Looking at camcorders up to £500, most seem to have a zoom of X10.

However some of the slightly cheaper (relative) models such as the Sony sr32e have a x40 zoom.

This interests me as I will be using the camera to film sailing, both full size dinghy racing and of radio controlled yachts, so obviously a good zoom would be a benefit.

is x10 enough?
is x40 just a gimmick?
Is the picture quality significantly reduced on the high zoom models?

I've changed my mind about which camera to buy every day in the last week and my justifications to my better half are getting less convincing each time.

In an ideal world I'd like to go down to the sailing club, shoot some footage of a race, come home, download it onto the PC, cut out the boring stuff, string the rest together, upload some to a website and burn bigger versions to disc.

Simple, or at least I thought it was two weeks ago

[redsox_mark]

is x10 enough?

Generally, yes. For shooting handheld you can't cope with more than this anyway and hold the camcorder still. For tripod based shooting you could use a higher zoom.

is x40 just a gimmick?

Not so much a gimmick, but a function of the sensor size. Cheaper cams have smaller sensors. With smaller sensors it is easier to make a larger zoom, so they do it. (Refer to the laws of physics and how lenses work for details why).

Is the picture quality significantly reduced on the high zoom models?

It's not because of the zoom, but because these cheaper models have smaller sensors (and cheaper lenses), yes the picture quality is reduced.

[senu]

Good Zoom with a "fast lens" and a large sensor is a good Idea. Problem is that for the zoom to be dramatic sensor has to be smaller ( as such video image zoomed more). Smaller sensors mean poorer performance in lower light
and indeed fast moving objects. Smaller sensors also resolve with a lot more difficulty so quality is unlikely to be better .
Needless to say it costs less to make smaller sensors and easier to kit them with more Zoom which in turn is a marketeers dream!

Practically too, The ability to get a steady image handheld diminishes with the amount of zoom even with the image stabilising systems on
As such, the "costlier" camcorders tend to focus ( pun unintended) on clear sharp images and practical usable zoom over a long zoom which may be ultimately unsatisfying when every thing else is taken into account

PS Once again Mark in moved faster..

Thanks guys.

Ok so having destroyed one of my naive comparative factors.

What the key technical aspects you look for when comparing camcorders?

[rhubarbe]

My 2p. A 40x zoom would need a tripod even to see a radio controlled boat or sailing dinghy out on water.

As for recommendations, what was on your shortlist?

Come on, it's Monday, I need cheering up.

[redsox_mark]

Ideally you look at overall performance, which gives the best picture for the money.

But there are some technical factors which can help you narrow it down:

- resolution: Standard def, 720p, 1080i (with or without progressive mode)

- Sensors: Size (larger is better), number of (3 generally better than 1, but not at expense of size; i.e. 1 large is often better than 3 small).

- compression/format: With standard def, DV is less compressed than MPEG2 (HDD, DVD, flash memory). With High Def, HDV (MPEG2) is less compressed than AVCHD (MPEG4). Less compression generally means less artifacts and also easier to edit.

- Image stabilisation: Optical tends to be better than Electronic

- Lens quality: The lenses tend to have similar specs so hard to compare with numbers.

You can also look at features like AV/DV inputs, external mic input, manual controls...

[senu]

Originally Posted by magicmicro

Thanks guys.

Ok so having destroyed one of my naive comparative factors.

What the key technical aspects you look for when comparing camcorders?

Provided format comparison is not one. It really is video quality.
Sharpness, colours good low light performance, good audio and accurate focus. And Image stabilisation
These are all a function of the sensor, lens and digital processing chip. Good audio should happen if a good on-board microphone which will not produce a teeny thin sound but also not pick up extraneous sounds is provided
The other features are the ability to use an external microphone,and how much control you have over the video taking process ( not just leaving it all to auto).
And ease of use as well as ergonomics's ( how does it feel in your hands and how easy is it to access its controls). Others would be good battery life
Some rate the ability to take good stills as well
The list is not exhaustive and you'll find that at similar price points the differences in brands aren't wide
While your limit of £500 ( in todays market) will certainly get a decent performer, a little more gets you some fabulous Hi definition camcorders ( Canon (HC10 /20) which) which takes things up to another level

[redsox_mark]

Originally Posted by magicmicro

In an ideal world I'd like to go down to the sailing club, shoot some footage of a race, come home, download it onto the PC, cut out the boring stuff, string the rest together, upload some to a website and burn bigger versions to disc.

You can do this with any digital camcorder. The differences are that the tape based ones take longer to copy to the PC, but editing and converting to different formats is faster (due to less compression).

Well like any noob I'm fair game for marketing, so coupled with an idea of filming boats I found the Panasonic sdrh20 with a zoom of x32.
Great I thought and then I found the JVC gz-mg175 which seemed to be better which was subsequently trumped by the Sony dcrsr32e.

Ok so I negotiated a budget with the missus and then found that I could get the Sony for less than I first thought so I started looking for more expensive cameras believing "you get what you pay for".

This is when I noticed my initial big zoom was going down as the price went up.

Last night I managed to get agreement that the camera "we" should have is the Sony DCSR72e.
I can get it just over our budget and I hope like hell she does not realise the fact that the zoom has come down.

Then I found this place which has turned everything I held dear upside down as I was convinced (and I did a good job convincing SWMBO) that HDD (and a big one at that)must be the way to go.

So thanks guys, No really, thanks a lot for completely destroying all my arguments of the last week.

[senu]

Originally Posted by magicmicro

Ok so I negotiated a budget with the missus and then found that I could get the Sony for less than I first thought so I started looking for more expensive cameras believing "you get what you pay for".

You do actually .. and also" Buy cheap buy twice" is equally true. Some budget kit leave you feeling underwhelmed with their output.

So thanks guys, No really, thanks a lot for completely destroying all my arguments of the last week.

Take consolation in the fact that this happens in every household that I know especially if the "gadget" is not revenue bearing.. most of us resort to bribes, some stealth of hand ect.
You do have to ask yourself though, How often will you use it , and do you have , say any editing aspirations.?

[redsox_mark]

SR72 isn't bad; SR190 is better. You can get the SR190 in your budget if you buy online and want an HDD recorder (and it's good quality). The only problem is your budget can get you a high def camcorder (or just about) if you shop around... regardless of the media format, do you really want to buy a standard def camcorder when you can get a high def one?

I don't have a HD telly and to be honest I have no great desire to buy one, so why go HD camera?

I understand that when we come to editing that the higher quality gives you more scope but in isolation will the viewer really be disappointed looking at a std def video?

We were in Bluewater shopping center a the weekend and saw a crowd watching a huge HD telly and we came to the conclusion that we were pleased that telly was not such a huge part of our life!

A few years ago I worked in a recording studio and I spent a fair while cleaning up recordings. However it got to the point where it was so clean you could hear feet shuffling, leads dragging on the floor and people coughing in the background. So you can take quality too far that takes it away from what you were trying to do in the first place.

I'm waffling now, sorry, just thought that HD was something I really wouldn't get to appreciate, until we all go HD in five or six years time.

[alpine101]

Originally Posted by magicmicro

I'm waffling now, sorry, just thought that HD was something I really wouldn't get to appreciate, until we all go HD in five or six years time.

But surely that's when the nostalgia factor begins to come into play. I have standard 8 films I shot 40 years ago, but whilst they are nice to watch for the nostalgia, the picture quality is almost unbearable. If you go HD now, you are future proofing yourself for when you are in your dotage

[redsox_mark]

I look at it this way. You admit at the bottom of your mail that eventually (maybe in 5 years) HDTV will become common, and you may even have one. So why not shoot HD for the next 5 years, that way when you eventually get that TV you'll also have footage for those 5 years in the best possible quality?

The key to me is that HDV camcorders can also shoot excellent DV, they can also shoot in HD and downconvert... so you can shoot and edit standard def now, but have HD copies for later.

I agree with you that technical excellence doesn't replace artistic quality. When I look at old analogue video of my kids when they were babies I love it, even if technically it is nowhere near as good as the video I take today. But if I had the choice of having that older footage in higher resolution would I what it.. the answer is yes.

I assume you will keep this camcorder for some years. If you buy SD, that means years of SD footage when you could have HD.

[senu]

Originally Posted by redsox_mark

I
...I agree with you that technical excellence doesn't replace artistic quality. When I look at old analogue video of my kids when they were babies I love it, even if technically it is nowhere near as good as the video I take today. But if I had the choice of having that older footage in higher resolution would I what it.. the answer is yes.

I assume you will keep this camcorder for some years. If you buy SD, that means years of SD footage when you could have HD....

Totally agree,
If money if a big factor , I can relate to you keeping within budget but very good HDV camcorders are today costing even less than what mid range SD camcorders cost just a few years ago.and they are still very good DV (SD) camcorders too.
Artistic and creative aspirations are not nessesarily mutually exclusive to excellent quality. I never cease to be in awe when I watch Blu ray/Sky HD on my Pals 46" 1080p LCD..visual treat..

[glesgaguyav]

to all of the above, plus if you are concerend about the "zoom" factor you can always get a Telephoto lens, just be sure the camera has a threaded lens, most good ones do.

I thought I'd post here as I started off here but could equally be on two or three other threads.

Spent the day trying to get my head round HD and why I need it.
Not convinced I do need it but there is a case that I may well need it in the future.
Whether this is enough to justify the extra £150 or so is open for debate.

So given that the HV20 seems to be the dogs whatsits and at £520 ish, is just about possible without instantaneous divorce proceedings, I still have to get my head around this tape stuff.

It all seems a bit strange that I'm spending more to future proof myself but using tape technology instead of the new fangled HDD.

Can someone please sell the tape thing to me.

[senu]

Tape: cheap, readily available, best quality so far, Ready made archive ( in the tapes themselves), also available to return footage to
Camcorders built around tape seem ( for now) to have the most features and VFM

Software for editing abound, Readily available and you don't need a quad core PC.
It is a more mature format without being long in the tooth for quality

Dont forget that once you've captured it to the PC it is just as "digital " as HDD footage.

Also tape camcorders seem to be better at capturing fast footage and although you still ultimately end up with DVD you have way more control over the Encoding process depending on which software you use.

Ever wondered why the ( even new model) Semi Pro and Pro models still use tape?

[rhubarbe]

I have an SDHC cam (Pana HDC-SD7) and although it takes fab video in good light it really isn't that much good in low light.

For low light, and if I know that the footage is going to involve movement) I use my HV10 - HDV tape cam.

[alpine101]

Originally Posted by senu

Tape:.... Ready made archive ( in the tapes themselves),...

As long as you still have a working tape mechanism

OK I'm sold, the biggy is if I can get the boss to agree.

Not going to try and convince on a technical basis just going to agree to put down a new floor in our daughters bedroom.
Something that I've managed to avoid for some considerable time.

So to rhubarbe, senu, redsox_mark, glesgaguyav, alpine101, many thanks for your help and I'll be sending you the bill for the replacement knees, which I'll need in about a weeks time.

The alternative is to put up with me asking dumb ass questions on how to get my HV20 to work.
The choice, as they say, is yours.

[rhubarbe]

Have a look at the HV10 before you decide on the HV20. Although the HV20 is technically better in most respects, the HV10 has an upright form factor which I for one preferred sufficiently to make me go for that over the HV20.

And it's a bit cheaper.

[redsox_mark]

Good luck with the knees.....
Agree the HV10 is close to the HV20 in performance. Ideally try and find both and have a feel, they are different shapes.... see what feels best to you.

I have been doing a bit of a search to find the best deal on a HV20.

I thought I'd post a word of warning to other noobs out there that some deals are not quite as they seem as I found a couple of places selling the HV20 for £519 and then I found one for £464 - However this is a Jap spec and is not in "PAL"
I very nearly ordered it right there and than and I'm dammed glad I read the suppliers feedback.

Decided on the HV20 over the HV10 as all the reviews say that it has far more flexibility and I get the feeling I'm going to get quite keen!

[redsox_mark]

Yes you do need to be careful; if importing from outside EU there also may be customs fees/VAT.

If using it exclusively in “HD mode” with a HTDV then a NTSC cam here isn’t really an issue, but as in the short term you are likely to want to view on a SD PAL TV, you are wise to get a PAL model.

[rhubarbe]

That particular seller, edwardqian on ebay is first rate. I bought my NTSC HDC-SD7 from him and the order was handled in an exemplary manner. The advert on eBay clearly states that the model is a Japanese import, there is no VAT or duty to pay because Edward has already paid it and lastly, as Mark says, the issue of PAL and NTSC does not apply to HD.

Nothing to get your knickers in a twist over really, was there?

My point really is that for a noob this sort of information is likely to go right over our head.
The learning curve is pretty steep, what with all the HD, HTDV, NTSC, PAL, SD etc etc most of which I'd never seen a week ago.

[rhubarbe]

I thought that your reference to the supplier's feedback implied that it contained something that would lead folk to the conclusion that the seller was disingenuous, or otherwise seeking to mislead.

I don't think he is.

[civiccoupevti]

look at littlewoods direct, if you enter code XX276 you will get an extra 10% off