Seek video camera equal to Sony TRV 900

[Larry]

I have a Sony TRV900 which is the best video camera I have ever had
but, like me, it is getting old and frail. Is there any video camera
made today that is an equal to the TRV 900 videowise and that can also
take stills at a higher resolution than the TRV900 whose stills are
less than 200 kb in size? I do not print stills but instead use them
in virtual albums so files of around 1 to 1.5 Mb would be ideal. A few
manual features like a focus ring on the lens would mean a lot more to
me than touch screens and other assorted bells and whistles that I see
on the current drop of cameras.

[David Ruether]

Post by Larry
I have a Sony TRV900 which is the best video camera I have ever had
but, like me, it is getting old and frail. Is there any video camera
made today that is an equal to the TRV 900 videowise and that can also
take stills at a higher resolution than the TRV900 whose stills are
less than 200 kb in size? I do not print stills but instead use them
in virtual albums so files of around 1 to 1.5 Mb would be ideal. A few
manual features like a focus ring on the lens would mean a lot more to
me than touch screens and other assorted bells and whistles that I see
on the current drop of cameras.

This one is easy (sorta...;-). I have owned several TRV900s and the
better VX2000s, but then I found a small camcorder that produces
INCREDIBLY fine *video* images (Canon doesn't seem to get
0n-board sound as right as Sony does, so an accessory mic is likely
required). This camcorder also should almost never be focused
manually (although it does have a focus ring) since in its "I-AF" mode,
focus is perfect almost all of the time (and in HD, this is IMPORTANT!).
The wonder camera is the Canon HV20/30/40 (all are almost the same),
reviewed at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.
It can shoot good stills to memory cards, but it shoots HD video to
Mini-DV tape as "HDV", which is much easier to edit than memory
card based HD camcorders that shoot equivalent image quality (24 Mbps
AVCHD). If you are not yet ready to switch to HD (but why not - it
can be converted to SD and put on DVDs that look very good), I have
one of the last, best 1.5 megapixel Mini-DV camcorders FS on my
web site, at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-camcorders.htm,
second item down (the TRV-30 is compared with other Sony camcorders
at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm),
and it has no touch screen (I also dislike them).
--DR

[Frank]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:40:50 -0500, in 'rec.video',
in article <Re: Seek video camera equal to Sony TRV 900>,

Post by David Ruether

Post by Larry
I have a Sony TRV900 which is the best video camera I have ever had
but, like me, it is getting old and frail. Is there any video camera
made today that is an equal to the TRV 900 videowise and that can also
take stills at a higher resolution than the TRV900 whose stills are
less than 200 kb in size? I do not print stills but instead use them
in virtual albums so files of around 1 to 1.5 Mb would be ideal. A few
manual features like a focus ring on the lens would mean a lot more to
me than touch screens and other assorted bells and whistles that I see
on the current drop of cameras.

This one is easy (sorta...;-). I have owned several TRV900s and the
better VX2000s, but then I found a small camcorder that produces
INCREDIBLY fine *video* images (Canon doesn't seem to get
0n-board sound as right as Sony does, so an accessory mic is likely
required). This camcorder also should almost never be focused
manually (although it does have a focus ring) since in its "I-AF" mode,
focus is perfect almost all of the time (and in HD, this is IMPORTANT!).
The wonder camera is the Canon HV20/30/40 (all are almost the same),
reviewed at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.
It can shoot good stills to memory cards, but it shoots HD video to
Mini-DV tape as "HDV", which is much easier to edit than memory
card based HD camcorders that shoot equivalent image quality (24 Mbps
AVCHD). If you are not yet ready to switch to HD (but why not - it
can be converted to SD and put on DVDs that look very good), I have
one of the last, best 1.5 megapixel Mini-DV camcorders FS on my
web site, at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-camcorders.htm,
second item down (the TRV-30 is compared with other Sony camcorders
at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm),
and it has no touch screen (I also dislike them).
--DR

Like David, I was going to suggest that you consider the Canon HV40.
This assumes that you wish to stay with magnetic cassette tape as your
recording medium.

[David Ruether]

Post by Frank
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:40:50 -0500, in 'rec.video',
in article <Re: Seek video camera equal to Sony TRV 900>,

Post by David Ruether

Post by Larry
I have a Sony TRV900 which is the best video camera I have ever had
but, like me, it is getting old and frail. Is there any video camera
made today that is an equal to the TRV 900 videowise and that can also
take stills at a higher resolution than the TRV900 whose stills are
less than 200 kb in size? I do not print stills but instead use them
in virtual albums so files of around 1 to 1.5 Mb would be ideal. A few
manual features like a focus ring on the lens would mean a lot more to
me than touch screens and other assorted bells and whistles that I see
on the current drop of cameras.

This one is easy (sorta...;-). I have owned several TRV900s and the
better VX2000s, but then I found a small camcorder that produces
INCREDIBLY fine *video* images (Canon doesn't seem to get
0n-board sound as right as Sony does, so an accessory mic is likely
required). This camcorder also should almost never be focused
manually (although it does have a focus ring) since in its "I-AF" mode,
focus is perfect almost all of the time (and in HD, this is IMPORTANT!).
The wonder camera is the Canon HV20/30/40 (all are almost the same),
reviewed at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.
It can shoot good stills to memory cards, but it shoots HD video to
Mini-DV tape as "HDV", which is much easier to edit than memory
card based HD camcorders that shoot equivalent image quality (24 Mbps
AVCHD). If you are not yet ready to switch to HD (but why not - it
can be converted to SD and put on DVDs that look very good), I have
one of the last, best 1.5 megapixel Mini-DV camcorders FS on my
web site, at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-camcorders.htm,
second item down (the TRV-30 is compared with other Sony camcorders
at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm),
and it has no touch screen (I also dislike them).
--DR

Like David, I was going to suggest that you consider the Canon HV40.
This assumes that you wish to stay with magnetic cassette tape as your
recording medium.
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
(also covers AVCHD and XDCAM EX).

As we both have pointed out, tape offers a good direct method of
archiving both raw and edited footage (in this way it is superior to
memory card recording), but with HD, there is the hazard of dropouts
and the resulting half-second image and sound gaps. Memory card
recording does offer freedom from this problem, but as I pointed
out earlier, editing it in highest quality HD is not so easy as it is with
HDV. Unless the OP has the computer "horsepower" to edit 24 Mbps
AVCHD, or is willing to transcode the raw footage to another format
that is easier to edit directly (but with losses...), and if the OP is
interested in making high quality videos with a minimum of frustrations,
HDV (tape) may be the better way to go for now, tempting as the
alternative may be at first look...
--DR

[David Ruether]

Post by David Ruether
As we both have pointed out, tape offers a good direct method of
archiving both raw and edited footage (in this way it is superior to
memory card recording), but with HD, there is the hazard of dropouts
and the resulting half-second image and sound gaps. Memory card
recording does offer freedom from this problem, but as I pointed
out earlier, editing it in highest quality HD is not so easy as it is with
HDV. Unless the OP has the computer "horsepower" to edit 24 Mbps
AVCHD, or is willing to transcode the raw footage to another format
that is easier to edit directly (but with losses...), and if the OP is
interested in making high quality videos with a minimum of frustrations,
HDV (tape) may be the better way to go for now, tempting as the
alternative may be at first look...
--DR

A follow-up for the OP --
If you are using a PC and are going with HDV (tape for HD), Premiere
does not handle HDV well. Sony Vegas does, and its cheaper version
(with almost all the main features of the $600 version, but around $75
at Amazon for the "Platinum 9" version) is quite good. For more on
this, look at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm,
and - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Sony-editing.htm.
--DR

[Larry]

Many thanks to you for your information. You are obviously more
competent than I, an amatuer, in your evaluations of what might aid me
in my search. I read reviews of the Canons and liked what I saw except
for a couple of things:

1) Viewfinder - A minor omission of Canon is a non-movable viewfinder
which, for me, becomes major since I use the viewfinder exclusively
and wearing glasses, appreciate a rubber mount, and a tiltable
viewfinder so I can place the camcorder at a low level and catch
forground in a shot - especially stills. Also, doesn't the lack of an
extendable viewfinder hamper the user if he chooses to opt for a
thicker battery thereby causing some distance between the viewfinder
and his eye? Does the viewfinder remain uncluttered when manual
functions are selected?

2) HD versus SD - Would I be able to edit HD footage with my old
Pinnacle Studio system as I edit SD now or would I have to get some
other editing software?

3) Stills - The one thing I didn't like with the TRV900 was the time
it took to switch from video mode to still mode. Many times, the shot
I was after was no longer there by the time the camera was ready. I
read that the HVs can take a still while in the video mode and record
it to an SD card at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (is that true?) which
would be fine for my purpose. Is it better to always switch to still
mode for higher resolution stills? Is the transition time when
switching between the two modes short?

4) Is it a factor at all to try and find cameras with 3 CCDs versus 1
CCD?

With these few caveats in mind, would you still recommend the Canons?
If so, I will start my search today!

Thanks again for your help. Larry

[David Ruether]

Post by Larry
Many thanks to you for your information. You are obviously more
competent than I, an amatuer, in your evaluations of what might aid me
in my search. I read reviews of the Canons and liked what I saw except
1) Viewfinder - A minor omission of Canon is a non-movable viewfinder
which, for me, becomes major since I use the viewfinder exclusively
and wearing glasses, appreciate a rubber mount, and a tiltable
viewfinder so I can place the camcorder at a low level and catch
forground in a shot - especially stills.

I also prefer to use the eyepiece VF, but I manage with the fold out
screen when necessary, and I placed small circles of sticky-backed
soft material (like felt) at the upper two corners of the hard Canon
VF surround.

Post by Larry
Also, doesn't the lack of an
extendable viewfinder hamper the user if he chooses to opt for a
thicker battery thereby causing some distance between the viewfinder
and his eye?

There are three "small" battery options that don't interfere with seeing
the VF easily (the one that comes with the camera is the middle one,
and I use it and the next larger). The largest (beyond these three) that
will fit makes the VF unuseable...

Post by Larry
Does the viewfinder remain uncluttered when manual
functions are selected?

Not really, but it is not too bad - and you can clear the field with an
external button push. But, overall, Sony does a better job with its
eyepiece finders (but I dislike the touch-screens) and the built-in
mic - but, oh the picture quality on the Canon (with a careful set-up
using the picture-modification controls)!

Post by Larry
2) HD versus SD - Would I be able to edit HD footage with my old
Pinnacle Studio system as I edit SD now or would I have to get some
other editing software?

It depends on the version, but if an update is needed, the answer is
simple. For $75 including shipping from Amazon.com, Sony Platinum
*9* software is more stable, and results with it are excellent with HDV.
For more, see -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm,
and especially -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Sony-editing.htm.
If you get overwhelmed by this - look at the tutorial videos on the Sony
web site (the URLs are in this last site). Platinum 9 also has really nifty
step-by-step tutorials within the program.

Post by Larry
3) Stills - The one thing I didn't like with the TRV900 was the time
it took to switch from video mode to still mode. Many times, the shot
I was after was no longer there by the time the camera was ready. I
read that the HVs can take a still while in the video mode and record
it to an SD card at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (is that true?) which
would be fine for my purpose. Is it better to always switch to still
mode for higher resolution stills? Is the transition time when
switching between the two modes short?

I have never used this function, but reading the specs and features list
on the Canon site for the HV40 should tell you what you want to know.
I think it will work as you want, but I'm not sure. It appears from the
descriptions that the 2 megapixel stills shot while videoing are
1920x1080, but in still mode the stills are 3 megapixels. Switching
modes on the camcorder is not instantaneous by any means...

Post by Larry
4) Is it a factor at all to try and find cameras with 3 CCDs versus 1
CCD?

Oddly, this is the first camera I have used where, *in good light and
with good set-up of picture characteristics* (more on that is in my
review), the image quality appears to be (generally) as good as
that of a good 3-chipper. A more expensive camera does offer
more control over tonal response and greater low-light range, but
when there is enough light for the small Canon (medium-bright interior
to bright daylight exterior), it is hard to beat the picture quality.

Post by Larry
With these few caveats in mind, would you still recommend the Canons?
If so, I will start my search today!

YES! But you will almost certainly want a better microphone. Start
searching for the discontinued Sony 908C and get a Rode DK-1
"Deadkitten" wind shield for it (and also, if you can find something
that would work, a compact suspension system for the mic). Get the
next size up from the supplied battery (NOT the NB-2L24-H!), and
maybe a 43mm UV filter (I prefer Hoya "single coated", UV or
plain). For wide angle, the Raynox HD .66X with 43mm thread
works very well from the widest zoom to slightly longer than 1/2
the way on the VF zoom scale toward tele. I like B&H as a dealer
(good prices, and if something is wrong in the first couple of weeks,
returns/exchanges are easy). If you get a good deal on the HV-30
versus the HV40, save the money difference. TEST everything on
the camera as soon as you get it and shoot at least an hour's worth,
even if it is "junk" footage. Have fun with it - and if you have a good
1080p HDTV (especially if it is not a projection type), you will be
astonished!

Post by Larry
Thanks again for your help. Larry

No problem...;-)
--DR