On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 01:54:16 -0500, "Peter Porter"
>I'm looking to purchase a MiniDV camera, mainly for footage of my wedding in
>January, the honeymoon and random travel footage, and some various bits from
>the last semester of so of college. This is obviously not high-end video,
>but I would like the best results possible, and would like to try some
>amateur filming. I'm willing to spend somewhere between $500 and $1100,
>which covers most of the MiniDV consumer market at the moment.
>
>However, the major factor in all of this is the size of the camera. I want
>something small. The ability to grab it and take it anywhere is more
>important to me than having a 3ccd (though I would take a TRV900 if so).
>
>I'm interested to hear some real comparisons of the quality of the smaller
>cameras. I've been looking at the Sony PC9, Canon Elura 40mc, JVC DVP7U,
>and a few others. The JVC looked decent, but I've seen little to no talk
>about this model--or any JVC--on usenet. Are they worthwhile? Is there a
>site/posting I'm missing that focuses on the smaller cameras of multiple
>manufacturers? I enjoyed David Ruether's reviews, but am still left
>wondering how the different small MiniDV cameras compare.
>
>Any help is greatly appreciated! As always, please accept my apologies (and
>point me in the right direction) if this question has been asked lately :)
>
>Thanks,
>Peter
>peter(at)thinkingclearly(dot)com
Well, this is a "no-no", but the issues involved in this
exchange in a thread just above this one may serve to answer
some of your questions - or raise more...;-) The PC9 image,
BTW, is the same as that of the TRV18, and the TRV25/7 has
the same image as the higher pixel-count PC101. So, here
goes, with a copy of the above...:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:06:24 -0500, "brian"
>I went through this whole process about 5 months ago with digital cameras --
>I wanted the best I could get for my money, so I researched and researched
>and now I pretty much know everything there is to know about digital
>cameras.
>
>Boy... DV is way more complicated.
It is really hard to tell enough through research, though
that can get you pointed in directions, and point out
some things to avoid - but the final image and sound must please you. If you are not too particular, most
camcorders
will probably satisfy (except those with gross problems,
like loud motor noise in the audio, very off-color
picture, etc.). If you care about picture particulars,
see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
>I think I've pretty much narrowed it down to a choice between the canon zr
>series and the sony TRV18. From reading this newsgroup for a while, as well
>as the (few) dv websites out there, here's what I've come up with. If i'm
>wrong on anything here please correct me.
You might add the TRV25, which has a different CCD...
>When it comes to straight video quality, it seems that the deciding factor
>here isn't MP-rating like with digital cams. It seems to me that its the
>physical CCD size to resolution ratio. Also, AFAIK, minidv records at
>something like 414k, correct? So anything above that is either overkill or
>used for stabalization, or it has to be interpolated down to the 414, which
>is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. So what I'm really
>looking for is a cam with a pretty big CCD and a resolution rating in the
>~480k - 600k level.
And "HAD" chip (a Sony thing, but it is more sensitive,
with a bit better color...), and it is hard to balance
other aspects of image quality "in a vacuum". If you
live where it is rarely sunny, a high pixel-count image
may look better to you than a lower, since it will be
sharper, and show its problems less often than if you
shoot most often in contrasty light...
>The one thing I've heard thats really bad about the ZR* cameras is that
>there is a horrible motor whining sound on all the playbacks, because the
>microphone is built so close to the machine. An external microphone would
>fix this, but does anyone know if it has some sort of hotshoe that you can
>mount an external camera onto? Also, can anyone who owns this camera verify
>if the noise issue is really there?
I can't, but this was a major problem with all makes
in the earliest models, essentially solved by some
now (except under the worst conditions for it, I
hear no motor "whine" from my many cameras [some
of which are 1-chippers], except my old TRV9 - though
focus and zoom noises can sometimes be heard...).
>On dvspot.com, they do not list the lines of resolution for the ZR40,
>either. However I'm rather confused about this. If one camera claims to
>have 520 lines of resolution, and another has only 500 lines, will there be
>a marked difference between the two? And whats worse is that I thought all
>minidv's recorded at 720x480. If the camera is only recording at 520 lines
>(i'm assuming 520 refers to the horizontal), where's it getting the extra
>200 lines from?
"Resolution" for video *is* confusing...
For an answer to your question: due to a quirk in
the way TV resolution is rated, a true 720 lines of
horizontal resolution *is* 540 TV lines... ***BUT***,
this is the DV medium's maximum, and this resolution
can only be approached, never reached. The very
sharpest CCDs/lenses-at-optimum-stop/processing can
only *approach* this resolution under optimum shooting
conditions, but claims of camcorder *image* resolution
(and not just the *medium's* resolution) by mfgrs.
are close to absurd, since they rarely specify the
conditions, and varying the conditions will generally
worsen the resolution obtained (which, BTW, even at
its highest, is still very low by the standards of
still photography...). With all this, though, some
camcorders do produce noticeably sharper images
than do others, under the same shooting conditions...
>Anyway. So the ZR40 has a 1/6" 0.46MP CCD and the sony has a 1/4" 0.68MP
>CCD. If we were to compare image quality alone based soley on the CCD,
>which one would come out ahead? I'm assuming the sony would simply because
>it's CCD is bigger, meaning better low-light capability, plus it has more
>pixels so the image should be sharper. True?
Mebbe...;-)
If the ZR used optical stabilization, and the TRV18
used digital (it does...), this would tend to equalize
the image-area pixel-counts and CCD areas. But, then,
there is that "HAD" chip...;-)
>And then of course i have to consider the fact that the sony is about
>$150-$200 more than the canon. Could anyone give me their opinion?
I have not tried them side-by-side, but I tend to like
Sony at a given model level...
>Or heck, any other suggestions of a different make/model? What I'm really
>looking for is good image quality, first and foremost. I dont give a crap
>about still-picture ability, thats what my 4 mp digital camera is for. I
>want good low-light capability, and some sort of 0-lux night time capture
>would be cool. Audio quality isn't a HUGE deal to me, barring things such
>as "loud constant whiney motor noise". I want image stabilization too, but
>I have yet to find a DV cam that uses optical image stabilization so thats a
>rather moot point.
Optical vs. digital stabilization is close to a moot point
in the cameras with well-designed DIS systems (Sony...;-).
No one-chipper will give the picture quality of any current
3-chipper, though some come close in some aspects (at a
price in dollars and artifacting, though...). The infrared
feature can get you B&W footage that looks good in fairly
low light, but no 1-chipper really has a good low-light
color picture. Audio quality is important - some camera mics
sound noticeably better than others...
>I can't afford a 3-CCD setup, so I'm looking right at around the $700 - $900
>(retail) range. I can get the ZR40 on pricegrabber for $411 and the TRV18
>for $580 or something.
>Any comments, suggestions, corrections, explanations, or advice would be
>great.
I would look also at used/close-outs/etc. More money, but
bhphotovideo had a decent Panasonic 3-chipper (951) for
$1200 on special (poor low-light range, good sound, decent
picture [likely better than most 1-chippers], below a
top-end 1-chipper price...). BTW, I like the TRV18 and its
VERY similar TRV11 and 17 predecessors...) for
casual-use purposes. (See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.)
Good luck in choosing!
DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~