If you're going to buy on the internet, there are only three retailers that I'd recommend:

B & H Photo Video (the gold standard for ethical internet sales)
Adorama
J & R Music

In Little Rock, Arkansas? Surely you jest.

Though I will ask.

Edit to add: I believe I am moving back from the frontier this summer. Guess I'll have to visit the Clinton Library before I leave. :D

I have dealt with each to good result. I'd add OneCall to that list.

Though I always take camcorderinfo.com reviews with a grain of salt with respect to their subjective judgments, these might be helpful.

GL2 review:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...er_review.htmp

VX2100 review:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-review.htm

Hate to thread-jack, but I thought I'd jump into this conversation rather than start a new one.

I've got a new baby on the way next month, and I'd like to get a camcorder to capture all of the big firsts, but I'm torn between a few options:

-- For simplicity, I'm drawn to hard drive camcorders like JVC's GZ-MG21. I like the idea of being able to grab several hours of footage at once without having to swap tapes or DVDs and later burning the footage to DVDs to send out to the grandparents. Everything I've read about hard drive cameras in my price range, though, is that they have sub-par video quality.

-- I understand that MiniDV camcorders like the Canon Elura 100 generally have the best video quality, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of storing dozens of individual tapes or with the process of capturing the footage from the MiniDV onto a computer to burn a DVD.

-- Mini DVD camcorders like the Canon DC22 seem like they might be a good compromise, but I'm a little thrown by the fact that you only get 20 minutes of recording time per disc.

Any suggestions? I'm looking for a very consumer-level camcorder here; budget is about $400 and I don't plan on doing any crazy editing. The main priority is a system that will let me film the new baby with good video quality, good sound quality, and both watch the images myself and share them with family and friends.

Thanks in advance -- I appreciate any help.

DVD and hard-disk consumer camcorders use on-the-fly mpeg2 (some hard drive machines use mpeg4) compression. Mpeg depends on lossy temporal compression -- subsequent frames are stored as the differences from a prior reference frame. Though mpeg is an efficient compression format, it is very processor intensive; good mpeg transcoding (the process of compressing video into mpeg format) requires considerable processing power and multiple analysis passes. As an example, when I transcode edited DV-25 video (DV-25 is the standard used in miniDV), my 3 GHz P4 computer can take up to 24 hours to produce a transcoded mpeg from 2 hours of source video. Though the software that I use produces extremely high-quality transcodes, the resulting DVDs are not of the same quality as the original miniDV video. The reason for that is two-fold: mpeg uses a compression ratio of about 10 or 15 to 1, whereas DV-25 is compressed only 5 to 1 (and non-temporally), and the DVD standard bandwidth is limited to under 10 mbps, whereas DV-25, i.e. miniDV has a bandwidth of 25 mpbs.

Inexpensive consumer camcorders that are hard-drive or DVD based do single-pass, on-the-fly, realtime mpeg transcoding. Add to that the high compression rates involved in mpeg2/4, as well as the bandwidth limitation of DVD, and you wind up with video quality this is very poor compared to miniDV. Note, though, that there are crappy, inexpensive miniDV models out there that, I'm sure, produce video that is just as poor as a hard disk or DVD based camcorder -- video quality is also directly related to the quality of the lens and the camera's electronics. However, a decent miniDV camcorder will produce far, far better video than a consumer DVD or hard drive machine.

Finally, you say you don't want to do much editing. Because mpeg2 is temporally compressed, it is very difficult to do things like transitions, titles and special effects -- you'll be limited, pretty much, to cuts-only edits. I'm not aware of any decent editing package that handles mpeg4, though there may be some out there.

It's hard for me to say what is "good enough" video quality for you -- it's possible that a hard drive or DVD machine might be okay. I'd never consider one for my own use, but I also shoot with a prosumer miniDV camcorder.

I'm looking for something similar to what the original poster mentioned. I've read the reviews on cnet and on the website mentioned earlier in this thread. Based on that, I've narrowed my choice down to two options. I'm wondering if any of you have personal experience with either of the two below camcorders.

Canon HV20 - Supposedly not a great exterior, but it has the 24 fps mode which is cool and also is supposed to shoot well in low light. I think some of its advantage in rating is from still pictures which I have no use for.

Sony HDR-HC7 - Better exterior. Good all-around quality. Not as good in low light but has infrared mode.

I'm leaning towards the Canon because of the low light issue.

Oy. Are you sure you want either of these?

According to a quick Google search, the low-light performance of the Canon is relatively poor. It's claiming 3 lux at 1/30th of a second. That's going to give a jerky appearance to movement as "standard" HD frame rate is 60 frames/sec. I also suspect that the 3 lux claim is optimistic (there's no hard standard for lux rating, which is why the camcorder manufacturers like to use it). According to camcorderinfo.com (which tends to be a cheerleader for new machines), low-light performance was disappointing. 24 fps is of use ONLY if you're going to be transferring to film and, believe me, you're not going to shoot a feature film with this camera.

The Sony is an AVCHD machine that has an arbitrarily over-limited bandwidth. This means that (1) its video output isn't supported by virtually any editing/authoring software, and (2) there are going to be LOTS of digital artifacts due to the limited bandwidth.

What do you want to use these cameras for? If it's very casual use, e.g. the kids' birthday parties, it probably doesn't matter (as long as they're held outdoors). If you're concerned with quality, however, you'll likely be dissatisfied with both.

I've taken a lot of movies using a SONY HD camera similar to your model. Not any birthday parties, but plenty of cityscapes and rural outdoor scenery in Thailand/Vietnam, as well as some indoor. Picture looks fantastic on my HD LCD TV. I'm not using it for professional film studio use, so for me, the quality is just fine.

Thanks for the candid response. That's why I asked.

Based on the review at the site you mentioned, those two seemed like the best. I'm certainly open to other suggestions, though. Is there a better review site to look at? Cnet seemed to like both of those models too. ~8 out of 10 ratings.

I am probably going to mostly use it casually at home, for sports, and for when I travel. Some of it will be indoors. I probably want something that can shoot in high definition since that's going to be the standard. I need at least 10X optical zoom. It's my understanding the HD and DVD models aren't quite there yet and that I need to find a model that writes to tape. Is that incorrect? Reasonably small and light weight are important. I don't need a professional model, but I would like to be able to do some controls manually when I feel like it.

I'll then probably use the footage to make dvds with tmpEng or some similar software.

Is your Sony HD machine HDV or AVCHD? There is a huge difference. Sony makes some excellent HDV machines that produce spectacular images with virtually no motion artifacts.

Couple of points:

1. Sports are high-motion activities. The higher the compression of the capture medium, the more motion artifacts you'll experience. The more motion in the scene, the more motion artifacts in a high compression medium. I'd suggest you actually try an AVCHD machine before buying one, as the arbitrarily-limited bandwidth results in very high compression rates and significant motion artifacts.

2. Shooting indoors is going to be an issue regardless of the camera that you buy. "Small camera" and "good low light performance" are mutually exclusive -- the smaller the sensor, the less sensitive the camera in low-light.

3. I think you mean "tmpgenc." Tmpgenc is a great product -- I use it myself for transcoding standard definition video to mpeg2. However, my understanding is that, though it will transcode HDV (and not AVCHD), it only burns DVDs, i.e. standard definition, and not HD DVDs (BluRay or HD-DVD). If what you want is to produce standard definition DVDs, why would you get an AVCHD or HDV camcorder?

I'm definitely planning on trying before I buy.

What I plan to do is convert the video down to standard DVD for now and archive the high definition film on the tapes. Once the price of producing Blue Ray or HD-DVD comes down and the software supports it better, I'll reimport the raw video and make new disks. The new version of DVD Author that just came out supports DIVX but I don't think it supports HD.

Btw, the reviews on Amazon for both products are pretty good too.

When you do, remember that most retail stores are pretty bright. Try the camera in dark corners to get an idea of how it performs in low-light.

That's a good plan. Tape is the best archival storage medium at the moment. It's cheap and robust.

I wouldn't pay any attention to reviews on general sites like Amazon (and I'd take Robin Liss' site, camcorderinfo.com with a grain of salt). However, I've been looking at user reports for the Canon on DVinfo (which is to video like FlyerTalk is to travel). The Canon seems to be well-liked by the amateur folks. Some of them have posted links to frame captures. To my eye, they look sharp, but very unsaturated, almost monochrome, compared with Sony's HDV machines (please note the distinction between HDV and ACVHD). There is also a noticeable amount of color fringing (bluish edges to high-contrast details) which indicates a relatively low-quality lens. I saw one capture taken indoors -- it was rather dark and grainy, but it might be okay for your purposes. Of course, frame captures don't give any indication of motion artifacts, but there were links to video that I didn't look at. You might want to look at those and evaluate them.

Also, DVinfo is, generally, the best source for informed advice about video, just as FT is the best source for informed advice about flying. I've been focused on Sony's prosumer HDV machines, because I'm planning to get one eventually, and have only been following the consumer HD market in a casual capacity. However, as you've indicated, you don't need prosumer quality, so I'd expect you'll get better feedback from the DVinfo folks than from me.

PTravel,

Good stuff. ^ ^ ^ I have been doing lots of research myself and my friends are in the media business. They basically say the samething as you have been saying.

I'm looking for a jib to do stuff in a auditorium seating of 1000. Any recommendations?