Announcement

**Brian Ellis** · 14 January 2000, 02:40

Unfortunately, most of us do not have the opportunity to make impartial comparitive tests, so the replies you receive will probably be very subjective, based on the cameras they do have and other makers' publicity. Very few will admit they don't have the best

Personally, I use an old DV Panasonic and I'm delighted, after several years. But I don't think that Panasonic is sold as hard in the USA as elsewhere or in as wide a number of models.

I think that, if you don't need back-compatibility with Hi-8, you have made a very wise decision to go to DV, rather than D8.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

**Joe DeFuria** · 14 January 2000, 07:02

Hi Brian,

Yeah, I don't have an 8MM or HI-8 library, so the only real reason I would get a Digital8 format would be a bit cheaper media cost. I prefer the portability of the MiniDV devices to the "convenience" of using 8MM tape.

As for Panasonic, I've only seen two models being pushed: the PV-DV910 and the PC-DV950. The 950 is a 3 CCD unit for about $1700 -- just a bit out of my range. If I was going to spend that much, I'd probably go with the Sony PC-100.

The good news about the 910 is that it's only about $750...but I've heard mixed things about the audio and video quality. (Whereas with the Sony TRV-10, I've heard mostly very good things about the audio / video quality.)

If anyone has personal experience with the Panasonic DV910, let me know the good and bad.

Heh...I know what you mean about end users "not admiting they don't have the best." I'm a 3D accelerator enthusiast, and these "my Camcorder / DV Rig is better than yours" guys here and similar sites are TAME compared to the "my 3D accelerator is better than yours" nuts.

-- Joe

**dchip** · 14 January 2000, 22:16

I have been in and out of the market for a new mini dv recently. Still going to make a purchase in a few months. Anyway, I looked at the Sony TRV10 and almost purchased it. In the end, I was not impressed with it's performance in normal room light. I just could not pay $1500 for grainy images. Just before I postponed my purchase, the JVC DVL9500, that you list here, had moved up on my list because it has a reputation for excellent video without having to have a lot of light. I'm still keeping an eye on that unit, pricewise.

**Joe DeFuria** · 14 January 2000, 23:12

Hi Dchip,

Well, I took my wife to the local electronics store to have a "look and feel" at some of the cameras, and she really wants the compact size of the "vertical" models. (Specifically, she loved the Sony PC-1 they had). We're having a baby, and she really wants the ut-most in portability. (And I can't really blame her). So much for the Sony TVR10, and the JVC 9500.

I don't want the PC-1 though, because my understanding is the optics simply aren't as good as the newer models. The PC-100 (which has very good optics though it's not quite as compact,) is very pricey at $1800 on the net.

I may have found a nice comprimise though, in the lesser-known Sony PC-3. Its optics are a sort of blend between the TRV-8/10 and the PC-100. (Suppossedly better quality than the TRV-8/10). It uses the PC-1 casing (so it's very compact), and cost is about $1600 on the net.

The only thing I don't particularly like with the PC-3 in comparison to the PC-100 and TRV-8/10 is that it uses the same battery system as the PC-1. It's "intelligent" lithium Ion, but not the excellent "Stamina" system in the latest models. Big differences in recording times.

The other question mark for me, since I live in the U.S., is that I believe the PC-3 was never intended to be sold directly in the U.S., (you can find it on the Sony-Europe web site, but not the U.S. one) so I have to check if Sony would honor a warranty.

Just thought I'd keep you posted on my progress.

-- Joe

**Patrick** · 14 January 2000, 23:28

Joe, I've purposely stayed out of this discussion because I'm still licking my wounds after my last involvement with a camcorder thread. (Right, Brian? ) But your possible interest in the Panasonic DV910 has motivated me to speak up. I "reviewed" this camcorder in the DV v. D8 (again) thread a couple of months ago. Please, allow me to reprint it here.

>>>>>>>>>>

Just out of curiosity, I checked out the Panasonic DV910. I have to say, without any animosity, I was quite disappointed. As has already been mentioned, this unit does NOT have analog inputs. To make use of its analog outputs, a separate Jack box needs to be attached to the camcorder. And guess where it attaches? It goes where the battery normally mounts. This means you don't have the option of using a battery to power the camcorder if you want to watch a few minutes of video on your TV. Although this camcorder has manual focus, it also has a colour viewfinder. Anyone who is serious about videography will state that a colour viewfinder is useless when trying to manually focus due to its inferior resolution. Oh yeah, one last thing, are you aware of how the tape is inserted and removed from this unit? From the BOTTOM!!! Great idea, flick the tape eject switch and watch your expensive DV tape hit the pavement! And what do you do if your camcorder is mounted on a tripod and you have to change tapes? Remove it from the tripod, I guess. Real handy for wedding videographers or others who have to change tapes in a hurry.

I haven't had a chance yet to do an A/B comparison of the image quality between a Panasonic DV910 and any D8 camcorder, but I can confidently state that if I was to simply judge this camcorder by it's features (or lack of them), I wouldn't give this camcorder a second look.

>>>>>>>>>>

If anyone is interested in the whole action packed thread, it can be found at:

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002214.html

There, now that I've stirred the waters, I'm getting the heck outta here...

**Patrick** · 14 January 2000, 23:36

Joe, I was in the process of typing my last post when yours appeared. One question on the Sony PC-3. It is NTSC, isn't it? A PAL camcorder won't do you much good in the States (unless you plan on sending all your tapes to parts of Europe).

**Brian Ellis** · 15 January 2000, 09:36

Patrick

I think your wounds must have healed by now!

You inspired me to re-read this thread: makes good reading now that the emotions have quieted

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

**Joe DeFuria** · 15 January 2000, 10:56

LOL!

Good reading? Man, that was quite painful. Though not quite as bad as most "3dfx vs. nVidia vs. Matrox" 3D accelerator threads.

I'm just happy that Digital8 doesn't even enter the picture for me...my wife and I have decided on "compact" camcorders, so mini-DV is it!

Anyway, on the PC-3 NTSC / PAL issue...yes AFAIK, the PC-3 is NTSC. Though Sony does make a PC-3E PAL version. I see some on-line stores that sell both versions, such as BestStopDigital:

www.beststopdigital.com/dvcameras.html

I believe the PC-3 was also sold in Japan, which is why there's a NTSC version. (Which brings up the question of getting a Japanese version of the camera!) Though on news groups and CNET user reviews, I haven't seen anyone complain about Japanese language.

My primary concern now, is that there is no compatibility data up on Matrox's site about the PC-3.

So basically, I've kinda narrowed it down to the PC-3, or the PC-100. I have yet to actually hold a PC-100 in my hand, and once I do, that will help determine if I want to spend the extra bucks for it. Right now though, I'd have to say the PC-3 is on the top of my list.

Oh, and thanks Patrick for the comments on the Panasonic unit!

**dchip** · 15 January 2000, 10:59

Hi Joe

You're right, the tiny little PC1, PC3 etc are great for small hands. I played with one in a store and found that for bigger hands like mine it was just too small a unit to be comfortable. The higher quality lens also makes those little Sonys a plus. Now if they could just get them to the point that the maximum zoom still gives you a decent image. Does anyone know why 10X-12X optical zoom seems to be the best that mini dv's offer?

**jeff b** · 15 January 2000, 21:30

12x is all I've got on the TRV900, but I find that it's really enough to handle just about every tele shot I might want to make. For more, I have a 2x attachment which, combined with the 12x, makes even the slightest whisper of a breeze move the image when it sits on a tripod. I think that the nicest thing about a small zoom range is that you can narrow down your depth of field on a subject without backing up into the next country.

**DrMordrid** · 15 January 2000, 22:43

Actually the use of the PV-DV910's composite output box needing the powerpack isn't a hinderance at all.

The only time I use the DV cams composite output is when sending it to a non-DV device (VCR, Marvel etc). Whenever this is done I use powerpack anyhow so the voltage won't vary as the battery is used up. This is generally a good practice for ANY cam or format as it also reduces the number of charge cycles on those expensive (and non-eternal) batteries.

As for composite in....there are better ways to handle that: i.e. having a DV board with composite/S-Video inputs. That way you don't put wear & tear on the cam by using it twice to do each transcoding.

Dr. Mordrid

[This message has been edited by DrMordrid (edited 16 January 2000).]

**Brian Ellis** · 16 January 2000, 06:15

As a general rule, the greater the zoom range, the poorer the quality of a lens. This is why you will never find a wide range on a 35 mm chemical camera, generally less than 5:1, often less than 3:1 on better lenses. The 18:1 and 20:1 you find on some of the cheaper Sony cameras are great selling points, provided you aren't looking for quality but Sony have smaller ranges on their better cameras.

Zoom lenses are optimised for three distances, usually infinity (or close to it), the nearest it will focus at full tele (ditto) and somewhere near the logarithmic mean between the two. Anywhere outside those spots, the focus will go haywire as you zoom up or down. The wider the zoom range, the more it will deviate from optimum between the optimised points and the poorer the image quality. Apart from this, you will also get more aberrations in wide range zooms.

IMHO, you have the best chance of reasonable quality if you choose something under 12:1, preferably under 10:1. As an old super 8 guy, I had two cameras, a cheap Yashica with three fixed focal length lenses (10, 25 and 40 mm) on a turret and a VERY expensive semi-pro Canon Auto-zoom 1014 reflex which has a 7 - 70 mm lens of superlative optical quality (with many more rare-earth elements than the bottle-glass and plastic affairs on most camcorders). Even so, at some combinations of focal length and focus, the cheap Yashica gave a sharper image. Also, even today, many studio pros will never put a zoom lens on their Hasselblad or whatever as they like to have that absolute 400 to 500 lines/mm that a good fixed focal offers. I still don't have a zoom for my Pentax SLR: I prefer three fixed focus, even though it is a PITA to keep changing them (and lugging them round). Of course, zooms are ideal for news reporters and similar.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

**DrMordrid** · 16 January 2000, 15:24

Fixed focus it definitely better. I like using 250 & 500 mm mirror lenses for telephoto work. If anything over that is needed the Celestron C5+ (1250mm Schmidt-Cassegrain) gets dug out of the closet.

Dr. Mordrid

**This_Idiot** · 16 January 2000, 15:45

Hey, wouldn't it be neat if some camcorder manufacturer came up with a design that allowed interchangeable lenses. Especially if they could make the lens into a common 35mm format.

Wow, I bet we'd all go overboard on that one!

Announcement

Digital Camcorder Advice

Digital Camcorder Advice

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment