On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:22:57 GMT, "Magnusfarce"
>I'm having a devil of a time digging up the information I think I need to
>make a decision in choosing a new camcorder. Search after search on Google
>and other websites still haven't answered these questions for me. "Neuman -
>Ruether" has helped me with some technical issues both in the group and by
>e-mail. Now, I thought I'd try the group again to get a broader sense of
>how others use their cameras.
>
>It is obvious that the manner in which I use my camera will influence the
>features that will be most useful to me. Unfortunatley, I'm upgrading from
>a ten-year old Sony Hi-8 machine, and most of the new MiniDV cameras have so
>much more functionality that I'm not sure I can use my old shooting habits
>to guess at what I will find important in the new camera.
>
>For instance, the Canon ZR45 has an 18x optical zoom. This sounds more
>impressive than the 10x offered in the Sony TRV18, but am I likely to use it
>to any significant advantage? I know that even with image stabilization on
>my old Sony analog (a great feature, even ten years ago), shooting at the
>modest zoom range of that camera was pretty dicey without a tripod. Does
>this mean that at 18x, a tripod is necessary for usable results? Do many of
>you find yourselves shooting handheld as such distances? In other words,
>how much of an advantage is the larger (18x versus 10x) optical zoom?
As I have pointed out before, I use camcorders mostly at
the short end (with added wide-angle converters), so
good performance there is more important to me. Most 18-22X
zooms are inferior at the long end (which is VERY long, like
a 1000mm lens in 35mm photography) compared with shorter,
and long lenses are VERY difficult to hold steady...
>Is the image stabilization system on the Sony superior to that used on the
>Canon? Should the difference in the two be a factor?
No, and, no...
>My old Sony analog sometimes had trouble locking into focus in dimly lit
>rooms. Are all of these newer cameras better at this sort of thing, or
>should I lean toward the Sony with its better low light capabilities?
You will at some point miss having the best possible low
light performance, no matter what you have...;-)
>Finally, the Sony has a larger 680k ccd and a shorter 10x optical Zeiss
>lens. The Canon has a smaller 460k ccd with a larger 18x optical non-name
>lens system. All things considered, which will give me better images for
>typical home use shooting?
The "effective" pixel-count for the video images may
be similar, since some are used for the stabilizer...
Without a *good* side-by-side comparison, it would be
hard to tell which would be better. You may be able to
find charts, daylight, low-light, etc. comparison
frame-grabs for both cameras of interest at: http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html,
and this site can be useful for knowing what to look
for in the frame-grabs: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm.
BTW, people do report the Canon to have pickup of
camera noise problems, but not the Sony, saving the
trouble of using an external mic with the Sony...
I would also look at the "mid-level" megapixel
Sonys - the picture does appear better with these
now...