What Video Camera?

[Fairy_Tale_Bride]

Does anyone know anything about video cameras? I am looking to get a video camera that isn't too big and isn't too expensive, but it does the job! Anyone have any opinions? I'm clueless!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You question is to wide open to be answered well. Some things that you need to consider are:

1) How much are you willing to spend?
2) Do want to record in High Def or Standard Def?
3) Do you want to record on tape, mini-DVDs, CF, or hard drives?
4) How big is too big?
5) How important is picture quality?
6) How important is low light capability?
7) How important is the ability to take pictures with it?
8) How important is it to have manual controls?
9) How much zoom do you need?
10) How important is widescreen mode?

I suggest that you go to a store like Best Buy and look at different models and find out what body styles you like and dislike. Then go to a website like www.camcorderinfo.com and research models in your price range. Once you have it narrowed down to a few models, come back here are ask more specific questions.

As asked, you'll find some people that think a $5,000, foot long video camera isn't too much money or too big. You might find others that consider anything over $300 that doesn't into a shirt pocket too expensive and too big. "Does the job" could mean a minimum of a 3CCD High Def camcorder that shoots 24P or something that produces somewhat recognizable standard def images in bright sunlight.

 

[bdtracey]

I've been doing some researching and I really like Panasonic's lineup. I'm in the market for a camcorder myself and I'm saving my pennies for the Pansonic PV-GS300. It is a 3CCD camcorder that has Optical Image Stabilization. My main criteria for this machine was that it had great low light performance (3CCD's does that for ya!!!), fair price ($800 Canadian, but much cheaper in the U.S.), not shaaakkkkkyyyyy (Optical Image Stabilization). Most camcorders that are in the 300 to 400 $$$ price range don't have 3CCD's and don't have optical image stabilization. The 3CCD's are tough to describe...I'm sure any review site like CNET can describe it better than me. The optical image stabilization works by actually moving the lens opposite to where you'd be shaking it (you move right, it moves left, but very slightly). Other cameras have electronic image stabilization but it doesn't work as well as the optical.

If the GS300 is too expensive for you check out the GS180, it is cheaper, still has the 3CCD's but no optical image stabilization only electronic. Hopefully this helps. Honestly after comparing close to a dozen different camcorders I'm for sure going with the GS300.

 

[britt54311]

Hi, I have a question about the Pansonic PV-GS300. I am looking into a camera that does video and also takes still pictures. Do you think this is a camera that will take descent still pictures? If not can you recommend one. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Do you think this is a camera that will take descent still pictures?

No. I think it will take terrible pictures compared with just about any relatively modern digital camera. I'm not knocking that video camera in particular. Video cameras in general are terrible at taking pictures. While they may seem alike there are a lot of differences between photos and video and it appears to be really hard to find one device that does both well.

Here are some comments from the CamcorderInfo.com review of the PV-GS300 :

Though the PV-GS300 offers a number of resolutions for its stills, high resolution doesn't mean that pictures will look very good. And to be honest, they don’t. The stills, as you can see, are entirely washed of color. It bears so little resemblance to the quality of the video performance that it seems to come from another camcorder entirely. In all fairness, the processes by which a camcorder processes stills and videos are totally different. But if they’re going to offer still functionality, they should do it right.

The sharpness of the photos is just fine. There is plenty of detail and clean lines. But the color balance seems way off. This was taken in full auto, which adjusted to F/2.8 and a 1/06 shutter speed. But even at this level, the whites are close to blowing out in certain areas, and the picture is devoid of color saturation. All around, a poor performance.

Perhaps there is a camera out there that uses totally different sensors and image processors to combine a good video camera and a good still camera. I'm not aware of one, but then I haven't really looked.