Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Not to be a troll, but wouldn't this question be better suited for a consumer electronics discussion board? I find it odd that you would ask the slashdot crowd about a product whose computer interface capabilities you care nothing about.
That being said, I have a $499 Sony digital-8 handycam. It works great, uses the ubiquitous digital-8 tapes (same form factor as hi-8), and has USB and firewire connections to boot!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Ended up buying a Panasonic 3CCD camcorder on their recommendation and haven't looked back. They never seemed to give it a proper review, but it was still named their camcoder of the year.
Now I'm lusting after the JVC HDTV camcoders which record MPEG/2 to miniDV.
My computer fears my disk space requirements.
you don't need hardware based effects.
best thing I can tell you, find one with analog pass through. Most of the lower end dv camcorders don't have this, but many Sonys do. It will allow you to play analog footage through the camera allowing you to capture firewire in real time without using the tape (which I find crazy that a "digital" camcorder still acts in a linear fashion). Anything that makes your camera's moving parts 'go' will reduce the life of your camera.
"I want to spend less than one thousand dollars on a camera that will have great video quality, last me >10 years, and I don't want or need to edit on a computer."
If you don't want or need to edit on a computer THEN WHY GET A DIGITAL CAMERA? Digital cameras are used SO YOU CAN EDIT IT ON A COMPUTER, without any hacks or having to go through a VCR and then to a TV-in port on your computer. I edited a movie with iMovie today and it was fine, I was glad to be able to do that instead of dubbing a VHS and hoping that it would work out ultimately, however bad it looked. Digital video looks good, and will look good, and if you compress it with a good codec (mpeg-2, divx;-)) it will still look good compressed.
So this is somewhat offtopic, but being in the ask slashdot section it seems to squeeze in barely...
But why is it that no matter what question gets asked, if the question is not phrased with the word google in it somewhere, someone is bound to flame away ranting about why they should have just used google in the first place (I guess with about a million plus viewers someone is bound to be in a bad mood on any given day).
On the other hand, they could very well ask a question that was probably answered very well by a trip to google, but they are just curious as to what the slashcrowd (tm) thinks/uses/wishes.... in which case couldn't they all do us a favor and include some of the resources they found, perhaps as a second paragraph of the original question (similar to book reviews, slashback, etc...)
Of course, I fall in the third bucket where I rant for the sake of ranting.
Not to be cynical, but if you just want something for taking home movies, I wouldn't spend a lot and get something "to last".
Why not, for example, spend $500 today and get something nice, and then $500 a couple years from now when you have kids. By that time, you'll probably be able to buy a High Definition Camcorder for that price. Progress in the digital imaging world is moving forward pretty quickly
I mean, I wouldn't spend that kind of money unless you need all those features now and you probably don't.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The key to making video watchable is to edit. Take a lot of footage and edit it to make the footage watchable. Instead of leaving the camera on for 30 minutes at the birthday party. Make a 2 minute music video showing the highlights. People will want to watch that, it's more easily distributed via the Internet.
Finally, even if you don't believe in editing, importing digital video to computer and making a DVD out of it is very easy. Plus it's easier to send and store DVDs than it is to send and store VHS tapes.
I played around with making videos back in the days of VHS-C, as did my Dad (who, before that, used to make movies with Super-8 film). Although video editing software is much easier to work with than the edit controllers then available, it's still a bitch to do. To make something watchable, you end up shooting 10 times what makes it to screen, particularly of the interesting bits of whatever it is you're doing. Therefore, you're too busy shooting to enjoy whatever it is you're there for in the first place. Despite image stabilizers, to get decent footage (and to stop your arms getting tired) you need a tripod anyway, as well as extra batteries, auxiliary microphones...and it goes on. Getting decent-quality sound is also a bitch. Then you have to edit it together. Often, once you get home you find that you're missing key things, so for future events you start making a shot list to make sure you get everything...so, to make watchable videos you end up becoming a video director rather than a participant.
If you're not into all that, you just want a record of a few things and you'll settle for Aunt Mildred being recognisable, a low-end camera will do the job just fine, and spending more than that is a waste. You'll make a far better video with a $500 camera with the right accessories and a bit of effort than a $2000 camera stupidly used.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I've used Canon's ZR series DV camcorders since the "10" version and I have been very satisfied. They are small and use the ubuqitous MiniDV tape standard. They have a hotshoe on and can accept an external mic (essential). Some features that mean nothing: takes still pictures, too! Has a 500x digital zoom! Accepts flash memory of some sort! Baloney. Just make sure it's MiniDV, has firewire and a few sensible extras like can take an external mic, or can digitize input from a VCR.
Also, I would advise anyone to rethink the "I'm not interested in computer-based video editing" idea. Lesson for you folks. Ten years ago young fathers everywhere bought up non-digital camcorders like crazy. The result is a shoebox filled with really crappy home movies that nobody wants to watch, even the people who shot them. The reason is because they aren't edited.
Life is largely boring. If you shot an hour of video you might get 15 minutes of usable stuff. Cut out the crap. Add some music, add some titles. It makes all the difference and with basically free editors from just about everyone there's no excuse not to do it. Burn yourself a DVD when you're done, even. Do not let your hour-long boring-as-hell-movie sit in a shoebox for lack of editing.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I don't know if I agree with all of that. If you want to make high quality cinematic motion pictures, fixed focal length cameras are likely a pretty good choice. On the other hand, this guy may very well need flexibility not available with fixed focal length cameras. If flexibility is his metric, then maybe zoom lenses are a better choice.
For all we know, he may want to be able to videotape his friends doing funny stuff at his house but also be able to tape his kids soccer game and have his kid show up as more than 12 pixels.
Granted, he probably doesn't need a zoom lens comparable to professional cameras used on tv and in movies, but being able to zoom is pretty important for most consumers/prosumers, in my opinion.
That said, I know far too little about the subject to make suggestions as to which exact models he has. But I don't think he should disregard zooming as a metric (though the grandparent is right in saying that digital zoom is worthless and should be disgregarded, as digital zooming can be done (likely better) afterwards and merely throws away data).
I talked to a few people who had one and they all recommended finding one with a builtin light because while in outdoor conditions the picture quality was amazing, indoors it was very grainy. We found most miniDV camcorders don't come with a light so we specifically looked for one and found a panasonic. Indoors the panasonic took crappy pictures, alot worse than our VHS-C and when you turned the builtin light on it seems to record stuff in slow motion or something. It was weird.
Anyways, to make a long story short, we tried a couple, either their indoor quality was crap, made too much noise and you could hear it on tape, etc. In the end we went with a sony TRV-19. Indoors picture quality is really good, outdoors its amazing.. The sound quality is amazing as well.
Before this I was never a sony person.. I always thought they weren't worth the extra few dollars you'll pay but in the case of camcorders its definately worth it. I've read reviews of other camcorders and they say what they lack in optical quality they make up for it with extra features over the sony. But really, when you look back on it, do you care if you have an extra features or do you want your memories to be as crisp as possible?
Also keep in mind that the only difference (mostly) between lower end models and higher end models is features. The basic camcorder is the same. The difference between the JVC's is a slot for a memory card. With the Sony the difference is a memory stick and the option to act as a pass through for VHS conversion. Since most camera's are only comparative to a 1meg digital camera we didn't think this feature was worth the extra money.
If you plan on doing any editing on your computer buy a big HD.. 2 hours of video raw is about 30 gig.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."