[zabir]

Hello

I need a hd camcorder that will look the best on my panasonic plasma tv. Would the hd mini dv be the best or not. I have narrowed it down to sony sr12, canon hf11 or hv30. I may consider the newer panasonic hdc sd 200,sony hdr xr520, canon hv40 or hf100. I can wait a year, I know these prosumer models haven't been around for too long and may need another year before they realy get better. Because of the cost I am planning on keeping it for many years. Please advise, as I said the main use would be playing back on a hdtv.

thank you

[jonnypb]

I'm happy with my HF100 which I play back on my Panasonic 37PX70. Quality is very good in good light. It records onto sdhc which means the camcorder is compact, nice and light and very quiet as there's no HDD or tape noise. If you can find any left at Currys Digital they have good offers on the HF10 and HF100

In low light it does start to suffer a bit but unless you're going to spend £1500+ then that will be the case for any camcorder.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by zabir

Hello

I need a hd camcorder that will look the best on my panasonic plasma tv. Would the hd mini dv be the best or not. I have narrowed it down to sony sr12, canon hf11 or hv30. I may consider the newer panasonic hdc sd 200,sony hdr xr520, canon hv40 or hf100. I can wait a year, I know these prosumer models haven't been around for too long and may need another year before they realy get better. Because of the cost I am planning on keeping it for many years. Please advise, as I said the main use would be playing back on a hdtv.

thank you

All the camcorders you list will look great on your tv but remember if you plan to edit your footage hdv is much easier.

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

All the camcorders you list will look great on your tv but remember if you plan to edit your footage hdv is much easier.

Unless you have an i7 system..
HDV and AVCHD both ;look great on an HDTV provided care is taking with lighting, avoidance of jerky panning movt, sensible use of Zoom :in short good shooting techniques

What is impt for playback is that with an SD card camcorder , the card will fill up
With an HDD camcorder the HDD will fill up too
These are made to be transferred to a PC / Mac and it can range from tricky to impossible to return these to the camcorder for playback especially if they have been edited
There are several ways you can playback to HDTV ( as Hi def) from creating BD ROM discs to simply using the PS3 or a media player
.
With tape you can always replay the tape unless you reuse the tape and tape can have the edited material rerecorded to it for playback

As such while all the camcorders you list will give excellent playback on your Plasma ( LCD LED ect)) you need to think ahead as to how you playback unless you buy a card model and keep buying new cards or use the tapes ( if you get a tape model) for playback

[zabir]

Thank you for the replies. I still need to know which will look best on a plasma tv or is there not much difference between those I have listed. I might get the sony sr12, will the new sony hdr xr520 be any better. Also some people are saying hd-dv is better image quality is that right. As I said I can wait a year if things will get significantly better. I might buy the sr12 tomorrow so would apperiate a quick reply please thank you.

ps my main use is recording family for memories that we will watch back on a hdtv in years to come. image quality is the most important factor.

[zabir]

thanks senu i was typing my reply while you posted yours so i didnt get to read it until i sent mine.

[zabir]

ps my son has a chillblast pc, gtx280 quad core overclocked @3.4ghz etc

[ade4all]

hi i think in addition you should also take into consideration whether you can connect an external mic to the camera if sound is also important to you, most people will spend money seeking a good image but are unaware that the audio you capture could be so much better if you put a bit of your budget towards an external mic - the internal mic will capture all the unwanted noise going on behind you as well, put an external mic on & it will isolate that sound to some extent & record at a higher quality what you are pointing the camera at. Just a thought, sorry if it's a bit off topic

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by zabir

Thank you for the replies. I still need to know which will look best on a plasma tv or is there not much difference between those I have listed. I might get the sony sr12, will the new sony hdr xr520 be any better. Also some people are saying hd-dv is better image quality is that right. As I said I can wait a year if things will get significantly better. I might buy the sr12 tomorrow so would apperiate a quick reply please thank you.

ps my main use is recording family for memories that we will watch back on a hdtv in years to come. image quality is the most important factor.

The SR 12 gives a great picture [i have one ]its 5.1 sound is also very good but personaly i prefer to use an external mic,i also have hdv cams whose pq is good not quite as sharp as the SR 12 but as i said hdv is easier to edit if you want polished films.
The SR 12 replacement XR 520 is getting a lot of praise but as far as i can see its main improvement is in the low light department, ie it has less noise on pictures in very low light, it is a bit smaller also with other minor improvements.
OF note i need a viewfinder myself and many cams now only have lcds.

[zabir]

thanks i have just missed an offer on sr12 but will carry on looking

[nikonuser11]

Originally Posted by zabir

As I said I can wait a year if things will get significantly better. I might buy the sr12 tomorrow so would apperiate a quick reply please thank you.

ps my main use is recording family for memories that we will watch back on a hdtv in years to come. image quality is the most important factor.

Things will always 'get better' as technology improves so buy now, if you wait a year you'll also miss a year of your family which is what your buying it for in the first place.

P.S You could buy from QVC who give you a 30 day no questions asked money back guarantee, I did might take away the pressure of absolutely getting the right one first time.

[zabir]

this the canon hf11 or hf10 any better than the sr12 and is the sr12 the best for still pictures

[nikonuser11]

your welcome

[ronaldkwok]

Have you considered the Sanyo HD2000 (or other models in the same series)? This is currently the only consumer camcorder that offers 1080 progressive, 60p as oppose to 1080 interlaced, 60i for the rest. In theory, the 60p should be better than 60i but I cannot really test since I do not have a full HD TV as mine is only 1080i. You may want to test this one out yourself or others who have compared the two can comment.

[A n d r e w]

Originally Posted by ronaldkwok

Have you considered the Sanyo HD2000 (or other models in the same series)? This is currently the only consumer camcorder that offers 1080 progressive, 60p as oppose to 1080 interlaced, 60i for the rest.

To clarify, Canon and Panasonic also make progressive-enabled consumer camcorders. Progressive is not necessarily "better" than interlaced - indeed, in some situations, progressive performs less well.

[nikonuser11]

Originally Posted by ronaldkwok

Have you considered the Sanyo HD2000 (or other models in the same series)? This is currently the only consumer camcorder that offers 1080 progressive,

Panasonics entry level HD camcorder is also progressive and also £200 cheaper on QVC than Jessops

[ronaldkwok]

Originally Posted by A n d r e w

To clarify, Canon and Panasonic also make progressive-enabled consumer camcorders. Progressive is not necessarily "better" than interlaced - indeed, in some situations, progressive performs less well.

Sorry, I am a newbie in this camcorder stuff so I may well be wrong as there is so much to learn. Probably I should have said that Sanyo is currently the only one with 60fps (60p) while the rest are 60i or 30p. Or maybe Canon and Panasonic has also caught up with Sanyo now!

[ade4all]

Originally Posted by A n d r e w

To clarify, Canon and Panasonic also make progressive-enabled consumer camcorders. Progressive is not necessarily "better" than interlaced - indeed, in some situations, progressive performs less well.

hmm, not exacly sure that is good advice, i think if you dont want to deal with interlaced issues on modern progressive displays - ie any lcd or plasma screen, then progressive is the way to go (regardless of the film like aesthetic of a progressive image compared to the video look of interlaced) -it is simply a better way of creating an image with 25 individual frames per second, & with all tv's & com monitors now progressive, why buy into an outdated technology
if you want the 'benefits' of interlaced, these cameras will also record that way, but with so many people wondering why their interlaced footage looks bad on a computer monitor, i would recommend progressive

[senu]

Originally Posted by ade4all

hmm, not exacly sure that is good advice, i think if you dont want to deal with interlaced issues on modern progressive displays - ie any lcd or plasma screen, then progressive is the way to go (regardless of the film like aesthetic of a progressive image compared to the video look of interlaced) -it is simply a better way of creating an image with 25 individual frames per second, & with all tv's & com monitors now progressive, why buy into an outdated technology
if you want the 'benefits' of interlaced, these cameras will also record that way, but with so many people wondering why their interlaced footage looks bad on a computer monitor, i would recommend progressive

Hmm..
Given that

• you can deinterlace in playback software,
• Editng software may not always know what to do with progresively recorded video
• The Brand attepmt this progressive recordig in what is essential various proprietary ways
• Playback Devices deinterlace fairlly well

I would imagine both yours and Andrews POV have enough merit to make a case for not using Progressive recording on these consumer models as the main selling point

[ade4all]

Originally Posted by senu

Hmm..
Given that

• you can deinterlace in playback software,
• Editng software may not always know what to do with progresively recorded video
• The Brand attepmt this progressive recordig in what is essential various proprietary ways
• Playback Devices deinterlace fairlly well

I would imagine both yours and Andrews POV have enough merit to make a case for not using Progressive recording on these consumer models as the main selling point

All fair points
- i guess my ownly grievance with deinterlacing is that you immediately lose half the resolution of your footage, fine just for playback but you are still then watching hi definition in essentially low def (kind of defeats some of the point of getting high resolution cameras). I would be a bit miffed if i edit something & then have to throw away half the information just so people can watch it on a comp screen without jagged edges - with proressive you retain all the resolution & can be watched on any display

- i have only edited in premiere & final cut so yes other software may have trouble here that i'm unaware of

- i was aware that different companies have differing ways of getting to progressive, ie canon xha1 uses 25f but essentially it behaves exactly the same way when put into a progressive timeline when editing as 25p. To be honest I have only used 'prosumer' panasonic & canon cameras in progressive (oh yeah & sony ex1), are there different quirks to progressive being used in consumer cameras, as i say i am quite ignorant in this respect & apologise if i have been misleading

- i agree some deinterlacing players do a pretty good job but it still comes back to throwing away half the information & then interpreting between the lines, with progressive what your camera captures is what you get to see when viewing

[chrishull3]

As my HC1 died and i decided i still need a consumer hdv cam i have bought a HV30 and despite giving 25P and cine mode a fair test i have to say IMO it is crap and on camcorders its interlaced for me,the 50I picture from the HV is very good,sharp well resolved with every bit as much resolution as my FX7 and SR12 cams, less noise than the FX and great colour.
Not that this is a perfect machine build quality is crap as is the menu settings,
too tight to supply a card for stills ,no easy way to adjust the colour density like the sony HCs , there are many pluses and minuses but in the pq department at least it seems to do the job.

[zabir]

hello thanks for the replies. sorry have been away for a few days. dont understand to much of this technical stuff. anyway have managed to order a sony sr12 from argos clearance for £549. they only had 4 left, 1 guy bought 2 i think. anyway would like to know if the newer sony hdr xr520, panasonic hdc hs300 or canon hfs 100 are much better (cant afford the canon anyway) for me or is there not much between. also i've read that the sr12 was the best for stills is that still true. may get a lumix fx35 as well if i need to.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by zabir

hello thanks for the replies. sorry have been away for a few days. dont understand to much of this technical stuff. anyway have managed to order a sony sr12 from argos clearance for £549. they only had 4 left, 1 guy bought 2 i think. anyway would like to know if the newer sony hdr xr520, panasonic hdc hs300 or canon hfs 100 are much better (cant afford the canon anyway) for me or is there not much between. also i've read that the sr12 was the best for stills is that still true. may get a lumix fx35 as well if i need to.

The new model sony is certainly better for low light filming, there are quite a few improvements but for outdoor filming i doubt you would see noticable difference,i doubt if your cam would be any worse than the others in outdoor filming.At the time the s12s stills were the top for cams not sure which is best now probobly the XR520.