Choosing a Sony camcorder, comments appreciated

Discussion in 'Sony' started by theman, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. theman

    theman Guest

    I am just about to buy my first digital camcorder, and have narrowed
    the choice down to Sony, because they use a 7mm CCD rather than the
    4.2mm of other manufacturers. I believe that will help the dynamic
    range of the camera. Any comments on the truth of this concept?

    Looking than at the choice, I have TRY14, 19, 22 or 33. I have
    rejected the 14 as it is DV out only, the 19 is in/out but only
    monochrome viewfinder, whereas the 33 is all these plus colour
    viewfinder, 16:9 wide mode, analogue input and 14bit DXP

    Questions:
    Do members of this group value a colour viewfinder?
    How significant is 16:9 mode in normal use?
    Should I care about analogue in and 14 bit DXP?

    All comments appreciated.
     
    theman, Feb 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. theman

    Tony Morgan Guest

    IMHO physical size is not directly an issue, rather than the number of
    pixels. You could perhaps argue about that, since (in theory) all that
    is required for digital video is 437,760px (760 x 576) - not
    accounting for the extra that which must be added for image
    stabilisation.

    Although it's very subjective, it does seem to me that the Sony's owned
    by friends and acquaintances [1] seem to give a better picture than
    those I know who own Panasonics. I should add that I don't consider that
    there's anything wrong with Panasonics. But then, being a Sony owner I'm
    probably biassed.
    I haven't handled the 14, 19 or 22, but I have tried (with more than a
    cursory handle) the TRV33 which I think is excellent in it's price
    group.
    Yes. But having said that I rarely use other than the eye-level
    viewfinder. I do use my camcorder to watch pre-recorded (on EP miniDV
    tape) movies on long-haul flights BTW. They wouldn't look too good in
    monochrome :)
    Though I've only got 16:9 letterbox on my ageing TRV30, two friends who
    have a TRV33 and TRV80 respectively, after an initial burst of
    enthusiasm, now rarely (if ever) use it.
    Analogue in yes (as far as I know all DV-in Sonys also support AV -->
    DV, though it's not always well documented - it's hardly mentioned in my
    manual). I do know that the result of bringing in analogue broadcast
    from my Sky box via SCART/S-video is very impressive in terms of
    quality.

    Sony made much of the 14-bit DXP when they first introduced it (I
    believe with my TRV30) and warbled on about their HAD technology. Maybe
    that accounts for my perception of a better picture quality.

    If I were replacing my TRV30 I'd go for the TRV33 (but if I had the
    money I'd choose the TRV80).
    --
    Tony Morgan
    "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
    there is." - Yogi Berra
    http://www.camcord.info
    http://www.rhylonline.com
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. theman

    Xbase Guest

    TRV33 is excellent - looks good on a widescreen TV in 16x9 mode
     
    Xbase, Feb 12, 2004
    #3
  4. theman

    Pilot Pete Guest

    I have been looking at the TRV 60 as it appears to have a good resolution in
    the still photo format as well as the excellent camcorder features of course
    but the physical size puts me off it i'm afraid.
     
    Pilot Pete, Feb 15, 2004
    #4
  5. theman

    Tony Morgan Guest

    What, too big or too small? If the latter, then I would suggest that you
    might review your priorities. Having viewed quite a few movies produced
    by friends and acquaintances over the last year or so, I've had a
    suspicion that I've had for some time confirmed, that size does matter.
    Almost without exception those with the tiny "pocket" camcorders seem to
    produce movies that are unsteady (in spite of image stabilisation),
    especially when panning or using zoom at other than the wide-angle
    setting. It's also worth remembering that switching image stabilisation
    off will go a long way towards avoiding those movement artefacts that
    occur with moving objects within the viewing window as well as occurring
    on fast pans.

    Being able to comfortably hold your camcorder in *both* hands seems to
    provide better results. I also suspect that the weight helps too. And
    the controls tend to be smaller, fiddly and awkward to use on the tiny
    pocket camcorders.

    Just my opinion of course, but it seems to be borne out by the movies
    I've seen that have been produced on the latest generation of "one-hand"
    camcorders.

    Since you're looking at the TRV60, one of my fiends was looking at this
    one, but decided to go the extra mile with the TRV80 (mainly based on
    using my TRV30 that has the larger screen) - and he hasn't regretted it.
    --
    Tony Morgan
    "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
    there is." - Yogi Berra
    http://www.camcord.info
    http://www.rhylonline.com
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 15, 2004
    #5
  6. theman

    Jerry. Guest

    <snip>

    That's a bit rich coming from TPT, seeing all the grief he has given me over
    the years when I've said the same sorts of things and that IMO a camera
    belongs on the shoulder.
     
    Jerry., Feb 15, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.