LOOKING TO BUY A SONY CAMCORDER BUT CAN NOT DECIDE WHICH ONE
I HAVE NARROWED IT DOWN TO TWO CAMCORDERS, THE DCR-PC330E AND THE DCR-TRV80E. I HAVE HAD A TRV30 WHICH IS SIMULAR TO TRV 80 AND WAS VERY PLEASED ALTHOUGH IT WAS A LITTLE ON THE BULKY SIDE COMPARED TO SOME OTHERS, SO THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE A LOOK AT PC330E BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE AND PICTURE QUALITY. BUT SOME SAY ITS A LITTLE TOO SMALL BECAUSE OF THE 2.5 INCH TOUCH SCREEN. ANYONE HAD THE SAME EXPERIANCE OR OWN A TRV80 OR PC330

MY ONLY CHOICE IS SONY BECAUSE OF UPGRADE AT SONY BECAUSE MY OLD CAMCORDER WENT FAULTY

[thebrummy_one]

I just brought a PC330 and so far am very pleased with it. (Mind you, I would be pleased with a cornflakes box and toilet roll attached as this is my first dabble into Camworld.!!) I particually the toys on it. The single frame recording for aminated sequences and the time lapse recording (haven't used yet but looking forward to all those sun sets etc) are brill. The nightshot is fun. It has a lot of editing stuff but haven't got that far yet. I don't know what specs the TVR80 has but, I would recommend the PC330.
Cliff

thanks for reply
a couple of questions if you do not mind
do you find the camera too small and fumble with the buttons and how are the photos coming out, how good are they??
my last camera was excellent and i am looking at trv80e because it is an upgrade of it with 2 million pixels but has a 3.5 inch screen which was excellent. but camera a little bulky . pc330 tempting with 3 million pixels but only 2.5 inch screen and camera looks tiny compared to my hands

dom

[thebrummy_one]

I've short stubby fingers and the touch screen is easily operable. I used the camera last night in a very dingy room and the flash worked well to illuminate the subjects. The pictures looked excellent on the screen and when downloaded were a true representation. I use an Olympus C-350 dedicated digital camera in my work, and I find the pictures comparable with this. (3.2 mega pixel capability)
Not being able to compare against any other product, I can't give a referenced coment on handling. I found it a snip to point and shoot, as there is only the one button on the rear of the camera to film. And the one on the side to take pictures with.
I haven't explored all the functions whilst filming yet, but I feel that applying some effect or other mid film may be inconvienent due to the small screen (holding it close in order to read.) Big down side I have found is the inability to use the view finder to record. (I find it awkward due to it's 'in line' positon. I'm also left handed/eyed so having to use my right hand to operate I am punching my own nose!!) Hope this helps.
Cliff

[thebrummy_one]

One more thing, the 'fault' refered to in all of the reviews I read, where the extendable view finder retracts into the shell. Is totally true. I am partitioning Sony to issue a fix for this. It would be simple to supply a 'collet' that fits around the viewfinder to keep it in place.

cheers, being very helpful thankyou. i have long fingers and think it might be a struggle to operate buttons and hold camera with one hand. also view finder info quite interesting. always found with my last camera i extended view finder and the adjusted angle to be confortable. reviews also claim non adjustable angle a big disadvantage. also if it keeps retracting could be a bit annoying
i keep getting this feeling i should get trv80 (old saying stick with what you know) as i had such good results with my trv30 and it did everything except make the tea. this has on screen touch menu like yours but interestingly although it has larger 3.5 inch screen has also a stylus pen so you do not need to use fingers on the screen???? it would be lovely to see difference between a 2 megapixel and 3 megapixel. you have not got a photo you can email me ofa landscape shot have you(something on full zoom)

dom

[thebrummy_one]

If you PM me your e-mail address, I will whizz something over to you. What I've been reading on this site though is "don't buy a cam for stills" is the re-occuring theme. I'm pleased with what I get, but stills has never been a priority for me. (although it's handy to be able to shoot off a few and not be bogged down with kit). The view finder problem is irritating and I've only been going a week. When the thing wears it'll be like Jordon, well loose!!
Cliff

[Miron]

I am also having same doubts at the moment.
I find PC330 pain to use because of its shape, zoom button is not logically placed , but it tops trv80 in performance, probably because of better or wider optics, less because of more resoluted chip.
I still have to check out what new HC-85 (due out soon) really offers.

Overall I tend to TRV80 (or TRV 60 that is basically the same without some useless networking options and smaller but better LCD)

hi

whats a HC-85??

also i spoke to few shops today and a few said trv80e has been discontinued and might be replaced shortly as sony are bringing out a spring cataloge

dom

[Miron]

take a look to sonyusa (www.sony.com) and you will find all the info you need.

i also spoke to some real professionals and they told me the following: with every new generation of sony cameras they manage to reduce two things, manufacturing costs and number of quality components included. they also claim that predecessor (trv50) was better than trv60 and trv80 anyway, and they believe that trv60 and trv80 will probably be better than hc85.
on hc65 they even took few option away like integrated photo flash and also reduced resolution!

since i have to buy (my trv5 died after 5 years) it is very hard decission!

hi spec on hc65 does not look good as it is only 1 megapixel.
spec on hc85 looks better with 2 megapixel but only produces 1920 pixels where as trv80 is 2.1 megapixels. all i need is a trv80 with 3 megapixels and dissision would be made. wanting a camera better and smaller than my old ,points me towards pc330, but none adjustable viewfinder, tiny 2.5 inch screen and buttons in places meant for childrens fingers i have my doubts and how much better is 3 megapixel to 2 megapixel. my trv 30 was 1.5 megapixel and i took a4 photos with very little distortain.

[Miron]

hi 34coupe
number of pixels is not so important, much more important are optics and implementation of the camera module. i work with cameras (not consumer but still cameras) and good optics are by far more important that some stupid chip that is downscaled to 576 pal lines anyway (when recording).
almost the same applies also for taking photos.
if all you need is trv80 with 3Mpixel , then swallow pixels and buy trv80!

been looking at two photos for conparision both on full zoom
pc330 3 mil pixel
trv30 1.5 mil pixels

the trv30 picture is very grainly an not very sharp
the pc330 is so much better, ok not perfect but definately better

oviously i saw better clarity the pc330 photo and presumed 3 mil pixels was the reason it was better, am i wrong??

i can send photos to you as conparison if you require just to get a proffessional opion

my old camera trv30 i have had some excellent results but as soon as i zoom i lost quality, something i know will happen with any camera, but oviously replacing a excellent camera with one better is what i want to achieve.

if you feel i can get just as good photos with trv80 as to pc330 then you need look no further. trv30 was upgraded to trv50 then trv80 and uses the same body and control layout except onscreen touch menu except now 2 mil pix (instead of 1.5 on trv30). the camera feels excellent and the balance and lay out of controls very comfortable

[Miron]

pc 330 must make much better photos than trv30 since it has twice as much pixels, and it has wider filter and much better optics, so you get much more light in.

i compared trv60 (same chip and optics as trv80) with pc330 (took some pictures onto my memory stick, went home and compared, even printed out) - and must say there was very slight difference if any! i could not see any difference in colors, size was clearly different, sharpness was also very simmilar, however pictures from trv60 were slightly brighter. if this means less quality it is hard to tell!
i also did few picc with some zoom but since i am not sure i engaged the same zoom it has no real value.

i also recorded little bit and saw absolutely no difference!

i simply do not want to buy pc330 because it is real pain to use, that's why i still have doubts - trv80e or wait for hc85

trv80 it is then

or is it worth the wait for hc 85??

is hc85 advanced compared to trv80, does it have extra features??

also lens size same on trv30 as trv80 and trv30 1.5 mil pixels, trv80 2 mil pixels, so pc330 still outclasses all with 3 mega pixal

which has better optics pc330 or trv 80

[Miron]

34coupe,
I did another longer test (week long) and I bought TRV80 in the end.
I must admit PC330 has slightly better photos , but it is real pain to use and there is NO difference in video however.
Me happy

how much better were the photos on the pc330?????

i too think trv80 is the one to get especially since i have so much success with my trv30. the 3 inch screen is easier to use and the controls all seem to be at your finger tips, the only draw back was it was a little on the bulky size. Seeing as i used it more for stills than vidio, i was tempted to look at pc330 not only because of 3 magapix but also because of size. having looked at all the forums new owners of pc330 seam to be disappointed in the stills.

i am led to believe this is due to processopr size being small.

please advise have you any comparison photos you could email to me one from pc330 one from trv80 to give me an idea in difference

dom

[InterDave]

I have to say that I found this thread very interesting to read as I'm going through a similar dilemma myself!

I have been using a JVC GR-DVX for many years but, since I've got a decent PC and got into editing, I now find the 570K CCD on the JVC pretty much useless for recording and editing on to DVD so I've been looking at the PC330 and TRV80 as my next buy.

I'm not *that* interested in the camcorder's stills capability as I have a 3.3Meg Sony DSC-P1... yes, a few years old now but still produces excellent pictures. So I'm really only looking at the available pixels on any camcorder for recording video.

The PC330 has 2.05Meg while the TRV80 has 1.08Meg pixels for video use. That sounds a big difference to me. It would seem, simply looking at the number of pixels, that choosing the PC330 is a 'no-brainer' but something tells me that's not the case.

- Will I get that much better video quality from the PC330 than from the TRV80?
- Can anyone demonstrate what the difference is from a quality/video production point of view.
- Does anyone have video clip examples available of the two camcorders?
- Should I be considering other camcorders beside these two Sonys?

Many thanks if you can help with answers to the above.

[Miron]

hi both
just in short lines:
i really was no able to differ between video from these two camcorders.

still images were also very simmilar, those from pc330 maybe slightly better (probably). 34coupe, sorry have no more those compare pics - i formatted memory stick before i brought them back.

but be aware of one thing: sony allows no maximum possible quality photos from video cameras. they want you to buy their photo cameras too! (they force compression 4 for jpegs). i wonder if anyone will patch this ever
so if you are after stills go and buy nikon