Looking for a new video camera to replace my five-or-so-year-old mini DV unit.

I'll do lots o' research as I am wont to do before purchasing, but anyone care to weigh in?

Looking for something of modest size with excellent recording quality. HD a plus if it can be had at reasonable cost. It seems like one of the newer units that record directly to a hard drive would be convenient but I'd be worried about a crash and lost data.

Target is $1,000 +/-.

I don't have a specific recommendation, but a couple of points:

1. Your choices for HD are limited to HDV and ACHDV, both of which are brand new, poorly supported formats, and both of which have some serious quality issues. HDV uses mpeg2 at, theoretically, 25 mbps, which would normally provide a very good image. However, Sony's consumer HDV machines are arbitrarily limited to data rates of 13 to 17 mbps, so as not to compete with Sony's higher-end professional machines. This results in some significant motion artifact issues. I'd avoid the consumer and prosumer implementations of HD until things stabilize a bit. ACHDV uses mpeg4 and, at least at the moment, is incompatible with every single editing package that is out there.

2. Hard disk camcorders generally use mpeg2 limited to DVD-compliant bit rates or below. Because the hard disk recorders are intended as "easy to use" consumer machines, they have fairly lousy hardware mpeg transcoders which, in any event, are limited to single-pass, on the fly transcoding. This results in sub-DVD quality and, in the extended play modes, sub-sub-sub-DVD. Finally, because these machines record in mpeg, you're going to find it very difficult to edit the result, unless all you want to do are the simplest cuts.

3. "Excellent video" means different things to different people. No currently-available consumer camcorder records well in low-light. This is so important, I'll say it again: you will not be able to get good video under normal home room-lighting conditions. The video will be grainy, noisey and poorly saturated. This is because camcorder manufacturers have elected to go with small form factor machines, which mandates small sensors that limit low-light response. Additionally, manufacturers have decided that what consumers want are camcorders that produce sub-par still pictures, so they have increased the sensor density which, in turn, also lowers light sensitivity.

My first miniDV machines was a Sony TRV20, purchased about 8 or 10 years ago. I was dissatisfied with its low-light performance, as well as signficant digital artifacts -- my Hi8 camcorder that it replaced produced far better video in situations that clearly challenged the TRV20. Around that time, Sony put out the TRV900, a 3-ccd camcorder in a slightly larger form factor. It's video quality was excellent, and it's low-light capabilities were acceptable. However, by the time I decided to replace my TRV-20, the TRV900 was no longer manufactured -- Sony had replaced it with the TRV950. The 950 was completely unacceptable -- lots of consumer gimmicks, poor video quality and dismal low-light performance. I wound up buy a VX2000, which is a prosumer machine. It produces incredibly good video -- feature films have been made with this camera. It also has extraordinary low-light capability -- I can shoot by the light of a single candle. However, it is big, heavy and expensive. It's replacement, the VX2100, is just as good, but is twice your budget.

I'd recommend you look for the following features:

1. Get the largest, lowest density sensor you can find. 1/6" and 1/5" are too small, and will not perform well in low-light. 1/4" and 1/3" are preferrable.

2. Don't concern yourself with "digital zoom." It's a marketing gimmick that degrades the video. Look for optical zoom no greater than 10x or 12x -- no one can hand-hold beyond that anyway.

3. Don't concern yourself with still imaging capability. No video camera takes good stills -- the requirements for still photography are quite different than for video photography. The increased sensor density required to support "high res" still photography (which is still lower than the cheapest point and shoot still camera) degrades low-light imaging capability.

4. Don't buy a cheap Panasonic 3-ccd machine. As a rule, all things being equal a 3-ccd (three sensors, one for each primary color) machine will outperform a single-ccd machine. Panasonic knows that consumers have heard this, and has produced a line of cheap (compared to other manufacturers) 3-ccd machines that produce poorer-quality video than the higher-end single-ccd offerings of other manufacturers, such as Canon and Sony.

5. Sony has a proprietary technology, called HAD, which improves the low-light sensitivity of its products. A side-effect of HAD is vertical smearing of pin-point light sources, resulting in a slight "streak.' It's present in all Sony HAD products (including its prosumer machines). I don't find it objectionable, but you should know it's there.

This is why I posted here. Thanks, PTravel!

I have experienced really lousy low light recording with my existing unit, even in indoors shooting in the daylight, where ambient light seems like it ought to be enough.

Any specific model recommendations?

Thanks again for an excellent primer.

Unfortunately, if you want good low light performance, I can't recommend anything below a VX2100, which is double your budget. I've heard good things about the Canon Optura line and, as I indicated, Sony's higher-end consumer machines are good compared to other consumer machines.

Thank you.

good things being said about the Sony HDR-SR1. Not too far out of your budget.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-Review.htm

Bear in mind that Robin Liss, who runs the website, tends to like everything that the manufacturers send her to review. Second, the HDS-SR1 is a hard drive camcorder that uses the AVCHD codec. As a basis of comparison, a standard definition camcorder using the DV-25 codec, e.g. miniDV, is limited to a resolution of 720 x 480 (NTSC) and has a data rate of 25 mbps. The maximum bit rate of AVCHD is 24 mbps. Though AVCHD is a different codec than HDV (the former uses mpeg4/divx whereas the latter uses mpeg2), as a basis of comparison HDV uses a bit rate of 25 mbps. Current HDV machines exhibit significant motion artifact problems. The HDR-SR1, using AVCHD, is limited 15 mbps. I would expect this camera to have significant artifact issues, particularly for scenes with a lot of motion, e.g. panning the camera. Finally, AVCHD is unsupported by all the editing packages. Even assuming you can get your video onto a computer, you won't be able to do anything with it once it is there. If the format catches on, you may see the editing programs adding support for it, but there is already precedent for a high-compression, proprietary Sony format being completely ignored: it's microMV format is not supported by anyone except Sony. To edit microMV, you have to pull it into Sony's software, transcode to something else (usually DV-codec D-25) and THEN edit the already degraded video.

Finally, it is always best to avoid being an early adopter of a new format. It is uncertain whether AVCHD will be supported at all, or whether it will become an orphan format like microMV and Digital 8. If the format is a success, later iterations of the camera should be cheaper and better in every respect. It's virtually guaranteed that HD compressed to 15 mbps is not going to look very good.

I'd avoid HD consumer cameras of any flavor (HDV or AVCHD) until the format has stablizied.

HDR-SR1 is discontinued in favor of the SR3.

I don't think I'm going to get a high def for some of the reasons that PTravel mentions above.

Based on low light performance, I'm leaning toward the Panny GS500 for about a G. Mini DV works for me.

Update: I wanted to see what a cheap camcorder is like these days, so I ordered a Canon Elura 100 for about $300 from B&H. This unit was reviewed as quite good for the price.

Unfortunately, it had the well-documented motor noise problem, so I returned it.

It also felt like a toy and handled like crap. Poor balance in the hand. I much prefer my old Panny for handling. Low light performance was laughable.

I think I'm going to bite the bullet and invest in a "real" video camera. Current front runner is the Canon GL2, which is an older design, but appears to be pretty durable, has a good degree of flexibility, and is now about $1700 after rebate.

Other suggestions in that price range? And again, PTravel, I appreciate the good general guidance above.

I would definitely recommend a VX2100 over the GL2. The VX2100 has better quality video and much, much better low-light performance. I believe that the street price is around $2,000.

Thanks and I reread the thread and noticed that you mentioned this model above.

I'm a real Canon fan. Used to have a GL1 and moved on to a GL2, and I love it. The lens is amazing, image stabilization just fantastic.

It is fairly limited in some of the features when compared to a Sony but to me most of those features are useless anyway (gimmicky stuff). I also found the Sony to have too many buttons, I like to keep it simple, I love the minimalistic approach on the GL, whereas the Sony looks like a Christmas tree.

The Sony is only 12x optical compared to the GL's 20x, plus it is a good $600 more expensive.

Like you said, there is a $250 rebate on the GL2 so make up your mind soon

But to be honest, with either camera you'll be a very happy user, at least till HD becomes a little more mainstream and you'll have to upgrade everything all over again

^ Same here.
What I like the most about the Canon are the colors and the lens.

What drives me a little nuts is the following:

a) a local camera shop that stocks both units has them for $500-600 over internet pricing
b) that shop may be willing to come close in price but will not match (based on similar experience buying (or trying to buy) Nikkor lenses from them)
c) I'd REALLY like to spend a day with both cameras before biting the bullet
d) internet sellers seem to have inconsistently-applied return policies, and there's always the risk that a return would go wonky

Let me go talk to the local shop...

Any local places that rent them?