On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 05:24:29 -0500, "Richard Davis"
>I'm looking to buy a video recorder but know little about current models at
>this time.
>My situation: I'm in media production (magazines) but am thinking that I may
>like to expand into video. I'd like something relatively inexpensive to
>practice with that might also serve a useful function later. If you guys
>tell me less expensive cameras are totally useless, I might wait awhile and
>get a more expensive model instead.
You can find reviews (with frame-grabs) on several 3-chip
mini-DV camcorders (and a couple of one-chippers...) on
my web site (under "I babble"). Whether or not a "cheap"
camcorder will do what you want is unknown - if you just
want something to practice with, that may also serve as
a back-up/second camcorder later (and it is a lot of fun!),
it is hard to beat the Sony PC-1 (but "pro-level", it
may not be...). Other models may give you better stills
(with compromises in video quality, and/or price/size),
but all but the PC-100 top out at 640x480 still size,
hardly high-quality for anything but screen images...
A Hi-8 camcorder can also be useful for video practice,
but it is harder to maintain its (generally lesser)
quality level during editing, and stills from it are
nearly useless. Unless your budget is very limited, I
would either start with a (good!) mini-DV single-chip
camcorder, or spend the money for a (good!) 3-chip
(around $1900-$2000 for the Sony TRV-900, the best
buy right now, I think...).
>Several questions:
>
>Are there any websites that are particularly helpful in learning more about
>video cameras- as well as how to use them?
Mine, at least for the former...;-)
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ("I babble")
I suggest checking out for more on the TRV-900:
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html
>Right now I don't have a digital still camera. Are the digital videos good
>quality for stills also? I'd like to start make digital stills at the same
>time I make now 35mm slides for archiving (build a catalog of images for
>future use).
A 35mm scanner may serve better - the resolution can be far higher. BTW, well-stored good-quality 35mm slide-film is
likely to be around longer in "readable" condition than
digital material (and the gear to read it...). I would
"archive" 35mm slides by making in-camera dupes when possible during shooting, and storing these carefully...
With a scanner, you can also digitally catalogue these
for sales purposes.
>What are other values of digital? For example, I'd guess that sound quality
>is better. Is the picture better.
Yes. But not always... The sound can be CD-quality, but
often isn't, and the picture can be excellent (but many
camcorders have negative picture characteristics, making
the images short of what is possible with the medium [see
my camcorder reviews for mentions of some of these
shortcomings...]).
>What are your choices for video cameras, both digital and otherwise? I think
>good picture and good sound quality as well as image stabilization would be
>important.
From what I've seen (not everything...), I would choose
a Kodak or Nikon digital still camera (though I think
a 35mm film-scanner generally makes more sense...), and
the Sony TRV-900 video camera (it's not without faults,
but it appears to have the best balance of price, size,
convenience, and picture-and-sound-quality right now) -
and I would not try to make either camera do the job of
the other...;-)