Decisions, decisions....

Prolly the most annoying thing for you guys are noobs coming on and
asking for advice about camcorder choice - I'm sure one more wont hurt
too much! ;-)

I'm after a MiniDV cam with good video performance and features. I've
narorwed it down to three cams all seen at prcdirect.co.uk and would like
to hear your thoughts/opinions/experiences about them:

1) Sony DCR-PC109E (£499.95 inc VAT)
*Good price
*16:9 mode
*Zeiss lens

2) Canon MVX25i (£714.51 inc VAT)
*Mid-price
*DIGIC DV/RGB filter (good colour reproduction)
*14x Optical zoom
*Manual focus ring

3) Panasonic NV-GS400B (£1,039.95 inc VAT)
*Stretching budget (an then some!)
*3 CCD (3x 1/4.7")
*OPTICAL image stabiliser
*Multi manual ring

Thanks in advance.

 

You'll probably find the votes on this board for the Sony units. I have one
(a DCR-HC85E) which I'm quite happy with (except that I feel the tape
transport mechanism shouldn't be as audible while recording, and certainly
not on the recordings themselves), and this is mostly due to the fact that
it seems robust enough, it has good optics, and it tells you how much
battery life there is left in minutes.

I do wish that during my research I'd consider a Canon which, I guess,
produces better images (both the stills and the video), but this is really
only a guess from the fact that their still digital cameras make better
images than the Sony's. However, at the time I ruled Canon out completely as
I heard people complain about a loud tape transport mechanism audible on the
recordings as well... (it seems that it's even louder than that of my
HC85E). I am not at all familiar with their line, and even less with the
Panasonic's. Sure, a 3CCD does sound good, but I wonder if they process the
picture as well as Canon does.

You know best why you chose those three models, but perhaps you could review
http://www.camcord.info/buying/index.html again. Further, compare also their
sensor pixel amount, as a two-megapixel camera usually produces sharper and
better pictures on a film than one with less megapixels. If you can, test
the cameras, see how easily they are used, how well they behave and, if
possible, how good their recordings are.

Matej

 

Perhaps the OP might be better off looking at a site (or magazine) that has
real reviews done by people who know what they are talking about and have
the necessary equipment / expertise to carry out worthwhile tests and not
just write a diatribe of personal views dressed up as something important -
and to think the person behind the above site accesses others of being on an
ego trip....

 

Certainly. Can you point out to such a site? I've been eager to find one
myself when making decisions of my own purchases. http://www.dpreview.com
has come as a great help when choosing a still camera because the reviews
there seem competent and thorough, while there's also a great user base that
posts their comments on each particular model. It's fairly easy to find,
too --- Google quickly directs you there. Something I couldn't say for the
camcorder world. And as for the magazines, I think you pointed out yourself
on one of the occasion that it has to be competent, not just restating
what's already in the specs section of the manual, only slightly more
elaborately.

Now, when making decisions about technical purchases, you have two things to
consider: the general. rough things one needs to know about properties of
the gadgets, or, on the other one, exact findings about a particular model.
The generalisations of newer vs. older models seem often futile (like my
constant gripe, if Sony could make TRV models right, why the HC models have
louder mechanisms?). So, in the lack of the latter, I found the info on the
http://www.camcord.info/ just what I needed to introduce me into what there
is and what I should generally look out for. Besides, it says right in the
beginning that the site is about the author's opinons and a collection of
things discussed here. So, no matter what you may think about the author,
concernes valid or not, that site is there for all to see and use, and I
found the info there is valid. So until someone points (or even creates)
another site that has equally good or even better content, I don't think
anyone should really dismiss that page.

That said, I hope the author will update some things, like a formerly
discussed differences between types of the AVI DV format

Matej

 

Why ? In the field they sap power, invite poor filming style (you know those
adverts were the camera is being held out at arms length type of thing),
colour viewfinders make it more difficult to focus correctly and in the edit
suit they are pointless as it's better to use a production monitor or TV
set.

These days I'm not

A single small CCD will be worse than a 3 CCD model, surely, as there will
be lees active pixels for each colour on the single CCD than on (the same
sized) 3 CCD's.

I also

True, money better spent on a half decent, fluid or fluid effect, tripod and
head.

"If you're looking Sony, then I'd suggest that you add the TRV80 to your
list" How can you seriously say something like that after saying that small
cameras are no good, they are or they're not ! It might be news for you Mr
Morgan but the Sony TRV80 is a small (palmcam style) camera too.

- though it

"Again for handling, the MVX25i seems to be OK" But you then say that you
haven't even used one (nor probably seen one), HTF can you first say that
the handling seems OK but then admit that you have never in fact handled one
?!

Cut the BS Mr Morgan and please keep you inverted ego in check...

 

<snipped but read>

You probably won't find full reviews online, most of the worthwhile reviews
in the UK are done by magazines such as Camcorder User and (to a lesser
extent ATM) by Computer Video magazines and as their prime reason for being
is to sell the magazine titles and back copies etc. it's not in their
interest to put up free web pages IYSWIM. Both magazines are owned by
Highbury Entertainment who also publish AIUI a television industry trade
title or two and the What titles [1]. I have found some USA based sites that
seem to have similar style tests but as they are of NTSC products their
worth in PAL land is slight (other than general handling and the such) IMO.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, IMO the web is not the place to
look for (meaningful) product reviews as it take time and money to test a
product correctly and the people who do those tests want some return on that
time and cost.

AIUI one of the many criticisms of the (late) magazine 'DV World' was that
they didn't review the products but just reworked marketing blurb.

[1] such as What Home Cinema, What Satellite & Digital TV, What Video & TV,
What Video Best Buys etc.

 

But you don't know what you are talking about Sir, you have proved that time
and time again and you have never once apologised for calling other people
liars or ego-jerks after they have shown you up a wrong (most recently when
discussing DV AVI's), preferring to 'plonk' them in your kill file until
such time you hope they have forgotten. Trouble is Mr Morgan, I suspect
there are to many elephants on this group and you know what is said about
elephants, they never forget...

 

I suppose it's a thing of a choice and having freedom to film things in
one's own style. A bigger LCD does provide an ease of use, and the hybrid
technology makes it more visible outdoors in the sunshine, where you can
also switch the backlight off to make it less a burdon on the battery.
However, as you said, the colour viewfinder does seem to be low in detail
and makes it hard to discern details and when things are in focus. Instead,
the manual of the HC85E suggests to zoom in on an object to make manual
focusing easier (which obviously makes it rather useless during the
shooting), or to use an extended focusing available in the memory mode which
automatically enlarges the central part of the scene when one rotates the
focus ring. Again, usless when one is already recording in the tape mode.
Too bad they didn't implement a similar system that my Canon still camera
uses: when focusing manually it shows a window within the display enlarged
enough for the focusing to be visible.

In theory 3CCD is obviously better than a single sensor. But in reality it
usually comes down to the quality of those sensors and the ability of the
on-board software to properly process the visual data. My colleague had a
few words with one of the Sony technicians, and he's told me that they use a
redundancy of the CCD sensors to process the colour, so the more redundancy
on the sensor, the better. The bottom line is, if you compare a good 3CCD
camera to a good CCD camera, it is no brainer the former will produce nicer
images. In reality, it's probably better to first test and compare, and then
decide whether the difference in price outweighs the difference in quality.

Depends on the way you look at it. TRV cameras are "horizontal" cameras,
meaning that you can grip it with your palm oriented vertically. The PC
series are "vertical" cameras, so it may be awkward to hold such a camera if
one is used to the "horizontal" ones. So, all of them can be viewed as
"small", but when the camera has a 3.5" viewfinder, it can't be too small.

Matej

 

I wouldn't even look at the PC109 because, (since it is one of these

In reality small cameras will dominate the market as "ordinary" users will
prefer the convienience over stability. Only the most enthusaitic amatuer is
going to lug a large camera on holiday these days, and they will out
numbered by the ordinary holiday maker with their handheld jobbies. I will
be taking mine on holiday, along with a small shoulder pod.
I do wish that a consistent set of features where offerred on these hand
held jobbies though. Offering high zoom multipliers on such cameras is a
nonsense even with image stabilisation. Although I have disabled digital
zoom it would be nice to have a further user selected limit so that if
it's hand help you don't get tempted into using 16x!

 

What kinds of stuff are you shooting?

I don't suppose doing that would be easy. There is only so far you can go
before having to dip into more technical matters. I've been thinking about
it --- in the past you had a VHS camcorder, you shot stuff, took the
cassette from the camcorder, put it into the VCR and watched the results
right away. With a VHS-c, the most techical thing to go to was to plug the
camera into a VCR and record there what the camcorder was replaying. Or,
perhaps, use an adapter, but they already told you there and then that you
shouldn't do too much fast-forwarding and rewinding.

I suppose one can stay on the same level with digital camcorders, as it too
has analogue or even digital output, and if one has a VCR, you can transfer
stuff the same way one would with a VHS(c). Of course there isn't much use
of the digital quality unless the master tapes are preserved and someone
more tech-savvy does the capture and the editing. Or perhaps in this case
they should get a DVD camcorder, learn to "finalise" their programme, and
the effect should be the same even without having to plug the yellow, red
and white plug to a VCR. But I suppose most of us have issues with DVD
camcorders.

If people want to do DV without any technical background, I suppose we can
tell them they have a MS Movie Maker sitting on their XP, that they have to
plug the cable with that square plug that has a small notch at the bottom to
the only hole on the camera that fits there, and capture the contents of
their tape, then play with the recordings, add effects and transitions, and
save the thing on a VCD or a DVD or even back to the tape. But beyond that,
I suppose it's necessairy to know why those files on my hard drive are so
big, what I lose if I want to make them smaller, and just what it is I can
do with what I have. I suppose there are ways to explain these things in a
simple English way that doesn't resemble Geek, but the main concern is that
with more options one has to learn what those options mean and sometimes
even why.

So, yes, things can get confusing and overwhealming, and it isn't easy to
make the explanation simpler, I suppose.

Matej

 

Oh and i'm not having a go at you Tony. As you pointed out these three
cameras cannot be compared as they have different uses. Compare these with
photography. I have an SLR and realise that seperate zoom's have better
quality. But when I go on holiday I take a super zoom len's for the
convienience. Equally if I was going to a social event I will pop my "super
mini" 35mm in the pocket and leave the SLR at home.

So what I'm saying is that users should have more than one DV camera if they
can afford it. Anyone who can afford to pay £1000 for an "enthusasts" camera
should consider adding a hand held jobbie for £300 (yes you can get DV
cameras for that price if you accept you are trading performance for
convienience)

 

Very true, but as TM himself doesn't understand a lot about video and NLE's
he uses the above as a way to make him look more informed than he really
is - he simply can't keep quite on matters he know nothing about it seems
and then calls people 'ego-jerks' and the like when they try and inform him
of his errors.

No, the simplest thing would be to tell them that they can connect there
camcorder directly to either a VHS machine or DVD recorder and 'crash edit'
out any bits they dislike !... Not technical issues beyond connecting the
leads...

that they have to

"What, you mean the one called USB, that's the one I plug my digital still's
camera into so it should work"...

You need to understand why USB is no use, to do that you need to know at
least the basics of data rates etc.

 

<snip>

Well, technically what you should do (after putting the camera into manual
focus mode [1]) is zoom right into your subject, focus and then zoom out and
frame your subject - this will mean your subject should remain in focus even
if it moves or you pan or zoom in or out.

As I said, that is the correct way of doing it, but with the stupid controls
know used on consumer cameras it's nought on impossible I suspect. :~(

 

I agree with your comments. But I suppose I've been spoilt by all the info
available online for the digital cameras, phones and such. Being quite far
away from the UK, this market also seems to be too small to have a magazine
to even list the available products, let alone review them. Threfore, I was,
and still am, relying only on the stuff found online.

Matej

 

What you say is a correct and invaluable procedure for a zoom lens but the
lenses fitted to cheapest cams may be varifocals which don't hold focus as
the focal length changes. Such cameras rely on the autofocus mechanism to
track focus in which case your procedure won't work. Or to put it another
way they are worthless junk. ;-)

 

<snip>

I'm a keen DIYer with a garage full of power tools, and I'm

I doubt very much that you will have much luck, considering the staple diet
of the Home & Leisure channels etc.

<snip>

That is obvious, it seems that you don't even like to learn from them
either, after you think all those that do must be on some form of ego
journey...

 

You wish !

No it is not, unless you know what you could have you won't know the
failings of what you do (or will) have. What you advocate is called sticking
ones head in the sand and saying 'there is no better camera, there is no
better camera..<repeated infanitum>...'.

A bit like

<snip>

Sorry, were was anyone comparing a 80k ukp 16:9 digibete camera + docked VTR
with a 500 ukp camcorder ?

 

Well, actually I wasn't refering to it being clumsy, as the zoom is fast and
the focus ring works nicely. What I mean is, it isn't something you want to
do during the recording of a film (but I suppose a pro wouldn't need to do
that, the number showing the distance in focus would suffice).

That was my concern --- doesn't a focal length change during zooming and
thus requires to refocus? From your reply I'd say cheap lenses do that,
while the good ones don't (Just now I tried it with a 28-85 Nikkor, and,
yeah, it stayed in focus even after zooming in or out completely).

Matej

 

Shouldn't you switch to manual focus and focus at the zoom setting with the
smallest depth of field?

 

No refocussing is necessary on a zoom lens. If otherwise it would be more
correctly described as varifocal.

An expensive Nikon lens for a 35mm still camera will be a true zoom
maintaining focus as the focal length changes but I wouldn't mind betting
that some of the inexpensive digital still cameras have variable focal
length lenses masquerading as zooms with the aid of auto focus. In an 'auto
everthing' camera how would anyone notice the difference?

The same situation prevails with video cameras. My Fujinon lenses certainly
maintain focus and I regularly zoom the lens well in solely to aid focussing
before drawing back. No 'pro' lens has auto focus AFAIK.

I have a varifocal lens fitted to the security camera I mentioned a day or
two ago, they are much cheaper than true zooms, but as CCTV cams are usually
in fixed and inaccessible places that is an entirely acceptable situation.
You adjust it once and it stays that way. In a camcorder intended for
serious film making it isn't acceptable.