I have been to the Asda and they have a Samsung for £100.00 it looks a bit small and fiddly for me, I have looked at panasonic with hard drive & cannon which is the makes im really after.
Price no more than £300.00 im not after cheap tat neither do i want the best & i want brand new.
Just filming my young son who's two and won't sit still for a photo & id like elderly family memebers in some with him who im afraid may not be around much longer!!
How easy are they to use? how do i get the film onto a disc? Is it dvd recorder which i have or this fiddly computer thing?
Will they all take a portable stand? and what about zoom for the airshows and battery life?
Quite a lot of questions sorry!! But id like to start making a few to save for when he's older to embarrass him.!! lol.........
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 2 Nov 10 at 20:45
|
DONT go camcorder.
for 300 quid you can get a regular digital still camera, that will shoot HD video as well, all saved to a memory card. You can then send still ofs for print, make slideshows, or email stills, and you can make DVDs from your videos.
|
|
Good advice from Zero. If you go down that route, make sure the memory card has sufficient capacity. With my Sony Cyber-Shot digital camera, 8 minutes of HD Video results in a 600MB video file and I only bought a 2GB memory card, so that works out at around 25 minutes filming capacity.
Last edited by: Bagpuss on Tue 2 Nov 10 at 16:31
|
|
I got one of these www.creative.com/myvado/products/vadohd.aspx for £39.99 the other week. Hardly a professional camera (only limited zoom) but it is dad easy to use and connect etc - and quality is better than I was expecting for the money, even on the 40" telly.
|
I bought a camcorder several years back. Initial hype died down within few months and ever since I rarely use it.
I second the idea of using a camera and its video recording capability.
Else, get a smartphone. Modern ones can record very good quality video.
|
>> DONT go camcorder.
>>
I agree, unless you're going to be shooting regularly in low light conditions, when I suspect a proper camcorder might well do a better job (lower resolution, less noisy sensor). Personally I've hardly used my camcorder since buying my Panasonic TZ65, which isn't really optimised for video but is easily good enough for me.
|
The quality of the videos my Sony Cyber-Shot produces is frankly astonishing, even in low light conditions. It shows up the shortcomings both in my television set and in my talents as a video cameraman, and it's so easy to use.
To be honest the biggest problem I had to begin with was discovering you need a PC with the processing power of a Cray XT6 to play the HD Video files.
|
|
The camera i have is a Sony DSC-H1 i know it does a video but i don't think it does them for very long and the battery is very poor lasts not very long at all.
|
|
I believe all digital still cameras are limited to around 28 mins. recording capability to avoid being classed as camcorders and attracting a higher import duty. I think the longest single clip I've ever recorded is about 5 mins. so not a problem to me.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Tue 2 Nov 10 at 18:11
|
I bought a Sony camcorder about 6-7 years ago. Never used it as much as one assumes and it got damaged in a car accident - so was replaced in 2006. That's not been used much either.
On holidays I usually have the main camera ought (has been a dSLR) and so switching at a moments notice not really possible - i.e. to capture a moment. Also the SD nature of the camera shows up when using it on an HD TV.
My current camera that I take does HD video as well so can switch quickly. I therefore don't take the dSLR but the smaller Panasonic Lumix G2. And since then I've taken a lot more video and the quality (only 720p) is very good. Excellent in fact.
The other advantage of the Lumix G2 is being able to use the better lens to good affect. Like you can have the foreground or background in focus for a still, you can do the same for video. And you can touch the screen to change focus too.
So I'd go for a good still camera that can also do video. But if it's AVCHD then handling that in some video editing packages is more complicated that MP4 containers.
Which reminds me of the other downside of the camcorder I have - the uncompressed video from the Mini DV tapes is huge and takes forever to transfer.
|
Don't waste money on an expensive camcorder.
Buy yourself a Flip Ultra video on Amazon , 8 gig memory will cost you £109 and it will give 2 hours filming before it needs to be downloaded .
It is so small and simple to operate ( basically one button ) and needs only a couple of AA batteries. It downloads by a USB on the side directly into your computer and you start again
I bought one a couple of years ago and I carry it everywhere with me either on my belt or in my briefcase . Its my favourite gadget.
If I see anything interesting I just whip it out ( the camcorder I mean ) , point and film.
Great piece of kit.
|
Couple of thoughts.
1) The quality of video from a normal camera (with video capability of course), can be very good (I take a lot on my Panasonic TZ7). However, they are not a direct substitute for a good camcorder. I have seen a lot of picture breakup, when there has been a "complex" background (dense foliage for example) or when there has been rapid movement of the camera. I have also seen low light problems. So, probably fine for 90% of shooting, but not a direct 1:1 comparision. I have an old Sony HC7 camcorder, which is very good, but no doubt there is better out there now.
2) I am personally a bit worried about shooting without a physical media (the HC7 uses tape). It is a pain to have to import the video from the tape, rather than just download it (although Sony Vegas Studio does a very good job), but I personally think it is outweighed by having the physical tape as a backup. Hard drives fail and, if you are shooting HD, you would need to backup to something like a writable blu-ray (which are still very expensive). It might not seem a big deal, until 5 years later, when you suddenly realise that you can't boot the hard drive. If you shoot a lot, which I do, then even online backup is a problem (with, I think, each tape being about 11Gb). I understand that you can make multiple backups, but I just like having the tapes. This backup issue is, I think, the main reason why, AFAIK, a large majority of professionals still use tape.
Just my two cents.
|
The way data is read from a sensor in most stills camera is quite slow and therefore can lead to 'tearing' of the video if you move the camera quickly. Basically the top part of the image has been read and then the camera has moved so the bottom has changed before it is read. This applies to a lot of DSLR's when doing video.
I think some camera have much quicker ways of reading all the sensor data quickly. Panasonic do this with their Lumix G1, G2, G10, etc. range of Micro Four Thirds cameras.
|
|
I bought a Canon camcorder (using DV tapes) about 10 years ago for £650. It was used on holidays for a few years and was last used at Heathrow airport when the last 3 Concordes landed from JFK. When was that ? I haven't used it since and keep thinking about transferring the tapes to DVD - but haven't yet. Frankly it wasn't worth getting it but I suppose I'd spend £100 on one now, just in case I found a need for it.
|
A camcorder is what i want not another camera that does movies, Just a simple machine compact enough to go in a coat pocket and be used for just that.
Panasonic or cannon look like the ones im off for.
|
Camcorders what do you reccomend? - Zero
