On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:53:32 -0500, "John Cook"
>I've recently decided to take the plunge into digital video (OK, I had an
>Amiga/Toaster a long time ago but that wasn't really digital). I have been
>reading a LOT about what to look for in a mini-DV camera. So now I'm
>confused, but it's a more specific confused than when I started.
>
>First of all, let me say this: I am a long-time computer hobbyist, so I
>love the little technical details. However I am also *not* a
>semi-professional video nut. So things like portability and good shots in
>poor light are more important to me than professional-quality color
>precision or 16:9 capability.
>
>Initially I thought that the Canon 100MC was an excellent camera. I liked
>the megapixel still shot capability (my Fuji DX-5 is way overdue to be
>retired) and the optical stabilization.
>
>But it seems like the "prosumers" are quite happy with the old Sony TRV900
>(this site: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm and
>this site: http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/ were especially helpful). And
>for a while I was leaning towards it. But here's my problems with it:
> 1. It's a little bigger
> 2. It's a little more expensive
> 3. 640x480 stills
>
>Also I have to admit that the gadget freak in me doesn't like the fact that
>the TRV900 is 3 years old. I know, I know, 3 CCD's and all that...
>
>And when I finally think that I might actually go ahead and just get the
>TRV900, it occurs to me that for just a couple more hundred I could get the
>Canon GL1. That sucker certainly LOOKS impressive, and does better in low
>light.
Uh, reread the reviews at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
The GL-1 had the worst image and sound characteristics
of all the 3-chippers covered - somewhat of step-down from
the TRV-900 (and the even better VX-2000, only a bit more
in price than the GL-1...). Forget looks (your viewers will
not care about that) - and forget stills, except for the
web (no video camera, regardless of pixel count, takes
really good-quality images above 640x480).
>It's at that point when I usually start to get impatient and things like
>"why am I thinking about spending this much cash" start to cross my mind.
>And that's when I roll back to the Canon 100MC.
Be forewarned that one of the BIG faults of one-chippers
(other than the generally more contrasty picture)
compared with (good) 3-chippers is the greater presence
of negative picture artifacts - ones that will make
certain kinds of subjects look very bad (clapboard-
sided houses, parallel rock layers, fall leaves on the
ground, highlighted edges of all kinds) - the picture
looks VERY "busy", with "flapping" at scan lines that
looks really ugly (these effects are minimized when
motion is reduced in the image - but the point of video
is to shoot things in motion...;-).
>If someone more experienced than I would be willing to give some advice to a
>newbie consumer lemming, I'd certainly appreciate it.
If you do go one-chip (I would take the TRV-900...;-)
for size/weight reasons, consider the TRV-30
(or the similar-but-smaller PC120). The image is very
sharp, the color is excellent (but the negative artifacting
can drive you nuts, and the low-light ability, as with most
one-chipper Mini-DV camcorders, is very limited).
(The digital vs. optical stabilizer issue here is, BTW,
of small importance...)