![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Between These 3 Digital Camcorders, Which Is The Best?
- Thread starter Kitt2003
- Start date
Short answer... Panasonic PV-GS120
The Canon ZR90 and the Sony HC40 are the low end models. They each use a single chip to record video.
The Panasonic PV-GS120 uses 3 chips, one each for Red, Green and Blue, to record video. 3 chip camcorders have the best picture quality. Although the Panasonic is small... it packs a great punch.
I've used an older Canon ZR series, and was not impressed at all.
Do a Google search and read some reviews of them. Of the 3 you've chosen... I'd go with the Panasonic hand down!
The Canon ZR90 and the Sony HC40 are the low end models. They each use a single chip to record video.
The Panasonic PV-GS120 uses 3 chips, one each for Red, Green and Blue, to record video. 3 chip camcorders have the best picture quality. Although the Panasonic is small... it packs a great punch.
I've used an older Canon ZR series, and was not impressed at all.
Do a Google search and read some reviews of them. Of the 3 you've chosen... I'd go with the Panasonic hand down!
Yea that's what I kinda figured.
My parents bought the ZR90 because it was within their price range. Actually it was very close. A little bit more and it would have been out of their price range. Now I'm thinking I should have maybe pitched in some money, around $120 so they could have gotten the PV-GS120. My friend has it and it's really nice. Anyways, back to the ZR90. I've been using it a lot and I kinda like it but I'm not that amazed by the picture quality. The stills honestly suck and the video is pretty good, nothing to write home about. We ordered it online and I would say we could return it and I'd help them go a little bit better but I'm sure they'd think that's too much trouble. Plus we've had it for 2 weeks now and if they don't see a problem with it, they don't care to return it or anything. As long as it gets the job done theyre happy.
My parents bought the ZR90 because it was within their price range. Actually it was very close. A little bit more and it would have been out of their price range. Now I'm thinking I should have maybe pitched in some money, around $120 so they could have gotten the PV-GS120. My friend has it and it's really nice. Anyways, back to the ZR90. I've been using it a lot and I kinda like it but I'm not that amazed by the picture quality. The stills honestly suck and the video is pretty good, nothing to write home about. We ordered it online and I would say we could return it and I'd help them go a little bit better but I'm sure they'd think that's too much trouble. Plus we've had it for 2 weeks now and if they don't see a problem with it, they don't care to return it or anything. As long as it gets the job done theyre happy.
For family video type stuff, I'll take the single CCD tradeoff for the closer optical zoom any day.
having 16/18/20X optical zoom is nearly indispensible for getting close for plays/sporting events/recitals etc. 10X just is not *quite* enough, IMO.
As far as stills - I haven't seen a video camera yet that took better pictures than a 200.00 digicam. Save the money and get a camera withOUT digital still capability, and then spend it on a real digicam.
BB
having 16/18/20X optical zoom is nearly indispensible for getting close for plays/sporting events/recitals etc. 10X just is not *quite* enough, IMO.
As far as stills - I haven't seen a video camera yet that took better pictures than a 200.00 digicam. Save the money and get a camera withOUT digital still capability, and then spend it on a real digicam.
BB
If you're so far away from the subject that you "need" a 20X zoom... your audio is probably gonna be crap...
You need to be close to the subject to get clear audio. If you're in the back row of an auditorium... you may be able to zoom in to see faces on the stage, but you won't be able to hear them very well. There is no replacement for being closer to the subject.
You're right about the still camera part. Any recent still camera will take better pics than a camcorder can. Plus it has a flash. Unfortunately, most new camcorders come with still capability... So what are ya gonna do...
You need to be close to the subject to get clear audio. If you're in the back row of an auditorium... you may be able to zoom in to see faces on the stage, but you won't be able to hear them very well. There is no replacement for being closer to the subject.
You're right about the still camera part. Any recent still camera will take better pics than a camcorder can. Plus it has a flash. Unfortunately, most new camcorders come with still capability... So what are ya gonna do...
I bought a separate powered stereo microphone to eliminate the motor noise, and it actually works quite well. No, not studio quality, but clear enough and with only minor to moderate hissing when the volume is boosted on the audio before render on the PC. ANd if I get REALLY industrious, I can use cooledit to fix some of the hiss/background noise, and then re-apply the sound. But that can be a REAL pain - in fact, I've only done it once, and you'd probably have to PAY me to do it again. A lot. 
When played directly through the TV, yeah, we have to boost the volume up way high, but its still clear enough to be understandable.
Sometimes you're limited to your available filming locations. Because of this, I have, on more than one occasion, found that having the 18X zoom on my ZR-40 has been indispensible. I just need to upgrade to a higher density CCD. But they weren't in my price range when I bought it two years ago. Maybe this Christmas.
Yeah, most cameras do come with still camera capability, but not all do. And there's no point in spending 200.00+ more for higher resolution still image capability on a higher end model when the lower end model has the same MOVIE features. (e.g. the canon series ZR80/85/90 - all have about the same features, but the 90 is 200.00 more expensive than the 80 - primarily for the still image capability, and slightly better zoom. though the difference between 18x and 22x isn't much. 20x is about the limit of useable zoom anyway - even with a good separate mic.
BB
When played directly through the TV, yeah, we have to boost the volume up way high, but its still clear enough to be understandable.
Sometimes you're limited to your available filming locations. Because of this, I have, on more than one occasion, found that having the 18X zoom on my ZR-40 has been indispensible. I just need to upgrade to a higher density CCD. But they weren't in my price range when I bought it two years ago. Maybe this Christmas.
Yeah, most cameras do come with still camera capability, but not all do. And there's no point in spending 200.00+ more for higher resolution still image capability on a higher end model when the lower end model has the same MOVIE features. (e.g. the canon series ZR80/85/90 - all have about the same features, but the 90 is 200.00 more expensive than the 80 - primarily for the still image capability, and slightly better zoom. though the difference between 18x and 22x isn't much. 20x is about the limit of useable zoom anyway - even with a good separate mic.
BB
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2000
- Messages
- 7,540
when buying a video camera, high resolution CCDs are a bad thing.
OH, I understand that high resolution CCDs can be a bad thing.
Higher means 600Kpixels instead of the ZR40's 300Kpixels. Anything more is a waste of money. (for video)
From what I understand - given the same size sensor, at some point too many pixels is a bad thing - they're less useable in low light, they create interference and distortions (similar to trying to stuff 8 MP onto consumer level digicams - you need the larger sensor of the pro-sumer SLRs and professional cameras to get good quality as you climb past the 5-6 MP mark in Digicams.
I don't know what the cutoff is though for DV cameras.
Feel free to enlighten me.
BB
Higher means 600Kpixels instead of the ZR40's 300Kpixels. Anything more is a waste of money. (for video)
From what I understand - given the same size sensor, at some point too many pixels is a bad thing - they're less useable in low light, they create interference and distortions (similar to trying to stuff 8 MP onto consumer level digicams - you need the larger sensor of the pro-sumer SLRs and professional cameras to get good quality as you climb past the 5-6 MP mark in Digicams.
I don't know what the cutoff is though for DV cameras.
Feel free to enlighten me.
BB
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2000
- Messages
- 7,540
Bingo.
If you've got 2 CCDs of the exact same size, and one with 380k pixels, and the other with a million, the one with 380k will have half as much noise, and better low-light. The individual sensors are much larger. Keep in mind because single-chip CCDs have 3 or 4 elements per pixel, sometimes its not actually a megapixel chip, but marketing.
Professional-grade CCD's are native-resolution only, about 380K. slightly higher in some. Megapixel chips in consumer camcorders look fine for a consumer, but a native-rez chip looks better. Just like how 3 CCDs look better than single chip. Why is this? Because with 3 CCDs you triple the pixel area.
If you've got 2 CCDs of the exact same size, and one with 380k pixels, and the other with a million, the one with 380k will have half as much noise, and better low-light. The individual sensors are much larger. Keep in mind because single-chip CCDs have 3 or 4 elements per pixel, sometimes its not actually a megapixel chip, but marketing.
Professional-grade CCD's are native-resolution only, about 380K. slightly higher in some. Megapixel chips in consumer camcorders look fine for a consumer, but a native-rez chip looks better. Just like how 3 CCDs look better than single chip. Why is this? Because with 3 CCDs you triple the pixel area.
DV resolution is 720x480 = 345,600 pixels. So why have a single CCD chip that can capture more than that? I've seen 600k, 1.2MP and 2MP CCDs that capture video in consumer camcorders.
In a single CCD camcorder... what do you look for? The more expensive models have bigger CDDs, but they also have more effective pixels for video.
I wish today's camcorders didn't offer still picture cabability... and focus on better low light and other video quality.
In a single CCD camcorder... what do you look for? The more expensive models have bigger CDDs, but they also have more effective pixels for video.
I wish today's camcorders didn't offer still picture cabability... and focus on better low light and other video quality.