Question:
Hey guys,
I want to buy a video camera. I know practically nothing about them. I want something that works well with my iMac. I'm using iMovie and will probably get Final Cut Express down the road, and then see where it goes from there. Somebody told me that mini-DV cassettes were the best format to use.
I see that they are making High Definition DV cameras now, and I was thinking about getting one --although, maybe they show TOO MUCH detail (I don't want people seeing every pore on my face!). I'm looking to spend around $1000 or maybe less or just a tad more.
I HATE being photographed. I have a phobia about it, to be honest. But I'm trying to get over it (I'm getting more used to it). I want to document some things about myself for some day if I ever have kids. Also I want to use the camera to film my parents and brothers cause life can be short.
Mostly though, I want to use the medium of film to frame some of my music and so on. I want to film myself telling some stories and stuff and score it with my own music. So far, just messing around with my iMac video cam and my demos from Garage Band, I've been impressed.
So can any of you recommend a good video camera to me? I'd like to buy one in a week or so. I just purchased a home movie projector to watch movies on and now I really have the bug to put together some film. I'm really lost as far as cameras go. I know there are a ton of sites with reviews, but I trust you guys to just give it to me straight.
Thanks!

Answer:
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...efinitionVideo
Sorry I couldn't find anything in your criteria that was less. Sony has been known for the best video recorders around for a long time. I'd say stick with them. They made the camera that recorded the last three Star Wars, Jenna Jameson's latest porn, and a bevy of other high quality productions.
The thing is, this isn't the camera that made those movies. That camera is $2,500. This however, should treat you well.
I wouldn't go with tape anymore. DVD recorders convert to HD on the spot, which means better quality instead of converting to tape, then back, then to HD to get the end result. Also, you've got better transfer times and better sound quality.
- Rich

Answer:
at this point cameras recording to HD (harddrive) that you can buy for $1000 have really poor quality whenever you move the camera it'll look just like your webcam when you move it: there'll be a delay. you'll see that immediately if you check it out at a store. what's great about an HD (harddrive) camera is you can just pick it up and go, and if you use it a lot a lot you'll save a lot on tape, but that's all right now, for under 1500. the best is definitely still mini DV for lower price equipment as DVD cams have the same problem, but moreso.
for filmmakers panasonic really excels cause you have a lot more manual control over everything. sony and canon are more geared towards point and shoot which panasonic also can do but manual aperture and focus will be accessible only through menus in the viewfinder it'll be like using your cellphone, not good, on the sonys and canons. Panasonic offers buttons for that kind of stuff.
It's not really time to get an HiDef camera yet, what's the point, nobody is projecting HiDef and you'll just end up needing to upgrade your computer to cope with it, and to get one you can afford you will have to settle for one chip. I just read about Hal Hartley shooting this new film on Hidef and he had the tapes transferred to standard definition for editing then sent the edit decision list off to some fancy house to cut the film in Hi def. Of course the newer versions of FCP will all take hidef though. So you can enjoy it 10 years from now and ... for now... it's gonna be bad enough editing standard def video on a mac in FCP, I promise! Also, you should check out lafcpug.org where these FCP jocks love to answer your questions within minutes.
Really you shouldn't obsess too much, there are a lot of good cameras out there. any sony, panasonic or canon is going to put you in good working order for $1000. my criterion for a camera under 1000 is that it should be as small as possible, since you can't have the best image, get the advantage of guerrilla sizing. So I looked for the smallest 3 chip available and there are panasonics for 400 or so used on ebay. Be very careful of course there, can't believe how people dive bomb the auctions paying higher than at online retailers for something new and under warantee. Also there are some slick looking ripoff sites with great prices that sell you a camera without a lens, which is the most expensive part, so... if it's too good to be true...
the size of the panasonic the little one that is 3 chip is good cause the really small cameras the teeny ones, are really hard to control handneld a litlte bit of size is better. unless you are trying to wear it surreptitiously or something.

Answer:
Thanks for the advice, guys.
I had been thinking about the Canon HV10, but now I see that the HV20 comes out in April and it's not that much more expensive than the HV10. What intrigues me is that it has a 24 frames-per-second mode which is supposed to make the footage look more cinematic. It's also supposed to perform better in low-light and it has a microphone input. For my price range, this seems to be what would suit my needs.
I'm pretty sure that mini DV is the way I'm going to go. I've gotten the impression that DVD cams are not as conducive to easy editing as mini dv tape.
i'm probably going to go with the Canon HV20 when it comes out.
Thanks again. I will do some research on the Panasonic 3 chip though.
I have this question though-- Supermarky, you mentioned that it will be harder editing hidef footage than standard. Why is that? Is it harder in terms of how much computer resources are required or is hidef editing a more laborious process?

Answer:
HD is harder for the computer, and that will make it harder on you. as far as the tasks you perform manually to edit or whatever, there's no difference. and if you're getting hi def in your price range you're going to be sacrificing something else: the lens, the colors. all so you can make something you won't even be able to view in high def, most likely. by the time exhibition in hi def is standard, all the cams will be so much better and cheaper, wait till then, I think. but... if you actually own a hidef TV, then maybe not.
many cameras offer the 24 or whatever cinema frame rate. it's something I haven't used cause it's basically lower fidelity. I used this great old sony cam that is still highly prized, the original consumer camcorder that cost a fortune in its day people still seek out, that had been dropped, causing it to flicker somewhat in a way that was very cinematic and beautiful I have to admit!
whatever cameras you are looking at there are lots of reviews you can read online. you can probably go into a store with a tape and try recording on various cameras to get a sense of what difference there might be between 3 chip and 1 chip under ordinary shooting conditions, daylight indoors. but for 1000 with canon I'm sure you can make something beautiful! and low light capability is a good thing if you are performing in clubs and want to document yourself...
the weird thing about video is that light is tricky and precarious, no light is fine, or very very little it's when you are within a certain window of not enough light and too much low light that things get all noisy and crappy looking. vexing.

Answer:
I haven't shopped for these for a few years, but I can give you first principles:
Good images come from good glass and good sensor (or film, but this is digital, so it's a CCD).
Good glass: Zeiss or Leica
Good CCD: Make sure it is a 3-CCD sensor. Normally a CCD sensor in a digital camera has a field of R, G and B sensors, which means that 4megapixel isn't really 4 megapixel unless you convert to b&w. A 3-CCD setup uses filters and stacks the CCDs so that you have a full-frame R and full-frame G and a full-frame B CCD. This used to only be the very very expensive ($10k+) cameras, but it was down to the prosumers the last time I looked and may be more prevalent now.
Happy hunting!

Answer:
panasonic "features" leica
it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't be buying sony or canon. it's hard not to think of panasonic vs sony as being like ford for autos vs honda - not such a good choice. this prejudice allows you to get nice "peripherals" used from panasonic for way cheaper than you'd pay for a comperable sony. for instance, monitors. people like their monitors to say "sony" cause it looks so "real" and "industry" but you can get a better one from panasonic for a fraction of the price. a sony used $1400 monitor might sell for 1200. a used $1400 monitor from panasonic languishes waiting for a buyer and goes for $350.