VIDEO CAMERA - which one ?

[houtslager]

Right , the time has finally come to update my camera system, and as
some people have mentioned a certain Get Together for this year, and wish to have some " master classes " and the fact that YouTube is getting better for small time demo's.
I need the groups advice on this topic. Why . Because I am a total edgit when it comes to techy things

What do I want it to do - make films of the normal things - holiday clips,parties etc.....and of course be able to take STILL pics too.
BUT more importantly to be able to play catch up with our
ESTEEMED man of the MASK - Steve Maskery. and be able to make clips of moi doing some butchery of timber :twisted:

Budget definetley NO MORE then £ 350.00

Answers on a postcard gratefully received

HS

 

[Steve Maskery]

Whey-hey!
Great - let's expand the market!

I can tell you what I like and dislike about mine, and you can read more about the trials and tribulations if you really want to by going to my blog.

I bought a Panasonic GS180. It is small, compact, and gives a good image. There is an onboard stereo mic, but given that the separation is just a few millimetres, I don't really see haow it workd differently from mono. Plus it picks up everything, so that's why I've been experimenting with other mics. I'm now using an Audio Technica radio mic and it is great. Also half the price of a Sennheiser. It plugs into the camera itself and records on the audio track, so there is no problem with synching a separate recording.

It does have an automatic white balance, but to be honest, this has caused me a few problems. I've had to correct several shots in the software. I'm doing a manual white balance for every single shot. Lights and whites, as we now call it. I now know that the reason why my YouTube video (3000 hits - not all me!) is so weird is because we didn't set the white balance. It's crucial.

There is quite a decent zoom on it, but it's not as smooth as a professional camera. And you can't preset the zoom-to point (although you can't on many pro cams either) so zooming, especially if it is combined with pan and tilt, is a real skill. Bob's getting good at it - I didn't realise how good untill I tried to do it myself. It's tricky.

You MUST get a good tripod. If you already use a little ali one for a compact, it will not be adequate for a camcorder - not if you ever paln to move the camera, anyway. I have a Hama which has been great for stills - all my mag pictures havfe been taken on it, but it was hopelessly inadequate for even this little camcorder. I've ended up with a big, heavy and expensive Manfrotto. It's superb.

Talking of stills, you can take stills with this, but as I've never done it, I don't know hw they come out. Another option is to export stills from your footage using the DV editing software.

Now then DV editing software. It is a MINEFIELD. There are lots out there, and you get some with the camera. I tried loads and it took me ages. Seems like weeks in retrospect, but it was certainly many days. I've finally settled on Adobe Prodution Studio. Yes it's expensive, but it is excellent, and I've not yet found anything that I want to do that it can't do.

You know, if enough people were interested (it would need a few to keep the cost down) I'd consider running a weekend course on all this. I guess I must be quite knowledgable really. No expert yet, but I've made all the mistakes that everyone else is going to make, and then some.

Finally, you probably want to know if, after all that, I would recommend the camera. Yes I would, with reservations. It's good for the money, but it's not professional

I'm being offered a JVC GY-DV300E, for about £1500. It's recon, ex-JVC themselves. It's no longer available, but had a good reputation (according to the sales guy!) when it was the latest thing, about 5 years ago. I'm tempted. It will give me broadcast quality, and has inputs for two separate stereo mics. It big, though, the sort you hold on your shoulder. Bob has even offered to go halves with me. My main reluctance is due to the fact that this project has already cost me more than I've earned in the last year, and I've still got no idea if I'll sell a hundred copies or a hundred thousand.

So for now, I'm sticking with this, and if it all starts to take off, I'll upgrade later.

All the best with it!

 

[Shultzy]

The JVC GMZG26EK has received rave reviews and is worth a look. It has a 20Gb hard disk which will store up to 36hrs of footage and you can download direct to a computer or watch on the tv.

 

[Steve Maskery]

Hi Shultzy
Do you have this camera? I did look at JVC HDD cams at the time - can't remember the model number, maybe it was this one, maybe not - but I came to the conclusion that the general view was that, whilst HDD means you don't run out of tape, it doesn't give the same picture quality yet as "traditional" MiniDV.

\the problem is that we are all so used to seeing very professional video every day of our lives, that we take for granted that that is the way it should be, and anything less seems amateur. We all want our vids to be professional in appearance, but the budget required to achieve this is enough to make one faint.

So everything is a compromise.

But I'd be interested in your experience of HDD in practice.

 

[Shultzy]

No I haven't this camera, I don't film enough to warrant changing. I just spotted it as a "best buy " in a mag.

The Panasonic VDR-D300EB-S was featured on the gadget show as "Jon's Pick of Gadgets".

 

[andycktm]

My brother has Just bought a jvc from jessops.Well actually we've just taken a

cannon dv back to swap for the jvc hdd.Because two retailer's told him you

needed a computer to actually use an hdd camcorder!(so he bought the dv),

which of course is nonsence.On taking it back the retailer said he would'nt

touch hdd camcorders with a barge pole.Why?. A dvd recorder is way better than

a video recorder. "The picture isn't as good".
That's strange because dvd quality (mpeg2) takes 30-70mb/minute so 70x60=

4200mb/hour,4.5 hours= 18900mb or nearly 20 gig which is what the jvc has.So

on that basis why should it be an inferior picture?.
Or..... is it people don't want to accept hdd camcorders,or are people being

put off by sales staff.
I don't know yet myself, but i'm going to get some footage off him and burn it

to dvd on the dvd recorder to see the quality.I will be very suprized if it

isn't dvd quality.

 

[RogerS]

My brother has Just bought a jvc from jessops.Well actually we've just taken a

cannon dv back to swap for the jvc hdd.Because two retailer's told him you

needed a computer to actually use an hdd camcorder!(so he bought the dv),

which of course is nonsence.On taking it back the retailer said he would'nt

touch hdd camcorders with a barge pole.Why?. A dvd recorder is way better than

a video recorder. "The picture isn't as good".
That's strange because dvd quality (mpeg2) takes 30-70mb/minute so 70x60=

4200mb/hour,4.5 hours= 18900mb or nearly 20 gig which is what the jvc has.So

on that basis why should it be an inferior picture?.
Or..... is it people don't want to accept hdd camcorders,or are people being

put off by sales staff.
I don't know yet myself, but i'm going to get some footage off him and burn it

to dvd on the dvd recorder to see the quality.I will be very suprized if it

isn't dvd quality.

or maybe simply because his sales manager told him to shift them :evil:

At the end of the day, it comes down to codecs and image compression and whether or not it shows in the end result. You only have to watch some of the so-called professional broadcast programs to realise just how bad even the pro's can make it. Still you can't beat a live analogue TV picture...luddite...moi ?

 

[andycktm]

Just borrowed brother's jvc hdd camcorder to test the quality.
Tried it in all 4 modes ultra ,fine,normal and economy.Uploaded it to the dvd recorder and all i can say is i feel sorry for the people who have been talked out of hdd for mini dv...... :x

 

[houtslager]

andycktm wrote

l i can say is i feel sorry for the people who have been talked out of hdd for mini dv...... Mad

please translate :? [/quote]

 

[andycktm]

houtslager,
My brother was told the picture quality was very poor. Infact was told to leave the camera on best quality,because the picture was that bad.I have tried the camera and even on economy mode it's a very good picture.Since this experience i have come across several people who have been put off in the same way.
I would not hesitate to buy hdd, in fact it would be my only choice.

The footage i did was camera to dvd recorder via a/v cable r/w/y s video and dv connection's are supposedly better.

 

[cutting42]

andycktm wrote

l i can say is i feel sorry for the people who have been talked out of hdd for mini dv...... Mad

There is nothing wrong with mini DV in fact you will find a portion of your television news programs have been recorded on mini DV in the past. My best mate is a BBC news cameraman and they all used mini DV when it was inappropriate to use a large on the shoulder camera.

The quality differences seen are usually down to poor codec's poor data rates, poor lenses/optics and poor CCD chips. Mini DV can be superb as can HDD. The main one to avoid is the direct to DVD camera's as they do use a much lower data rate and only a 30 min recording time.

 

[houtslager]

ah ha me tinks the picture is getting muddier :?

I still have no clue as to get a tape/dvd/hdd type camera

 

[RogerS]

ah ha me tinks the picture is getting muddier :?

I still have no clue as to get a tape/dvd/hdd type camera

if you're feeling particularly masochistic then you could post/search this forum. Camera threads are towards the bottom of the index page.

 

[garywayne]

Hi all. Please excuse the intrusion.

I'm watching with great interest as I also am in the market for a new camcorder. There are a few things that I need to get straight in my mind.

I get the impression that the DVD is a no no. So, that leaves us with hard disk, or tape. Is that right?
I take it that a mini DV is tape?

cutting42 said

The quality differences seen are usually down to poor codec's poor data rates, poor lenses/optics and poor CCD chips. Mini DV can be superb as can HDD.

So when looking into a camcorder one needs to look into codec's, data rates, lenses, and CCD chips. OK, just what are we looking for?

 

[cutting42]

So when looking into a camcorder one needs to look into codec's, data rates, lenses, and CCD chips. OK, just what are we looking for?

I am sorry that comment was not really advice as such,more aimed at the comment why someone might have perceived DV as inferior to HDD which is not necessarily so.

When you buy a camera price is usually the key measure. You can get a mini DV camera much cheaper than an entry level HD camera (at least you could 6 months ago when I last looked. There is not much you can do about optics other than buy a more expensive camera from the major names such as Sony or Panasonic. Most cameras have large zooms and most can shoot stills although not very good quality compared with a proper stills camera. The next thing to look at is the resolution (number of pixels) Many seem to be creeping over 1 megapixel which is pretty good for a cheap camera - the more the better generally but optics still have a huge influence. Moving up again you are into 3 chip cameras where there is a dedicated CCD chip for each colour, then you have High Def cameras which seem to be mostly HDD. After that there is a big jump to the semi Pro multi thousand pound beasts which are capable of broadcast quality.

So as with anything you gets what you pays for. I have a £150 single chip panasonic and for my kids school shows and general family stuff it is fantastic. But it would not be suitable for what Steve M wants where a 3 chip camera with its better lens etc is critical.

HTH

 

[gidon]

houtslager

I'm feeling too lazy to read all the replies you have so far. But, I would recommend looking for a Sony, Canon or Panasonic miniDV camera - for your best bang for buck. You're unlikely to be disappointed with the quality of any models based on miniDV from one of these manfacturers.

Other (consumer) formats may be more practical, but you take a hit in quality to some degree. Plus editing miniDV on a computer is as easy as pie. An additonal advantage I find in miniDV format is the tapes themselves are a useful archive format. I usually convert my miniDV tapes to DVD (which will result in some (very small amount) loss in quality - but having the original tapes is very reassuring.

I would get a mag comparing the latest models and choose one of them in your price range. If you focus on miniDV is comes down to lens quality, zoom and low light performance (this was important to me 'cos most of my filming is indoors).

Have fun choosing,

Gidon

 

[Adam]

I suppose I'll chip in as well. Like Gidon, I'd suggest you go for MiniDV from a major manufacturer. I opted for Sony in the end. The particular camera I chose also has a small option for a memory stick, so you can also quickly get some "web-grade" footage from that as well, without having to transfer from tape. Like Gidon, I also keep my tapes as an archive method, although I've also transferred it all to the PC as well.

I don't think maximum zoom is any real benefit to "everyday" filming, and lens quality is hard to determine without more tests or research. I think usability is the main thing for a newcomer - and/or your family if they are using it too.

Adam

 

[houtslager]

hmm finally getting there, so it seems to me we come down too

Major brand
DV format

now to select a model that offers a fair zoom range , good to fair editing package and all for UNDER £ 300.00

any further ideas tips ????

hs in a very Wet and Windy Friesland

 

[Gary H]

I use a Panasonic 'NVGS15B' I think is the model. Mini DV tapes, 24x optical zoom, 800x digital zoom (pointless!) and cost 300 quid 18 months ago, so if still available should be a good purchase. Small enough to go in yer pocket but not too small to handle (I have fairly big hands). Does the job fine for me. Can't fault it so far.

linky linky:
http://audiovisual.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ps_12284709/123501.html

Cheers

Gary

 

[gidon]

houtslager

The Gadget Show did a head to head a few weeks ago of two entry level camcorders:
http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.j ... n=Consumer
The Sony DCR HC24E came out best. I have a Sony HC18 - which I've had for a couple of years and can't really fault to be honest. You could get one of these for £185 and have £120 left for video editing software. I use Pinnacle Studio. But Windows Movie Maker built into XP does a pretty good job for nothing! It all depends how far you want to take it!
(I don't think the gadgetshow review is the most accurate I've seen but still may be useful for you.)

Cheers

Gidon