OT: Trying to pick an HD camera

tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 1:35 PM
I would like to ask for some opinions here... I apologize in advance for the long post, but I think it will help explain our needs for a camera.

My wife & I have a 14 year old daughter who absolutely LOVES volleyball, and is quite good at. And my wife loves it as well, and is the typical "soccer mom" for our daughter. They go to extra practices at the Y, go to pick-up games at school 2-3 times per week at the school over the summer...well anyway, you get the picture. And myself, I am a computer nut and love to mess with audio recording (SONAR and Pro Tools) and also recently purchased the Vegas Pro suite, and built a quad-core PC running XP, especially suited for processing audio & video.

So the natural course for us was to purchase a video camera. As a physician, I typically research different options before making a purchase such as a camcorder. So we ended up with a Sony DCR-SR45 with a 30gb hard drive, and it's certainly OK...but nothing to write home about. I read the reviews about how its picture quality is not the best, but we liked the camera and after looking at them in the store and recording with them (and watching the recording on the small monitor), it didn't look terrible to us, so we bought it. But the only one they had left was an open box, so they gave us a discount--after we checked it out thoroughly in the store. Everything seemed to work fine. But when we started using it, the factory-supplied battery...it doesn't hold a charge. Also the camera doesn't link up with XP all that well, even with the latest Sony XP driver. We also bought a wide-angle lens and a 30-to-34mm adapter.

Well, after using this camera several times and being underwhelmed with the picture quality, and the gyrations we go through to get the camera to sync with my PC and XP, I think it's time to make a change. We can still take the thing back, as we haven't had it for 30 days. And the fact that it was an open-box unit makes me think that someone else had the same problem maybe? There was no explanation from the salesman, other than "well, if we have it in the cabinet for sale, then someone has checked it out." And indeed--the camera works fine. It's only when you try to sync it up with XP that there's an issue.

So finally... I need some opinions on an HD camera. I really like the looks of the Sony HDR-SR11, and the benefits of buying one would be that we can use the same extra battery and wide-angle lens from the unit we have now. But the other camera that I have been looking at is the JVC Everio GZ-HD7. Some of the reviews have been luke-warm, but it seems as those were from people that maybe thought it was a "point & shoot" kind of a rig. But both my wife & I are the type of people to read the manual and learn the device, and how to obtain the best results...learning as we go.

So can I get some opinions of these two cameras? I think for us that the Sony might be the best choice--as we can use the other accessories that we've already purchased. And I think that the price is a few hundred dollars less than the Everio's will be. But I like some of the results I have seen online with the Everio, so it's worth at least considering. We have decided that having an eye-piece is important to us, but frankly I know there are features of each that we might not be considering--simply because we aren't familiar with their function or purpose. But you have to start somewhere, and that's why I thought I should ask here.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post and render your opinion.

TB

Comments

Eugenia wrote on 9/26/2008, 1:39 PM
If you need AVCHD, go for the Canon HF11. Best consumer camcorder in the market today in terms of quality, as it can do 24mbps AVCHD. Most other manufacturers can't go above 17mbps in that market.

If your PC is not very fast for AVCHD, go for the Canon HV30, HDV with tapes. Great quality as well.
tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 2:12 PM
Excuse the ignorance, but I am simply not certain whether I need AVCHD or not. LOL...

I saw folks talking about it here before, and Googled it and read about it. So I at least know what it is--but I am simply not sure I what I would need it for at this point. Obviously I may need it in the future, and not know it now. So if you would, could you maybe explain what AVCHD would do for me? I'd sure appreciate it. Obviously, I am new to this whole video-processing thing--so I enjoy learning about new things.

Thanks for the recommendations on the camera models though. I will go check them out some.

TB

EDIT: OK, went and reviewed the Canon HF-11 at camcorderinfo.com. It reviewed very favorably--especially against the HDR-SR12 Sony, basically the same unit as the SR11 I was looking at. I also think I understand the whole AVCHD codec issue--it's a form of compression for HD camcorders. Makes sense, although I probably don't know the half of it yet.

But the one thing is that Canon unit doesn't feature an eyepiece, which I understand is quite useful for filming at night.
Hulk wrote on 9/26/2008, 2:41 PM
I second the vote for the Canon HF11. I recently picked up the HF100 and am getting excellent results with it even at 16Mbps the image rarely breaks up. It takes a lot for it to show macroblocking and even then you have to look hard on a high quality large monitor. This of course assumes proper lighting and exposure. And that is a big point with these smaller sensor high compression cameras/formats. You will not have as much wiggle room if you don't get it right when shooting. A bigger more expensive camera will generally allow you to get away with more in the way of sloppy shooting. Of course that is just one aspect. More expensive cameras do produce better images under all circumstances but the smaller, cheaper ones can do a very good job if handled properly. This is my experience with the HF100 so far.

- Mark
Eugenia wrote on 9/26/2008, 2:54 PM
If you want an eyepiece and a small focus ring, go for the Canon HV30 instead.
Terje wrote on 9/26/2008, 3:54 PM
If you want to edit, you don't need (nor do you want) AVC. I second Eugenia, get the HV30. It's your best bet right now, even with tapes. Really. No kidding.
Dach wrote on 9/26/2008, 4:04 PM
I will also support the suggestion of the HV30 from Canon, very solid camera.

Chad
tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 4:12 PM
Wow, lots of Canon fans...interesting. Good information! I really do want to go with an HDD camera, and not tapes. I would say that's even more important than having a viewfinder in fact. I Googled around a bit and saw that there are a few people that are indeed having an issue or two with AVCHD.

The Vegas Pro software site says that the app handles that format...what gives? I will check out more in the Canon line though, especially in the HDV format.

Thanks folks. Keep the good information coming...

TB
farss wrote on 9/26/2008, 4:56 PM
I'm not familiar with Volleyball, only watched a little beach volleyball. I've worked with a bit of footage of basketball games though. That's really tough on cameras, lens, tripods and cameraman's skills.
If you're going to be shooting fast moving sports indoors your needs are very different to shooting largely static shots under full sun.
You need to look beyond what is a good camera to what is a good camera for your very specific needs in terms of image quality before you think about what it records to.

As volleyball doesn't seem to cover such large distances as basketball you might do OK with shooting only wide shots in which case the HDV cameras might holdup OK. If you want to get tight shots and/or pan fast forget any of the HDV / AHCHD cameras and get a good standard definition camera and tripod.

Never evaluate any camera looking at the tiny LCD on the camera either. Ask to shoot something inside the store and then play it back with the camera connected to the largest HDTV they have available. Anything looks good on a tiny screen but that's not how you'll be watching the video you'll be shooting.

Bob.
gogiants wrote on 9/26/2008, 5:00 PM
Yes, AVCHD is supported by Vegas, but people have had issues in editing performance and rendering, apparently especially at the highest video quality on these cameras.

To find out for yourself, you can try one or both of the following:
- Go to Vimeo, search for the camera model you're interested in, and look for people that say in the video description that they've uploaded the original raw file from the camera. Then download that file from the lower right of the page, and try editing and rendering output on your own PC.
- Go to your local big box store with an SDHC card in tow, put the card in a display camera, and record some footage to bring home and test. Make sure you set the camera to record to external media (if it has onboard memory) so you won't be disappointed when you get home. If you're really into this (sounds like you are) try recording at various quality/bitrate settings on the camera to see if it makes a difference.

... not that I've done any camera shopping recently myself...
Serena wrote on 9/26/2008, 5:29 PM
While you've indicated a price range in selecting your first camera, is that a true indication? Do you want a small camera that's easy to carry on holidays, or is it primarily for shooting daughter's sporting activities and matches for the purpose of improving her skills? Do you want slow motion capabilities? You can slow motion in Vegas, but it isn't the same as shooting at higher frame rates.Will most shooting be indoors under artificial light and what lighting level is typical of that? It sounds to me that you have a serious purpose for this camera. You say "no tape", but I think that an unwise restriction for tape has its advantages (as argued here http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=579309cards & tapes[/link]). You might find that a more expensive camera does what you actually want. Consider hiring various cameras for a real test -- not much volley ball going on in camera shops.
tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 5:39 PM
Well for the most part we record the volleyball games for her coach, and he sort of likes it if he can see the whole court (both sides). This is possible if we use a wide-angle lens from up in the stands, around mid-court. And although my wife sometimes likes to try to follow the action (camera is on a solid tripod), I sort of prefer it when she doesn't. (Bring your dramamine to watch those matches...lol.)

So given the fact that I like to edit the video together myself and give it to the coach, it seems that either the HDV or high-quality SD cameras would work well. I really only have a couple requirements:

1) It must be HDD. It's simply too much of a pain to have to play back the video at real-time in order to edit it.

2) I would really prefer to have a viewfinder (for shooting at night, which I would like to do at some point), although I suppose it's not a deal-breaker.

3) It would be *nice* if we could find something acceptable in the Sony line, simply because we could probably use the extra battery we bought with the new camera. Of course the 37mm aperture would be pretty common (or we could use the 30mm adapter ring anyway), so the lens would likely work with lots of camcorders. It's nearly a $200 unit, so I would like to make use of it if at all possible.

I will look more at Canon's website as those units seem to be well thought of around here.

Thanks again folks.

TB
Terry Esslinger wrote on 9/26/2008, 5:46 PM
<<1) It must be HDD. It's simply too much of a pain to have to play <<back the video at real-time in order to edit it

Why don't ypu cpnsider the option of recording direct to laptop (ot Firestore)
tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 6:02 PM
All good questions...

I would say that price is somewhat important, but not that important. For instance, if the Sony HDR-SR11 I was looking at could be had for $799-899 on the web, and there was another unit that would be much better but cost...say...$1300--then I would likely spend that money. I would probably NOT spend more than $1500 right now, simply because I really "don't know what I don't know" about these things, and I would hate to fork out $2500-3000 for a camera that doesn't do what I need it to do. That's a waste, IMO. Can I afford it...yes. But I am not made of money, and I expect to use this camera as a stepping stone to improve my skills both taking video, and editing it. I hope that makes sense.

Size isn't that important to me, actually. When my wife uses it, we'll mount it on a sturdy tripod anyway--so no sweat there. She liked the light weight of the Handycam we have now, but in reality only lifts it to mount on the tripod.

Right now the camera is being used primarily for filming the volleyball games...sheesh, that's all we have time to do! With my work and such, and the fact that she practices nightly, and tournaments on weekends, and then there's Junior City League after the HS team finishes... It's a good thing we only have one kid! But we would like to have the ability to use it outdoors as well, but I realize that one camera cannot be all things for all people--so a good compromise is all I ask.

Slow motion...hmmm...never thought of that. Probably not that important right now, to be honest. Most filming right now will be done indoors by my wife at the games, and with noisy people in the crowd all around her, it's hard enough to keep the tripod from bouncing around. We really need to get her into the press box, as she is doing this for the coach!

About the "no tape" thing...it may be unwise to rule them out, but I really hate having to play in 3-8 hours of video, just to be able to edit it. I guess maybe that's just the way the world of video photography is, and I am going to have to learn to like it--but the HDD feature is VERY nice. What do TV stations do? I guess maybe that, huh?

I will certainly take a look at that link you've provided. But to answer another question raised in this thread--yes I do want to make this a new hobby, so to speak. My wife really enjoys taping our daughter, as do I, and I love working in Vegas. I also have a whole slug of $$$ tied up in pro-audio equipment in the basement--home studio and such. I use SONAR, and also have Pro Tools (prefer SONAR!), and am actually plan on taking some digital media courses at our local technical college--both for audio and for video. Not that I am giving up my day job mind you, but you have to do something to free your brain, yet allow you to function at a reasonably high level (occupational hazard, I guess). It's my form of relaxation, I suppose. So I plan to learn as much as I can, although I realize that this takes quite some time. But hey, it's fun and I am in no hurry...

Boy, this thread has really turned into a great one. Here I *thought* I had narrowed my choices down to one of two units...when I found out a little bit about just how much I need to learn! Well, please keep the information coming folks. I sure appreciate it.

TB
farss wrote on 9/26/2008, 6:19 PM
The idea of going tapeless sounds very seductive however you need to look at the whole process from end to end. No point saving time on capture if you waste a lot of time in the edit because the codec used is a pain to edit.
I'd also point out that you don't have to sit there doing nothing while a tape is being captured. In fact from my experience tape takes less time out of my wokring day than tapeless. If it's only going to take 15 or 30 minutes to transfer you can tend to just hang around. If I know it'll take 3 hours to transfer a couple of football games from a tape I just let Vidcap do it's thing while I get on with something else.

For your budget you might well be able to pickup a second hand PD150 in good condition. You'll be very happy with that old SD stalwart.

Bob.
tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 6:54 PM
So apparently then TV stations do this very thing--record to tape, and then transfer to the computer for editing? I have always wondered about that.

I found the camera you mentioned online, and it looks interesting. But then there's always the Sony DCR-VX2100, if a person is going to rachet up a notch... The retails price is around $3000, but maybe a used one could be had in the $1200-1500 range?

Man, I am starting to regret asking the initial question! I guess it is true...be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. I am off to read about the tape vs. HDD debate.

TB
richard-courtney wrote on 9/26/2008, 7:32 PM
I liked the beach volleyball (womans!) .....

Make sure you tape someone moving arms jumping up/down and play it back.
Some cameras don't like full motion.
farss wrote on 9/26/2008, 7:35 PM
You're right, after I'd posted the above I thought about the VX2000/2100. If you don't need the balanced audio input then just as good. I wouldn't really recommend laying out hard earned money for a new SD camera these days as there should be plenty of bargains to be had in the second hand market as more switch to HD.

Mostly broadcasters are still shooting tape but with the advent of Panny's P2 and Sony's XDCAM that's changing quite a lot, really depends on what's being shot. Certainly for ENG XDCAM and P2 is very, very popular due to the speed of getting it to air. A lot of doco work is moving that way as well. I think the writing is on the wall for tape but it'll be a long time before it's totally gone. Sony is still releasing new tape based cameras at prices from 100s to 100s of thousands of dollars.

Bob.
tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 7:48 PM
I like the idea of a good used SD, but I have talked to more than a couple people that have told me to only go HD. So how much benefit do you get with an HD camera, if you don't play back on an HD TV? I guess I don't know...

I like the looks of the VX-2100, but again I don't know if it makes sense to spend that kind of money now, unless a good price can be found for a used one. But my guess is that there won't be as many of those to be had as one might think--simply because there's got to be a whole load of folks like me just looking for the best option. And if it's higher-end SD...then so be it.

Interesting thoughts though.

TB
GregFlowers wrote on 9/26/2008, 8:31 PM
I've had a Sony VX2000, a Sony FX1, and now 2 Canon HV20's. If the gym is well lit and not dim I'd go with the Canon HV30. I personally would not invest much money for SD equipment like the VX2100 unless low light performance is highest on list of importance to you. Even then I would spend a little extra to go prosumer HD.

I personally would stick to tape based for low end cameras. You may save time with the capture to your computer with HDD based cameras but it is seems to be a much bigger hassle to edit and archive. Tape holds up quite well over time if stored properly. You could always back it up to a hard drive as well for insurance.

On an SD TV you would probably be better off with a good SD camera. If you never plan on getting an HDTV then get a used VX2100. But I think in 2-3 years you'd regret it because all TVs are going HD and in decent light, the HV30 is far superior to the VX2100 on an HDTV. You won't be able to go back in five or ten years from now and turn footage from the VX2100 into HD.
PeterWright wrote on 9/26/2008, 8:39 PM
Another reason to go with HD is that, if you are delivering on an SD medium such as DVD, you have the ability to zoom into your frame almost 5x without losing resolution.

With sports you can make it seem like you have an uncanny intuition about what is going to happen. You can shoot a wide shot, then just before someone makes a play you can zoom towards them in time to see them perform whatever it is they do.

Currently, doing this with AVCHD is fraught with preview smoothness problems - it used to be so with MPEG2 but software has developed to make this much better. One day maybe AVCHD will become easy to edit, but not yet.
Serena wrote on 9/26/2008, 9:14 PM
HD has a real advantage if your shots cover the whole court with a fixed camera. The problem farss mentioned is related to compression methodology employed by HDV, which can degrade when there is a lot of motion in frame (such as when tracking fast action). Rather less of an issue when action is occurring within a stationary frame. I've shot a lot of sailing from shore and from chase boats and never encountered macro-blocking despite the amount of motion in frame, but I haven't shot ball sports. Suffice to say that while macro-blocking in HDV is a real phenomenon that can cause a lot of problems, it is affected by the camera employed.
Should you be recording whole games from the press box you might consider that suggestion to record to a laptop. You can record to both tape and a computer (via firewire) using free software such as HDVSplit, or with more expensive software such as Adobe's "On Location". If the coach wants to see the whole match from a fixed wide view, is editing required? I imagine you would wish to keep a cut version, but if this is only cutting out bits then you are limited in scope. If you had two cameras, one fixed wide and another following action, you would have more material for creative editing.
While I'm biased to say "go with HDV" (and soon you will get a bigger screen full-HD set), farss works with a lot more of sports related material than I would wish to encounter.
Laurence wrote on 9/26/2008, 9:32 PM
It sounds to me like you are a home user rather than a pro and that what you really want is just a way to shoot video and have it look as good as possible on your HD TV.

If that is the case, here is my recommendation:

Keep the sony and get one of http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665185948these.[/link]

What the VRD-MC5 will do is to convert the Sony AVCHD footage into a Blu-ray compatible AVCHD disc that will play your video in high definition on most any Blu-ray / HDTV setup. I use a setup like this for things like family events and my children's sporting events. It works wonderfully well. You don't need to use Blu-ray blanks: just standard single or double layer DVD+-Rs, and yet the footage looks just wonderful played back via a Blu-ray player.

If you still want to occasionally edit the video, then get http://vasst.com/product.aspx?id=bf3e2d5a-7c2e-4969-a8dd-7cee2cefba30AVCHD UpShift[/link] from Vasst.com.

This will let you transcode your AVCHD into a much more edit friendly format. AVCHD Upshift will work from your Sony camcorder via USB or from the discs created by the VRD-MC5.

I shoot a lot of pro video, but I also shoot a lot of home video on the consumer level Sony gear. The last thing I want to do is spend a lot of time editing and messing with my family fun footage. I really love the VRD-MC5 for this reason.

The VRD-MC5 will also burn your still pictures to disc from either the Sony camcorder or any other still digital camera. It is a very useful device.
ndar wrote on 9/26/2008, 10:42 PM
I film primarily sporting events and own the Sony HDR-SR11. I am absolutely blown away by the footage. It is just amazing. I love how quickly the camera boots up and becomes ready to record. Literally within seconds from turning it on.
The AVCHD compression is a non issue with Vegas and the camera comes with a AVCHD player too.
My biggest challenge has been to preserve the quality through the render/burn process. I think BluRay will be the direction I take here soon. Hope it helps...Oh ya I recommend a quad core 64bit PC and Vegas 8.1. Cuts render time down dramatically...and you'll need it with the files sizes you'll be dealing with using the highest HD quality settings. good luck
Serena wrote on 9/26/2008, 11:15 PM
He has a quad-core.