Video Camera recommendations?

[Johnny]

Can anyone recommend a decent video camera for less than $500?

I'm just looking for now to get 'real' footage to use in my work...doesn't have to be hollywood quality. Just looking for a good basic camera..

thoughts?

J

[mlinde]

Get some sort of Sony, if you are getting cheap. It will be a Digital 8, not miniDV or DV, but it will have FW I/O and Sony has the best lenses on the cheaper cameras. I don't know about a sub $500 camera. I bought my miniDV cam for about $1200 a year ago.

[drclare]

Yeah, definetely look for a Sony. Check if you have any Sony outlet stores nearby. I got a $2500 3chip camera for under $1500, so you might find a cheaper model for under $500. Try to get MiniDV though if you can, cause its better quality.

[Beamtracer]

Sony is overrated, so you're paying mostly for the badge.

Here's some features that may be worth looking out for...


Progressive mode If you're combining real footage with Lightwave footage it would be wise to get a camera that works in 'progressive' mode, that is, without fields. Some cameras have a switch to go from 'interlaced' (with fields) to progressive.

24p This means 24 frames per second, and progressive mode.

16:9 (otherwise known as widescreen). Some cameras have real 16:9, other cameras have fake 16:9, some cameras have no 16:9 ability at all.

Analog to digital conversion
Some cameras can convert analog video to digital in real time. For example, you plug your old VHS deck in one end of your camera and your camera will convert it to digital video and spit it out the Firewire port.

HDTV A year ago this would have been unthinkable for a home camera, but JVC recently released a HDTV camera for the home.

[Johnny]

what about low-light abilities...a friend warned me that this was a major concern, at least 5 years ago..

are cameras today better able to deal with lo-light situations?

Also, I've read that some cameras aren't entirely mac-friendly; eg, a Panasonic that won't transfer stills to the Mac..

J

[mlinde]

First, Beam, all of those features are important, but if you look at the lead-in on the post, we are talking about the best buy for $500 or less. You show me a camera that does 24p for less than $2000, I might buy it. Almost all the features you discuss are useful, but aren't going to exist on a DV camera under $500.

I recommended Sony because at the low-end of the spectrum, they have better lenses than other sub-$1000 cameras. Sure, Canon and Panosonic (to name two) both make excellent cameras, but point for point, Sony makes a better sub $1000 camera (and I mean $999 when I say $1000 :) )

Johnny, low-light will always be something of an issue with digital capture. Since you are recording onto a fixed medium (unlike tape or film) you have a limited amount of play in lighting situations. Again, you can improve the camera, but you will quickly pass the $500 price point you wanted.

As for transfer issues, I can't help you, except that I believe the camera are discussing was an HD camera (over $3000 used), and I'm pretty sure Apple and Panasonic already came out with a patch to allow the data transfer.

[js33]

Originally posted by Beamtracer
Sony is overrated, so you're paying mostly for the badge.

Here's some features that may be worth looking out for...


Progressive mode If you're combining real footage with Lightwave footage it would be wise to get a camera that works in 'progressive' mode, that is, without fields. Some cameras have a switch to go from 'interlaced' (with fields) to progressive.

24p This means 24 frames per second, and progressive mode.

16:9 (otherwise known as widescreen). Some cameras have real 16:9, other cameras have fake 16:9, some cameras have no 16:9 ability at all.

Analog to digital conversion
Some cameras can convert analog video to digital in real time. For example, you plug your old VHS deck in one end of your camera and your camera will convert it to digital video and spit it out the Firewire port.

HDTV A year ago this would have been unthinkable for a home camera, but JVC recently released a HDTV camera for the home.


The only consumer/prosumer camera that does progressive 24P right now is the Panasonic DVX100 and that is a $3500 camera.
I believe FCP has direct support of 24P with that camera.

The JVC HD camera is just a novelty at this point as it captures to Mpeg2 and can't really be edited properly as DV can.

Also you're not going to get true 16:9 in anything less than a $20,000 camera. Again the JVC camera is basically a $2000 toy.

Cheers,
JS

[Johnny]

lots of stuff talked about here..

Is there some place where I can bone up on camera particulars, or do you just glean the info from reading their specs in catalogs?

J

[js33]

Originally posted by Johnny
lots of stuff talked about here..

Is there some place where I can bone up on camera particulars, or do you just glean the info from reading their specs in catalogs?

J

Heres a few links

Prosumer miniDV

DVX100 (http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Products/cams_ccorders/f_ag-dvx100.html)

General Camcorder site
Camcorder info (http://www.camcorderinfo.com)

2 pop forum. Lots of info here (http://www.2-pop.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=PanasonicAGDVX100Camera)


Cheers,
JS

[Johnny]

big help! thanks to all!

J

[Beamtracer]

Originally posted by js33
Also you're not going to get true 16:9 in anything less than a $20,000 camera. Again the JVC camera is basically a $2000 toy. Hi js33, there are some cheaper cams with real 16:9 these days. By "real" I mean that the pixels on the CCD are arranged in a 16:9 ratio. The fake 16:9 cameras have a button on them that says '16:9' but they only have a normal 4:3 CCD image sensor, and crop off the pixels on the top and bottom, reducing resolution.

24p is probably still very expensive, but some cheap cameras have 30p (US models) or 25p (European models).

The reason progressive is important is because if you have an interlaced image (with fields) and you reposition that image in any way, or slow-mo or speed up the frame rate, the image will immediately revert to half resolution. Only half the picture lines will be used, and the other half thrown out.

If you want to use interlaced video as a Lightwave backdrop and you map it to a polygon or a model you will encounter this half-res problem. If you want to use your video with 3D elements then progressive mode may be the most important feature of all.

Still image capture This is just a toy feature on video cameras. These still images are much lower resolution than what you'd get on a dedicated digital still camera.

Video cameras are advertised with features such as "1 megapixel" or "2 megapixel" CCD. This won't affect the quality of your video, as any standard video has the same number of pixels no matter what brand of camera you have.

Recording media Many of the photographic companies (ie Canon, Nikon) are using 'CompactFlash' memory chips to record still images. Sony uses its on proprietary 'Memory Stick' format.

[js33]

The cheapest 24P camera right now is the DVX100 from Panasonic. It is $3500. My brother has one and really likes it. He used BetaSP for years and now uses DV. Canon and Sony have a pseudo progressive scan but are 15P and not very useable.

True there maybe some cheaper cameras with 16:9 like the JVC HD but it is only a 1 Chip camera.

The cheapest 3CCD with 16:9 chips and 24P is the Panasonic SDX900 which is $25,000.

Panasonic 16:9 24P Camera (http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Products/cams_ccorders/f_AJ-SDX900.html)

These are of course pro level cameras. I think SONY has some toy cameras that have 16:9 but not 24P. The only thing Sony has that is 24P is the high end Cinealta. About $100,000 last time I checked. :D

Cheers,
JS

[archiea]

You know...

I have been partial to the "turn of the century" canon DV cameras, as opposed to the recent ones. I have two of the original Opturas because:

1) it had a true 30fps progressive scan
2)a variable shutter down to 8fps, offered beautiful, dreamy images at the progressive mode.
3)an RGB filter which allowed a similar look to a 3 chip camera without the price, but at the cost of light sensitivity
4) it offered a warm, filmic look as opposed to the more video look of Sony and others. Even when some noise kicked in, I noticed it kinda looked like old 16 reversal at 30fps
5) Clean optical stabilizer

I also have an Elura2 model. I like it too for all of the above reasons except that it offers a cooler, more neutral look. Its also very small and discrete and offers a B&W mode. this allows me to light a scene in B&W while studying the contrast and not letting the color values distract me, i.e blue looking alot brighter than it is, etc..

Recent canons have traded the real progressive scan for a higher rez CCD for taking pictures. they do everything, pictures, DV, MPeg, smart media cards, etc. Its gone too consumer for me, while the original optura was a bit of a last unicorn as it was just in the video making business. even the recent menu system from canon has become more Sony like.

For $500, i'd get a refurbished Elura 2 if you can find one. here's a great site that differentiates between the models...

http://www.globalmediapro.com/av/messages/105095.html

problem is that on amazon, I still see high prices for them, as their uniqueness is known (true progressive scan). My recommendation is to find some soccer mom who's selling it for one of the overely featured new models. She wouldn;t know what kind of gem she's selling...

here's some ebay posting for an elura 2 starting at $379...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2950005976&category=20330

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2950049989&category=20330

If you don't take it, I just might!!!!

I'm waiting for a 24 P camera to come down in price and offer more Gamma setups, if not a raw mode, and a hybrid CCD for capturing more highlight detail. Key is if you can record a low contrast image(before DV compression) to tape. you can preserve more highlight detail.

Good luck!

[archiea]

Hey I found an original optura on ebay! This is the Cadillacs of progressive scan cameras...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2949911840&category=31388

[Johnny]

the site Camerainfo.com had a shootout involving a Sony, a Panasonic PV-DV53 and some other camera..

in their review, the Panasonic came out on top. After reading comments here and there, I realize that I'm not going to get the camera of my dreams (unless I find a suitcase full of money)..

Does the PV-DV53 represent a good choice for $300, or just a starting point?

J

[mbdavison]

"You know...

I have been partial to the "turn of the century" canon DV cameras, as opposed to the recent ones. I have two of the original Opturas because:
"

I second that. If you want to see an excellent DV "film" that was shot with the Optura 100MC look at the "405" movie that is available on the web. Just search in google for "405 short film " and sites will pop up for it. I bought my own Optura "A" on ebay for about 350 dollars . It has a 14 to one zoom ratio (at that time the best focal length available on a Prosumer dv camcorder) and Since It had Canon Optics I knew the glass would rival or exceed the quality of any of sony's Lower end DV equipment. (Sorry folks last time I checked Sony Didn't use Zeiss glass on ALL their camera's Just the premium Units) Also the Optura "A"s shape is an advantage because it doesnt LOOK like a camcorder... It resembles an Odd 35 MM camcorder So People dont seem as threatened by it.... Just a thought. :-) ... Also another factor in choosing a budget camera is "Manual Over ride of automatic features" Because few things are as annoying and ugly as Video gaining up in a dark area when you WANT it to stay inky black in the shadows. The Irony of Prosumer vs consumer cameras is that True pro equipment Has fewer auto features . In the Pro world Its up to the Camera Op to pick the settings on the camera... even the white balance color. Although I HAVE used the Auto exposure modes of the Canon Optura "A" in a pinch and I was very Happy with the results even with its compromises... Good luck.