On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:57:50 -0330, "Chris Fewer" <chrisfewer@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote:

>"1" <h35ffpop@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3E88E066.D3870AC@hotmail.com...

>> Thing is we don't have many tapes left from the old 8mm.

>>

>> So where to go from here, I read somewhere that it's best to take the

>minidv

>> route, since digita-8 is on its way out sooner than miniDv.

>Which should really have no effect on what you buy.

>

>The questions you have to ask are what is your budget (Which you've already

>answered) and what is your purpose (Which you've already answered).

>

>Some people are going to tell you that unless you pay $3000 and get a

>"pro-sumer" camera (Which, by the way, are still garbage compared to a

>porper pro-model, no matter what some amateur videophiles claim), you'll cry

>yourself to sleep every night. Ignore those people.

>

>Unless you have plans of amateur film making, and winning awards, or unless

>you happen to have $3000 that you wouldn't miss, a cheaper camera will more

>the suffice.

>

>10x optical zoom is plenty. It's not a lot, but it should do for general use

>(Most general news cameras have between 14x and 18x). If you find it's not

>enough at some point, you can add a doubler, which turns it into a 20x lens

>(2x*10x=20x).

>

>I've used a Canon Zr10 plenty of times, and was mostly satisfied with it's

>performance and durability (And before the video-philes jump in and tell me

>how awful the Zr10 is, I've used proper BETACams as well, so don't bother),

>with the exception of managing to damage the firewire connector on one...

>the Zr45 is suppoed to be leaps and bounds ahead of the Zr10, so it's

>probably a good bet.

>

>I don't like Sony, I think it's over priced for the performance (Good

>performance, but others provide same for less) it provides... consider a JVC

>or Panasonic model as a possibility as well, more bang for your buck.

Hmmmm......;-)

Where to start......? ;-)

I guess with the positive... I agree with you that

for the intended purpose and price, a good

low-end solution (or, probably any solution...;-)

will be adequate, and I wouldn't worry about D8

becoming outdated - the tapes will be available

for some considerable time to come... And 10X zooms

tend to be optically better than wider-range ones

on consumer camcorders (and how can 500mm equivalent

in 35mm-format terms be considered "inadequate"?! ;-)

Most 2X converters, though, are very poor at this

level.

OK, now for the negative... At a given level, Sony

tends to offer better image quality, better AF,

better inter-camera tracking of tape, less motor-noise

pickup, greater durability - but at a slightly higher

price (though the new TRV33 [the camera in the review

mentioned in the original post] now offers 1-meg

pixel-count advantages [and disadvantages] in a

tiny camera at a considerably lower price than

similar cameras last year). And, due to the kindness

of one of the NG contributors who shot some test

footage for me with a ZR45 compared with a TRV27

(same image as the TRV33), the image differences

were pretty obvious (though maybe not to someone who

doesn't care...;-). Here were some notes I made on

what I saw on the comparison tape:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments are about exterior images, unless noted:

Sony:

- contrast normal

- color balance normal

- some purple (trees, looking up) green (shed top

edge) color fringing (this is a defect in the

lens - I would have exchanged camcorders for this,

though it is not noticeable most of the time)

- sharper (all things, esp. noticeable in trees,

interior printed material)

- digital zoom is useless

- in low light, not as sensitive as Canon (the

larger-CCD, lower pixel-count TRV11/17/18/PC9

would be more similar to the Canon in low light,

with more range, bigger grain, more color in this

light level), but the Sony picture is smoother

- has useable 1/30th and 1/15th when needed to

brighten picture, improve low-light color (try

portrait mode, also - works well on some cameras,

not on others, for improving low-light color...)

- AF better under all conditions

- no motor-noise pickup in a small room

- surprisingly little stair-stepping and scan-line

"flapping" compared with earlier megapixel

camcorders

Canon:

- contrast high (whites blown out, darks dark even

in soft light), exaggerating common 1-CCD tone

faults

- oversharpening effects a bit more evident

- color balance red-biased, killing subtle greens

in field

- no color fringing, but there is red color bleed

(white verticals on red shed look pink on Canon,

clean white on Sony)

- not as sharp, unless comparing when Sony is into

digital zoom (trees do not show the finer branch

detail that is present with the Sony)

- low light image has better color, but big grain

- AF not as good in all light, poor in low light and

while zooming

- surprisingly little motor noise pickup, even inside,

but motor noise is still slightly evident

- no excessive stair-stepping evident (but the

lower-resolution TRV11/etc. also shows little of

this)

- bit longer zoom range, with better sharpness at

the long end of this compared with the Sony at

the same angle-of-view, and therefore into its

digital zoom range

Overall, the Canon looked better than I expected,

but I preferred the Sony in every characteristic but

low-light range (but the TRV11/etc. would be an

alternative with better color, lower contrast,

better brilliance, and also fairly good low-light

performance - but it also would have similarly bigger

"gain-grain" and lower sharpness...).

Neither is terrible, but the Sony really is better

in this comparison...