If his camera is the same age as yours they would be both the same. If his is older it probably has better quality than yours. If it is really old, it should have superior quality to yours.
The bottom line is that newer consumer cams are garbage because the industry chose to shrink CCD size and add useless features instead as a marketing strategy.
The common 8mm cam several years ago had a 1/3 CCD and looked great on Hi8 tape.Then they came out with the 1/4CCD and added fancy features to market them and the quality dropped noticeably.
Today, a 1/4 CCD is like finding gold. Consumer cams are typically 1/5 or 1/6 CCD.
Panasonic had a big hit with it's PV-GS120 camera and it's PV-GS400 camera this past year because they employed THREE 1/6 CCD's and had a better image as a result. The image was the equal of SOME of the 1/4 CCD Hi8 cams of a few years ago. It is likely that other companies will follow suit this year with this "game". The last "decent" looking Digital 8 camera Sony made was the TRV38. It had a whopping 1/4 CCD.
If you know anyone who has an old Canon A1 camcorder (that had a 1/3 CCD) ask to see their footage. It will put consumer MiniDV images to shame strictly because of it's 1/3 CCD.
The only advantage consumer Digital cams have today over older analog cams is lower generation loss, but if you are dubbing to analog VHS for example you willl lose that advantage because of the poor light gathering ability of today's consumer cams.

John

The GS400 is actually 1/4.7 (0.21"), 3-CCD. Picture seems much, much better than my old single chip Sony D8 (which was much better than my ancient Cannon Hi8) Seems to me that a single chip CCD color mask divides the effective light collection area amont the three colors. So a 3-CCD system might have better performance that a single chip CCD even with smaller chips. Maybe 3x 0.21" is better than a single 0.25" CCD.

For a rough comparision, consider 3-chip camera with 0.21" CCD, has the same total area as a single CCD @ 0.36" This may not be exactly right, as I'm not sure that the single chip has equal pixels for RGB, but you get the idea.

> The bottom line is that newer consumer cams are garbage because the industry chose to shrink CCD size and add useless features instead as a marketing strategy.

Amen! I was sorely disappointed when I got my first miniDV camera. My analog took much better pictures especially in low light. I remember pointing my new DV camera at our green carpet with just indoor light and seeing a million noise artifacts crawling around the image like worms. I ran and got my analog camcorder to pointed it at the same position, only to see a green carpet as crystal clear as day. I was ready to take the miniDV back to the store. I now have a Panasonic GS200 and I’m happy with the color reproduction, but it still doesn't have the low-light capability my analog has.

Not to mention my analog Panasonic had a 26x optical zoom lens and plenty of buttons on the outside to perform manual override of focus, white balance, back lighting, etc. Both my miniDV’s have only a 10x zoom and anything worth controlling manually is buried deep in the menus where they are useless. (in fact the only reason I spent $200 more on the GS200 over the GS120 was to get a manual focus ring! C’mon guys, that should be standard equipment!!!)

BUT, I got still image capabilities that I will never use, and digital effects that I will never use, and a flash, and Picture-in-picture, and MagicPix that I will never use, and lots of other useless features that I will never use because I bought a video camera to take video NOT stills. (silly me).

I would love to see a manufacturer make a consumer camcorder that was actually optimized to take VIDEO. (you know... motion pictures). Put the money saved on useless features into bigger CCD’s for better low light images. No still images, no flash, no digital effects, nothing. Just a freakin’ VIDEO camera thank you very much. (don’t get me started!) Oops. It looks like you already did. ;-)

~jr

Just keep in mind that the camera manufacturers spend enormous amounts of money on surveys and focus groups in order to determine just what it is that consumers want, or think they want. So if you're not happy with the current crop of cameras, congratulations!--it means you're no longer in the "consumer" category. You're a Prosumer. Time to step up to a VX-2100 or GL-2.

I bought my VX-2000 about 16 months ago, after recording many dozens of tapes in a Sony TRV-8. Though that little TRV-8 did an amazing job of bringing home the video under some pretty extreme conditions, one can immediately notice the color purity and noise-free stability of video coming from the VX-2000. And the low-light performance is stunning.

Next camera for me?--the new Sony HDV model. Maybe this spring.

Just keep in mind that the camera manufacturers spend enormous amounts of money on surveys and focus groups in order to determine just what it is that consumers want, or think they want. So if you're not happy with the current crop of cameras, congratulations!--it means you're no longer in the "consumer" category
=================
Riredale,
I respectfully disagree. The industry determined that consumers want still image capability in a video camera among other things. Reducing CCD size and eliminating manual controls in favor of annoying touch screen menus is an industry cost cutting method nothing more. Most people have a better digital still camera than what is included in consumer video cams. Feature laden cameras boost marketability to the unwitting consumer who usually doesn't have a reference as to what a really good video image looks like from a consumer camcorder of a few years back.
Larger profits are the motive not answering the desires of "focus groups". Go over to camcorderinfo and read the reviews. They know what is going on in the industry. They never fail to mention the very fact I stated above that shrinking CCD sizes and elimination of manual focus rings, etc that were on almost all consumer cams a few years ago are a detriment to the consumer. Satements such as "Wow it has a 1/4 CCD" are a disgrace and a testimony to greed within the industry. Consumers should not have to become "prosumers" to get what they got on every camera only a few years ago.

John

I've only been doing video editing for about a year now. Started out with a Sony Digital 8 cam and then went to the Canon Optura 20. Every time I look at the manual to figure something out I am amazed at what I see in there for all the capabilities. But, I never use them. Wouldn't want to use them. All these "digital effects", etc.

I've learned from this forum to stay away from all that and do the editing in Vegas. And, to keep it simple!! I have yet to see anything that my friends or family have shot that uses the digital effects and tricks built into the camera. They just want to point the camera and record.

I don't think all the features came from focus groups, etc. I think it was all hype that would lead a "typical" user to think that what they shot could look like a "pro".

Thank you Vegas and thank you forum users for helping me to have a happy experience with my editing.......and to forget all that stuff in the camera!!

Galen

My first camcorder was a Canon ZR. I lnew nothing about camcorders except that DV gave better picture and my daughters wedding was a week away. The ZR came in time but a sony reg 8 was used instead because the person shooting the video was familiar with the sony. The ZR was used for shooting my day hiking trips in the Sierra Nevadas. I didn't like carring a still and video camera so I replaced it with a Canon MC100. It gave me still capability and some manual controls which I use a lot. I never use the special effects. I'd prefer to do that in Vegas( or is it VV, Vegas5, or Vegas Video!). For my "consumer needs", I would like to have a camcoder that had a 3megpix still, manual focus,exp, and white balance, great lens, and great low light capability. My 2 cents!

Dear Sony,
Please give us a Digital 8 camera without the 520 X digital zoom, without the extra digital FX built into the camera. No light, No titles, No still photos, It can be very simple. Give us a nice big fat 1/3 inch CCD chip, Pass-thru, A stereo mic input with variable gain, S/composite in/outs, firewire, a manual focus ring w/auto, an auto/manual zoom, white balance, simple shutter speeds and a decent lens and make it very affordable to owners of Vegas Video. A camera you can put an over exaggerated price on, for everybody but Vegas owners. Or just sell it as a 'no frills' simple Digital 8, that only people that understand from reading the specs, just what they're getting. Then your regular consumers will still opt for the many digital features of the other cameras and a few of us will be able to get a decent picture without having to spend an arm and a leg for what will be still less than 'prosumer' quality. There are some of us who will always have problems being able to afford 'prosumer', let alone professional. But please don't make the quality of the Digital 8 worse every year. What? Falling on deaf ears? Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

Sorry bit I'd have to disagree. I've been in a camera shop and the buyer was paying $1,000 more for a clearly inferior camera simply to get USB and BluFang. He had NO interest in the better lens or CCD of the superceded Sony camera that he was being offered at a huge discount.
I deal with the public on a pretty regular basis and believe me in general they still understand zero about video, let alone quality.
Bob.

I am sure that is why there is a dumbing down of technology. The average person is looking for auto functions and small sizes. The size of the CCd doesn't mean squat if they have to focus.

Just part of the market.

Dave T2

Craftech, I appreciate your point of view, but if I worked for Sony, Matsushita, or Hitachi my number one goal would be the number one goal hammered down from above: maximized profits per dollar of investment (ain't capitalism great?). I would get there by a combination of selling the most units and getting the greatest margin per unit. If a touch screen is cheaper to make than push buttons, so much the better, unless the consumer perceives it to be a drawback. If putting "480x Zoom!" on the side of the camera draws additional purchasers withouth adding much to the manufacturing cost, so much the better, unless the consumer perceives such a claim labels the unit as junk.

My point is that every business remains in business by catering to what the consumer THINKS he wants. Most people are NLE-phobic, so if the bold print on the side of a camcorder box touts the fact that the user can "do professional fade-ins and fade-outs!" within the camera itself, that adds to the perceived value of the camera. It's not the industsry forcing fade-ins down consumers throats. It's focus groups.

Everyone here on this forum has obviously taken a giant step beyond the ordinary. We all see intuitively how push buttons are better, how 480x zoom is utterly worthless, how camera-based fade-outs are irrelevant, and how low-light ability is a truly useful feature. But the masses aren't there yet.

So let them all 'focus group', flood the market, dumb down, etc..., that widens the gap for even us hobbyist semi-pro extra income video-making enthusiasts who can WOW the masses with our work, and make them go,
"WOW....now THAT...looks great! Wish I could do that. So...HOW much would it cost to have you just shoot my child's WinterFestival performance this year? I can't get results like that." Fine with me.
John

Apparently some people notice:

The following is a SMALL sample of User Comments taken from Amazon.com regarding various models. Each is a comment on a DIFFERENT camcorder.

"I gave this camcorder 2 stars b/c the rest of the camcorder seems great - great asthetics, strong ergonomics, nice features like a built-in lens cap - but the poor image defeats to purpose of all the great features especially at this price. "

"I purchased this camera and returned it after a few days. It
is a general overall good camera with nice features. Outside
recording and indoor recording with ample light were great.
Indoor recording without a lot of lights on produced a grainy
picture. Not a bad one , but not as good as my old sony analog
8mm."

"I had my camcorder for 4 months. I used it 3-4 times when I first got it. Than when I went on vacation (only days after the 90 warrantly expired) it did not work. When I called customer service when I got home, they told me it would cost $290 to fix it. I am still hashing it out with them, however they have not offered me an acceptable response so far. Basically I paid $360 for a camera I was only able to use 3-4 times, and now it's worthless."

"The optics on this camcorder don't make the rich colors I'm used to on my Sony Hi-8 8mm camcorder, but the camera is nice, lightweight and very easy to use. And the battery seems to last forever. DO NOT bother with the still photograph to SD card feature. There is *no* excuse for how bad the picture quality is. Get any cheap digital camera, if you want still pictures."

"I bought this camera instead of the DCTRV250 becasue is had memory stick options for stills and also MPG recording on memory stick and also the 700 zoom.
All 3 options that I mentionabove I felt would be worth the extra $...but I was wrong. The still are poor quality, the MPG's have very poor resolution and when you use a zoom this strong, when you actually do zoom with any distance of over 100 to 200 feet, the picture loses more than 50% of its quality. Its too bad becasue I was very excited... but save your $$ until they can improve these 3 features."

"I had high expectations for this camcorder,but they were dashed with poor indoor nightime recording with ample lighting. My previous cheap Sharp model aced indoor shots at night. The Sony has to be "tweaked" for every nightime indoor video. I just want to "auto" record sometime"

"Very slow to focus! Compared to older models it is very shakey as well. It does not hold a candle to last years trv250 model, so check your stores as I found last years model at a great price."

"Well, I had read all the reviews of this model on Amazon and based my purchasing decision partly on this information. I expected picture quality from the 310 to be at least as good as my old PAL Sony 8mm. However, after 2 weeks of using the 310 we had to conclude that it simply provides inferior picture quality in most lighting situations. Inferior in both colour reproduction and in clarity, whatever the technical specs. say"

"Even under a 300W halogen lamp, the picture quality is very poor. So, you can very well forget about shooting under, say, fluorecent light. This is because, unlike most of the VHSC or Hi8 camcorders, this camcorder requires a minimum of 4 lux of light for normal filming. "

"After graduating from the Sony FX11 8M (top of the line in it's time)to the TRV310 the only real noticible difference was the picture sharpness, color left a little to be desired. What really upset me was the grain i was getting in different lighting situations. My old Sony 8M w/1 lux was superior in this respect. Not pleased at all I took it back and purchased the TRV87 Hi8 which replaces the famed TRV66"

"I had high expectations for this camera and was extremely disappointed. Sure it has a great zoom and is easy to use, but that doesn't amount to anything when the picture quality is poor. The camera performs decently when in sunlight, but if you're trying to take some video indoors, your picture will be extremely grainy. The low-light/night mode on this camera is worthless, so don't even bother"

"I owned Sony analog camcorder for long time. Recently I bought this one for digital storage and compact size.
I am suprised to see very poor quality video compare to my old analog camcorder. video is really dark and not worth taking in home(Even on bright day). I continue use old analog camcorder for family video."

"I just received my ZR 40 and really liked its size and low weight. But once I tried it, the fun was quickly over. Low light recording (in my apartment with lights on) was horrible and even with low-light mode selected, it was unacceptable. And in night mode, everything moves in slow motion. Overall, the quality was not that great, even in day-time shooting.
I have a regular Sony Hi8 cam, and its low light and night capabilities are 100 times better."

"Image quality: Hands-down, the TRV38 wins here. I was a bit disappointed with the DVD201. Why? Read the review of the Sony DCR-HC40 at camcorderinfo.com and you'll see that they weren't impressed with the CCD (sensor) of that camcorder (it got unsatisfactory marks for low-light quality / and video quality in general). Unfortunately, that CCD is the SAME ONE USED IN THE DVD201. In order to make the camcorder smaller, Sony had to reduce the size of the CCD to 1/5". They claim that "new technology" compensates for the smaller sensor......NOT REALLY!! The larger 1/4.7" CCD of the TRV38 shows in the quality of the video. Both have the same 690K effective pixel resolution, so what gives? Does it matter? Not really!! The bottom line is that the TRV38 provides richer, fuller, and brighter video quality than the DVD201 (for $200 less). The DVD201 video looked gray and washed-out compared to the TRV38. Maybe it's the media itself; mini-DV versus mini-DVD. Maybe it's the sensor. Maybe it's the recording format. It doesn't matter why......the video quality doesn't compare to cheaper units. [side note: the TRV38 has consistently earned very high marks for video quality and low-light ability]"





John