Choosing the right digital video cam...

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Timo J, Apr 18, 2004.

  1. Timo J

    Timo J Guest

    Hi - Im very interestet in creating my own film about diving, but ill ned to
    get the basics first - the digital video camera. I´we been looking a bit
    around but there is a milione terms im not fully into, and im getting
    overloaded with adds, descriptions so i cant deside wich is better and wich
    is not, thats where your experience comes in.....

    What i need :

    1) Broadcast quality.
    2) Sturdy cam with a long rec time on the battery..
    3) Underwater casing
    4) Extremely cheap
    5) High funtionality
    6) comes with the pro video edditing kit, or recomondations to a great
    edditing software....
    7) good pictures in dark conditions, some shots in very green waters....

    Thanks !


    Best regards ..

    Timo.
     
    Timo J, Apr 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. visit webboard at www.dvdoctor.net where you will find a lady called
    'dee' who does exactly what you want to do.
    i'm sure she'll point you in the right direction.

    her website is here

    http://www.blufindivers.com/
     
    Gary MacKenzie, Apr 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Timo J

    Mark Sturge Guest

    Hi Timo,

    make sure that once get that video camera that is right for you that
    you dont lose sight of good filming basics like the 3/30 rule.
    http://www.kmsvideo.com
     
    Mark Sturge, Apr 19, 2004
    #3
  4. Timo J

    DavesVideo Guest

    What i need :
    Sounds like number 4 negates the possibility of all the others. Guess it
    depends on what you mean by extremely cheap.


    Dave
    http://members.tripod.com/~VideoDave
     
    DavesVideo, Apr 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Timo J

    Timo J Guest

    Well it more a cost benefit statement, it has to be a good cam, considering
    the price - I gues that if you get a 0.001% better cam for 2000$ more, then
    its not a cheap - So in short i like a cam, where my monney goes to quality
    materials, and not to the sticker on the side of the cam..


    Ps: Thanks for all the replies!

    Timo.
     
    Timo J, Apr 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Timo J

    Steve Guest

    This reminds me of the old adage..

    I want it fast
    I want it cheap
    I want great quality

    Pick any two...
     
    Steve, Apr 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Timo J

    gothika Guest

    Well if you want the most features for the least amount of money go
    Panasonic or JVC or maybe Canon.
    Sony is definitely out.
     
    gothika, Apr 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Timo J

    Andys cam Guest

    What i need :
    HUH?? What drugs are you on??
     
    Andys cam, Apr 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Timo J

    gothika Guest

    Well a masters in film firstly combined with over 3 decades working in
    film and video.

    You missed the part where he said extremely cheap.
    Sony is anything but cheap and from the sony's I've tested in the past
    couple of years they are extremely overrated.
    If you think Sony is the first choice, why are so many shooters/field
    eng's in the low/mid end using GL1's or similar models?
    I've owned Sony's in my past businesses(mostly DXC 3000s)
    And while they did great work for first gen chip cameras, they cost me
    twice as much as the next model up in a Panasonic or even two models
    up in the JVC line.
    They weren't as sturdy as my JVC's that cost half as much.
    try dropping six grand on a field setup only to have the head crap out
    after being tapped at the 40 yard line.(DXC 3000)
    Panasonics have loads more useful features than Sonys and work just as
    well in low light.(if not a tad better for some models.)
    The Sony offerings on the low end market today have terrible image
    issues. To sharp(edge artifacts) and poor gamas curves for serious
    use.(granted they can be tweaked, but I doubt this poster will be
    using a engineer to fine tune any camera he buys.)
    Instead of going with larger chips they seem determined to go smaller.
    I for one wnat my ccds as large as possible and would be happy to see
    something larger than 1/3 in the bottom of the market.
    That said if many here are happy with Sony, good for them.
    I like my Canons for overall use. Good prices, fairly sharp, and
    fairly sturdy for the money.
     
    gothika, Apr 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Ummmmm.......;-)
    Sorry, but your statements, "The Sony offerings on the low end market
    today have terrible image issues. To[o] sharp(edge artifacts) and poor
    gamas curves for serious use", and, "If you think Sony is the first choice,
    why are so many shooters/field eng's in the low/mid end using GL1's or
    similar models?" do bring into question the validity of your other statements.
    The GL1 is a good (i.e., extreme) example of the worst in small camcorders
    regarding images with unacceptable levels of oversharpening and
    unacceptable tonality (among several other image faults it has). Hey, even
    when the GL1 was current, Sony offered *two* small cameras with
    superior image characteristics (the VX1000 and TRV900 - see
    www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm and
    www.ferrario.com/ruether/vid_pict_characts.htm [use the "key" to see
    what shot what]). Currently, the Sony VX2000 (and variants) and
    Panasonic DVX100a are the top selections in the small camera field for
    best picture characteristics, with the JVC300 also being very good (and
    the Canon GL2 good - and a BIG improvement over the GL1). And,
    the Sony is generally accepted as the sturdiest of the small cameras...
    Dunno - sounds like either "nappy" is using yet another alias, or we
    have yet another "nappy" gung-ho Canon addict...;-)
     
    David Ruether, Apr 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Timo J

    gothika Guest

    Not a Canon addict, just some of what I'm currently using.
    Actually I prefer Panasonic(pro/industrial) for work not demanding a
    tough rig.(In my past experience they didn't hold up well to the
    rigors of field use. I'd be happy to hear from any who can show me
    newer models that can.)
    JVC's and Ikegami's were what I used in the past for eng/field work.
    Good image quality with the durability of a tank.
    I've used a good bit of Sony over the years and have mixed feeling at
    best.(Bought 3 DXC3000 rigs back in the late 80's which all crapped
    after a year and a half. Two came apart in the field, the third had
    crappy chips that showed noticable pixel drop after just a few
    months.)
    Like most I have to show a return on any gear I buy and over the years
    have had my share of bad equipment.
    I stand by what I said about the Sony low end camera's I tested out in
    the past couple of years. Maybe I just got lemons. That said they
    still cost more than comparable models of the other brands.
    There's too much bad blood between Sony and myself for me to switch
    over or give them much slack.
    I would love to get my hands on Panasonics newer offerings with the
    24p modes just to give them a test drive.(Not having shot on actual
    film for some time I'd love to do something withat least a "film
    look".)
    BTW has Sony done anything to improve their customer service in the US
    in the past few years? Just curious, that's one aspect I absolutely
    have to have.(Panasonic used to give me a no questions swap unit
    whenever I had to bring in a camera for service, something Sony never
    did.) If a camera dies I've got to have an immediate replacement to
    keep my customers happy. One lost shoot and my rep goes down the tubes
    real quick.
     
    gothika, Apr 23, 2004
    #11
  12. OK, thanks for a good answer this time, without the "problems"
    of the first...;-) I always recommend that people test thoroughly
    all new and used gear - defects can appear in either. Purchases
    for either should be made from sellers that will accept returns or
    exchanges "gracefully". A bad run of experience with Sony and
    a good one with another with defects is interesting, but it should
    not "color" your opinions of image quality...;-) Neither should
    service policies, though those are important, too, for obvious
    reasons (I hate dealing with Sony, too, but the relative high
    quality of many of their low-end products, even if at sometimes
    slightly higher prices than the competition, makes it worth it to
    me). I prefer to evaluate all of the separate issues about products
    separately, and not make blanket evaluations of all aspects
    based on one "nasty" part (or on the good marketing skills of
    the manufacture, either...;-). All buying decisions are compromises
    and we need to be as unbiased as possible about all the parts that
    make up the balance for each of us that results in the purchase
    decision. Throwing in inaccurate or misleading conclusions about
    some of those parts helps no one...
     
    David Ruether, Apr 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Timo J

    Phil Crawley Guest

    What i need :
    How very bizzare - the first requirement is broadcast quality but the thread
    has gone off on a discourse about DV cameras!
     
    Phil Crawley, Apr 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Your point is well-taken..., but the OP did ask
    about the selection of a camcorder, giving "BQ"
    as but one of its requirements...;-) He did not ask
    about what constitutes "BQ", or about the process
    of achieving it or of selling it...;-)
     
    David Ruether, Apr 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Timo J

    Steve King Guest

    It does seem strange; however, with more and more network television being
    shot on DVCAM format, it should be expected. Front Line... National
    Geographic Reports... Most Reality Shows... etc.

    Steve King
     
    Steve King, Apr 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Timo J

    gothika Guest

    Guess it depends on what is meant by the poster as Broadcast quality.
    Are you talking about resolution, S/N, Color saturation etc...
    DV camcorders certainly do better in the visual aspects than most of
    the broadcast/ENG of yesteryear.
    I'm sure that anything shot on a simple DV cam would need alot of post
    work to optimize it for broadcast.(I had to buy TBC specifically
    designed for 1/2inch video for that reason back when small stations
    started accepting it.)
     
    gothika, Apr 23, 2004
    #16
    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.