Any good inexpensive camcorders?

[dullard]

I've never had a camcorder and so I don't keep up with them. Now I'm beginning to see a few uses for one coming down the road, and I desperately need a good Christmas gift for my wife. I'm poor and cannot afford the expensive ones. A quick glance around while I was doing other shopping shows prices range from about $225 to $1399. I'm interested in the $225 to $299 models. Here are my requirements:
1) Something that can record videos. This is obvious, but often people paying $1399 forget this thinking that they need to fork over a fortune to get the job done.
2) Something that will last many years.
So are the inexpensive ones junk that are known to fall apart? Are there any features missing in the inexpensive ones that I would be really disappointed that I didn't pay more for? Are there hidden costs in the inexpensive ones (such as media prices that are through the roof)? Do the inexpensive one use media that is known that will be impossible to find a few years down the line? Do you have any suggestions of which model to buy in that price range (or any hot deals that would bring better models into my range)?

 

[dullard]

Anyone at all?

 

[ROTC1983]

I know Sam's has a Samsung Hi8 Camcorder (no LCD screen though) for around 180.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

If you are willing to fork $400 you can get a digital. I think for 100$ you would be very sorry not to do this.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
If you are willing to fork $400 you can get a digital. I think for 100$ you would be very sorry not to do this.

That is basically the type of input I'm looking for. But I want a bit more information. Digital and analog certainly both record video (which is all I absolutely need). So what do I gain with digital, that I will miss? Are digital camcorders standardized yet? Or will I have to worry about getting a standard that will be obsolete and difficult to work with in a year or two?

 

[The Stigenator]

the cheap ones are either Hi8 or VHS-C. Among those two analog signals Hi8 is better quality video than to say VHS-C. Its got more lines.

You should be able to find a Hi8 camera for under 300.

 

[AmigaMan]

You can get a Sony CCDTRV108 for $279 but $300 is just too low a price to get any sort of decent features. You will also be limited to the old analog tapes (Hi8, VHS-C, or 8mm). If I HAD to get an analog camcorder, I'd get a Hi8 one. Sony makes the best camcorders. Feel free to search Amazon.com for more information.

BTW, I'm torn between getting a Sony DCR-TRV140 Digital 8 or a JVC GR-DVL120U MiniDV. Both will be ~$420 after any rebates and stuff.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Hm well... mainly digital camcorders use Mini DV/Firewire to hook up to computers. I think you will be glad in 5-10 years if you can transfer files over the net and burn them to DVD/CD.

Trust me, it will be worth the investment. Analog is a dead end tech.

 

[dullard]

I checked Sam's Club. That camera was $195, but had only a 90 day warranty and looked like it was built poorly. I'm certainly willing to pay a bit more for something that will last. Unfortunately I only planned to spend $150 this Christmas, so upgrading to a $450 digital video camera isn't possible. By the time I have money for a DVD burner, the prices of digital ones will probably be under $300 - so I'll save money by buying an analog one now, and a digital one when I can use their features. Anyone else have a recommendation?

 

[Deleted member 4644]

haha.. dude, dont waste your $$. I dont understand people who say "Im gonna blow 150 now and 350 later". You may as well save up wait and then spend 450 haha...

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
haha.. dude, dont waste your $$. I dont understand people who say "Im gonna blow 150 now and 350 later". You may as well save up wait and then spend 450 haha...

No I'm going to spend $200 now and $250 later. That way I'll have two camcorders, can do everything I need, and that $250 can be earning me a bit of interest in the mean time. So spending less for twice as much is a good idea... You still haven't mentioned reasons not to go budget camcorder other than possibly emailing or writing a DVD, (which I can do with TV-in and a regular camcorder if I wanted to, but I really don't ever plan on putting any of these shots onto a computer).

 

[vegetation]

Pay the money and get a digital camcorder. Consumer grade Hi8 analog recorders are not nearly as good as even a cheap digital recorder. Plus, you don't suffer degraded video when doing editing. Oh, and you'll definitely want to edit your videos out as unedited tapes usually end up on the shelf, never to be viewed again.

 

[bentwookie]

I understand where you are coming from...get a regular Hi8...digital maybe the future but low end digital cams suck sh!t. and not even worth buying...You don't plan on putting them on a computer...which if you did, create hugeass files and need alot of memory to edit. The internet is too slow for most families to take advantage of large files...so again don't waste the money on digital, 3 years from now those $1000 digitals will be $300. I wonder how many people actually transfer files to their computer....

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: bentwookie
I understand where you are coming from...get a regular Hi8...digital maybe the future but low end digital cams suck sh!t. and not even worth buying...You don't plan on putting them on a computer...which if you did, create hugeass files and need alot of memory to edit. The internet is too slow for most families to take advantage of large files...so again don't waste the money on digital, 3 years from now those $1000 digitals will be $300. I wonder how many people actually transfer files to their computer....

what are you like stuck in the mid to late nineties? Internet too slow? Need a lot of memory to edit? Give me a break, digital is where it's at. Memory is cheap and broadband is too. Go digital!

 

[Willoughbyva]

If I was to get a camcorder today it would be analog. I haven't kept up with the features of camcorders in general, but all I want is something to capture the video and play it back on a vcr. Hardly any of my family have computers or dvd players, so analog is where I want to be. Sure the video quality is a lot beter in digital, but I think it is just to expensive.

Will

 

[bentwookie]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: bentwookie
I understand where you are coming from...get a regular Hi8...digital maybe the future but low end digital cams suck sh!t. and not even worth buying...You don't plan on putting them on a computer...which if you did, create hugeass files and need alot of memory to edit. The internet is too slow for most families to take advantage of large files...so again don't waste the money on digital, 3 years from now those $1000 digitals will be $300. I wonder how many people actually transfer files to their computer....

what are you like stuck in the mid to late nineties? Internet too slow? Need a lot of memory to edit? Give me a break, digital is where it's at. Memory is cheap and broadband is too. Go digital!

not everyone are nerds like us...hate to break it to you. I know 3 people with high speed internet...everyone else could give a sh!t.

 

[dullard]

No recommendations on any models I see, oh well.

Here are reasons I'm not going digital:
1) Quality digital camcorders (according to the reviews I've been reading) cost a minimum of $600, the $400 ones were reviewed to be total crap. Quality analog ones cost $300 in the reviews. Quality defined as picture, audio, and image stabilization.
2) Analog camcorders almost always have much better zoom. (Optical zoom of 20x compared to 10x for most digital).
3) Analog camcorders have much better low light recordings (this is important for this application).
4) This camcorder will never be within a mile of a computer, and these will not be edited. Sorry but the application we have for it will NEVER be put on a computer. I don't see why I should pay double for a feature this camcorder will never use.

No one has yet said any reason to go digital, other than emailing a video which I won't do.

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: dullard
No recommendations on any models I see, oh well.

Here are reasons I'm not going digital:
1) Quality digital camcorders (according to the reviews I've been reading) cost a minimum of $600, the $400 ones were reviewed to be total crap. Quality analog ones cost $300 in the reviews. Quality defined as picture, audio, and image stabilization.
2) Analog camcorders almost always have much better zoom. (Optical zoom of 20x compared to 10x for most digital).
3) Analog camcorders have much better low light recordings (this is important for this application).
4) This camcorder will never be within a mile of a computer, and these will not be edited. Sorry but the application we have for it will NEVER be put on a computer. I don't see why I should pay double for a feature this camcorder will never use.

No one has yet said any reason to go digital, other than emailing a video which I won't do.

Which review have you been reading? I'd like to see where they say that analog camcorders costing $300 have better quality than a $400 digital.
And I just picked up a JVC GR-DVL720U from my Amazon Gold Box this morning for $467 with a $75 mail in rebate and $100 worth of Footlocker GC's. Although it only has a 10x zoom, the other features (firewire, sd card, stereo audio, etc) make up for it. But I suppose if YOU are not going to use them, it really doesn't matter. I, on the other hand, will be using those features so an analog one wouldn't work for me. To each his own, but I would much rather not be stuck with antiquated technology.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Which review have you been reading? I'd like to see where they say that analog camcorders costing $300 have better quality than a $400 digital.
And I just picked up a JVC GR-DVL720U from my Amazon Gold Box this morning for $467 with a $75 mail in rebate and $100 worth of Footlocker GC's. Although it only has a 10x zoom, the other features (firewire, sd card, stereo audio, etc) make up for it. But I suppose if YOU are not going to use them, it really doesn't matter. I, on the other hand, will be using those features so an analog one wouldn't work for me. To each his own, but I would much rather not be stuck with antiquated technology.

Try consumer reports, or some online camcorder review sites (sorry I didn't bother to save their location, just do a search). All said their tests with $300 analogs had better visual and analog quality than the elcheapo $400 digitals. They all said buy a $600 digital camcorder and the quality is the same, and buy a $800 digital and the quality is better. By the way, stereo audio and sdcards (for digital snapshots only) are on a lot of analog models as well.

I ended up picking up a $305 Sony CCD TRV 308. Normal price for that camcorder is $349, but I went to Circuit City which price matched a $25 best buy rebate and had a free tripod, free carrying case, and free $20 at sony.com (which I used for 3 free Hi-8 tapes). I don't think they were supposed to price match a rebate when they had all those free things on a special, but they were so busy right before Christmas, they just wanted me out the door. It was a bit more than I wanted to spend, but to get the tripod and carrying case with the cheapest of the digital models would have put me over $500.

 

[MrBond]

Keep us posted on how you like that Sony. My parent's camcorder just died, and they're in the market for a new one (a lot like you said, no need for digital because they'll never use the computer to edit it)

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: MrBond
Keep us posted on how you like that Sony. My parent's camcorder just died, and they're in the market for a new one (a lot like you said, no need for digital because they'll never use the computer to edit it)

So far we like it a lot. Some of the nice features:
1) The nightshot feature works really well. You can take a infrared video in total darkness, and you can even turn on an infrared light to make the video brighter. It has a light if you don't want to use the nightshot feature.
2) The analog zoom is great, but the digital zoom once you get beyond 200x amplification really is bad (but all digital zooms are bad regardless of camcorder model). Here is where analog models work so much better than most digital ones.
3) The stereo sound quality is good when played through a TV, but the sound when played back from the camera is a bit tinny (small speakers, what do you expect).
4) We love the ability to flip the LCD around 180° so that both the camera person and people being recorded can see what is being recorded.

Drawbacks:
1) The battery included has only a 90 minutes charge. I'd like to have a 2 hour battery instead.
2) The major drawback is the image stabilization. It works only a little - but from the reviews I've read all camcorders digital or analog have poor image stabilization.

We really haven't played much with its editing features (fading, etc.) And we haven't done much to test the exposure settings.

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: dullard

I ended up picking up a $305 Sony CCD TRV 308. Normal price for that camcorder is $349, but I went to Circuit City which price matched a $25 best buy rebate and had a free tripod, free carrying case, and free $20 at sony.com (which I used for 3 free Hi-8 tapes). I don't think they were supposed to price match a rebate when they had all those free things on a special, but they were so busy right before Christmas, they just wanted me out the door. It was a bit more than I wanted to spend, but to get the tripod and carrying case with the cheapest of the digital models would have put me over $500.

congrats on your new camcorder. Hope it works out for you. I unfortunately found a Canon ZR-40 in my Amazon goldbox on Christmas day for only $382 shipped. I picked it up too, and will return either it or the JVC I mentioned earlier depeding on which I like best. I looked at the Sony Digital8's (TRV140) and they were too expensive, not to mention heavy and a little awkward to use. But you gotta love Sony quality.

edit:2) The analog zoom is great, but the digital zoom once you get beyond 200x amplification really is bad (but all digital zooms are bad regardless of camcorder model). Here is where analog models work so much better than most digital ones.

I don't understand what you're talking about here? Digital camcorders have optical zooms as well as digital zooms just like an analog camcorder.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
I don't understand what you're talking about here? Digital camcorders have optical zooms as well as digital zooms just like an analog camcorder.

Optical zoom doesn't degrade quality. Digital zoom degrades quality significantly. Basically a digital zoom just makes the pixels larger without adding any more pixels. Its like displaying a 320x200 picture full screen on a 21" monitor. Sure it is big, but it looks terrible (very blocky). All analog camcorders I saw when looking around had a minimum of 16x optical zoom (with 20x and above more common). The vast majority of digital camcorders have only 10x optical zoom. Even spend $2000 on a digital Sony DCR-PC120BT and you get 10x optical zoom. Thus my statement. If you want to zoom in up close (like taping a child's performance from the audience) most analog models will zoom at least twice as close before the quality degrades.

Edit there are additional lenses you can buy to reach closer optical zooms, but these often run nearly $100 extra.