On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:54:15 -0500, "Paul Melo"
>Why is it, that everytime an newbie asks for advice about a consumer camera,
>that everyone pushes them towards the 4,5 or 6 thousand dollar cameras.
I don't think that is true...
If someone asks for "the best camera for $1000, and, BTW,
I want high resolution and great low-light shooting ability
(or wanna shoot pro-quality video...)", it is quite
appropriate to point out the impossibility of satisfying the
conditions with one-chippers, at $1000...
>Okay moneybags, so you can afford to buy a camera worth thousands of
>dollars. Good for you. If you don't have input about the particular camera
>these people ask about, then please, shut up.
But, people often ask about cameras that are 1-chippers
that sell for prices not far from some good 3-chippers
(especially if purchased used). So, if someone is asking
about a $1500 1-chipper, it may be very appropriate to
point out that a used TRV900 has a superior picture and
greater low-light range - or that a superior 3-CCD camera
like the VX2000 can be had for about $2300 (not THAT
much more money, for noticeably superior performance).
On the other side, people often ask about bottom-end
cameras of relatively poor quality. Unless I'm familiar
with the camera (unlikely - I prefer good stuff...;-),
and a similarly-priced better alternative (unlikely -
better cameras are generally a bit more expensive than
similar-spec. inferior ones), I don't comment... If
someone asks about good bottom-end cameras I'm familiar
with, I respond...
>And finally, the image quality between a 1ccd camera and a 3ccd camera is
>not that noticeable!!!!!!!!
To the inexperienced, this may be true - but even among
different good 1-CCD and 3-CCD models, there are differences
that may be important and quite easy to see. See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
If you cannot see the differences, well........;-)
I mix various 1-CCD and 3-CCD images in projects,
but I would never claim that the 1-CCD cameras (even
the best, with considerable modification in post)
will sufficiently approximate the output of good
3-CCD cameras for use for more than brief cutaways.
Even further, one can argue that compared with
truly pro-level cameras (D50, etc.), the best of the
D25 in the $2500-$3500 range pale by comparison - but
mebbe only for those who consider the differences
important...;-)
>If you light it like shit, and you shoot shit, your 3ccd's only show you
>more shit. I've seen amazing video shot with 680,000k cameras that were
>tweaked in After Effects, that makes some '3CCD' stuff look amateur.
True enough - but this is "apples and oranges" - in
each case, improving the camera's capability will
technically improve the results, all else being equal.
Why argue against improvement???
>Enough about 3CCD's already.
This is silly...
(Or, let's all drive '82 Chevy Novas...;-)