Camcorder Recommendations: Mini DV Vs. DVD

[YodasMom]

I'm looking for recommendations for a new camcorder. Mine has died!

I need to know first if the Mini DV camcorders are better than the new DVD camcorders as far as picture quality, ease of playback, etc. Do the mini-DV's only play back by docking with the TV or by copying via the PC to DVD?
I'm wondering if the DVD camcorders are yet producing the same quality picture that the mini-DV's do. Do you feel the mini-DV's will be obsolete soon now that the DVD camcorders are starting to improve?

What brands and models do you recommend in each? I'm looking at Sony, but am wondering what other's experiences are.

I will not only be using this at Disney but also to record rehearsals and performances for which I'm involved.

Thanks!!

 

[MICKEY88]

I haven't looked at them in a while, but the last time I did DVd recorders could only record for 30 minutes, which is why I would go with tape..

 

[Kelly Grannell]

This is a compilations of answers I gave from another thread.

What you need to look for when buying a camcorder:

1. Camera size vs. CCD Sensor size: The smaller it is, the smaller the CCD is going to be, the worse quality it's going to have. Making it worse, no DVD camcorder have the same quality as a mid-end miniDV camcorder.

If you HAVE to go with DVD, then the Sony model 403 is for you. If you can go with miniDV, then the Sony model 90 is for you. Everything else is a compromise.

Most camcorders come with only 1/6" CCD sensors. Those Sonys I mentioned come it 1/3" CCD sensors. The fact that they have 4x the surface area means taking pictures/videos in darker lighting more of a breeze. (much less digital grain, better resolution, better colour rendition).

2. make sure that the microphone is IN FRONT of the camera and NOT brushing with your fingers when you're holding the camcorder. There are too many camcorders with microphone closer to the back of the camera and/or having the risk of brushing with your fingers while recording resulting in bad audio recording. (imagine hearing scraping sound or getting ambient noise instead of your kid's singing)

3. I'd recommend: The miniDV is HC-90 and the DVD is the 403.

These models are going to be replaced (already are, at some locations) with DCR-HC96 (miniDV) and DCR-DVD405 (DVD). The high definition model number remains the same (HDR-HC1)

4. miniDV and D8 both using Motion-JPEG compression. DVD using MPEG2 compression worse than miniDV. That's the problem with interlaced video, there camera captures half a field/frame.

 

[figment97]

man kelly, you have a wealth of knowledge on photography. appreciate all the insight. couple of things though with mini dv's.

1) does the number of CCD's matter? i was on a "review" website that had a bunch on camera listed with the CCD size (which you mentioned), and the number of CCD's, ranging from 1 to 3. i'm guessing the 3 is a newer, more pricey, upgrade... sort of thing.

2) from a guy that has a 7 year old camcorder, i'm assuming any mini dv will be a bigtime upgrade. is this a correct assumption?

just an fyi... we were looking at the panasonic zr200 i think... around $325 or so...

thanks once again.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

3 CCD vs 1 CCD, if everything else is the same (CCD size, type of lens etc) are the same then the 3 CCD tend to be better in colour accuracy. However, Panasonic's CCD are smaller in size than the two models I gave you hence the low-light performance (indoors, Disney parades, etc) is still worse. Also the Sonys I mentined utilizes Primary Colour Filters to mimic (but not too succesfully) 3 CCD performance.

All in all, with the larger sensor and a somewhat similar colour rendition as the 3 CCD, the Sony is still better (I've tried Sony, Canon, Panasonic and JVC priced at $1200 and lower) with JVC to be the absolute worst.

I may be wrong but ZR200 is a Canon but don't quote me on that.

As much as I love Canon and dislike Sony in general, for camcorders (consumer and prosumer models) there is nothing out there that best Sony just yet.

PS: Panasonic widescreen mode is not "real widescreen" and just simulated. So instead of having wider angle in widescreen mode, it actually chops off the top and bottom of the screen whereas the Sony and Canon camcorders use real widescreen where the recorded angle is actually wider in widescreen-mode.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

forgot to answer your other question.

Yes, the miniDV will be leaps and bound to what you have right now.

I currently use an 6 year old high end (then) D8 with 1/3" CCD (different tape format but uses the exact same compression as miniDV, which is Motion-JPEG) and the quality of my camera is now only similar (although still a tad better) than a $400 camcorder. I bought mine for $1200.

But that's technology.

 

[Razor Roman]

we need a mini-dv vs miniDVD sticky for this board!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Indeed we do

 

[blackjackdelta]

My daughter uses a Panasonic GS-35(I think that is the number) Mini-dv and the picture on the 50 inch plasma are very good. (Has 30x optical zoom)My brother uses a Panasonic mini-dv with 3 ccd's, I really can not see the difference. I had a Sony DVD and it died in just over a year. I have heard that the write time on the DVD writers are slow and when they are supposed to finalize the disc they sometimes do not but can not reference at this time. I like the new JVC's that use the hard drive for their storage, the pics I have seen are excellent with an MPEG 2 format.

Have a great evening,

Jack

 

[mhutchinson]

Mini DV can be easier to edit later and burned to a DVD as you would like to see it, where the DVD is burned and done. Depending on your budget there is also now the option of the ones that now store the data on a hard drive (JVC has 2), but for the money they want you could get a great Mini DV or even older type of Digital-8.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

one caveat though. AFAIK, the current Digital8 no longer equipped with 1/3" CCD (only 1.6" CCD, and furthermore: low res)