>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com>
skrev i meddelandet
>news:3e4337f7.3228936@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:11:57 +0100, "Maxx
Taxx"
>> <matsqq@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I would like a camcorder that is small, has
analogue input and OK
>quality.
>> >It seems most camcorder has a digital still
image functionality, however
>I
>> >find this feature completely useless if I can't
take pictures in at least
>> >800*600, hopefully something like 1000*800 or
more.
>> >I have been looking at Panasonic NV-GS5 and
Sony PC101.
>> >The Panasonic would be my choice because of the
lower price (about 1000
>> >euro/dollars here in Sweden) however I find the
640*480 still images
>> >idiotic, why waste USB connection, SD memory
card and adapter on
>something I
>> >will never use. And the Sony is a bit expensive (1300 dollars).
>> >The problem is there are very few reviews on
Canon's camorders, the few
>I've
>> >seen has been rather depressing as a matter of
fact.
>> >Is there any model you would recommend that has
the small size, quality
>> >pictures/sound, nice ergonomic approach,
analogue input and either no
>still
>> >images and lower price, or 1000*800 stills and
are something like 1000
>> >dollars/euros ?
>> >If you have any URL reviews that would be even
better ...
>> I agree with alex - but for web use, limiting the
image size
>> to the native video resolution, the images can be
useful
>> (but not for printing) - larger, and they are too
noisy...
>> David
Ruether
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:38:18 +0100, "Maxx Taxx"
<matsqq@hotmail.com> wrote:
>OK guys !
>But what camcorder would you buy :
>Sony PC-120 -
1500 dollars
>Panasonic NV-GS5 (american model something like PV-DC252
but with analogue
>input) - 1000
dollars
>Canon MV500i (like american model with firewire card) -
700 dollars
>I mean if you disregard the features and look at the
quality of the picture
>when filming motion (not stills) - do you think the Sony
is so much better I
>will notice the difference, I heard it's compareable to
3 chip cameras.
>The Panasonic is better than average for it's price and
the Canon uses a
>540.000 pixel ccd (340.000 effective).
>Do you think the Sony is overkill ? Is it better to save
the money ?
>Another model I considered was Canon DM-MV5i (american
name Elura 40 MC) for
>1100 dollars
>But I heard some
people think there is motor noise and the buyers were not
>as pleased as with the other two cameras (only like 83 %
please whereas the
>same figures for pnasonic was 93% and Sony was 98%)
Among Sony imaging types, the pixel-count and CCD-count
do affect the image quality. See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm (be
sure to read the text - frame-grabs do not show motion-
video effects, which can be annoying). For casual shooting,
I often recommend lower-pixel-count cameras, since along
with their softer, less color-saturated pictures, there are
often fewer annoying motion-artifacts. Best, though, is good
3-CCD - this generally minimizes artifacting while providing
better tonality, color, and resolution. Short this, I would
look for the best balance of image/sound characteristics
in a 1-chipper, as it appears you have been trying to do.
As a good compromise, I tend now to like the mid-line
Sony TRV25/7-PC101 in Mini-DV or the TRV740 D8.
Not perfect, but purdy-gud...;-)