Suggest a DV cam?

Slickone

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 1999
6,120
0
0
I need to buy something soon. I'm looking for something not too expensive. I don't have to have the newest model. Possibly even used off ebay. Any specs I need to look for? Any models, or at least brands, you'd recommend? I have 2 Canon digital cameras, so was thinking about a Canon DV. Also I don't want a Sony.
I have compactflash cards now that I could use, but that isn't necessary, since I'll probably make the change to an SD based digi cam one day.
 

Rhoel

Senior member
Apr 9, 2004
204
0
76
I just got a panasonic gs250 a month ago and so far its been great. It's my first DV camera so I don't have anything to compare it with. Take a look at www.camcorderinfo.com. They have a lot of good info there.
 

niggles

Senior member
Jan 10, 2002
797
0
0
if shooting in doors is something you intend to do you should look at Sony. They have the best lighting correction in the low to mid range DV cam range. Canon on the other hand while making great cameras has horrible lighting correction. Haven't really looked too much at the panasonics in detail but I hear they're good.
 

natto fire

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2000
7,117
10
76
Originally posted by: Slickone
I need to buy something soon. I'm looking for something not too expensive. I don't have to have the newest model. Possibly even used off ebay. Any specs I need to look for? Any models, or at least brands, you'd recommend? I have 2 Canon digital cameras, so was thinking about a Canon DV. Also I don't want a Sony.
I have compactflash cards now that I could use, but that isn't necessary, since I'll probably make the change to an SD based digi cam one day.


Good call on not getting a Sony, I did lots of research, read reviews, etc. I still ended up overpaying for A TRV340 at BB, but they had 2 yrs same as cash. Anyways, it can only take 640x480 stills, but does have very good 25x optical zoom
 

sparkyclarky

Platinum Member
May 3, 2002
2,389
0
0
Check out the Panasonic PV-GS150 - it's what we check out to students from our campus labs. I actually helped pick out the camera model this summer. It's ranked very highly on camcorderinfo.com. A main point of interest is that it is/was the lowest priced 3CCD camcorder on the market (3CCD tends to lead to a higher image quality). I've found it to take some nice video, but I don't have many points of comparison.
 

niggles

Senior member
Jan 10, 2002
797
0
0
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Check out the Panasonic PV-GS150 - it's what we check out to students from our campus labs. I actually helped pick out the camera model this summer. It's ranked very highly on camcorderinfo.com. A main point of interest is that it is/was the lowest priced 3CCD camcorder on the market (3CCD tends to lead to a higher image quality). I've found it to take some nice video, but I don't have many points of comparison.

When I was looking 3CCD prices were out of our range. The video they put out is fantastic though.
 

Slickone

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 1999
6,120
0
0
Originally posted by: niggles
I bought the TVR 19 and it's been really great for me. We got a total price break from Best buy and the video has been great. Here's a review: http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_DCR_TRV19/4505-6500_7-20794197.html
As for taking low res stills, I didn't buy it for stills. From what I've read you're only going to get 1 megapixel shots out of these unless you go really high end.
The reviews there aren't very good. Several people said theirs broke.


Thanks but again, I don't want Sony. Are there any other brands that have low light performance as good as Sony? Panasonic?
 

sparkyclarky

Platinum Member
May 3, 2002
2,389
0
0
Originally posted by: Snakexor
get a sony, its worth it... especially if you wanna spend under 600

About the only thing they truly lead in is the camera UI/controls. They are considerably behind their competition on the IQ front.
 

drerickarim

Member
Apr 8, 2005
95
0
0
mothers day o got my mom a panasonic pgs 250. realy nice one. 3ccd, optical stabilization ( super ). true widescreen 16:9 but hela bad in low ligth, and by this i mean the place needs to be really well iluminated to get a decent capture. so if u plan on not taking video in low ligth get it.

high def capture is just arround the corner for 999 pricetag. so if u can wait a bit.
 

Snakexor

Golden Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,316
16
81
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Originally posted by: Snakexor
get a sony, its worth it... especially if you wanna spend under 600

About the only thing they truly lead in is the camera UI/controls. They are considerably behind their competition on the IQ front.


proof? i sell the things all day at bestbuy, i deal with them everyday...the sonys are the best under 5-600...
 

sparkyclarky

Platinum Member
May 3, 2002
2,389
0
0
Originally posted by: Snakexor
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Originally posted by: Snakexor
get a sony, its worth it... especially if you wanna spend under 600

About the only thing they truly lead in is the camera UI/controls. They are considerably behind their competition on the IQ front.


proof? i sell the things all day at bestbuy, i deal with them everyday...the sonys are the best under 5-600...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/2004-Caminfo-Select-Best-Camcorder-Under-$600.htm
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/2004-CamInfo-Select-Best-Camcorder-Under-$400.htm
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php

Notice how low the sub $600 Sony's rank in comparison to others, and make sure to read the reviews on the cameras.

The only thing the Sony's reliably win in is UI. The picture quality is subpar compared to the competition. Being in sales does not make you an expert on a product - it makes you an expert on pushing products.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Define not too expensive please. DV cameras run from $250-$10,000. Under $800, the Canon Optura 60 is probably the best performer that I have heard of from other videographers. If you read the review at Camcorderinfo, make sure you read the comments too. Oh, and it has Optical Image Stabilization, which is superior to Electronic.

Sparkyclarky, note that those are 2004 models (and the links are factured, but if someone here can't figure out how to work around that, ban... :D )

Camcorderinfo' s Current Rankings
 

Snakexor

Golden Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,316
16
81
i would agree with gsellis, try to grab an optura or elura for cheap, i totally forgot about those since we havent gotten the newer models in as of yet....and sparky, those links are nice, but if you read each review, the sonys have better image quality, but falter because of their lack of manual controls/still capabilities compared to others....
 

drifter106

Golden Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,261
57
91
Originally posted by: Snakexor
get a sony, its worth it... especially if you wanna spend under 600

My take...I spent about 3 months..yea 3 on what camera to get. First I was gonna get one like my son had...Kodak...then I really got into and found that the 3ccd's were the best deal for the performance you get. If your gonna end up spending $600 get a pana gs 250. You will not regret it...

Will give you very good (in the house lights at night) video. I was worried sick that it wasn't gonna be good enough but it was a pleasant surprise to say the least.

I ended up with the pana gs 400 but the 250 is gonna be a good camera. If thats over your budget the 150 will be a close second...some do have a red line issue (I have seen pics of the problem but can't see it in the video). They have one at my school and it works great. It can be had for around $500.

pana 3ccd's are hard to beat...there are other modules that are cheaper than the ones I just mention...tries this out...its panasonic oriented but has a wealth of information...

happy hunting...

just to give you an idea...I can shoot in our living room with 2 100 lamps on + tv (no overhead lights) room is 10 x 18...if I get away from the lights it does get darker but still visible and this is with NO gain on the camera...amazing...

jd
 

sparkyclarky

Platinum Member
May 3, 2002
2,389
0
0
Originally posted by: Snakexor
i would agree with gsellis, try to grab an optura or elura for cheap, i totally forgot about those since we havent gotten the newer models in as of yet....and sparky, those links are nice, but if you read each review, the sonys have better image quality, but falter because of their lack of manual controls/still capabilities compared to others....

Perhaps I'm missing something, but of the DV (and by that I'm going to assume that the OP wants mini-DV, as it is pretty much the 'standard' right now) based camcorders in what I would consider a reasonable price bracket for consumer level stuff (sub $600), the Sony's fail miserably compared to the competition. Going up in price, they start to become competitive, but you're looking at the $700+ range then. The main thing the Sony's suffer on is low light. When the competition offers better overall video performance, significantly better manual options, and only slightly worse automatic settings, I'd say that the competition trumps Sony. But it's all a fairly moot point, as the OP specified he wanted a relatively inexpensive, non-Sony camcorder.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Originally posted by: Snakexor
i would agree with gsellis, try to grab an optura or elura for cheap, i totally forgot about those since we havent gotten the newer models in as of yet....and sparky, those links are nice, but if you read each review, the sonys have better image quality, but falter because of their lack of manual controls/still capabilities compared to others....

Perhaps I'm missing something, but of the DV (and by that I'm going to assume that the OP wants mini-DV, as it is pretty much the 'standard' right now) based camcorders in what I would consider a reasonable price bracket for consumer level stuff (sub $600), the Sony's fail miserably compared to the competition. Going up in price, they start to become competitive, but you're looking at the $700+ range then. The main thing the Sony's suffer on is low light. When the competition offers better overall video performance, significantly better manual options, and only slightly worse automatic settings, I'd say that the competition trumps Sony. But it's all a fairly moot point, as the OP specified he wanted a relatively inexpensive, non-Sony camcorder.
And if you get above $2500, Sony rules low light. Shot with a VX2100...

Web clip that I am working on for AllyX

 

niggles

Senior member
Jan 10, 2002
797
0
0
Originally posted by: gsellis
Define not too expensive please. DV cameras run from $250-$10,000. Under $800, the Canon Optura 60 is probably the best performer that I have heard of from other videographers. If you read the review at Camcorderinfo, make sure you read the comments too. Oh, and it has Optical Image Stabilization, which is superior to Electronic.
Camcorderinfo' s Current Rankings

I had a Canon from Bestbuy for a week and then took it back in favour of the Sony (I know, I know you don't want a Sony), pretty good Camera, the low lighting was *horrible* unless you have some serious spot lights to use stay away From Canon if you are shooting in a darker area.

I wish someone here had some Panasonic experience, I've read good things about them in reviews, but nothing first hand.

 

Snakexor

Golden Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,316
16
81
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Originally posted by: Snakexor
i would agree with gsellis, try to grab an optura or elura for cheap, i totally forgot about those since we havent gotten the newer models in as of yet....and sparky, those links are nice, but if you read each review, the sonys have better image quality, but falter because of their lack of manual controls/still capabilities compared to others....

Perhaps I'm missing something, but of the DV (and by that I'm going to assume that the OP wants mini-DV, as it is pretty much the 'standard' right now) based camcorders in what I would consider a reasonable price bracket for consumer level stuff (sub $600), the Sony's fail miserably compared to the competition. Going up in price, they start to become competitive, but you're looking at the $700+ range then. The main thing the Sony's suffer on is low light. When the competition offers better overall video performance, significantly better manual options, and only slightly worse automatic settings, I'd say that the competition trumps Sony. But it's all a fairly moot point, as the OP specified he wanted a relatively inexpensive, non-Sony camcorder.



infact it is quite the oppostie, canon/jvc/panasonic/samsung all fall short of the sonys in low light, while for outdoor stuff sony is not the greatest (getting washed out/overexposed video)....

mostly outdoor = canon
mostly indoor/all around for <600 = sony

panasonic falls in between the two, with it being good at neither, but at the same time not horrible either
 

niggles

Senior member
Jan 10, 2002
797
0
0
interesting thoughts on Sony on over exposure. I have not experienced that, but then as a throw back to my old camcorder days I like to white balance when I turn it on so that might be why I've not had this issue.
 

sparkyclarky

Platinum Member
May 3, 2002
2,389
0
0
Originally posted by: Snakexor
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Originally posted by: Snakexor
i would agree with gsellis, try to grab an optura or elura for cheap, i totally forgot about those since we havent gotten the newer models in as of yet....and sparky, those links are nice, but if you read each review, the sonys have better image quality, but falter because of their lack of manual controls/still capabilities compared to others....

Perhaps I'm missing something, but of the DV (and by that I'm going to assume that the OP wants mini-DV, as it is pretty much the 'standard' right now) based camcorders in what I would consider a reasonable price bracket for consumer level stuff (sub $600), the Sony's fail miserably compared to the competition. Going up in price, they start to become competitive, but you're looking at the $700+ range then. The main thing the Sony's suffer on is low light. When the competition offers better overall video performance, significantly better manual options, and only slightly worse automatic settings, I'd say that the competition trumps Sony. But it's all a fairly moot point, as the OP specified he wanted a relatively inexpensive, non-Sony camcorder.



infact it is quite the oppostie, canon/jvc/panasonic/samsung all fall short of the sonys in low light, while for outdoor stuff sony is not the greatest (getting washed out/overexposed video)....

mostly outdoor = canon
mostly indoor/all around for <600 = sony

panasonic falls in between the two, with it being good at neither, but at the same time not horrible either


The two main mini-DV camcorders in his rough price range from Sony absolutely suck at low light performance.

"Low Light Performance (2.0)
When you see the low light performance of this year?s DCR-HC42, you?ll wonder how this camcorder could perform as it does in bright light. While the DCR-HC42 benefited from an upgraded imager, retaining more color information and producing an overall brighter image than the DCR-HC32 at lower light levels (in this case 60 lux), its blue filter (or the something that is boosting its blues) causes an influx of really nasty blue noise--nastier than the noise found on the DCR-HC21. It's particularly noticeable as it streaks across the magenta, pink, and red areas of the spectrum, and this noise is a big detriment to the overall performance of the camcorder, especially since 60 lux is only slightly darker than average indoor lighting. This bad performance negatively balances the camcorder?s cosmetic attractions and its widescreen options.

Things only get worse at 15 lux, where the DCR-HC42 shows a lot more of this noise in more conspicuous places. While the camcorder retains a lot more color information than the other HCs, this small plus is definitely outweighed by the hideous and obvious noise. It's so bad that I?m interested in looking at another DCR-HC42 to make sure that this problem is uniformly consistent with all of the models. Unfortunately, I have no reason to think otherwise. "

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-DCR-HC42-Camcorder-Review.htm


Low Light Performance (3.5)
The DCR-HC32 performs slightly better than the DCR-HC21, though not that much. At light levels of 60 and 15 lux, the DCR-HC32, like the DCR-HC21, shows unfortunate amounts of noise. The nasty blue noise seen on the DCR-HC21 is absent from the DCR-HC32, which is nice, and a lot of the color information at 15 lux that the DCR-HC21 loses, the DCR-HC32 retains. Both of these camcorders have identical imagers, which makes these differences seem odd, but it is exactly these subtle differences (and these are very subtle) that help distinguish a camcorder in the consumer?s eyes. The low light performance seen on the DCR-HC32 offers images within the same scope of performance as some of the lower-end Panasonic camcorders, though Panasonics tend to have better, more balanced spectra, with similar noise.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-DCR-HC32-Camcorder-Review.htm


I'd hardly call that a definitive lead (perhaps over Canon, while others tie or beat them low light and completely nail them to the wall in areas like manual controls).
 

Slickone

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 1999
6,120
0
0
sparkyclarky, some of your URL's got cut off (the hyperlink anyway). You probably know about tinyurl.

I for sure don't mind a 2004 model. And of course I want good PQ, but don't care about the absolute best PQ, or hidef.
The best under $400 for 2004 in the link above was a JVC. Do JVC (or Panasonic, Canon, etc.) have low light capability that's *close* to Sony?

I can't afford a new Panasonic right now. I'm hoping to spend under $300. I'm looking for something used on ebay. The GS150 starts at $400 on ebay.

BTW, does Sony make any that use comfactflash or SD?