Best quality SD 3 chip camcorder?

Jerry Gordon · November 2nd, 2006, 10:10 PM

thanks alll....
I have been monitoring the A1 for a few days but am hesitant at this moment till more is tested on it, of the noise that is in the clips.

So back to an SD that is better than the vx2100.

I understand what you mean about shoulder mount with the XL, can it also be tripod mounted? But if it or the others do sharper, better colors and better quality video than the 2100, I need to upgrade. But low light, in a lighted room or auditorium is a must. I would like one that I can zoom across the room at someone and see the features of their face once put on dvd, that kind of quality.
As for the DVC, and SD I would not shoot 16:9 anyway, so would not have to worry about squeezing it down.

The PD 170, I almost got that instead of the 2100 I think when it first came out but there was some reason i did not, and can't remember why..

Mention was made of the GL, but nothing about it..how is the quality and low light with it?

thanks..t

Steve Nunez · November 2nd, 2006, 10:16 PM

To zoom across a room and see details in a face requires quite a lens and zoom- the XL series is the only one that can perform this- you may need the EF adapter should you want more zoom, the XL series can't be beat in the zoom dept. and they are very good in low light- but the VX2100 is pretty much the king of low light videography.

You're going to have to make trade-offs- you may gain something in one catagory and lose in another- pick your battles.

(The GL series with a 1.7x high-grade tele lens add on gives quite a range also)

Jerry Gordon · November 2nd, 2006, 10:23 PM

wow then maybe I should keep the vx for the indoor stuff and get another for outdoor stuff.

I just want to get the best quality video of kids growing up, vacation and so on, even if I have to get a "pro" camcorder. the memories would be worth it and since 90 percent of my videography is indoors thus the concern for low light. But with my daughter starting to ride horses, a very good quality camcorder would be nice. That is why I ususally use the auto mode so much. And 95 percent of outdoors I shoot stills with the 1d Mk II.

So I don't do interviews and such as that, but for the best quality memories I don't mind the cost.

For Jaren...i spend a lot of time at dpreview.com for the DSLR and I believe it was the 10d they had some probs with AF hunting or one of it's predecessor's or successor's I can't remember. My 10 d served me well as do my 2 Mk II's...can't wait to see what the Spring PMA brings...

I would assume Sd will be here for a long time. It would be nice to do 16:9 and see how it does but full frame would be ok if it will be around till after I am dead and gone..chuckling

Jerry

Chris Hurd · November 2nd, 2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Gordon

wow then maybe I should keep the vx for the indoor stuff and get another for outdoor stuff.

Nonsense. Of course you don't need another camcorder for outdoor stuff.

Based on what you'll be shooting, the Sony VX2100 is all you need. The Canon XL2 is definitely overkill.

Ergonomics is *everything.* Try before you buy. The right camcorder for you is the one which *feels best* in your hands. Everything else, all of the technical stuff, is nowhere near as important as ergonomics.

Image quality is not determined by the gear. It's determined by the person using the gear. The single best way to positively influence the quality of your video is to shoot with a camcorder that feels comfortable to you, one that you'll enjoy using. Nothing else matters.

Steve Nunez · November 3rd, 2006, 06:27 AM

Also with the bigger camcorders- you'll find you tend to leave them behind because of their size- meaning you'll miss those moments when you wish your camcorder was handy.......a smaller VX series is a good choice....as for telephoto reach- you simply can't have it all.
Like Chris says- you'll need something that feels "right"- that's the camera you'll end up bringing everywhere.

Jerry Gordon · November 3rd, 2006, 11:02 AM

THanks Chris and Steve.

I am about to the point that I agree. I had hoped to jump into the Hd and have the best of both worlds.

yes it would appear to be overkill to most, but I am paranoid in that if I can get better quality for those memories then I will go for it, but rightn now unless something better is found about the low light in the A1 I concur with your recommendation on the vx2100.

I can't go to the local store and try out a new camcorder as there are not stores near here that carry them..shoot the only one that might possibly carry one never even carried the canon 10d still camera, so that is something I don't have the opportunity to do thus must rely on pics and you guys's expertise.
thanks
Jerry.

Chris Hurd · November 3rd, 2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Gordon

I am paranoid in that if I can get better quality for those memories then I will go for it

What you have to understand is that you can't get better "quality" from a larger, more expensive camcorder. That's a fundamental thing to comprehend, especially considering the type of shooting you're doing. The way you get better quality is to choose a camera that you'll enjoy using. One that feels comfortable, that you like to work with. One that you take along everywhere you go and that you shoot with a lot (the more you shoot, the better your images become).

Spend the money on a trip to B&H in New York or some large dealer closer to your area that has the cameras in stock so that you can try before you buy (and then be sure to buy from that dealer). It's the best research money you'll spend, and it'll be a greater help to your decision than the internet is. The more time you spend worrying about "quality," the more memories are slipping by without you recording them. All of the current camcorder offerings available today will give you excellent quality. It's such a non-issue. All that really matters is that you choose something that you'll enjoy using. Just do it, and make sure you pick something that's light and easy to carry around... definitely NOT the Canon XL2.

Jerry Gordon · November 3rd, 2006, 12:24 PM

Point taken and understood and appreciated.
I don't think I was looking at necessarily a larger most expensive one, but my search at this point is just trying to see if technology has advanced enough to do better than the vx's. Does that make sense? really just a technology thing and not wanting the biggest and most expensive out there. Plus the addition of HD now. IF technology has advanced so there was something better than the vx in image and low light then I would be interested, but only from the better technology point.

I will keep keeping an eye on the A1, to see what the final word on it is, but will continue with the VX until I see some compelling better technology to upgrade. I hope this makes sense. It's kinda like with DSLR, started with 10d at 6.3 megapixels, then they came out with the 1dmkII at 8.x megapixels and each progression in technology offered betther image quality and better low light and so on. And that basically is what I was doing with these camcorders, seeing if the technology has progressed enough to be better than my older model.

I am just disappointed right now in the A1 low light. I thought it was the newest technology and would beat most older models/brands quite a bit, plus have the HD technology.

And I thank you for your replies and explanations....
Jerry

Gareth Watkins · November 3rd, 2006, 02:10 PM

Hi Jerry

Low light is one of the ones that always amazes me...who cares, with in reason. All the modern cameras handle half way decent lighting fine.

Light is all about quality, control and intensity.... whatever your camera does in low light ... VX or whatever.. if that light is crap..your pictures will be crap.

If your light is controlled, if your scene is well lit, then it will look great.

Why do the guys in Hollywood, or even TV spend so much time effort and money lighting a scene right..coz it looks great.

I've started adding lights, reflectors etc to my shoots and I can tell you the pictures hum...you just have to be bothered. (How much does a Lastolite cost?)

I've used the Z1 in low light and to be honest and its great....if it needs more light than that it ain't worth shooting....

I come from a photography background, where we took time and trouble to light our subjects..ok flash makes its easier.. but good light is good light...

I find it hard to understand why people judge a camera on the low light reference, when this reference makes no mention of light quality....

Video and film needs good lighting... or at least controlled lighting... otherwise you get poor quality grainy images, what ever you use..

To me light is what all video and photography is about... (ok then you need good subject matter, good dialogue...etc...)

regards

Gareth

Jerry Gordon · November 3rd, 2006, 05:23 PM

Gareth,
yes i agree that light is everying in photography or videography or even using telescopes.

To clarify what I mean for lo lite would be in a room lit with regular lights, or a church auditorium lit accordingly..that would be the lowest light I would consider shooting in. So for me when I say low light that is the level I am referring to...not a lo lit nite club or concert or anything else...so maybe I should term it medium lo light?

The lowest I ever shot was a night parade, night fireworks, and light show at disneyworld and that was a unique situation but those would be the only nite shooting i would do....99 percent of low light for me is in a lit room or auditorium, for what it's worth.

I even hate shooting above 100 ISO on my DSLR....noise is not bad at the higher on the 1d mk II..just don't do it unlesss I have to.

For what it is worth, in still photography I use neat image for noise reduction in post..

For Videographers, I believe they now have a version for video if you want to check it out. www.neatimage.com very highly regarded by still photographers now has a video version to help lessen noise. I haven't tried it but they have trial versions...just wanted to mention that in case anyone needs to remove noise, this is an option.
Jerry.

November 2nd, 2006, 10:16 PM	#17
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	To zoom across a room and see details in a face requires quite a lens and zoom- the XL series is the only one that can perform this- you may need the EF adapter should you want more zoom, the XL series can't be beat in the zoom dept. and they are very good in low light- but the VX2100 is pretty much the king of low light videography. You're going to have to make trade-offs- you may gain something in one catagory and lose in another- pick your battles. (The GL series with a 1.7x high-grade tele lens add on gives quite a range also) __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

November 3rd, 2006, 06:27 AM	#20
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Also with the bigger camcorders- you'll find you tend to leave them behind because of their size- meaning you'll miss those moments when you wish your camcorder was handy.......a smaller VX series is a good choice....as for telephoto reach- you simply can't have it all. Like Chris says- you'll need something that feels "right"- that's the camera you'll end up bringing everywhere. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

November 2nd, 2006, 10:10 PM	#16
Jerry Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leicester, nc Posts: 86	thanks alll.... I have been monitoring the A1 for a few days but am hesitant at this moment till more is tested on it, of the noise that is in the clips. So back to an SD that is better than the vx2100. I understand what you mean about shoulder mount with the XL, can it also be tripod mounted? But if it or the others do sharper, better colors and better quality video than the 2100, I need to upgrade. But low light, in a lighted room or auditorium is a must. I would like one that I can zoom across the room at someone and see the features of their face once put on dvd, that kind of quality. As for the DVC, and SD I would not shoot 16:9 anyway, so would not have to worry about squeezing it down. The PD 170, I almost got that instead of the 2100 I think when it first came out but there was some reason i did not, and can't remember why.. Mention was made of the GL, but nothing about it..how is the quality and low light with it? thanks..t

November 2nd, 2006, 10:23 PM	#18
Jerry Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leicester, nc Posts: 86	wow then maybe I should keep the vx for the indoor stuff and get another for outdoor stuff. I just want to get the best quality video of kids growing up, vacation and so on, even if I have to get a "pro" camcorder. the memories would be worth it and since 90 percent of my videography is indoors thus the concern for low light. But with my daughter starting to ride horses, a very good quality camcorder would be nice. That is why I ususally use the auto mode so much. And 95 percent of outdoors I shoot stills with the 1d Mk II. So I don't do interviews and such as that, but for the best quality memories I don't mind the cost. For Jaren...i spend a lot of time at dpreview.com for the DSLR and I believe it was the 10d they had some probs with AF hunting or one of it's predecessor's or successor's I can't remember. My 10 d served me well as do my 2 Mk II's...can't wait to see what the Spring PMA brings... I would assume Sd will be here for a long time. It would be nice to do 16:9 and see how it does but full frame would be ok if it will be around till after I am dead and gone..chuckling Jerry

November 3rd, 2006, 11:02 AM	#21
Jerry Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leicester, nc Posts: 86	THanks Chris and Steve. I am about to the point that I agree. I had hoped to jump into the Hd and have the best of both worlds. yes it would appear to be overkill to most, but I am paranoid in that if I can get better quality for those memories then I will go for it, but rightn now unless something better is found about the low light in the A1 I concur with your recommendation on the vx2100. I can't go to the local store and try out a new camcorder as there are not stores near here that carry them..shoot the only one that might possibly carry one never even carried the canon 10d still camera, so that is something I don't have the opportunity to do thus must rely on pics and you guys's expertise. thanks Jerry.

November 3rd, 2006, 12:24 PM	#23
Jerry Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leicester, nc Posts: 86	Point taken and understood and appreciated. I don't think I was looking at necessarily a larger most expensive one, but my search at this point is just trying to see if technology has advanced enough to do better than the vx's. Does that make sense? really just a technology thing and not wanting the biggest and most expensive out there. Plus the addition of HD now. IF technology has advanced so there was something better than the vx in image and low light then I would be interested, but only from the better technology point. I will keep keeping an eye on the A1, to see what the final word on it is, but will continue with the VX until I see some compelling better technology to upgrade. I hope this makes sense. It's kinda like with DSLR, started with 10d at 6.3 megapixels, then they came out with the 1dmkII at 8.x megapixels and each progression in technology offered betther image quality and better low light and so on. And that basically is what I was doing with these camcorders, seeing if the technology has progressed enough to be better than my older model. I am just disappointed right now in the A1 low light. I thought it was the newest technology and would beat most older models/brands quite a bit, plus have the HD technology. And I thank you for your replies and explanations.... Jerry

November 3rd, 2006, 02:10 PM	#24
Gareth Watkins Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: France Posts: 578	Hi Jerry Low light is one of the ones that always amazes me...who cares, with in reason. All the modern cameras handle half way decent lighting fine. Light is all about quality, control and intensity.... whatever your camera does in low light ... VX or whatever.. if that light is crap..your pictures will be crap. If your light is controlled, if your scene is well lit, then it will look great. Why do the guys in Hollywood, or even TV spend so much time effort and money lighting a scene right..coz it looks great. I've started adding lights, reflectors etc to my shoots and I can tell you the pictures hum...you just have to be bothered. (How much does a Lastolite cost?) I've used the Z1 in low light and to be honest and its great....if it needs more light than that it ain't worth shooting.... I come from a photography background, where we took time and trouble to light our subjects..ok flash makes its easier.. but good light is good light... I find it hard to understand why people judge a camera on the low light reference, when this reference makes no mention of light quality.... Video and film needs good lighting... or at least controlled lighting... otherwise you get poor quality grainy images, what ever you use.. To me light is what all video and photography is about... (ok then you need good subject matter, good dialogue...etc...) regards Gareth

November 3rd, 2006, 05:23 PM	#25
Jerry Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leicester, nc Posts: 86	Gareth, yes i agree that light is everying in photography or videography or even using telescopes. To clarify what I mean for lo lite would be in a room lit with regular lights, or a church auditorium lit accordingly..that would be the lowest light I would consider shooting in. So for me when I say low light that is the level I am referring to...not a lo lit nite club or concert or anything else...so maybe I should term it medium lo light? The lowest I ever shot was a night parade, night fireworks, and light show at disneyworld and that was a unique situation but those would be the only nite shooting i would do....99 percent of low light for me is in a lit room or auditorium, for what it's worth. I even hate shooting above 100 ISO on my DSLR....noise is not bad at the higher on the 1d mk II..just don't do it unlesss I have to. For what it is worth, in still photography I use neat image for noise reduction in post.. For Videographers, I believe they now have a version for video if you want to check it out. www.neatimage.com very highly regarded by still photographers now has a video version to help lessen noise. I haven't tried it but they have trial versions...just wanted to mention that in case anyone needs to remove noise, this is an option. Jerry.