lot. The >> You should worry less about cost and more about what you plan to do with >> it >> and the video you capture. > > Thanks for the response. My scenario is that I was given a Sony DCR- > TRV280 as a gift. Online reviews report that it's a mediocre camera, > and I think I'd like to return it while I can and put the cash toward > a better quality unit. My research online hasn't pointed to any > particular stand-out camcorder so picking one is a daunting task, > particularly for a novice. > > My initial use would be to capture family events, which the DCR-TRV280 > would probably be fine for. But I've always had an interest in film > making and would love to have a unit that would allow me to be a bit > creative and explore that pursuit before getting frustrated with a > cheap camera's limitations. I'm particulary interested in low-light > ability, which seems to be a real stumbling block in most consumer > units. > > So should I stick with the DCR-TRV280 and see how far it takes me, or > take the opportunity and upgrade to a superior camcorder? > > -Fleemo > > P.S. David, thanks for the reply, but I think I'd prefer to go with > new equipment. > video quality is excellent. If you plan to do any editing of your video you want MiniDV and not MiniDVD or HDD because the compress the video with MPG2 to get a decent amount of recording time. Working on a compressed video to save it compressed again is like loading a JPG from a still camera, changing it and then saving it back as JPG. You have two levels of compression, one of which you don't really want. You can also think of it as making a photocopy of a photocopy. =(8) > Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< That does look like a contender. How does it do in low lightconditions? Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. Decisions, decisions. :/ -Fleemo <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message
Show quote news:1179277722.760932.84040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... The Sony has image stabilization, it is digital seems to work just as well >> Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< > > That does look like a contender. How does it do in low light > conditions? > > Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has > image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. > > A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me > his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally > wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get > rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. > > Decisions, decisions. :/ > > -Fleemo > in my opinion as the optical in the Panasonic. I considered the Panasonic but decided against it because it didn't seem to have as good a video quality. Low light with the Sony is very good and it is has a super low-light mode too that can basically see in the dark. Now while the video quality is very good and the noise levels are not bad, I don't like the low-level modes from any of the camcorders I looked at as the color drops to an almost unsaturated looking effect. =(8) Show quote
"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message To be clear: what you're describing isn't low-light capability. It's news:464a5b8c$0$14111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1179277722.760932.84040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< >> >> That does look like a contender. How does it do in low light >> conditions? >> >> Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has >> image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. >> >> A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me >> his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally >> wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get >> rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. >> >> Decisions, decisions. :/ >> >> -Fleemo >> > > > The Sony has image stabilization, it is digital seems to work just as well > in my opinion as the optical in the Panasonic. I considered the Panasonic > but decided against it because it didn't seem to have as good a video > quality. Low light with the Sony is very good and it is has a super > low-light mode too that can basically see in the dark. Now while the video > quality is very good and the noise levels are not bad, I don't like the > low-level modes from any of the camcorders I looked at as the color drops > to an almost unsaturated looking effect. infrared capability. All ccd sensors have a considerable amount of infrared sensitivity. Normally, an infrared filter is applied so it doesn't interfere with sensitivity in the visible spectrum. Cameras like the Sony that you're describing can remove the filter so that you can shoot by infrared light. The result is noisy, monochrome video. It is not the same as shooting with a camera that has good low-light sensitivity. For examples of low-light shooting with a VX2000, take a look at the "At Night . . . " videos here: www.travelersvideo.com You will not be able to do that with an infrared "night shot" camcorder or, for that matter, with a consumer camcorder. If someone's budget won't allow for a prosumer machine and lowlight is a concern, some (most?) of Sony's upper-end consumer machines have HAD ccds, which increase the low-light sensitivity somewhat. There's a side effect of HAD that results in vertical smearing of pin-point light sources, but the effect is not necessarily unpleasant and the benefit in being able to shoot in more adverse conditions outweighs the detriment, at least in my opinion. Show quote > > =(8) Show quote
"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message The end result is the same, so pick your nits some place else.news:5avd0qF2qtptpU1@mid.individual.net... > > "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:464a5b8c$0$14111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:1179277722.760932.84040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>>> Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< >>> >>> That does look like a contender. How does it do in low light >>> conditions? >>> >>> Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has >>> image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. >>> >>> A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me >>> his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally >>> wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get >>> rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. >>> >>> Decisions, decisions. :/ >>> >>> -Fleemo >>> >> >> >> The Sony has image stabilization, it is digital seems to work just as >> well in my opinion as the optical in the Panasonic. I considered the >> Panasonic but decided against it because it didn't seem to have as good a >> video quality. Low light with the Sony is very good and it is has a super >> low-light mode too that can basically see in the dark. Now while the >> video quality is very good and the noise levels are not bad, I don't like >> the low-level modes from any of the camcorders I looked at as the color >> drops to an almost unsaturated looking effect. > > > To be clear: what you're describing isn't low-light capability. It's > infrared capability. All ccd sensors have a considerable amount of > infrared sensitivity. Normally, an infrared filter is applied so it > doesn't interfere with sensitivity in the visible spectrum. Cameras like > the Sony that you're describing can remove the filter so that you can > shoot by infrared light. The result is noisy, monochrome video. It is > not the same as shooting with a camera that has good low-light > sensitivity. > > For examples of low-light shooting with a VX2000, take a look at the "At > Night . . . " videos here: > > www.travelersvideo.com > > You will not be able to do that with an infrared "night shot" camcorder > or, for that matter, with a consumer camcorder. > > If someone's budget won't allow for a prosumer machine and lowlight is a > concern, some (most?) of Sony's upper-end consumer machines have HAD ccds, > which increase the low-light sensitivity somewhat. There's a side effect > of HAD that results in vertical smearing of pin-point light sources, but > the effect is not necessarily unpleasant and the benefit in being able to > shoot in more adverse conditions outweighs the detriment, at least in my > opinion. > >> >> =(8) > =(8) Show quote
"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message The end result is not the same and this isn't nit-picking. Monochrome news:464a9cf6$0$14094$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > news:5avd0qF2qtptpU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:464a5b8c$0$14111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >>> <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:1179277722.760932.84040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< >>>> >>>> That does look like a contender. How does it do in low light >>>> conditions? >>>> >>>> Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has >>>> image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. >>>> >>>> A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me >>>> his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally >>>> wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get >>>> rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. >>>> >>>> Decisions, decisions. :/ >>>> >>>> -Fleemo >>>> >>> >>> >>> The Sony has image stabilization, it is digital seems to work just as >>> well in my opinion as the optical in the Panasonic. I considered the >>> Panasonic but decided against it because it didn't seem to have as good >>> a video quality. Low light with the Sony is very good and it is has a >>> super low-light mode too that can basically see in the dark. Now while >>> the video quality is very good and the noise levels are not bad, I don't >>> like the low-level modes from any of the camcorders I looked at as the >>> color drops to an almost unsaturated looking effect. >> >> >> To be clear: what you're describing isn't low-light capability. It's >> infrared capability. All ccd sensors have a considerable amount of >> infrared sensitivity. Normally, an infrared filter is applied so it >> doesn't interfere with sensitivity in the visible spectrum. Cameras like >> the Sony that you're describing can remove the filter so that you can >> shoot by infrared light. The result is noisy, monochrome video. It is >> not the same as shooting with a camera that has good low-light >> sensitivity. >> >> For examples of low-light shooting with a VX2000, take a look at the "At >> Night . . . " videos here: >> >> www.travelersvideo.com >> >> You will not be able to do that with an infrared "night shot" camcorder >> or, for that matter, with a consumer camcorder. >> >> If someone's budget won't allow for a prosumer machine and lowlight is a >> concern, some (most?) of Sony's upper-end consumer machines have HAD >> ccds, which increase the low-light sensitivity somewhat. There's a side >> effect of HAD that results in vertical smearing of pin-point light >> sources, but the effect is not necessarily unpleasant and the benefit in >> being able to shoot in more adverse conditions outweighs the detriment, >> at least in my opinion. >> >>> >>> =(8) >> > > The end result is the same, so pick your nits some place else. infrared video is nothing like video shot with a camera that actually has low-light capability. If you think they are the same, then you're clearly not familiar with either. Show quote > > =(8) <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1179277722.760932.84040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... There are no consumer camcorders that can approach the video quality of the >> Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< > > That does look like a contender. How does it do in low light > conditions? > > Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has > image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. > > A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me > his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally > wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get > rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. VX2000. I went through this process a few years ago -- I needed a camcorder that could produce high-quality video in all lighting conditions. There simply weren't any consumer machines that could do this. I got a VX2000 and haven't looked back. Yes, it has a larger and heavier form factor than consumer machines. It also produces gorgeous saturated video with no noise to speak of and can shoot by the light of a single candle. Unfortunately, camcorder manufacturers have made a conscious decision to limit the quality and capability of consumer video machines. They do this so that the less expensive cameras won't compete with their prosumer lines. They've concentrated on making consumer camcorders smaller and lighter, using higher and higher compression rates and smaller, denser sensors. All of these contribute to produce poor-quality video and extremely limited low-light capability. If all you're doing is shooting the equivalent of dad's home movies, it probably doesn't matter. If you're trying for better quality, there are not a lot of options except to bite the bullet and buy a decent prosumer machine. The Panasonic 3ccd machines, by the way, are not prosumer machines nor is the video they produce comparable to a VX2000/2100 or XL2. Show quote > > Decisions, decisions. :/ > > -Fleemo > <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1179277722.760932.84040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... Some of these have rather excessive picture contrast, which>> Take a look at the Sony DCR-HC96.< > That does look like a contender. How does it do in low light > conditions? > > Reviews of this model lead me to the Panasonic PV-GS320, which has > image stabilization and decent low-light reviews. can make the image look sharper than it is (and which can be unpleasant and unflattering under some conditions). > A friend of mine, who is a wedding videographer, offered to sell me $1000?!?!?! Try to find out what shape it's in - if good, that> his used Sony VX2000 for a grand. It's larger than what I originally > wanted and I'm not sure how much field use it's seen, but it does get > rave reviews, even in low-light conditions. is a STEAL!!! > Decisions, decisions. :/ Not if the VX2000 is low-use and in nice shape!> > -Fleemo BTW, my TRV900 FS is more expensive, but smaller...;-) But, no contest if you are serious about maximizing video quality and low light range on a budget. Show quote
<fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1179250325.202029.277340@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... You can do better. BTW, look here at some very low use top-grade (for> Thanks for the response. My scenario is that I was given a Sony DCR- > TRV280 as a gift. Online reviews report that it's a mediocre camera, > and I think I'd like to return it while I can and put the cash toward > a better quality unit. My research online hasn't pointed to any > particular stand-out camcorder so picking one is a daunting task, > particularly for a novice. > > My initial use would be to capture family events, which the DCR-TRV280 > would probably be fine for. But I've always had an interest in film > making and would love to have a unit that would allow me to be a bit > creative and explore that pursuit before getting frustrated with a > cheap camera's limitations. I'm particulary interested in low-light > ability, which seems to be a real stumbling block in most consumer > units. > > So should I stick with the DCR-TRV280 and see how far it takes me, or > take the opportunity and upgrade to a superior camcorder? type) Sony camcorders I'm selling (and check my comparison and review sites referenced there) -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-camcorders.htm (and BTW, if "=(8)" is describing the VX2000, he is wrong about several things about it). Mine is probably sold, but the VX2000 has an excellent optical stabilizer and the best low-light range with the cleanest picture in its class (you would need to go to large shoulder-mount cameras to better it for low light). The TRV900 is quite good in low light (better than most newer cameras, and its picture contrast is more normal than most others with small chips). The TRV30 uses an unusually large chip and limits the pixel count to something reasonable. It is not great in low light, but it is better than many, and in good light produces a very sharp image with good color compared with other 1-chippers. <fleem***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1179185903.005967.43770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... There are a couple of possibilities FS on my web page (both LN,> I'm sure this is a perennial question, but I'm looking for > recommendations for a camcorder costing around $1000. My priorities > are excellent video quality, good sound quality, and good performance > under low-light conditions. I'd be exporting the video to my Mac so > Firewire would be a must. Are there any stand-outs in the market > right now? very low use) which are no longer made (current similar models use smaller sensor sizes and higher pixel counts, both contributing to lower sensitivity and greater noise levels). They are the TRV30 one-chipper and the classic TRV900 3-chipper, now VERY hard find in this condition. These are listed and pictured at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-camcorders.htm  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics