HD Camcorder

**Art Shirk** · 09-13-2011, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by kidwoo

They're all the same. Just buy one.

I am such a tech Jong that I don't know if there is sarcasm in here.

So, i.e. I should just buy whatever is basically cheap and it should work about as well as the others I assume?

**Art Shirk** · 12-29-2011, 04:32 PM

Wife got a sony camcorder for around 200 bucks. Just something to grab some vid of the kid. We dont need anything special at all. It's not HD but these two are...and they are as cheap as can be. Am I making a mistake buying such a cheap camcorder, or are these JVC's decent?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/JVC+-+HM...&skuId=2381793

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/JVC+-+HM...&skuId=2382082

**Art Shirk** · 12-30-2011, 03:56 PM

Bump. Anyone.

I would rather have a 200 dollar device that takes mediocre vid for 3 years than a 250 dollar device that takes great vid for 1 year. Reliability?

**kidwoo** · 12-30-2011, 04:20 PM

And a 50 dollar less expensive camcorder lasts longer than a more expensive one why?

That makes no sense.

Just buy something. All camcorders in a given price range really are pretty much the same.

**Art Shirk** · 12-30-2011, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by kidwoo

And a 50 dollar less expensive camcorder lasts longer than a more expensive one why?

That makes no sense.

Just buy something. All camcorders in a given price range really are pretty much the same.

The 200 dollar one is an average price for a non HD camcorder. The 250 dollar HD camcorder is the bottom of the barrel price for HD camcorders. So, I am asking about the reliability of a cheapo HD. When you say they are the same, are you talking about reliability or picture? I know this doesn't exactly make technophiles salivate as I am not dropping 6k on some glass to take on a Nepal trek, but it is a valid question that hasn't been answered. I'll spend the extra 50 bucks on a bottle of whisky instead of on a non-reliable piece of shit.

Who on this site just buys something? 20 bucks and a delta of .0003 millimeters of camber make most people around here get a semi-chub.

**kidwoo** · 12-30-2011, 05:01 PM

The ski analogy isn't that great.

The camera's performance isn't going to change a whole lot depending on your ability

Here are some general things to think about.

Image stabilization: Opitcal is good, digital is bad. Optical is what it sounds like, the sensor moves to keep up with shake. Digital crops the image/cuts out the middle and up sizes it.

Zoom: Opitical is good, digital is bad, same reasons above.

HD vs SD is kind of a wash with small cameras like that. The HD is probably going to look worse than the comparable SD in their own respective performance, BUT equally crappy on both when VIEWED in HD resolution on your computer or television.

Almost every camera made for a given range uses the same chips, same processors and same compression......hence the 'it doesn't matter' attitute I take. You're not going to see meaningful nuances until you get into the 1k price range.........seriously.

As far as very specific reviews, just hit the internet. Companies come out with new versions of these cameras every 5 minutes so it's impossible to keep up with minute (usually useless and meaningless) changes. At most, these kinds of cameras are only on the market for a year before something else comes out to replace it. Only someone who runs a blog or takes it upon themelves to track all this stuff can keep up. But do look, these websites are out there.

About the only thing that's worth looking at in that regard is sensor size. That's the one area where these small cameras do see meaningful progression. If you find some cameras all in a given price range with the same features, get the one with the biggest sensor. It means better light sensitivity without using gain, and less pixel fucking to get a final output size.

**Art Shirk** · 12-30-2011, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by kidwoo

The ski analogy isn't that great.

The camera's performance isn't going to change a whole lot depending on your ability

Here are some general things to think about.

Image stabilization: Opitcal is good, digital is bad. Optical is what it sounds like, the sensor moves to keep up with shake. Digital crops the image/cuts out the middle and up sizes it.

Zoom: Opitical is good, digital is bad, same reasons above.

HD vs SD is kind of a wash with small cameras like that. The HD is probably going to look worse than the comparable SD in their own respective performance, BUT equally crappy on both when VIEWED in HD resolution on your computer or television.

Almost every camera made for a given range uses the same chips, same processors and same compression......hence the 'it doesn't matter' attitute I take. You're not going to see meaningful nuances until you get into the 1k price range.........seriously.

As far as very specific reviews, just hit the internet. Companies come out with new versions of these cameras every 5 minutes so it's impossible to keep up with minute (usually useless and meaningless) changes. At most, these kinds of cameras are only on the market for a year before something else comes out to replace it. Only someone who runs a blog or takes it upon themelves to track all this stuff can keep up. But do look, these websites are out there.

About the only thing that's worth looking at in that regard is sensor size. That's the one area where these small cameras do see meaningful progression. If you find some cameras all in a given price range with the same features, get the one with the biggest sensor. It means better light sensitivity without using gain, and less pixel fucking to get a final output size.

Thanks very much. I ask dumb questions for anyone with a modicum of tech savvy, but it's all latin to me. I seemed to find one fanboy and one hater for just about everything I googled, so this was very helpful.

**kidwoo** · 01-01-2012, 11:20 PM

No sweat. After pouring over these things for a long time looking for cameras to use as POVs, and shooting with a good number of them, those really are the only things to look for. There's not a whole lot of variation.

**Supermoon** · 08-06-2013, 11:28 AM

Bumping this.

School me on handheld/pocket HD camcorders. I'm tasked with purchasing a few for walking around at events for work. I had a first-gen FLIP that I really liked at the time. What's out there now that's similar? Looking for easy-to-use (won't be me running them), good picture, decent sound (obviously on-camera and cheap aren't going to be great, but I would like to be able to understand what people are saying at a bare minimum), easy to edit files at the end would also be nice.

I'll have the full force of the creative team behind me afterwards, so post isn't my main worry, but it would be nice if I didn't have to hear them bitch the whole time

Probably $200 is the top of my budget (each).

TIA.

**systemoverblow'd** · 08-06-2013, 11:51 AM

Got to B&H or the like, select camcorders, limit price to $200 and pick the best (ie, most expensive) Sony, Canon or Panasonic you can afford. For that dough they all are going to be pretty much the same crap in the grand scheme of things and will all have similar features. And when I say crap, You'll probably get the same quality out of a high end cellphone camera which is pretty damn good but possibly better sound (however little better). You'll also get a zoom and a few extra features.

If you were happy with the results of the flips, all of these will blow your doors off as those things were utter shit. Leave room in the budget for spare batteries and extra media. These little guys don't have big batteries and blow through them on any longer shoot.

**Supermoon** · 08-06-2013, 01:56 PM

^^ Yeah, I know we won't be getting anything much better than cell phones, but they are going to work for what we need them for, just like the FLIP was good for some very specific things (none of them being serious work). Sounds like they are all similar from what you're saying and what I'm reading online.

Anyone have any experience with a particular model that can speak to the idiot-proofness of said camera? I just want to make sure we actually get home with something semi-useable.

**systemoverblow'd** · 08-06-2013, 02:40 PM

Problem is, the cheaper the camera, usually thr harder they are to use. Small and cheap means few buttons with all functions being buried in menus. I would go to best buy or something and see which menus system you hate the least.

**Tippster** · 08-07-2013, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Phildo_Baggins

^^ Yeah, I know we won't be getting anything much better than cell phones, but they are going to work for what we need them for, just like the FLIP was good for some very specific things (none of them being serious work). Sounds like they are all similar from what you're saying and what I'm reading online.

Anyone have any experience with a particular model that can speak to the idiot-proofness of said camera? I just want to make sure we actually get home with something semi-useable.

Try this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/It...tyle-Camcorder

We've been giving them to our scribblers just in case they run across something that we could use on our web platform.