ill be honest i dont know much about camera's but i do want to film video clips, Music videos , short films so forth...

ive been looking at cameras on ebay and have found one which looks decent and have seen it in what camcorder magazine before.the sony VX2000E.
i do know however the more expensive the camera the better quality image im prob going to get.

however im worried from looking at a website that it is 1.68 megapixle.For video recording is this good? it seems strange to me because ive a mobile with a 1megapixle camera...and for a $2000 camera with only 0.68 difference is this worth it? what sort of quality am i going to get? and will i be satisfied as a ameture film maker?

[epicdream]

The megapixel reference is only applicable for when you use the stills fuction on the camera. The video will not be as much as a megapixel as the recorded video will still be in DV format which is 720x576 max, this is the same for any standard DV camera. As far as I know the VX2000 can resolve upto 500 lines (correct me if iam wrong) which is pretty good.

It wont go any higher than that unless you spring for a Sony FX1 HDV cam, then, you'll get a higher resolution (more money though...).

The VX2000 is a nice camera.

Hope this helps,

Neill

[epicdream]

Oh I forgot to say that, yes it is good enough to make short films on it... I have shot a music video with a Sony PD150, which is basically the pro model of the VX2000. Both have the same image quality, the difference is the PD150 has professional microphone on it along with other small features.

Hope this helps,

Neill

VX2k is a good camera, if you are getting a good buy then fine, the future is however widescreen & hd. If you are spending more than a grand I would look at a camera like the HC1000 instead, or see if you can pick up an optex or century anamorphic adaptor.

ps. vx2k has 3 image devices, not just one like your camera, video cameras also have to process this information 25 times each second, so a monile phone isn't really any form of comparison.

[JayX]

Arrgh! Not megapixels again! I swear, Dixons et al are responsible for this.

Megapixel refers to the size of the image. Thats it!

You can hack a mobilephone to take a 10megapixel shot I imagine, but it doesn't make it good! When you see a TV ad from Dixons, they'll go "This HP 5 megapixel camera is great!" or whatever.. the fact its 5MP doesn't make it great, the fact it probably has a decent lens and good manual control makes it "great" (it might suck ) if it can keep the image quality up at a higher MP count, then thats awesome because you can print the images off higher then. Remember, for print you prepare EVERYTHING at 300DPI generally, that means text/photos has to be very large or vectorised in order to print off at the same quality you get on a monitor (72DPI). My mobile phone takes 1MP shots, and it looks awful, because the tiny lens in it is rubbish and needs a lot of light or its next to useless. I don't even use it at its full potential because the photos it produces are simply better on a size lower.

So ignore megapixel count ENTIRELY when it comes to video, and only think of it as an after thought when it comes to still cams. Its not the size that counts, its how you use it :D :D :D

On another point: to hear a TRV900 operator say nice things about the HC1000 is so wrong! The VX2100 or PDX10 whilst being more expensive are much better choices in my opinion. The HC1k doesn't know which market its aiming at.. perhaps the "too much money, not enough sense" market?