[Maflynn]

I'm in the market for a new camcorder - one that will be compatible to my mac. Any suggestions also websites that provide resource information. I want to know more about them and make an eeducated decision

Thanks
Mike

[Axo1ot1]

What do you want to do with it?
Where do you want to take it?
How much are you willing to spend?

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What do you want to do with it?
Where do you want to take it?
How much are you willing to spend?

Record things
On vacations
I have no idea how much to spend.

I'm at square one, I don't know what features to look out for, and what features to ignore. I have a digital camera so a 1 MP picture taking ability is not a feature I want.

When I started looking for digital cameras there were web sights people here recommended, so I'm hoping the same exists, also particular models that people bought and either liked or not. I would consider myself a beginner and do not need a lot of features, but I will be going to hawaii later this year and want to caputre the vacation on video.

After visiting Bestbuy, compusa, circuit city Sony seems to be the heavyweight player but I want to know what I'm buying so I would like to gain some information.

Thanks
Mike

[Axo1ot1]

Sony makes very good cameras to be sure, but you pay a little bit more for the name and for gimmicks. In a consumer camera I would lean toward the Canon side. Their cameras tend to be sturdy and have slightly better picture quality.

Now let's talk numbers:

You can spend anywhere from $400 to $3000 on your camera. You can spend more but past that price range the cameras stop being user friendly and start being pro-friendly. There are two basic styles of camera on the market today. The standard horizontal handhelds that look like this:



and then the smaller vertically oriented cameras that look like this:



The tradeoff is size to stability. The horizontal ones tend to be bigger but easier to hold steady. The smaller vertical ones can fit in your pocket but are harder to keep stable. The smaller ones tend also to have less battery life due to the fact that their batteries are just smaller. You can get bigger batteries of course.

I had the vertically oriented sort as my first camera and I really loved it. I could take it all sorts of places and nobody would know and it was not cumbersome when I took it on vacation.

Sony sells a lot of cameras because of the picture effects that they include. These are things like sepia and 'old movie' that stylize the picture they are recording in some way. These effects look really cool and fun in the store, but they should be treated essentially as non-features. If you shoot using these modes your footage will never look normal. If you shoot the footage normally it is very easy to bring it into iMovie or Final Cut later and apply effects.

Where to buy? Don't get it from shady internet merchants that you don't know anything about. If you want to shop at the place the pros swear by go to http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ Circuit City and its ilk will overcharge you. That's almost a guarantee.

[Maflynn]

Thanks,
I saw that the prices are 450 and up. I'm not sure how much I'm willing to spend quite yet but its probably in the 500 dollar range. Also thanks for the heads up on the vertical camcorders

Mike

[SCUmacadvocate]

I am not quite sure which Canon camera has better picture quality than a Sony, but after using the Canon ZR 50, 60, and 70 on my college's lu'au video, I was left terrribly disappointed with their performance (especially after shooting 24 minidv tapes worth of video with them). In comparison to the footage from my Sony TRV 80, the Canon's picture was grainy, fuzzy, and after editing in Final Cut Pro, all of the facial features were indistinguishable. My Sony's picture was crystal clear and I feel it was worth every dollar (it was almost three times the cost of a Canon at that time). I would highly recommend a Sony and I shall be shooting this year's lu'au exclusively with Sony cameras. If you were looking at digital SLR or point and shoot cameras, I'd go exactly the opposite way, but for video, Sony is the best in my opinion. That's just my two cents.

[Paul_N]

Originally posted by SCUmacadvocate:
My Sony's picture was crystal clear and I feel it was worth every dollar (it was almost three times the cost of a Canon at that time).

Don't forget the adage "you get what you pay for". My $2k GL-1 with 3ccd's outperforms just about every camcorder on the market with the exception of a small handful of similarly priced models. Yes, it blows the doors off the $700 Sony's. It should, as it was three times the cost.

My Canon D60 SLR takes better pictures then a cheap $500 digital camera. As it should. My $1500 70-200L lense takes sharper pictures then my $500 28-135 IS lense. As it should.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you compare an expensive high quality camera at 3x the cost of the cheap camera, the expensive one will win hands down. Quality is not cheap. I wouldn't slam Canon because their low end camera wasn't as sharp. You need to compare apple's to apples.

This doesn't help the original poster though, as they are looking for something towards the low end. Some features that I would look for if I were you:

- DV Pass through. This is good for hooking up you VCR and transfering all of your old VHS tapes into iMovie.
- Image Stabilization - Removes the hand shake. Really really good feature, especially in low light, or when you are zooming.