On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:33:47 -0330, "Chris"
>> "Neuman - Ruether"
>> news:3c15a57c.11601301@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>> : These days, the low-middle consumer level up through
>> : the low end commercial production level is occupied
>> : by Digital-8 and Mini-DV/DVCam, with D-8 or Mini-DV
>> : the area of highest interest for you, I suspect. If
>> : you have no legacy of recorded Hi-8 tapes, you may
>> : want to limit your search to one-chip Mini-DV
>> : camcorders (with the possible exception of the $1600
>> : Sony TRV900, which offers noticeable image-quality
>> : and low-light advantages over the one-chippers...).
>> : For more, look at these web sites (among others):
>> : --Critical reviews of several Mini-DV camcorders
>> : (VX1000, TRV900, XL-1, GL-1, EZ30U, VX2000,
>> : plus others), with frame-grabs, can be found at:
>> : www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> : --Comparison of the various Sony Mini-DV offerings
>> : (VX2000/PD150, TRV900/PD100a, TRV20/PC100/110,
>> : TRV30/PC120, TRV11/17/PC5/9), with frame-grabs, is at:
>> : www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
>> : --Various Mini-DV camcorders are compared on this site:
>> : www.bealecorner.com
>> : --There are various frame-grab comparisons at:
>> : http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
>> : (nevermind the Japanese characters, just click on
>> : the model names...)
>The cameras mentioned by the previous person were all either super-high end
>consumer cameras, or low-grade professional cameras. Pretty much all of them
>are completely over kill for your purposes.
Mentioned were the D-8 models, and listed and covered
were the Sony TRV11/17 and PC5/9, hardly fitting your
characterization of what I covered...
>Of course, most of what he suggested was total over kill for your purposes,
>and you might be better off considering one of the mid-range VHS-C
>camcorders by JVC. The advantage to these is, next to price (Consider
>$300-$400US tops, plus maybe $30-50 for an extra battery), is that the
>tapes, while small enough to be easily portable, are also playable in a
>standard VHS VCR, through the means of an "adapter" (A shell, into which you
>pop the VHS-C tape, and then stick the whole thing into your VCR).
Possibly useful advice, for the really low end - but
resolution is VERY low with VHS as an acquisition medium,
and it will not tolerate copying or later editing, if image
quality is a concern (better to recommend Hi-8, at around
the same price...). I would never recommend VHS as a camera
format...
[...]
>The Sony PC9 (Mentioned by the previous poster) or PC5 would
>also work. The advantage to some of the digital cameras, is that by paying
>$100 or so more for a slightly better model of a certain camera, will
>usually net you the ability to take digital still pictures which can be
>downloaded to your PC.
These are limited to 640x480 for high-quality results,
regardless of CCD resolution - and cheap digital camera,
or a scan of a negative from any cheap film camera, will
easily surpass this level of resolution...
>A few people will point out that these professional grade cameras will
>produce a "much better image". Of course, what I point out, is that if you
>plan to record it to VHS tapes to play in your VCR, the quality will
>instantly drop to that level, making the quality difference due to format
>irellevent.
This is not true...
Try copying VHS to VHS, then Hi-8 to VHS, then one-chip
Mini-DV to VHS, then (good) 3-chip Mini-DV to VHS. If
the VHS deck is decent, you will see the improvements
in image quality on VHS tape with each improvement
in original format... The VHS copy from the best will
never look as good as the original, but it will look much
better than VHS copied to VHS, and probably better than
a VHS original...
>Of the quality difference between a one chip camera, and a 3 chip camera,
>for home-video purposes, the difference isn't worth the price.
Depends on what you value...
If a smooth image in a wide range of lighting conditions
is desired (the original poster indicated an interest in
low-light ability, as I recall...), 3-chip Mini-DV may
be the way to go...
>Finally, many of the camras mentioned by the previous poster are beautiful
>cameras. I'd love to own them. But they're not for you. They're far to
>expensive for what you plan, are far too large.
Hmmm... The TRV20, TRV30, PC5, PC9, TRV11, TRV17,PC100,
PC110, PC120, and even the TRV900 and EZ30U 3-chip (about
the size of a VHS-C cameras...) can be considered compact
cameras... Prices of some are under $1000...
>So, in conclusion, "if I were you", I'd go for a mid-range JVC VHS-C camera.
>Best option for capturing home-videos. Failing that, Panasonic MiniDV
>cameras give you a great quality for a reasonable price. The Sony PC5/9 is
>really really small. And the Canon ZR-## series, is reasonalby priced (Not
>cheap, not super expensive), and rather well built.
>
>Do yourself a favor, and don't buy a professional camera. Or, sell it to me
>used when you realise what a hassle it is ;)
Mysterious advice, for the most part...;-)