Best low-end camcorders

[Mike Hollingshead]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-G...rder-Review.htm

That might be the best 3ccd cam out there for under $1000. I imagine the quality is close to the vx-2100(I'm not finding a color/lux graphic for the vx-2100). With the gain up on that auto mode thingy it has a remarkable 15 lux image. It clearly beats the Panasonic GS400 and the Sony HC1000.

 

[Dan Robinson]

From that article:

15 lux is the point at which most camcorders fail to produce a usable image. With the AGC off, the picture was completely black. No problems there; with a quick stroll through the menu, the AGC can be turned on and the results are remarkable. This picture is better than what some camcorders can do at 60 lux. In Auto A, results were even better, though if this was a moving image, the picture would be terribly blurry, so we aren't really using Auto A in our score. Results are also posted for 15 lux with the shutter speed at 1/60.

This is indeed a nice camera but I doubt it is going to do that well in low light. Most cams give you the option to crank up the gain, but ideally you don't want to have to turn up the gain in low light to bring out a picture (more grain).

All of the 3CCD prosumers are very capable cameras (JVC, Panasonic, Canon) and produce excellent pictures - but the advantage the Sonys have is their low light performance. The Sonys are far beyond the others in low light, at least within the same price range. The VX will surprise you on how dark it can get and still get a useable picture of a storm.

Best Buy has some of these cams on display that you can try them out side-by-side in person.

But, again, the TRV900 is the only 3CCD camera under $1k that gets you down to 4 lux, and unfortunately it has been discontinued - used is the only way to get it now. Its successor, the TRV950, is 7 lux - still good but you'll notice the difference between 4 and 7 when you're out chasing.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'm starting to think the Panasonic GS65 will be the best bang for the low-end buck. At $400 to $450 for a 3 chipper I think it will be hard to beat. I do kind of like the sony HC1 but I'm not sold on the HDV format(colors do look quite good for a 1 chipper...cmos I believe). I think if I want to bother with HD and get a cam it is not going to be shooting in HDV. Something just doesn't add up when the bit rate is the same as SD DV.

 

[Scott Currens]

I have added a page to my website with two video captures. The first is from a SD Sony VX2100 and the second is from a HD Sony FX1. I think the images speak for them selves.

http://www.violentplains.com/VX2100%20vs%20FX1.htm

 

[Walker Ashley]

Originally posted by Mike Hollingshead
I'm starting to think the Panasonic GS65 will be the best bang for the low-end buck. At $400 to $450 for a 3 chipper I think it will be hard to beat.

Did you go with this model, Mike? I'm in the market for a low-end camcorder and I'm very interested in your opinion of this unit.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

No I haven't done anything yet. I'm completely sick of looking at them all. I wish they had tests on camcorderinfo.com for my Sony trv-19 so I knew what I was judging against. On top of that the partial review of this camera says it has a 1/4 inch ccd which I'm rather sure it wrong. That makes me wonder more about their testing. But I guess if I had to buy something under $500 that'd probably be it. If I had $1000 to spend I might be pulled to get that sony HC90 with the big 1/3 inch ccd. It looks noise free but those colors seem a bit flat to me throughout all the lux ratings.

What I'm thinking will likely happen with me is I'll just close my eyes and push the "send payment" button with a credit card on the Sony HC1. It is $1500 at bh and like $1350 or so at some of those others. It has the big 1/3 inch cmos sensor and is HDV. I still don't know what to think about HD and all the problems one will come across trying to make a HD product, but I guess I'd rather start getting stuff in HD now.

It is all a nasty cycle that you don't feel like you did something right until you just go and buy the camera with all the plusses. You slowly get talked into paying a bit more rather than a lower, but still good chunk, amount on something you aren't happy with. It is driving me crazy because I'll get to this HC1 level and be prepared to now spend way more than I had planned and I'll still be thinking of the next step up. I can't stand thinking of getting something amazing and not having the best recording device on it, as I know I will regret it then(June 9, 03 comes to mind as I didn't go and buy a nice video camera the day before like I wanted to). All that said I'm really not sure I'll get the GS65. Course if I owe a bunch in taxes then I may yet. I'm also currently thinking I need a digital camera with even more resolution and have Canon 5D on the brain. LOL, that doesn't help.

I will know 3 or 4 days before the first big(looking) chase of 2006. Then I'll overnight whatever it is. I'll then warn everyone that that is a bust day as I just blew a whole credit card on the FX1 and overnighted it(or even the pro version of that!.....lol can't believe they now have a version above that in the prosumer range).

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Well, budget is always a big deal, but one thing I've discovered, at least with camera equipment, is that it's always worth spending slightly more to get what you know is good than it is to spend slightly less to get what you're unsure about. All the lenses I've purchased, for example, at one point or another I've looked at and wished that I'd bought the Canon L equivilant. It seems like a lot of money when you first spend it, but when you use the equipment a lot (and lord knows you do), you start wondering why you hemmed and hawed over a couple hundred bucks. I know when I was standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon, having laid down money for airfare and car rental to go on a bit of a nomadic photo safari, I was thinking "why in the world did I buy this crappy Sigma lense?!".

 

[Marc Austin]

Mike Hollingshead wrote:

If I had $1000 to spend I might be pulled to get that sony HC90 with the big 1/3 inch ccd. It looks noise free but those colors seem a bit flat to me throughout all the lux ratings.

Yeah Mike, I'd say I'm looking real close at that camcorder too. It's not too pricey considering a used TRV900 is about $700 on ebay. It's getting really frustrating for me too. I'm dealing with a Sony TRV350 with a 1/6'' CCD, not the best for storm footage. Anyone have any experience with the HC-90. I was curious to hear some reviews from storm chasers rather than someone reviewing camcorders on camcorderinfo.com for aim and recording of everyday events.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

The more I look around and wonder the more I see I keep coming back to the Sony HC1(HDV, 1/3 inch cmos sensor, cam). It looks like it would do a fine job and dbuys has it under $1400 now. I'm mentioning this camera now as www.camcorderinfo.com has a thing on there mentioning the HC3 and how it is replacing the HC1 in early April. It sounds like the HC3 will be a step backwards from the HC1 other than some direct HD tv support of some kind(hdmi or something like that). The HC3 loses the focus ring that the HC1 has. Sony loves to go backwards for the sake of point and shooters and it looks like they plan to do it again with this camera. Soooo, I would expect the HC1 prices to start dropping as well as the camera becoming harder and harder to find at the same time. Now I guess the question becomes, when is the best window of opportunity to buy it.

I wonder how exactly that works. I'm guessing before the new model comes out Sony completely stops producing the old one. So many stores may run out and not be able to replace it before the new one is released. Just an idea and possible heads up I guess.

 

[Tyler Allison]

My same thoughts Mike. When I couldn't find the GS400 I went looking and kept coming back to the HC1. I can't decide when to buy either...I don't want to cut it too close to chase season and not have enough time to play with it..but don't want to buy too early and waste a couple hundred bucks.

argh!

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I've been wondering if you can record in HD and play back in SD with the HC1. I sure hope so as I wouldn't want to have to capture HD on a computer and then render it as SD. I know it can record in either but I wasn't sure if you could record in HD(so you have everything in HD for later) and playback as SD. I guess I could just read around and find out. That and the whole HDV format still makes me wonder if it is worth it. As for the HC90 there's just something about those color charts on camcorderinfo.com. They seem flat, but they do look rather noise free in lower lighting.

Too many options!

 

[Scott Currens]

I've been wondering if you can record in HD and play back in SD with the HC1.

I just tested this with my FX1 on a SDTV and it worked fine. I think the HC1 has the same feature for outputting HDV to a SDTV. The sad thing is I don't have an HDTV, and have no plans on purchasing one in the near future.

That and the whole HDV format still makes me wonder if it is worth it.

I know that I will hate myself if someone comes out with a full HD (1920 x 1080) for the same price as the FX-1 (1440 x 1080).

SC

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Yeah I just read that the HC1 will let you play back HDV video as SD DV as well. But, now I'm really wondering. The same article indicates that the bit rate is the same on HDV as it is for mini-dv. I think I already said this somewhere. But now I wonder what happens with this SD video output when it was captured as HDV at the same rate. To output it as SD it would have to lose those pixels, right? So you'd be making the resolution smaller to output as SD but you'd be cutting this out from an equal bit rate to normally shot mini-dv. Something seems to say that SD converted from HDV would be less than it would have been from a normal SD shooting mode? It would have to be.

I'm sure I'm missing something that would make all things equal.

Let me try and make this more clear(what I'm saying anyway). Here is the quote from the review on camcorderinfo.com:

Compression (7.0)
The score of a 7.0 for HDV camcorders for compression might shock people, because we score MiniDV camcorders at 8.0. However, as much as we love the look of HDV for all its sharpness and crispness, the bottom line is that there is the same amount of data in a MiniDV signal as there is in an HDV signal. HDV 1080 interlaced video at 60 fields per second is 25 Megabits per second, as is 60 fields per second MiniDV video. They both are 25 Megabits per second. Now, HDV has to be heavily compressed into an MPEG2 signal to fit on a MiniDV tape. An argument in HDV’s favor is that in the 10 years between the emergence DV and HDV, compression quality has increased drastically, meaning you can do more with less data. That being said, there are some things that need to be sacrificed with HDV in order to fit it onto a MiniDV tape. It’s not worth getting into the details (DV is 4:1:1 and HDV is 4:2:0) but HDV is highly compressed when compared to MiniDV. Most users and even most professionals won’t be able to see the effects of the heavy compression that is going on with an HDV signal, but, for high-end users who are looking for the most information possible for broadcast purposes, HDV could present a problem.

So,

HDV = 25 mbits/second
SD/Mini-dv= 25 mbits/second

So, if you shoot in HDV and don't have plans to stay in that you output as SD. I can't see this SD from HDV being as good as SD from a non HD cam, especially if you plan to edit it. I won't say anymore as I'm probably missing something obvious. If this is true though I'm not sure I want HDV that bad. I guess you could always shoot in SD mode till you are ready for HDV. If you want to edit and make SD products I'm really not thinking you want to shoot it in HDV. By doing so you shoot something with a larger resolution area but it is compressed, then you reduce that resolution to SD with compressed stuff....from a bit rate equal to normally shot mini-dv???

 

[George Tincher]

Hey Mike, have you had a chance to review the new Panasonic GS500 yet? It looks to be a nice 3CCD cam with a quality lense, pretty good low light performance and a quality lense, all for a price that doesn't make one totally cringe.

Here's a quick breakdown of what this new cam has to offer:

http://www.ces-show.com/2006/review/panaso..._camcorder.html

 

[Hank Baker]

I would reccomend picky up a used Sony trv20 or trv 25. You can get these on ebay for around $200-300, best camcorder for the money, as far as pic quality , features and durability.