Reviews for Digital Camcorders?

bluprint asks: "I've been looking for information regarding digital camcorders. Googling for 'digital camcorder reviews' (and other variations) of course brings up tons of results, but I thought I would get input from the slashdot crowd. Does Slashdot have any suggestions on these camcorders considering price, features and quality? I plan to use it for my summer vacation, but also intend to keep it for many years (possibly even after I have kids, in a couple years), so I'm willing to spend a little more for something high quality, which uses media that will be around for a while. I'm not interested in fancy/artistic things like video editing on my computer, I just want high quality video, preferably keeping it under $1000. Are there suggestions on where to read some thorough, quality reviews of different products, and maybe even educate myself about what to look for in a digital camcorder?"

Comments

dvspot

[Anonymous Coward]

i've found dvspot.com to be a wonderful resource

Re:dvspot

[Malk-a-mite]

Another one to add to the soon to be growing collection of links:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/

Re:dvspot

[Anonymous Coward]

www.supervideo.com usually has some good information on digital camcorders (if you can get past the UI of the site)

LUX Rating

[SoCalChris]

Get one with a low LUX number. The lower the number, the better it will record in low light situations like indoors.

A lot of camcorders ***cough***Sony***cough*** advertise having things like "Night Vision", but have a really crappy LUX rating, which makes them useless unless you are outdoors in the bright sun or in total darkness.

Re:LUX Rating

[tyroney]

Indoors, my sony digital8 camcorder, (similar to some other digital imaging devices I've seen,) often shoots things a little too well for my taste. Usually when I use it to film something, I go in and turn down the "brightness" to get a result I like. (btw, that's a smaller screen Sony digital8. The night vision is kinda cool, but I have yet to think of a legal use I could put it to)

I have no idea what the lux rating on my camera is, so feel free to set me straight if I'm missing your point. I just figured I should say something since you mentioned Sony specifically.

Re:LUX Rating

[forevermore]

Um, the sony camcorders do have nightvision. Real nightvision - the infrared kind. The built-in illuminators kinda suck, but with the 8-irLED attachment (which also happens to have a normal light) I get awesome nightvision up to a hundred feet or so, just like they advertise.

I love my sony dcr-trv27. Took it on my honeymoon, where the IR let me take some pretty incredible pictures of an active volcano (obviously not the ones in the link), and of all kinds of nocturnal animals on jungle walks. Sony uses Zeiss optics, which are virtually unparalleled, and unlike many of their digicams, the camcorder ccd's are pretty decent (don't expect to rely on the 1.3Mp "still" features, though - they're mediocre at best). Sony doesn't pack very many video editing type features into their cameras like JVC, etc. but really, if you get a digical camcorder, you'll have a lot more options in software (and trust me, even if you think you won't play with video editing software, once you start wanting to burn dvd's for family/friends, you'll appreciate it). Sony cameras are a little more expensive than others, but imho the quality shows in both the manufacturing and the recording quality.

Re:LUX Rating

[jafac]

On the other hand, I got a Sony mini DV with the Carl Zeiss lens.

The Lens is important.

I'm the only guy in our Cub Scout pack with a modern Macintosh - and I've done videos (iMovie/iDVD) for about a dozen other parents, with mini DV camcorders, via the fire wire port.

I'm absolutely stunned at the poor image quality that comes off these other camcorders, ESPECIALLY Toshiba. The Sony with the Carl Zeiss lens has, by far, the best image quality. The zoom lever is really touchy though. And mine's a couple years old, so it's like 4 times the size of the typical camcorder these days.
Pretty much every other Sony product, I'll boycott, but damn, they've got a nice camcorder!

Re:LUX Rating

[b0bby]

I have to disagree - I have a 4 year old Sony Digital8 camcorder (it was the least expensive digital option then) and I think it has pretty decent low light capabilities. I've used the Night Vision thing a few times in the dark, but even with not much more than a candle you can get an image. My model is rather big and clunky compared to the newer ones, and thus has a larger lens, which may be why.

I like canon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big fan of the canon line. The quality is great, the image stabilization is amazing, and the form factors are way more usable than the other major brands. I always felt like I was going to accidentally flip switches and press buttons with everyone else's cameras. Anyways, my humble opinion. It's a place to start looking.

Three CCDs

[spun]

I've heard from pros that you really want a camcorder with three CCDs. They pick up more detail in the darker parts of the image. I think the cheapest are in the $1,500 range, though.

Re:Three CCDs

[stephenb]

Actually, Panasonic has two sub $1000 3 CCD camcorders out (or soon-to-be out): check this camcorderinfo.com article for details.

Re:Three CCDs

[E10Reads]

As a professional I concur, but for proffesional application or if it was in his price range. These cameras generally run much more than regular consumer cameras. Look for a camera with the largest ccd you can get in your range. The larger the ccd the more information it can absorb (in a sense). CCD size can be compared to film- smaller (8mm), largest (70mm/imax). It follows that the small sizes have show more grain (in video this translates what looks like static) when viewed in larger formats (tv vs. the small viewfinder). Also look for a camera with a low lux (1 or 6db).

Optics, like lens is important but don't let it spoil your search. Cannon makes excellent lenses as does Sony (many of which are Zeiss). Someone else mentioned optical vs. digital zoom in another post and are correct. The longer the optical zoom the better becasue this relys exclusivly on the optics of the camera verses the CCD capacity of camera. Digital zoom enlarges sections of the image using information from the whole image on the ccd, resulting in pixilation.

Viewfinder. Best is flipout of largest size. Many of the small eyelevel viewfinders are B&W so a camera with a flip-out screen will allow you to see the image in color, as well as interact more with your subject because your nose won't be pressed up to the camera. Be aware that in bright light and at different angels, the flip-out may not be viewable. Also of note is that the flip-out brightness level can fool you into thinking that the exposure level of the image is higher than it actually is.

Audio is always a problem on camcorders, specificly because the microphones generally just take in all sound from every direction. If there is one, try to get a camera who's mic is directional towards the front of the camera. That way you will hear what is infront of the lens more than behind or to the sides.

Format should also be of consideration. mini DV is better than digital 8 and microDV. Do not consider camera that use digital 8 or micro as media. MiniDV stores the highest res video of the three and if you get another camera years down the line you will not be stuck with a camera that only uses digital 8 (which has become the equvalent- already- as 8 and hi-8 video) or micro (of which selection is small, as well as having tapes which are difficult to find). The ubiquity of miniDV tapes should sell you alone.

Finally, Connectivity should be considered. Make sure the camcorder you get has both rca connections (this can come in the format of 1/8in mini plug to rca or rca to rca) and IEEE1394 (aka dv interface for computers, in case you ever want to back up your video and make a dvd or just edit birthday parties or even let you kids shoot/edit their own movies).

IMHO canon elura is a very good consumer camera, but this is a year ago or so. There may even be better by now.

I hope that some of what I've said is helpful, and that you enjoy whatever camera you buy.

Re:Three CCDs

[dsurber]

The best camcorder for 2003 according to some is the Panasonic PV-DV953. It is a 3-CCD camcorder for barely under $1000. It's biggest drawback is its poor low light performance. This is intrinsic to inexpensive 3-CCD camcorders.

The light sensitivity of a camcorder is proportional to the size of the pixels. The bigger the pixels the more photons they collect, the more sensitive they are to light. The cost of a camcorder is also proportional to the size of the pixels. The bigger the pixels, the bigger the CCD, and the more expensive the CCD. In a 3-CCD camera the cost of the CCD is multiplied by 3, so increasing the size of the CCD greatly increases the cost of the camcorder.

So, choose two, best picture quality, good low light capability, low cost.

Re:Three CCDs

[NewtonsLaw]

The best camcorder for 2003 according to some is the Panasonic PV-DV953. It is a 3-CCD camcorder for barely under $1000. It's biggest drawback is its poor low light performance. This is intrinsic to inexpensive 3-CCD camcorders

I had the PAL version of this camera (MX500) and it is a pretty damned good machine for the money and made the 1CCD Sony I used to have look really lousy by comparison.

While it's true that the low-light abilities of these cameras (and indeed, most of the more recent 3CCD cameras such as the Sony 950 etc) is not as good as those with larger CCDs, it's not as bad as you might think.

The low sensitivity generally manifests itself as grain (noise) on the image which is caused by the video amp being wound up high to compensate for the low output from the CCDs. You have two options -- provide more light (a good idea), reduce the shutter speed (a special ultra-low-light speed is offered for this but it's pretty useless for anything other than stills and "special effects") or you can just switch to manual and set the video gain to a more realistic level -- with the side-effect that the image will be dark (but isn't that what low-light means? :-)

These cameras aren't perfect but all I've found to complain about is:

1. The zoom control is rather sensitive and sometimes it can be very hard to zoom nice and slow when you're in a hurry.

2. The standard lens has quite a narrow field of view. Although I never needed it with my trusty old Sony, the first thing I bought for the Panasonic was a wide-angle lens. Without the WA lens I found it difficult to take indoor shots that didn't cut out half the required scene.

3. The eye-piece viewfinder (as opposed to the fold-out LCD screen) has insufficient resolution to allow accurate focusing when in manual mode. However, this is a problem intrinsic to just about all consumer-level (and a number of prosumer) cameras these days.

On the plus side -- you get a nice, compact, well balanced 3CCD camera for little more than many 1CCD units. It has top-loading (so you don't have to take it off the tripod to change tapes), a good range of interfaces (firewire, composite, SVideo), zebra stripes, excellent manual override of auto settings (focus, shutter, iris, etc), gives me nearly two hours of recording on the standard battery (when not using the fold-out LCD), produces absolutely *stunning* images, supports 16:9 resolution better than some, has optical image stabilization, etc, etc.

These cameras (like most modern units) also offer still-camera capabilities -- but don't believe the 3 megapixel claim -- that's an interpolated figure and, in reality, they produce images that look like 1MP at best. Still, it's nice to have the abilty to whack off some stills when you want to -- and it even has an inbuilt flash for such purposes. What's more, the optical image stabilizer works for stills so, even with slow shutter speeds and a shakey hand, you get a nice sharp image.

Is it value for money?

Well unless you really need to do a lot of indoor filming using only ambient lighting then I think it scores very highly.

If you really *must* have the best low-light performance available (albeit at the cost of accurate color rendition) then choose an older 1CCD camera or a proper Prosumer unit such as the Sony VX2000/2100 ($$)

Digital camcorders are like most things in life -- it's very seldom you say "hell, I wish I'd bought something that wasn't as good as this" -)

Re:Three CCDs

[shanebush]

I have the PV-DV953 Panasonic 3CCD miniDV camcorder. It's shoots great video. Good lense on it too. (Leica Dicomar) 10x optical Zoom, (but I don't use it)

Cheaper than the Canon GL-2 and has approximately the same featureset.

HOWEVER: be forewarned about buying cameras off the Internet. The "low cost" sites off pricewatch and such sites list the grey-market cameras as the low price, then these sites try to sucker you in to getting the real camera (with manual, non-japanese menus, and retail/extended warranty). Be warned that the gray market stuff usually carries NO warranty. If it breaks, well tough.

I almost got suckered. Got too comfy buying computer equipment from sites that are honorable.

The video from the camera looks great on my standalone dvd player as well. (kino can capture and export to dvd compatible mpeg2)

Re:Three CCDs

[adeyadey]

I use the Canon XM1, which is really good. The biggest advantage is the brightness and sharpness of the colours - much better than 1CCD. This is because a 1 CCD camera uses a colour mask "grid" - any 1 pixel only ever gets 1 colour - and fancy algorithms to fill in the colours for the bits it doesnt have data for. With 3ccd each pixel has separate sensors for red, green, blue.. It really makes a difference - especially if you edit onto decent digital media like DVD..

Canon GL-1

[Anonymous Coward]

Best camera for the price. Flourite lense. Small form factor, better quality picture and sond than anything for less than a Canon XL-1.

It has FireWire out as well as super video. The picture quality is breathtaking and Canon has better red tones than anybody. Enough features to do about what ever you want. Absolutely intuitive user interface, great battery life.

It Rocks.

Re:Canon GL-1

[angle_slam]

It's also costs twice as much as he wanted to spend.

Good Video Camera

[slmcav]

If you are looking for a good video camera to just take good video then try the Mustek DV Series of Digital Camcorders. They are only $200. They are small and too the point. They take great video. 640x480 at great quality.
MPEG 4 Real time video recording frame rate - 30fps (352 X 288 )
640 x 480(VGA) video setting provides you
better resolution than VCD (352 X 288 / PAL ; 352 X 240 / NTSC)

With a 512MB SD Card you can record 2 hours of 640x480 video. This thing is great.

Limitations: It's not built for low-light.

It's also a still camera and mp3 player(?).

For $200 you can't go wrong.

Re:Good Video Camera

[jayrtfm]

The guy can spend up to $1K and you recomend a toy?
the lens is garbarge compared to a real camera, and it doesn't zoom. see http://www.dansdata.com/cooldv350.htm

Many of the midrange DV cameras have a still mode, and can take flash memory cards

Re:Absolute must have

[SoCalChris]

And on the subject of zoom, don't worry too much about the digital zoom. Go for one that has a high optical zoom. Digital zoom will just pixelate everything beyond a certain point, and all you'll see is huge pink squares on your screen where the nipples should be.

Re:Absolute must have

[Phil1]

Depending on what you're doing on holiday, you might also want to consider getting a tripod. If you're using zoom for nature shots (ahem) digital cameras seem to handle camera shake pretty badly.

Things to look for

[orange_6]

1) Get the best optical zoom you can, digital zoom is extremely overrated. Same goes for digital cameras too.

2) A format you are comfortable with (MiniDV or Digital8). After doing research for my digital camcorder I found that the mini-dvd format is completely ludicris and an utter waste.

3) Compatability - this could only be an issue if you don't have a Firewire port...if you don't...get one.

4) If you already have a digital camera don't even bother with looking at those features. Who wants to stop recording, mess with settings, take a picture, and mess around again just to take a picture that you could get with a digital camera faster and usually better quality.

5) Hot-shoe addon slot-thingy - great for zoom-mic's and external lights (ie expandability)

I think that's it...it's been a while since I purchased one (almost 2 years) but it has completely been worth it.

does it have to be digital?

[bashbrotha]

Why go digital?

Perhaps the biggest reason people go digital is the ease of transfer to a computer, and perhaps the low cost of media. If you are really into high-quality analog video (film) seems to be still hanging around after all of these years, and there is no doubting the quality of the result, as well as the archive capabilities.

However, you did ask for digital, so here is the answer. I'd probably go with the miniDV format. With this, you have tons of options. I've seen miniDV cameras on ebay for less than $100 (albeit first-gen low-qual, no frills models). The real high-quality route seems to be going with the likes of the Canon XL-1 (and related models). I've seen some great quality results coming from these cameras, and I spotted one in use during the filming of The Italian Job (check out the dvd special features to see it used), presumably for proof shots, dailies, etc.

Not sure if that helps you, and even the miniDV format may be obsolete in another couple of years.

Good Luck!

Re:does it have to be digital?

[dubiousmike]

"If you are really into high-quality analog video (film) seems to be still hanging around after all of these years"

As you know, there is a world of difference between video and film.

Media for film is expensive. It can be a cumbersome adventure and isn't for casual event capturing. Analog video (affordable ones anyway) is awful in comparison in terms of quality. Though it might not seem so on paper, there is a world of difference between my vhs-c camera and my digital-8. I refuse to use the vhs-c one unless I have to.

For not much more, he can have digital and its worth it.

Make sure it has analog pass through for all of those analog tapes you have that you want to archive...

My Suggestions

[parawing742]

I've used several Sony and Canon camcorders extensively in the past few years. My all around favorite is the Canon GL2, but I think that would be out of your price range ($2000). Even though you don't plan to do computer editing, the digital formats (Mini-DV) are the way to go because they provide higher quality and don't degrade as quickly. Higher quality digital camcorders use 3 CCDs, and the others only use 1 CCD. Either way, you will get far better results than using a consumer analog camera. Unless you already have shot a lot 8mm or Hi8 tape, don't bother with Digital8. The quality is the same, but it will be harder to find compatible playback decks or cameras in the future. I personally am using a Sony TRV-27 right now for most purposes. I think it's been replaced with a different model now. Check out sonystyle.com for current models.

Dansdata.com

[Bombcar]

He might have some reviews worth reading.

Dan Ruther's Site

Well, here's what I use

[SalesEngineer]

I bought a Sharp WD-450 last year. It was cheap ($450), has a good lens (26X optical zoon Canon) and takes good pictures as long as it's in bright light (candlelight == bad). I used it to produce a martial arts instructional DVD & some videos for DragonCon.

The problem is it's a single CCD camera, so the color depth & quality isn't so good. I also couldn't plug in an external mic ... I'm starting to do some for-hire video work & a wireless mic comes in handy.

I just bought a Sony TRV-950 (about $1400), a three CCD camera that came highly recommended for price vs. quality. It's got a bunch of Bluetooth features that I don't need ... the bottom line is that it takes great video. It has a bunch of manual controls that aren't required for most home videos.

I think something like my Sony is overkill for vacation videos & baby pictures. For under $1000 you can get a 3 CCD camera from Panasonic, like the PV-DV953. You can also find good cameras for personal use in the $500-$700 range. You can go cheaper, but just make sure you get a good lens. Some of the lower-end camcorders use lousy lenses. I was okay with that first cheap Sharp camera because it has a Canon lens. These days, $1,000 will buy a camera as good as the $10,000 studio cameras I used to use for college television.

For reviews I use camcorderinfo.com ... good site that often reviews the same camera twice (from two different authors) to provide more information. They lean towards pro equipment, so don't be put off by a camcorder they rank as a 7.0 or 7.5 ... it might be just fine for what you need.

Optical image stabilisation

[smallstepforman]

When searching for a camcorder, you'll be given a choice between Digital Image Stabilisation (DIS) or Optical Image Stabilsation (OIS), with the optical being much more expensive. If you ever wish to shoot image from a moving source (a car, train etc), then definately go for optical image stabilsation. It uses mirrors to stabilise the image instead of software, and produces a less jerky image, especially when you zoom in. Canon's are pretty good in that respect.

Canon rocks

[CAIMLAS]

Canon products are superb. Sony isn't even close in their consumer market.

A year or so back I spent a couple days reviewing camcorders at Best Buy, Electronics Botique, etc., then bringing the tape home and messing around with seeing what was best.

A couple things I liked about Canon camcorders:

- image stabilization (it works wonderfully, and is a great thing to have for those who don't want to carry around a tripod or such)
- nice, crisp images (I bought a camcorder that was made prior to Canon's 'new' image quality technology they've been marketing. it's still better than the competition
- bright colors and good darkness compensation
- small, well designed, and sturdy
- interchangeable batteries with other Canon products
- (generally) standard lenses and filter attachments

I'd recommend buying a canon ZR miniDV camcorder, as they're small, sturdy, have good battery life, and fit nicely in a day pack. They're easily palmable.

I recently got a Canon Powershot G5. I'm equally impressed with it. I can use my ZR battery (511) in my Powershot, and vice versa. Very nice.

Canon is, IMO, the quality peer of IBM in the camera world.

SimplyDV is a great review site

[overworked underpaid]

I'd recommend simplydv.co.uk. Their reviews are detailed an impartial, and they give you a good idea of what to look for in a DV cam.

I recently bought a Canon MVX150i (Optura 20 in US) and it's been really good. I recommend buying from a company that has a good reputation in imaging, like Sony or Canon - you're more likely to get good metering and quality optics. These are the most important things in any camera.

Oh, and buy a second battery.

Sony Handycam DCR-TRV33

[faldore]

I just went shopping for digital camcorders. I did lots of research and tried lots of them out. This one I chose because it is compact, takes 1 megapixel photos, and it is inexpensive compared to its peers. I like the interface, the LCD screen is touch sensitive so it draws buttons on the screen that you can touch to select. I have not been impressed with the ability to transfer video - the only way that I can see is to play the tape and attempt to "capture" the data rather than actually copying the data bit by bit, as you would think a digital camcorder would do. This is unfortunate, because it means to transfer high quality data, you have to have enough bandwidth through the entire pipeline Camera -> USB -> Memory -> IDE -> Hard Drive to be able to catch every frame as fast as the tape plays. I don't know if this is the same for ALL camcorders, but I know it is for this one. Otherwise, I am very pleased by this camcorder.

3ccd is best

[zorcon]

Consider the Panasonic PV-GS70. It's the cheapest 3ccd camera you're going to buy new...MSRP of $999. 3ccd's will help in low light and give a greater picture quality. Unfortunately, compared to Sony, Canon, and other Panasonic offerings, the GS70 uses a smaller CCD, so low light performance isn't THAT great. Still, the picture is excellent.

You're going to be best off spending the most possible, especially if you want the camera to last a long time. I would also consider a Canon GL1 or GL2, a Sony TRV900 or TRV950, or a Sony VX1000, VX2000 or VX2100. All of those cameras are more expensive, but considered industry standards as far as lower end 3ccd prosumer cameras. Also, they're excellent in low light.

Also, I would consider buying used. You'll be able to pick up a Canon GL1, a Sony VX1000, or a TRV900 a lot closer to your $1000 price point.

Also, a few general rules: If you wont use it for stills, don't be swayed by high still picture resolutions. Stick with MiniDV as opposed to DVD recording camcorders or other formats (Sony offers several), and go to a store and check the camera out yourself. Sometimes the "feel" of a camcorder will simply put you off regardless of how great it is.

Check here for reviews and what not:
www.camcorderinfo.com
www.dvspot.com

Also, google for whichever camera and clips. I've found several comparisons with actual clips from all of the above mentioned cameras.

Good luck!

Buy what you will use

[real gumby]

Remember: a fancy camcorder that sits in its case is a waste of money.

If you plan to take it on vacation, size matters. A big camcorder with lots of features will go unused.

I have a Canon Elura. For various specs reasons I won't go into here, I chose it over the small Sony's. I've been very happy with it. The best part is that I can fit it into a (large, jacket) pocket and carry it around, so I have it with me on vacation. It's also a pretty good camcorder.

Do choose a camera that uses mini-DV. The MPEG cameras can only be used with special Windows software that comes with them, and don't take great video. The mini-DV format is as open as these things get, and you can edit the results in several different packages.

You do have tradoffs with these tiny things. The biggest is that you often get camera noise on the soundtrack. Because of the mechanics of the situation, that's hard to avoid without an external microphone.

Another good purchase I made was on a short(!) book on making videos with my camcorder and iMovie. Its section on using the camcorder (don't zoom, shoot a little introductory footage, etc) really made a difference -- without it I would have been just wasting tape since I wouldn't have wanted to view the result.

And finally, expect to make a 5-minute video from your full day of filming. That's just the way it is.

mustek sucks

[michaelbuddy]

do not get the Mustek for family stuff. It only shoots at 10 fps at 640 x 480. that is weak!!

get a mini DV, since they are smaller, and since you aren't doing any real filmmaking, you don't need any manual controls, though manual focus option would be cool. all the brands at a retail store are decent. Get the warranty, it's worth it.

and the whoever stated above regarding the 8mm tapes as the same "form factor" as Hi 8/ D8 is a complete nerd.

Don't bother

[boristdog]

No one watches family videos, not even the family. Unless you and your good lady wife are planning some more interesting videos, dump the video and stick with a still camera. People actually look at still pictures, and they can be e-mailed easily.

Sony DCR TRV-38

[pjp6259]

I just bought the Sony DCR TRV-38 over christmas, and so far I'm pretty satisfied. It had the best collection of good optics and features for around $700. Some features I thought were important:

records to MiniDV - this is the highest quality recording medium. miniDVD may be more convenient, but you pay for it with more compression.

manual focus ring - Ever tried focusing with a menu, or two buttons. The ring focus is the way to go.

Spot focus - nifty feature. You can touch an object on it's lcd screen, and it focuses on where you touch.

records in wide-screen format. 16x9

Optical image stabilization - much better than digital image stabilization.

quality optics.

nice large LCD

The only negative thing I've found so far, is that in low-light settings, the image looks kind of noisy. I've heard this is a problem on all/most digital camcorders with price $1000.

Re:I'd recommend...

[angle_slam]

He wants to spend $1k for a camera. Why recommed a $2k camera?

Re:Camcorderinfo.com Worked for Me

[szyzyg]

Here's a Review of the model I have.

You can probably find it for under $1000 if you look around, but remember on top of this you need to buy extras to get the best out of it.

Some important highlights are....
* 3CCD optics
* Leica Dicomar lense
* 30p non-interlace mode for that film look
* 3.5 inch video display
* Proper manual focus control
* Optical Image stabilisation
* 10x Zoom
* Firewire and USB2 connections
* Video Pass trhough - Direct video to DV

It's also a 3 megapixel still camera, it has a load of onboard effects which I never use. I bought this for the image quality and it's done me well.

Image quality

[TheSync]

One of the problems is that camcorders are sold by tape technology & pixel count. What is missing is a frank discussion of image quality, which is often really missing from some of the lower-quality cameras.

"Real" video cameras that cost $5K and up are specially designed to capture color images well, and in some cases will make people look better than they actually are. My favorite camera is the Panasonic Supercam. Despite being S-VHS, its image looks way better than any DV camera I've ever used. This is because it has a high-quality ($1000) lens, and good digital signal processing to make the image look great.

I suggest looking at DV.Com if you are serious about image quality review.

Of course, form-factor is also important. A lot of people don't mind a horrible looking picture if they can put the camera in their pocket. That too is a valid choice.

Re:Absolute must have

[teutonic_leech]

Actually, using a lot of 'prosumer' and consumer cameras myself, I would recommend to find a camcorder that does NOT have a lot of zoom. Zooming has totally been blown out of proportion by the marketing drones (typical: more zoom = better) but guess what - you won't need it for 95% of the shots you want to make. When's the last time you watched a movie that showed a lot of zooming? Did you know that film camera lenses don't even have zooming capabilities? You need a special zoom lens for that - or you just dolly in. Really, all this MTV-style zooming has become the hallmark of non-professional video and if you can - stay away from it!
Based on all that confusion related to zooming, many consumer cameras have a minimum focal length that's the equivalent of 50mm or more! Yeah, now you can stand in Santa Monica and film some bug crawling around on a boat in Catalina Island, but make sure you don't fall out of the window when trying to film your newborn's crip on the other side of the room! LOL
I would also recommend a used GL2 - it's an excellent camera, the focal length is relatively short (43mm equiv.) and it's got great optics - which is the most important aspect of a camera. It also got three 1/4'' CCDs and you won't believe the quality you will get for relatively little money.

Re:thoughts

[laservision]

I did similar research last year and ended up in buying JVC 725 ( http://hardwarecentral.dealtime.com/xPF-JVC_GR_DVL 725 )

Only after using it for few months, i realised my real requirements.. !!!

• Mini DV / Hi8 doesn't make a difference. As long you can move in the data to the computer you are fine. ( Last Mini DV was bit pricy than Hi8 )
• Firewire port is mandatory. That time,I didn't know how to use it, spoke with JVC support and finally stumbled upon Pinnacle. I am serious it makes a difference..
• Locking up all the great events in Camcorder casettes is pain in the butt, You can never show it to others or you can't even watch it for yourself.. after a period of time, you have so many cassettes, you don't know which one has what ??..
• Instead of buying a Pricy Camcorder for say $1200 - $1500. Split them and buy them, and buy the following, you will really enjoy it much better.

1. Camcorder ( MiniDV ) - $500
2. DVD Burner - $100
3. Pinnacle - $30-50 ( with rebate )
4. eXtra Harddisk(200GB) - $100
5. Firwire card - $20
6. DVD Media - $25 ( 25 number )

For a total of $780 - $800 you can shoot movies, edit them the way you want ( it is really simple), burn them into DVDs, & watch them relaxed...

Trust me it works.. I did the same last year, but DVDs were expensive.. so i burned them in VCD & SVCD formats.. shitty quality when compared with DVD.. still much better than playing with my cassettes.. !!!

list of camcorders

[homb]

here is a list of MiniDV camcorders under $1.000, with reviews.
I personally have a 1-year-old Sony DCR-TRV950, a 3 CCD camera with excellent low-light sensitivity. I like it a lot, except for the stupid sony stick stuff. Apart from that, the quality is excellent and the camera was under $1000 at the time.

My two cents...

[coloradocut]

I received a JVC GR-D30 as a gift from a father-in-law that was desperate to see movies of his granddaughter. This camcorder sits at the bottom of the JVC Digital/Mini-DV line and my initial inclination was to return it and get something better. After some research I kept it and here's why.

1. Mini-DV is a popular and relatively inexpensive format.

2. DVD recording units just don't have it together yet.

3. Upgrading to a unit that could take pictures was pointless, since I have two digital cameras already with far more functionality.

4. The analog connection cable that comes with the unit allows me to playback and record to a VCR.

5. The DV (Firewire) connection (cable not included) gave me digital editing and formatting capabilities. You need some software to do this and I wuh-sed out and went with Pinnacle Systems' Studio version 8 for Windows instead of looking Linux. It works great. My old Windows PC didn't have Firewire, so I spent less than $50 on a PCI Firewire card.

It's not fancy, but with this setup I record VHS tapes for the technology troglodytes and burn CD/DVDs for everyone else. I can even edit the videos, copy them back to Mini-DV and then record the polished final clip to VHS. Not real elegant, but all for under $600 US.

Final note, video eats hard drive space so count on setting aside at least 5GB just to get going without saving anything long term to disk.

Spend no more than $600

[Faeton]

Why? Because there's always added costs on top of that. Extra batteries, lots of tapes (because you're actually going to use it right?), nice video tripod (because you don't want to hold it all the time), software for some editing (yes, you DO want to do that), bigger HD to hold all that video (1 gig for every 5 min of vid!!) and the knowledge that anything more will be a waste of money because it'll be obsolete in 2 years, regardless of price. Also, summer vacation usually involves outdoors (I hope so!), so the possibility of theft, weather damage, abuse and other unknowns are factored in. Do you really want to loose a $2k camera due to a bit of sand on the beach?

Things to note:
-MiniDV is the way to go right now (decent tape prices, wide availability, good resolution, small size).
-MiniDVD's are expensive and not good for motion stuff (optical skip!).
-MiniMPG tapes are pricy but smaller. The quality is actually less than MiniDV due to the inherent compression, since it's native MPEG2 format (yeah, I know MiniDV is compressed, but not nearly as bad).
-Digital8 is more of a stop-gap between the world of digital and Hi8. Lower resolution and uses 2x the tape (so a 90 min Hi8 tape only lasts for 45 min)
- Be wary of zoom and resolution claims. High levels of zoom is pretty impractical (digital or optical) due to your shaky hand, and the speed of the zoom (ever notice that TV and movies don't whip up and down from 1x to 40x)? Resolution is another tricky thing. All media formats have a standardized resolution, so a mega-pixel camcorder won't be any better (at least on a normal CRT TV) than a lower res one.
- Lens quality is important, as the light-gathering abilities (and distortions) affect the image actually more than the CCD itself. Try to get the best you can get in that respect.
- If you only have a CRT TV (or older projection TV), the limitations of your TV will hold back the quality of the video. You'll notice a HUGE difference in quality from your computer screen vs the TV.
- You're going to have to transfer the material one way or another, even if you don't edit it, if you want to share your memories. The general public doesn't have MiniDV VCR's and such. Even the MiniDVD you have to duplicate if you want to share the video. Keep in mind a possible loss (potentially major) of quality when transferring to another media, whether it be VHS, VCD or SVCD (preferred).

Editing video has become surprisingly easy, but still pretty time-consuming if you want to make something nice. But the quality you get is phenomenal. It's like your own TV show, to your liking. Once you start, it's hard not to get hooked. Good luck and happy video memories!

Re:Spend no more than $600

[willtsmith]

-Digital8 is more of a stop-gap between the world of digital and Hi8. Lower resolution and uses 2x the tape (so a 90 min Hi8 tape only lasts for 45 min)


What bullshit!!! Mini-DV and Hi8 use the SAME video format: DV.

Plus, the "long play" setting on the camera will get you the same amount of Hi8 time. Beyond this, the Digital8 tapes are available in "extended" versions. They actually have enough space in the larger cartridge.

So you see, the only tangible difference between Mini-DV and Digital8 is the size of the tape.

Sony has a newer format out called "Micro-DV". The tapes actually have flash memory chips on them. It keeps track of the state of the tape.

Oh yeah, there is one REAL benefit to Digital8. The tapes are a lot cheaper and a lot easier to find.

Finally, after rendering a LOT of video, you may find that a DVD recorder is handy. It will end up as MPEG-2 anyway. The DVD recorder simply does it in real time. Just edit the MPEG-2 instead.

Features I Overlooked

[GlassHeart]

The feature lists tend to be long, and it's easy to think that the camera you do pick has every feature its competitor has. In the consumer market, vendors really will strip out features that you might have just assumed it would have.

In my case, these were what I missed:

• External microphone input - essential if you ever want to use a more suitable microphone than the omnidirectional ones that come with the camera.
• External video input - essential for one or two VHS tapes that you need to digitize.
• Digital still - my camera did have this feature, only the image quality was so poor it was really only usable when shrunk down into thumbnail sizes.

Also, make sure you allocate money in your budget for a bigger battery. The one that comes in the box will probably last you around 30 minutes on a full charge. This time pressure will severely impact your choice of shots.

Hope this helps.

Camcorder hints - and about tripod use

[acomj]

For what its worth, I've had a panasonic minidv camcorder (18x optical zoom) for a number of years. My shots have started to come out much better when I started to use a tripod.

The "Image stabilization" both cameras have helps, but if you want the shots to look really good use a tripod or brace the camera on something (a tree/wall). Its a royal pain in the butt to lug one around. but they have some very small light ones that do the trick. If you don't you risk making viewer sea-sick or having video that looks like blair witch ..

Note that the more you zoom in the harder it becomes to hold the camcorder steady. to that 22X zoom is harder to hold steady zoomed in than a 10x.

My camcorder has a "headlight" that clips on the top. It lights things up. This has been very usefull, because most consumer camcorders will record in low light they tend to use a slow shutter speed and look grainy. (This kills batter life though)

I'll summarize someother points:
+MiniDV is great. Almost broadcast quality (NTSC).
+get a good lens on the camcorder
+3 CCD is better for better color/sharper but may be out of you price range
+Image stabilization is good. Optical stabilization is better than digital but both work
+Buy the biggest battery you can find and use the one that comes with the camcorder as a spare.

Happy shooting

Dirt cheap recommendation

[rwa2]

I picked up a Samsung SCD27 at Best Buy a few months ago for around $400, and it pretty much does everything I'd want from a DigiCam:

* 8x optical zoom, +10x digital zoom (enough to go insane with pixelation), good image stabilization
* Good low light operation: has both a headlamp and powered IR night vision, as well as slow shutter speed modes
* Stereo mic
* Relatively large 3.5" LCD
* Can record from AV in (so you can convert other people's analog videos to DV.
* Takes 640x480 jpegs & 320x160 mpegs onto Sony memory sticks (I didn't bother with this, my digital camera can do better)

You owe it to yourself to get a firewire cable and download the digital videos to your computer, though. iMovie comes free with MacOS X, and Windows Movie Maker comes free with WindowsXP from windowsupdate. All you need is a whole bunch of disk space, and maybe a CD or DVD burner to dump all of your videos to something less expensive than DV tapes. You'll have more fun with the fancy video editing than you think, and at worst, it doesn't really take that long.

Just remember that raw DV format is huge, so you'll need a lot of disk space (~15GB / 60min DV tape) before you compress your files into something more reasonable. Windows Movie Maker seems smart enough to compress on the fly if you have a fast enough machine, though...

More zoom is better.

[patternjuggler]

When's the last time you watched a movie that showed a lot of zooming? Did you know that film camera lenses don't even have zooming capabilities?

Once Upon A Time In Mexico had several shots with zooming, albeit it was 'filmed' in high definition with the Sony HDCAM 24p- it had a zoom lens, among other interchangeable lenses. Lots of tv shows and some movies are being shot with cameras like this. You don't notice zooming in a Hollywood movie any more than you notice the focusing, because professionals know how to do it subtly and effectively.

You should notice that every movie has lots of extremely high focal length shots, especially for back-and-forth conversations shots- it's a sure sign of a very amateurish production to always use the default wide angle. The point of a zoom lense on a camera is not to shoot while zooming, but to allow a huge number of different focal lengths. Since anyone using a cheap consumer camera is unlikely to buy or want to hassle with lense add-ons, and no low-end cameras have interchangeable lenses, a big optical zoom gives them maximal freedom.

You're right that it is annoying to shoot scenes very close by because these cameras are telephoto oriented, but there's always more stuff further away from you than closer by.

Buying Camcorders Online

[emkman]

I bought a Sony DCR-TRV33 about half a year ago when I decided I wanted a digital camcorder. I payed around 630 for it, seems like you can get it for around 560 now. I like it alot, but you can definitely get something better by now for under a $1000. Now onto my real point.
When I payed 630$, the MSRP was around 800$ at sonystyle.com . As everyone on /. knows, the internet is great because between ebay, pricewatch, pricegrabber, and the other shopping bots, you almost never have to pay retail for anything. You must however be very careful when buying expensive electronics such as digital camcorders online. Once you choose a model, do not buy it from any site that does not EXPLICITLY state that your camcorder is NEW, INBOX, FACTORY FRESH, and that it comes with a new manufacurer's US warranty. Not just any warranty, a US warranty (assuming you live in the states). A seemingly valid warranty from Sony Japan won't do you any good. If this information is not clearly stated in the item description or in the site's FAQ, you can pretty much guarentee your not getting a new product with a valid warranty.
The second thing you need to lookout for is sites that push accessories. Its no secret that companies in many industries make all the money off accessories. You can get an inkjet printer with a rediculiously high DPI for 70$, but a black ink cartridge for said printer is 35$. Gillete was happy to send me a free Mach3 Turbo in the mail, since two replacement blade cartridges costs more than the razor. Its no different for camcorders. Every site will try to sell you zoom lenses, extra batteries, extended warranties, tripods, carrying cases, etc. When I first tried to order my TRV33 from one such site, because they had a low price and a US warranty, I recieved an email telling me I had to confirm my order by telephone. I called and the guy on the other end supposedly was confirming my order but really tried to sell me accessories and an extended warranty. When I declined and said I just wanted the camcorder, he said it was being drop-shipped directly from Sony, and would arrive in a week. It never came, and it was never going to. Because I didn't order any accessories, they simply didn't process my order. There are plenty of shady websites like this when in it comes to camcorders, and many sites are actually the same company. I know that was lengthy, but its good information to go in with when looking for a good price on whatever camcorder you decide on. In summary:
1. If there is not an explicit guarentee that the product is new and factory fresh with a valid US warranty, find another site.
2. If you didnt buy any accessories and have to call to "confirm your order", find another site.

Don't just buy from the cheapest place on pricegrabber, you get what you pay for.

Forget Slashdot, go for SimplyDV

[martinX]

Forget /. Just go to the Simply DV Bulletin Board. A wide range of users from novices (who ask questions) to pros (who answer them).

Great reviews here

[rigmort]

This is the best, unbiased site I've found for reviews of cameras: Steve's Digicams

Re:Absolute must have

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell kind of crack are you smoking? There are lots of zoom lenses used on lots of "real" film cameras.

So.

Instead of offering rigid and useless prescriptions, a better approach could be to encourage people who are interested in using a camera in a thoughtful or artistic manner do a little basic research on the issue, maybe learn a little about the subject area and then choose something that fits his (or her) needs. It's a toolbox - you just pick the right tool for the job.

Re:thoughts

[iamhassi]

"I'm not interested in fancy/artistic things like video editing on my computer..."

But you do plan on transferring to your PC to burn to DVD, right? Otherwise you'll have use your camcorder every time you want to play a video, and if your camcorder ever decides to break you'd have to purchase a new camcorder using whatever format your old camcorder was, which might be difficult in 5-10 years with everything moving towards DV, solid state and microdrives. Who thought 10 years ago you'd someday replace your trusty VCR with a hard drive based Tivo?

That said, I'd agree with the Digital-8 camcorder suggestion.

Tapes are much cheaper than MiniDV, Hi8 tapes also work in D8 which are even cheaper.

Resolution of D8 is exactly the same as MiniDV. If someone tells you otherwise they obviously don't know what they're talking about and I'd ignore any other advice they give you.

I also agree with the $500 price tag. Don't blow your $$$ on 3 CCD and other expensive features. You'll probably replace the camera in 5 years when 100gig hard drives are in them (hey, 5 years ago who though 40gig mp3 players would become common?).

Fuji S7000 Digital Still Camera does VGA Movies...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a 6 MP digital still camera with 6x zoom that takes beautiful still photos, but, it films 640x480 VGA movies at 30 fps with Sound (mono admittedly).

This means it shows in excellent quality on a SD TV as normal size and flicker free. It's compact, uses 4x AA batteries, has full playback with sound on the camera. You can connect direct from the camera via USB 2 or with an AV cable to your TV / Video.

The main limitation is that the camera takes Compact Flash or xD cards, and unless you have a 1GB or above CF card, you won't get more than 10 minutes of video. But for the future, with 4 GB cards coming out, you'll be able to get an hours worth of footage.

I've found for happy snaps of family, parties etc. the short video clip is the way to go. No conversion needed when transferring onto your PC, although the included editing software is great, enabling your short clips to be quickly reduced to an emailable size. You can then edit and transfer a edited movie onto your CF card and then record direct to VHS tape from your camera.

And that's just the video feature apart from the full 6 MP 'prosumer' digital still camera features you get as well!

Camuser.co.uk

[egghat]

I found Camuser.uk helpful.

I opted for a Panasonic GS 10 which costs 150 Euros (~180 USD) less and is somewhat leighter than Sony's comparable model (PC 105). Picture quality in low light conditions is a bit better with the Sony. Featurewise those cameras are 99% equal. I didn't like Sony's touchscreen (though that is definitly my personal opinion and it's not bad at all). I didn't like the fact that the Sony's batteries can only be charged inside the camera (at least that's what you get, when you buy the camera; an optional battery charger may be available).

If you want to spend more than 600 USD, IMHO you'll have to check out the 3-CCD camera from Panasonic. They are a big improvement, which all the cameras in between aren't.

I wouldn't buy anything but MinDV. Hi 8 is dead and only useful if you want compatibilty with your old camcorder.
The new DVD(-RAM) recorders are expensive, while picture quality is lower (due to higher compression) and are therefore a waste of money. (They may get really interesting, but the first generation isn't).

And as many have pointed out: Digital zoom is worthless. A 100x-zoom with a normal 800.000 pixel camera means 80 pixel resolution left and is completely useless.

Bye egghat.

My take on Digital Camcorders.

[Crizzam]

First off let me say that I've been reading /. for over 6 years now and I FINALLY got an account so I could post and get some of this karma and play the mod point game. Thanks to /. for a great site.

I recently purchased a low end JVC DV camcorder for about $280.00 at my local retailer. It's a great bang for the buck and I'm glad I bought a cheap one first because I feel like I have a better feel for what I'm going to be looking for in the next one I buy. I intentionally bought cheap, because I knew I was going to want to upgrade later, when I was more familiar with my needs.

Already, only two months later, I can tell what's important. Other people have mentioned these things and I hate to reiterate, but here we go...

#1 Lens Quality. I don't care how many TeraPixel your camera is, if the lens is shit, you cannot get a good image. Someone clarify here, but even the mars lander only uses ~ 1Mpixel pickups, but the lens is so good, it provides excellent images. Lens, lens, lens.

#2 Zoom. Digital zoom is absolutely worthless. If you want to zoom digitally, it's better to do it 'post-production'. Get a good WIDE-ANGLE to start with, because most of your shooting will be done at close distances (in the house, at the back yard picnic, birthday party) and you really want to be able to get the WHOLE picture. I have a 16x optical zoom with a 700x digital zoom and I can honestly sax I shoot 90% of my video at 1x and I wish it went to .25x

3. Firewire. I don't care if you think you will use Adobe Premier or IMovie now. The truth is, you will someday and you're going to want firewire DV output. It's addictive editing your home movies and adding titles and music. Most DV cameras will have this, some don't and some use USB. Get firewire.

4. LUX or Light. Make sure your DV camera is good with low LUX or had a built in light or a bracket for mounting a light. DV cameras slow the shutter speed when light conditions fall below the amount requires to shoot properly. End result: choppy, grainy video that you end up throwing away.

If you want options like the ability to take still pictures on to a memory card, then Megapixels become more important, but for normal video, anything more than 1 Mpixel is useless because it exceeds the capability of your television, anyways. Fight the "more-is-better" mentality when dealing with megapixels unless you plan on making prints from your still shot taken off of the camera.

Of course, things like battery life are important, too. However, I find it just as easy to pack another battery in my bag and keep it handy, if needed, but I almost never shoot for more than an hour anyways.

Look for a camcorder that focuses on doing it's job, putting pictures and sound to tape, and avoid ones ith a lot of extra bells and whistles. While the new DV camcorders that have a built in DVD-ROM have a special 'wow' factor, I think it's a lot better to get a DVD burner in your machine and go that route.

Just my $.02

Re:I like canon + edit, edit, edit

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is largely boring. If you shot an hour of video you might get 15 minutes of usable stuff. Cut out the crap

I couldn't agree more. I use a Canon Optura 100mc (highly recommended; although discontinued in favor of the inferior 200mc) My general rule of thumb is keep all my edited home movies down to around 5 minutes, or less (depending on circumstances, of course) because in general that's really about the extent of most people's attention spans. Also, I like to follow the guideline of "leave the audience wanting more" instead of "show them every stupid little detail." Cut your scenes just narrowly enough to convey the meaning of the scene and nothing extra, but avoid the MTV "1 second per scene" fast edit crap where your brain barely has time to process one scene before the next three hit your mental FIFO buffer.

My feature list

[Phreakiture]

The features I personally would like in a camcorder are:

• Mini DV format, with D8 as a second (D8 makes the camera bigger)
• Switchable 16:9/4:3 aspect ratio
• Place to connect an external mic.
• 3 CCD. This makes the picture clearer.
• Progressive scan. This will make for better stills and no tearing on slow-mo runs.

The camcorder I have has the first two features. I really wish it had the third. I have some good software that can calculate motion vectors and convert the interlaced picture into progressive nicely, thus this becomes the least important feature. BTW, I always convert to progressive scan before making an SVCD or DVD from my video.

And for the record, I do no editing. I just want the quality of a digital medium. Someone else suggested that film is higher quality, but the remark was clearly made by someone who has never worked with movie film. The cameras are big and bulky due to the amount of film consumed on a shoot. A 12" reel of 16mm film lasts 30 minutes.

Comparing the digital camera's picture to that of analogue formats, it beats out Hi8 and S-VHS-C a little bit, 8mm a bit more (though 8mm is not bad), and completely smokes VHS-C. DV and D8 cameras are much less costly than S-VHS-C, but more expensive than Hi8. Analogue does not offer wide screen that I have seen. My digital camcorder can do 4:3 (720x480), 16:9 letterboxed to 4:3 (720x480, but only 720x382 is active), or 16:9 (720x480).

Oh yeah, my camera is a JVC DVL520U.