Camcorder choices

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Well, I have gone through a couple now that I am taking back. I am having a very, very difficult time deciding what camera in the $300 range I should buy. I know some of what I want, but when weighing over the details, well, I am about to pull my hair out.

I don't want to spend much more than $300. Less would be better. Here's the two I am currently debating between. Which seems better to you?

Choice one

This one sounds great, except it doesn't mention details about its image stablization, and it only has a 10 times optical zoom, which seems a little weak.

choice 2
This one is cheaper, has a much greater optical zoom, and supposedly has the newest, most vigorous video stabilization mode. However, no 3 CCD which means less quality picture.

Anyone have an opinion? Also, if there's a different camera you like better in the price range over these two, please let me know

I could be making a decision before I get a reply. Therefore if I don't go with your opinion/advice please do not be offended.

TITLE EDITED BY KIZZUME TO SAY "Camcorder choices" INSTEAD OF "Camera choices" to be more specific

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:16 am Post subject:

Actually, it DOES have 3CCD, it's just referred to differently, CCD x3 : http://www.audio-discounters.com/pv-gs90.html

The first one takes an SD/SDHC Memory Card and the second one takes MiniDV Tape. I think I'd probably prefer the tape, and I'd prefer getting it for $199, although I've never ordered through them before: http://www.techondigital.com/product.asp?productid=PVGS90

I know that what I'd probably be looking at if "I" was camcorder shopping would be something more like this, a hi-def camera with dvd recording capabilities:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-HDC-SX5-Definition-Camcorder-Stabilized/dp/B000TVSX0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1208424848&sr=1-1

But then again, that's $500 bucks for this sucker unless you go through that same place, which for some reason seems too good to be true, for $370, http://www.techondigital.com/product.asp?productid=HDCSX5_

Most of the HD cameras are above $700. If you were to have one of those and needed to downconvert the image, that's easy.

Blah blah...

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

NICE, so the cheaper one has 3 CCD too?!?!? Then I definitely want the cheaper one as it also supposedly has a better stablization, a microphone input, WAY more optical zoom, and oh yeah-- it's cheaper.

Not sure where you read that the GS90 only takes memory cards though. I double checked on amazon and it also takes Mini-DV tapes.

I agree that HD would be cool. And I hope I am not being an idiot by getting a camera that ISN'T HD, since it is obviously the way of the future. But in no way shape or form can I spend that kind of money right now. I can however, spend around $300, preferrably less.

Thanks for the help kizzume. Now that I see that the GS90 has CCD I will go with that. I can't figure out why they aren't advertising it in the same way though since that is considered to be a pretty big deal with Mini DV cameras.

Hackfest · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 413

I just got an SLR, I had no idea how great they are. Have you thought about one of those? So far, it blows away my old point and shoot.

Kizzume · Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject:

SLR would be the way to go for still cameras, that's for sure. I think the subject should have had the word "camcorder" instead of "camera".

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Kizzume · Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject:

There. I changed the title. You can change the title of your posts by editing your first post--you'll be able to re-enter the title of the thread.

Still cameras though--you cannot beat one of the SLR (Single Lens Reflex) cameras. Because of the size of the lens and aperture, more image can be brought in in a shorter amount of time. This means that you can take really quick shots and even move the camera around slightly (key is slightly) while the photo is being taken and you'll still get a relatively clear image in contrast to the smaller counterpart cameras. I just can't say enough about SLR vs. the compact cameras.

For instance--pictures of the show--you could get images just as bright as the ones you took, but the images of the musicians would not have hardly any motion blur. And then there are all the types of lenses....

Video cameras are quite interesting though the more I look into it, and I've really been obsessive recently about it since you started this thread. CMOS vs. CCD is something interesting to look up--just google CMOS CCD and you'll see lots of articles. CMOS, until recent years, were utter crap. Even now, the very crappiest video cameras use CMOS, and the very best hi-def video cameras use CMOS technology. The key for quality of the image of CMOS technology is the way it is manufactured, from what I've read, while a number of other factors are what limit the CCD's quality. It seems, to me anyway, that CMOS will end up being the one that can potentially take over, unless a whole new technology appears for doing this sort of thing that blows the others away.

Blah blah blah I go.