looking for a digital video camera just for making some home vid's.
which are the best brands...panasonic?...sony?...JVC?.

also is firewire or USB better when connecting to the computer?

Sony, Panasonic, Canon. Buy used, get more for your dollar. (Sony TRV120,
320, 520, 720 are good values if in good condition and you can get them for
under $400, all Digital8's) Others will have other recommendations - D8 or
miniDV.

Firewire and firewire ONLY. Forget USB.

If you have $800 or so, a used Sony TRV900 is better than fantastic - it's
pro level.
If you have $1300-1700, look at the Sony VX2000 and PD150.

Also look at the Panasonic AG-DVX100 and DVC-80, Canon GL1, XL1. (and GL2,
XL1s, XL2)

What's your budget?

C.

Show quoteHide quote

In article <wYqdnW0KjJ65wAzfRVn***@rogers.com>,
Show quoteHide quoteas per the subject....want to keep it under $1000....prefer around $800
though.

Buy a used TRV900. You will NOT find anything in that league new. Period.

C.


Show quoteHide quote

dude, the guy wants to make home movies, not shoot weddings or porn or
featue films...
there are tons of digital (aka MiniDV) camcorders out there...hell, Sears
sells a bunch for $500...

woodsie, go for a brand you feel comfortable with, like Canon or JVC or
Sony, or Samsung if you like them, or Panasonic...these days, they are all
good, buy one, and start enjoying...

Firewire is better, so you need a 1394 card, or a pc with a built in
firewire (1394) port


Show quoteHide quote

The OP wanted opinions. He got mine.


Show quoteHide quote

and you misunderstood all of his intentions...

I'd like a car under $5000, what do you suggest?

You replied, gee, buy a 2003 corvette, or a 2000 Ferrari, or a 2003 Rolls
silver shadow....


Show quoteHide quote

He did say "best digital video camera under $1000."
Do you disagree that the TRV-900 is the best camera under $1000?

C.

Show quoteHide quote

In article <9rWdnX5WSOvXGw7fRVn***@rogers.com>,
what brand is the TRV-900?

and FWIW, 'best' should be interpreted as something that's pretty
good...i'm not looking for the absolute best like it's major priority or
anything.

woodsie <nore***@none.com> writes:
Sony, discontinued a few years ago.  The current replacement, which
has more bells and whistles but is inferior in some important basic
respects, is the DCR-HC1000 or something like that.  You can find used
TRV900's in the $1K range on ebay.  They will have no warranty.  If I
were looking to spend $1000 on a camcorder I'd consider going this
route but am not at all convinced that it's the best way to go.  I
don't know what alternatives to suggest.

Hey Woodsie. Here's a bit more info.

The TRV-900 (anything with the TRV prefix) is a Sony. Sony hit the ball out
of the park with that camera. Subsequent cameras in the consumer range were
less than stellar.

You WILL notice a difference in video performance between a used TRV900 and
a new "anything" under $1000.

The new cameras produce video anywhere from "OK" to "absolutely pitiful" but
nowhere near what your TV is capable of reproducing.

The TRV900 can pull off broadcast quality images.

Low light capability (think "family story time around a roaring fire" or
"outdoor evening BBQ") is practically non-existant in new consumer cameras -
the images will likely be unwatchable. The TRV can pull this kind of thing
off.

Please, don't take my word for it!
John Beale has probably the single most detailed web site in existance on
the TRV900:
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html

Please understand, my answer to your question about "the best camera under
$1k" is based on one thing: video quality. Having said that, I don't think
the '900 had any "gotchas"... it didn't spontaneously combust after 100
hours or anything.

If having a current warranty is more important to you than image quality,
I'm sure there'll be folks with recommendations on new cameras - just
understand that, unfortunately, there is a trade-off.

Good luck.

C.








Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote You've never heard of a TRV-900?

There's no question that a used TRV-900 is the best miniDV under $1,000.
It's a 3-ccd machine with reasonable (but not fantastic) low-light
performance.  The video it produces is far beyond anything you'll get out of
consumer cheapie purchased at Sears.

"Best" means "best."  And, compared to a TRV-900, there is _nothing_ under
$500 that would even be considered "pretty good."

That may be true of some specific used TRV-900.  I'm concerned that
used TRV-900's in general are even more variable than new ones, since
you never know what the previous owner did with them, and playing the
ebay lottery can lead to not-so-satisfying results.

Yeah, I have a $300-ish hi-8 camera that I'm reasonably satisfied with
for shooting crappy video.  It can shoot for 2 hours nonstop on a
cheap tape in normal mode, which a mini-DV camera can't, and if I
use the awful low speed mode, it can shoot for 4 hours.  I just can't
see much point in upgrading to a $500 camera unless it can record
directly to regular-sized (5 inch) DVD-R. 

But if I contemplate spending $1000 on a TRV900, that means I have
some serious project in mind, or else I'd keep using my hi-8, which
has been good enough for my casual personal video purposes.  And if
I'm doing something serious, a VX2000/2100 ($2K) or even an HDR-FX1
($3K) might be worth the expenditure.

Show quote Hide quote The point isn't whether the camera you have is good enough.  Another poster
claimed that under-$500 consumer cameras could be compared, in terms of
video quality, with a TRV900.  That was just silly.

Or else you just want high quality miniDV video.  I have a VX2000, purchased
new.  I don't do serious project.  I do care about the look of the video
that I shoot.

Sure.  I use to use a TR-600, which is a decent Hi8 machine (though it cost
$1200, new, some ten years ago).  It was "good enough" at the time I bought
it.  It's not "very good" compared to the video quality of my VX2000.

I don't think C.J. was saying that an under-$500 machine isn't "good enough"
for specific, qualified purposes.  He was responding to a poster who thinks
that an under-$500 consumer camera is "very good" compared to a TRV900.

Nothing I do is serious, but my VX2000 was definitely worth the expenditure.

The point of all of this isn't that a cheap consumer camcorder can do the
job and produce video that is considered acceptable for some purposes.  The
original inquiry was, "what is the best digital video camera under $1,000?"
As I said in another post, "best" means "best," not "acceptable," or "good."
There is, simply, no comparison between any low-end consumer camcorders and
a TRV900.

Let me put it this way.  I don't own a TV set.  When I shoot video
with my hi-8 camera and play it back, I view it on the little 2.5"
flip-out monitor built into the camera.  I just can't see buying a
VX2000 to use it like that and I don't think you would either.
Whatever you're doing with your VX2000 video is just about definitely
more serious than what I'm doing with hi-8.

If that's the intended use, no, but it also isn't typical of anyone's use.
Most people intend to view their video on televisions -- some televisions
are better than others, but virtually all will be better than the tiny lcd
monitor on a consumer camcorder.

I agree, but if we're trying to define an "average amateur user" baseline to
measure "seriousness," I'd say though I fall above it, your use falls below
it.

Yes that's pretty accurate.  My own usage is probably a little weird,
since I'm mostly using the hi-8 camera music events, and am primarily
concerned about the audio and don't care much about the video.  This
also explains why being able to record 2 hours before having to change
tapes is important to me (and is my main reason for recording with a
video camera instead of a cassette recorder).

Show quote Hide quote Now, you've got to start doing musical events the way that I do -- record
the audio separately (I use an MD recorder, but DAT would be better for your
purposes), shoot the performers and, during breaks, get B-roll material of
the audience and venue, sync everything up once its captured, add a bunch of
inserts, and make a really nice video. :)

I've recently bought a compact flash digital recorder for this purpose
but it has some disadvantages compared with using the camcorder.  The
nicest thing about the camcorder was that the video was always sync'd
up with the audio, so I could easily tell who was performing at any
moment.

http://www.nightsong.com/phr/pmd660.html

In article <uNUke.1119$kS3.***@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Nope. This is my first venture into video cameras and i'm not afraid to
say, I KNOW NOTHING!...haha

my new computer has firewire 400 and 800 connections (1st time i've had
this) so would love to take advantage of it....especially with
friends/family living miles away. Will be great to share some quick
vid's. essentially i'm looking for something that's easy to operate, and
gives pretty good image quality in most light conditions.

I remember looking at video cameras bout 5-10 yrs ago and JVC seemed to
be king in quality. Now there's alot more players in the market and more
formats to choose from.

woodsie <nore***@none.com> writes:
I don't remember if someone posted this link before:

   http://bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html

As mentioned (maybe not clearly) in another post, I'd think twice
about spending $1000 on a camcorder.  If the best you can get is a
3-years-obsolete used model, something is wrong with the market
offerings at that price level.  My attitude is for casual amateur
shooting, a $300 camera is enough, and that's what I'm using now.  But
if I do something more serious (I occasionally play with the idea of
shooting a documentary or something), I should use what most semi-pro
shooters are using, which is the VX2100 at about $2000.  At $1000 you
get something that's way more expensive than a typical amateur camera
but not at the performance level of an entry level (semi) pro camera.

In article <7x3bsbka4s.***@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

Show quoteHide quotemy $1,000 is probably more like $750 USD...so that might make better
sense on the pricing level.

woodsie <nore***@none.com> writes:
Maybe you can find a Canon Optura Pi, or some modern equivalent.  But
consumer camcorders have really gotten worse in the past few years, as
manufacturers have tried to make them double as digital still cameras.
So instead of doing one thing well, the camcorders now have to do two
things badly.

In article <7xoeaziqa4.***@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

hmmmm...that's nasty!

On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:30:27 +1000, woodsie <nore***@none.com> wrote:

Mate, don't get berko now, but if you "talk dollah", you should have
mentioned you're from Bazzaland. Else it's always the honky-$ :)

cheers

-martin-

In article <fmi89155fp2v6ht2dp7u8uaggeirat9***@4ax.com>,
Martin Heffels <mana***@usg-managers.com> wrote:

what are you smoking?

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:12:05 +1000, woodsie <nore***@none.com> wrote:

You must be Pommie-import then :)

Never mind.

-martin-

Show quote Hide quote Exactly!  There is something very wrong with the market.  Manufacturers have
decided that video quality is secondary, and gizmos and gadgets primary.
They continue to reduce sensor size and increase sensor density, both of
which adversely impact low-light response.  They add digital zoom features
which are completely useless.

I'm convinced that part of the impetus to keep the video quality of consumer
offerings low is to protect the prosumer market (cameras like the
VX2000/2100/PD150/170 and XL2).


What is "casual amateur shooting"?  The definition varies from person to
person.  I'm a casual amateur shooter -- I take my camcorder with me when my
wife and I travel.  99% of what I shoot is travel "home movies."  And a $300
camcorder is most definitely not enough for what I want to do, which
includes shooting indoors, shooting at night, having saturated, accurate
color, no digital artifacts, no chroma noise, etc.

Then what you meant to say is, "My attitude is, for _me_, a $300 camera is
enough."  Different people have different requirements.  Again, please note
the topic of this thread, which was not, "what's the cheapest digital video
camera that I can get by with?"

As with your definition of "casual amateur shooting," you need to re-examine
"something more serious."  There's no rule as to what defines quality at
either level.

That's odd -- I consider my VX2000 a typical amateur camera, albeit a very
good one.

Show quoteHide quote

I'd say you're an advanced amateur.  Sort of like an amateur
photographer with an SLR camera, interchangeable lenses, removable
flash, etc.  "Casual amateur" in photography is those $7.95 disposable
cameras that you get at the 7-11.  It's similar with video.  The
purpose of most casual shooting (video or photo) is to create a
reminder of a scene ("here's Joey playing with the dog") that evokes
"oh that's cute" or "yeah, I remember that", but not stand up to
critical analysis.

Show quote Hide quote I agree -- that's how I describe myself.  I'm definitely not a pro either in
terms of ability or employment.

Not sure I'd agree with that.  An amateur photographer is still a
_photgrapher_, i.e. someone interested in more than just taking a couple of
snapshots a few times a year.  I consider myself an advanced amateur
photographer as well -- I used to shoot film and do my own darkroom work,
but now I'm completely digital, and have a Canon 10D, i9100 printer and
Adobe Photoshop.

In between me and the disposable camera user is a whole bunch of people
shooting p&s digital and less expensive DSLRs, manipulating the results in
Photoshop Elements and printing on Epson Stylus printers.  Those people are
casual amateurs.

People buying the disposables aren't amateur photographers, because they're
not making photographs, i.e. concerned with the aesthetic quality of what
they produce, they're just taking pictures.

I think most people use camcorders for, "Cousin Tina's wedding," "Bobby's
High School Graduation," "Our Trip to the Grand Canyon," or something
similar.  That doesn't mean, however, that either the quality of the video
produced, or the concern over the quality of the video produced, is the same
for all people.  My travel videos serve exactly the same purpose as "Our
Trip to the Grand Canyon" (in fact, one of the clips on my website is
titled, "Our Trip to Las Vegas," albeit facetiously).  Now I go to one
extreme -- I shoot with a prosumer camcorder, tripod with video head,
microphones, etc., edit in Premiere Pro with a ton of 3rd party software,
and author in Encore with fancy menus and the like.  However, as evidenced
by this newsgroup, there are huge numbers of people who want to shoot
"Venice at Night" with a less expensive camcorder, whose video will be
captured and edited in Studio or Premiere Elements, and authored in MyDVD or
something similar.  I'd consider them the baseline for amateur video, not
the person who buys a camcorder and takes it out once a year to shoot the
kids opening their Christmas presents.

If this wasn't the case, then most camcorders wouldn't have 1394 ports,
because most amateurs wouldn't be interested in capturing, editing and
burning DVDs.

As soon as you cross the line beyond creating the most basic record of an
event without regard for quality, to wanting to enhance the aesthetics of
mere reportage, then you begin to be concerned with things like sharpness
and resolution, color accuracy and low-light performance.  This necessarily
requires considering such things as quality of glass, sensor size, denity
and number, electronics quality, etc.

A $300 consumer camcorder is, in my opinion, below baseline for the "average
amateur."  A $2000 prosumer camcorder is, in my opinion, above the baseline.
However, both are camcorders aimed at amateur users.

PTravel wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteOf course, amateur means someone who loves to do something (as well as
lacking in experience). Professional means someone who earns their
living by doing.

I can out-do some professionals but I'm an amateur (i.e., don't support
myself with my video work).

I think it boils down to what is required.

If you make a living a certain level of equipment is required. Not only
from a quality of the product aspect but also for its durability.

If you're a perfectionist (as I am) you will require better equipment
(than a $300 camera) but only you can decide.

With computers I tell ppeople to buy a cheap one and if they get hooked
upgrade.

With video I suggest good equipment because you may only get one chance
to make lasting memories. If the camera sits on the shelf you can sell
it and buy a cheaper one.

news:Ub6le.102$zb.3@trndny01...
My philosophy, exactly.  I'll always go for the best quality I can manage.


Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote Well, there's your first problem.  No currently-manufactured consumer
camcorder under $1,000 performs well in low-light, e.g. indoor residential.
Some of the higher-end single-chip Canons and Sony's ($1,000-1,500) do a
little better, but most older Hi8s will consistently out-perform them.  The
champ of low-light is the VX2000/2100, but that's a $2200 camera.

There are only two consumer digital formats -- miniDV and Digital8.
Digital8 is, for all intents and purposes, a dead format; only super cheap,
low-quality Digital8 machines are currently in manufacture.  That leaves one
choice: miniDV.  I haven't heard of any decent _consumer_ JVC machines,
though JVC makes some very fine professional gear.  Sony and Canon are the
leaders in the consumer camcorder market, and Canon might have a slight edge
in their high-end consumer machines.

PTravel wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteGotta disagree there. Even the Sony camcorders have record-in-the-dark
that works surprisingly well!  And it costs in the 650$ ballpark.

At the other extreme, the Sony have 'backlight' adjustment that allows
for photographing into a bank of windows.

Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote I'm not talking about "Night Shot," which produces monochrome video under
infra-red illumination.  I mean the capability to produce full-color,
full-spectrum, non-noisey video in less than bright sunlight (for examples,
take a look at the Venice at Night and Florence at Night videos at
www.ruyitang.com).  No consumer camcorder can do that.

The backlight adjustment merely opens the iris a bit and has nothing to do
with low-light capability.

Show quoteHide quote

The Florence one looks very VX2000-ish quality like :) But is is hard
to judge on a highly compressed frame of course.
Oh, all the wipes in there made me cringe. I have to watch that every
day already on the compressed channels here on cable-tv. Maybe you
should do something about them.
And for your next video, you might buy a tripod which has a light
built-in under the bubble :)
Your exposures are good!

cheers

-martin-
(I know, picky picky picky)

Right on the nose!  It's a VX2000.  Is it something I'd release in a
theater?  Hell no!  Is it hands and feet above anything that a consumer
camcorder can do?  Hell yes!  ;)

I used to use a TRV-20, but was very unhappy with its low-light performance
and digital artifacting.  I bought the VX2000 to replace it.


Quite true.

Yeah, that's the WMV compression.  I've limited storage space for my
website, and I also don't want people to have to wait 15 minutes to download
a 3 minute clip, so that's the compromise.

I prefer to think of it as quasi-German Expressionism. ;)


Show quoteHide quote

Hey, I read your webpage ;-)

For sure. The first time I used one of the camera's from that
model-line was the VX-1000. It made the TRV900, PC105 and a Panasonic
model look very bleak. Then later I used the VX2100 to shoot a pilot
for a tv-show, inside dimly light Karaoke-bars, and the picture looked
amazingly fine, despite my worry (bad pix won't sell the show, but
this one we could sell).

Good choice!

True. I found it out when we did a few videos for a modelling-agency.
I used Quicktime with, H.263 compression. It would make the vid small
(500kB was asked for for 30 secs), but still reasonably good. But the
wipes had to be dropped.

It made me think that it's not only the Tower of Pizza which is
crooked :)

cheers

-martin-

I loved that Florence video. With bandwidth costing money, it's difficult to
put something online that does the source material justice.

I'm continually impressed with the low-light capability of that camera
(VX/PD)... that's just not footage you could get with any other camera under
$10,000... nice!




Show quoteHide quote

Thanks!  I love my VX2000.  Sometimes it's a pain to cart around, and I look
with envy at people with compact little camcorders.  Then the sun goes down
and I keep shooting, while everyone else puts their cameras away. ;)

Show quoteHide quote

On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:31:04 -0400, "C.J.Patten"
<cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:

Ahh, me too ya know :)
It looks like it came from a travel
video to show you the country :)
Makes me want to pack my suitcase
and drive south for an hour or 20 ;-)

Damned work work work.....

-martin-

"Rick Merrill" wrote ...
Clearly, you requirements are different than those of "PTravel" (or me,
etc.)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:24:19 +1000, woodsie <nore***@none.com> wrote:

I'm in the exact same situation as you. I know nothing about this
stuff, I'm mainly interested in documenting life around the (rural)
homestead, and while it's easy to get me excited about sexy hardware
features (I'm a recovering geek) I don't want to spend too much and
feel like a complete idiot in a year when they're giving away cameras
like mine in cereal boxes.

When I wanted to dip my toes in digital still photography, I decided
to buy a cheap camera with which to discover first-hand all the things
I hadn't thought of, before buying some major hardware. I'm glad I
did. Man, did I discover a pile of things I'd never have thought of...
e.g. "digital zoom" (not a feature, I have Photoshop thanks), and "you
can erase a photo right away if you don't like it" (yeah, assuming you
can see the thing well enough to make a judgement on a crap LCD out in
the sunshine).

Two years later, I still haven't bought major digital still camera
hardware. When I need to take some real photographs I get out a real
camera with some real lenses and shoot some real film. For everything
else, there's the pocket digital cheapie, and that's just great.

After only a few hours' worth of looking into miniDV cameras, I'm
already teetering between getting sucked into the upper-middle end of
the consumer video market, and just buying the cheapest,
end-o-the-line, demo miniDV thing I can find. Given my prior
experience I'm inclined to go the latter route, the better to play
around and find out what I really want, what I really hate, and also
to remind myself that I have precious little time to shoot, edit, etc.
anyway. :-)

The thread sparked by your original question has been a very
interesting read. It's particularly appalling to think that video
quality is actually being compromised in newer models by the inclusion
of cheap digital camera features... does anyone out there really want
this "feature?" I sure as heck don't. Blech, what the hell are they
thinking?

I do note that nobody has mentioned a 3CCD unit that falls in your
price range, to wit Panasonic PVGS150. I wonder is this because it
sucks or... ?

Good luck in your search,
-=s

I can't provide a recommendation, but I can suggest some things to look for.

I bought a Sony DCR-TRV22 min-DV about 18 months ago for around $600 and I'm
not very happy with the video quality. It was a well-rated unit so I'm
assuming it is typical of that price range.

One big problem with this camera is that when there are bright and dark
areas in a view, the dark areas nearly go completely black. Some detail can
be brought out by adjusting curves, but then bright areas get blown out.
I've also found that to get decent quality video, very good light is needed,
such as bright sunshine. It has seen limited usage, but I have problems with
a dirty head and cleaning provides only limited relief. I really can't trust
the camera anymore since it frequently fails due to the dirty head.

My suggestions:

* Don't judge the image quality by the LCD viewfinder quality. The LCD is
optimized to look good and also compresses the pixels into a small area,
making it look better. Ideally you should actually take some video under
your normal conditions, download it to your PC or TV and see what it looks
like. Even better would be to see how it looks in your desired final format
after processing.

* Ideally, test the camera under the light conditions that you expect to be
typical. Download the video to see what it looks like, or play it back on TV
you will use.

* If you expect fast action or lots of movement, test that. My Sony does not
like movement and the image quality goes to hell.

* The amount of post-processing you're willing to do is also a factor. Do
you want to use a sophisticated package like Premiere or Vegas to adjust
curves, or do you want minimal hassle?

* Camera size and weight is a big factor. I can't use a big camera for my
application, so I need a very light, single hand unit.


Show quoteHide quote

HoustonFreeways,

Thanks for posting your comments on the TRV22. People need to hear that
stuff.

Chris

Show quoteHide quote

In article <6pCdnZzVFPfncAnfRVn***@comcast.com>,
You've got an insolvable problem.  Small photosensor (in say the Sony
DCR-TRV22) means poor low light performance. Large sensor (in say the
Sony VX2000) gives better pictures in low light, but also needs a larger
lens, which means larger size, heavier, etc.

Mel Comisarow <mel***@shaw.ca> writes:
I can't figure out why the VX2000 is so large.  It's not the sensor
area.  The new Olympus Stylus 800 digicam is the size of a cig pack,
with a 1/1.8" sensor.  Remember that the sensor area grows with the
square of the diameter, so 1/1.8" is about as much sensor area as the
VX2000's three 1/3" sensors.  (The VX2000 has no Bayer filter losing
light, however.)  Anyway, there's no reason the manufacturers couldn't
make a palm-sized camcorder with a 1/1.8" sensor.  The one thing they
might have to sacrifice is the absurd zoom ratios they're putting in
the lenses, which are a crazy marketing thing, since the lenses
perform terribly at the extreme tele end.

thanks for your tips.

all this talk about poor image quality is quite dissapointing.


In article <6pCdnZzVFPfncAnfRVn***@comcast.com>,
Show quoteHide quote

Woodsie: no question the *current* line of "new" cameras in the sub-$1000
class is disappointing.

Look on the bright side: the number of bargains on the used market!


Show quoteHide quote

Re: problem of head on camcorder, help
What DPI is video?
Re: problem of head on camcorder, help
Converting Video to DVD
Sony TRV520 D8 Camcorder
What video editor program allows the Audio track to be independently manipulated?
4 DVI-D sources to 2 rolling monitors, 60 ft away
Vegas trial (vs. Premiere Pro)
Stop Motion Video, DCR-TRV9
Video Workprinter XP for auction on E-bay transfer all your stuff to digital