Alludo USER to USER Web Board

It just occurs to me that here would be a good place to ask about camcorders. I am now ready to get me a 'good' HD camcorder. I have both Sony HI-8 (DCR-TRV280), and a Canon (FS100) Flash Memory camcorders. Before I got the Canon, I had gotten a Canon DV-Tape format, but returned it ?I got the flash type for its convenience. Then, during my searches, I had said no to the hard-drive format for fear on what we go through with our computers hard drives, and the DVD-Media for it's 'small-size' media.

Now, I'e contemplated and concluded that the DVD-Media is more than the size I get from converting my Hi-8 tape for from flash memory to my DVD burning process. The hard drive, I still have a little reservation on it's delicacy.

My goals are to have the best possible video, for the best moderate price. Let's remember, to each-his(her) own. My moderate price would be not more than $800. From my researches, I feel the High Definition camcorders would be the way to go and they come with hard drives - yes, I would go for that if I want a much better quality video than what I get now.

What do you use, or what would you recommend? I was looking at the Panasonic HDC-SD9 and HDC-HC300 camcorders. I plan on selling the Canon FS100 on eBay.

Also, is a still photo with a camcorder comaparable with a photo by a digital camers? If not, why not?

I noticed the cost of the HD camcorder shoots up with a larger hard drives capacity.

I am very anxious to read what y'all comments would be. Thanks!

I read your post several hours ago and am a little surprised that no one has answered yet. But then again, you did say:

Let's remember, to each-his(her) own.

and that rather takes the wind out of people's sails.. What is the point of answering if everyone is just going to talk up his/her favourite.

What I would prefer to do is talk about formats. As far as I can see, both of your preferred models are AVCHD cameras. Now the principle of AVCHD is great -- extremely high quality HD and a tiny camera, with the video burned either to hard disc or SD cards. Great -- and that's what the camera companies rely on. They even throw in some software to help the purchaser get their video quickly onto a HDTV screen.

The problem which they don't mention, though, is that AVCHD is possibly the most demanding video format currently available. That is across the board, and it is made worse by the fact that the various camera manufacturers all seem to be using their own variants of the format. The trouble is that usually the software which comes with the camera is the only program which can handle the output without trouble, but at the same time it is really simple software so cannot achieve sophisticated editing effects.

Moreover, AVCHD requires a decent Core 2 Duo as a minimum to be able to play AVCHD smoothly. You can just about get away with a Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz with HT for editing it, but even that won't play it smoothly.

There also does not seem to be one consumer level video editing package which can handle AVCHD completely well. And I am afraid that includes Video Studio. Last year, several users of the SD9 reported they could not get VS11+/11.5+ to edit it at all. One sent me a DVD of raw captured AVCHD from it, and I had trouble with it too on my Quad 6600. None of them have seemed to come back to comment on VS12 but I can say that I still can't deal with it properly with VS12 Ultimate.

I don't know anything about the HC300 apart from that it seems to be AVCHD. A more general problem of all AVCHD users is that VS seems to have trouble with transitions, causing the video to jump back a frame at each transition. Minor but very annoying. Corel claim to be working on it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The problem is that AVCHD users of other editing programs report different problems with their packages too...

While playing around with various types of AVCHD, and encountering various of the reported problems myself, and also making AVCHD hybrid discs (with no probelms) with VS12, I knew enough about the formats of HD video before buying my own HD camera to make me opt for HDV. (I bought a Canon HV20 at the time, though the current model is HV30.) I have not regretted it at all. Now you don't appear to like the mini-DV tape format, which is fine, as it makes the camera much bigger and takes real time to download the video via firewire. But the quality is as good as AVCHD, and I have never -- not once -- experienced the problems of AVCHD users with that HDV format. Moreover, it seems to be the format generally preferred by the pros or at least prosumers, make of that what you will. Even more importantly, it is an established format with fixed properties, and it has been highly editable for several years now, back to VS10 in fact. It is nowhere near as demanding as AVCHD, and an average P4 can do the job -- and play it back -- nicely.

For the sake of completeness, there is a JVC camera which is dual format -- both AVCHD and a variant of HDV (which JVC in their wisdom have designated .TOD) which films to a hard disc. I don't think it is in your price range, though confess I can't quite remember the model number so cannot check. Be warned, though, that the one user who has it and who has come to this forum, also reports problems not only with the AVCHD aspect, but also in handling the unique TOD format.

Good luck!

caxtin wrote:Also, is a still photo with a camcorder comaparable with a photo by a digital camers? If not, why not?

Depends on what quality the digital camera is! I use an an Olympus 4/3 E400 DSLR with a choice of 3 lenses for still shots and a Canon HG10 for video so my still shots are much better quality from the Olympus than still shots from the Canon. But I have to say the Canon makes a very good job of the still shots!

I bought recently Sony HDR-500V. It has an impressive optical stabilizer, and very good low light properties.

I forgot to mention the still shot angle. It depends what resolution the camera you buy has for still shots. My Hv20, for instance, can take up to 3 MP shots, which is a hell of a lot better than earlier camcorders, but of course still nowhere near the current resolution of still cameras. I have no idea what more up to date camcorders have as their resolution, but I would guess that none of them would be near current still camera resolutions. Just as still cameras have limited and relatively low quality video capability, the reverse is true of camcorders. I wonder why? Could it be that the camera manufacturers don't want us to have two equally good cameras in one???

My HDR-500V records stills at 12.0 Mpixels (4/3). The gross pixel number is 6.6Mpixels.The 12.0 Mpixel still images are in fact upconverted 6Mpixel images, pretty good, but by far not as good as the pics from e.g. my Panasonic LX3 10.1 M pixel camera. One remark: the V500 camcorder has no internal sharpening (which I prefer) as compared to Panasonic' and Canons' cams.

[quote=""Ken Berry"]I read your post several hours ago and am a little surprised that no one has answered yet. But then again, you did say:

Let's remember, to each-his(her) own.

and that rather takes the wind out of people's sails.. What is the point of answering if everyone is just going to talk up his/her favourite.[/quote]

May I clarify on my point on the comment! HOPE NO ONE TAKES IT TOO PERSONALLY. Due to my financial status, I cannot afford too expensive equipment like a camera ENTHUSIASTS may. Also, I try to express myself in the English language as much as I can.

On the recommendations, wow, thanks you all for the great information . . . Wonderful! Now I have lots of homework to do on choosing the "right" camcorder. I really appreciate all your inputs.

Ken wrote:Could it be that the camera manufacturers don't want us to have two equally good cameras in one???

Probably but with two very different concepts would the cost of a piece of kit that provided the best of both worlds not be prohibitively expensive, then the demand would be relatively low making it more expensive still? I am a member of a still camera Forum and most of the members there look upon "Video People" as hardly part of the human race

Ken wrote:Could it be that the camera manufacturers don't want us to have two equally good cameras in one???

mitchell65 wrote:Probably but with two very different concepts would the cost of a piece of kit that provided the best of both worlds not be prohibitively expensive, then the demand would be relatively low making it more expensive still? I am a member of a still camera Forum and most of the members there look upon "Video People" as hardly part of the human race

This discussion has nicely turned towards the next posting I was about to make in that, as a lazy piece of research, I was wondering how the latest camcorders handle still photos.

My Sony Hi-8 only manages 0.5 Mpixels which is of very limited use, but given the zoom capabilities of a video camera, if a decent still image is possible this would seem to be an almost perfect solution.

I appreciate this is not an option for dedicated photographers but I'm sure I'm not the only one who despairs at having to lug 2 pieces of weighty/bulky kit to every outing/event.

Incidentally, has anybody compared the quality of stills captured from the Timeline in VS as opposed to those taken on the camcorder itself? Are they any more 'useable'?

So my request is also for recommendations for a camcorder using a format that is easy to edit and takes acceptable still images, say approx 6 Mpixels - the same as my current camera.

Ken Berry wrote:
What I would prefer to do is talk about formats. As far as I can see, both of your preferred models are AVCHD cameras.

Thanks Ken. I thought I loved the decision I made last year to buy my HV30 and now I'm sure.

One mention about still photography. The 3 megs may not be impressive but it's adequate for most if not many situations that don't require too much control. I have taken some very nice stills with my camcorder.

The one area it really shines in the still photo arena even compared to some pretty nice still cameras that I own is macro. I was trying to take a photo of a blemish on someone's back skin to show them on the computer and the HV30 was the only camera I have that did a nice job. And I have 3 fairly expensive still cameras. I do not have a good macro lens for my Nikon D90 though. That would be a good option too.

If you need to get in and focus close for a still but don't want to buy anything else, don't forget about your camcorder.

paul56 wrote:

Ken wrote:Could it be that the camera manufacturers don't want us to have two equally good cameras in one???

mitchell65 wrote:Probably but with two very different concepts would the cost of a piece of kit that provided the best of both worlds not be prohibitively expensive, then the demand would be relatively low making it more expensive still? I am a member of a still camera Forum and most of the members there look upon "Video People" as hardly part of the human race

This discussion has nicely turned towards the next posting I was about to make in that, as a lazy piece of research, I was wondering how the latest camcorders handle still photos.

Paul,

Here is an album on Photobucket which contains photos I took with my Canon HV30 in the Philippines a couple months ago. For the most part they are pretty good.

http://s240.photobucket.com/albums/ff23 ... =slideshow

Ang ganda! Maraming salamat, Metmot!! I confess I have never bothered taking any photos with my HV20, and always cart along another Canon 8MP and 10x camera along with me... But as you say, the 3MP quality from the HV is not bad at all...

I don't frown on Mini-DV; I bought a camcorder with Flash Drive just for its video transfer convenience. I have read somewhere when watching some videos from a Mini-DV recorded videos, you might here the "running/winding" of the tape during recording (in some cameras).

Approximately, how large a file is an hour video take on your camcorder's drives at the best quality setting?

Anyone had any ill experience with a Hard Drive format camcorder?

Again, I really appreciate all your inputs. Thanks!

Approximately, how large a file is an hour video take on your camcorder's drives at the best quality setting?

An hour of DV-AVI is about 13 GB.

And an hour of HDV/mpeg-2 is around the same.