I've got an HV20 that just failed. It records but won't connect to the PC for video transfer. Canon won't look at it because it's too old and I've been quotes $228 to fix it by another shop.
Canon will take in on trade in for a refurbished Canon RF40. It would cost me $170. Is that a bad move? Is that a better camera than the HV20? It looks like I'd be over $1000 for the next range of cameras which seems like a huge jump.
My next issue is how to get to the couple dozen tapes I haven't transferred yet. I've got access to an older camcorder that use Mini DV but it's a lower resolution camera. Since the data is digital, will the lower resolution camera still transfer it fine? Is there a better option?
Thanks for your help.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
i have not heard of a canon RF40 but there is a HF-R40 that shoots avchd video, so i would take the trade in for sure.
as for transferring you other HDV tapes using an older standard def tape camera, i have not tried it, but i cant see why you wouldnt be able to, its not like you are using the older camera to record with.
i do stand to be corrected tho, others may know for sure.
You need to use another camera or deck that handles HDV for your tapes. Although HDV and DV tapes are physically identical, the recorded signal is very different. Most HDV cameras/decks also do DV. The reverse is not true.
I've got an HV20 that I haven't used in years. It's in very good condition. Wonder what I can get for it.....Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
personally i would trade it in on a that newer avchd cam for $178 on top of his camera, but fixing it may be his only option tho if he cant find someone who has a HDV tape camera that he can borrow.
also, remember that tape cameras use firewire to transfer the video, and firewire is very rare these days, and like i always say, this is 2014, its time to move to newer technology.
Last edited by glenpinn; 5th Apr 2014 at 17:46.
True, but the camera you linked to has a crappy 3.28 Megapixel 1/4.85" CMOS. The HV20 has a 1/2.7" CMOS. Personally I would never go with anything smaller than a 1/3" CMOS sensor size. Bigger sensor size usually creates better quality in most situations.....
My current camera Panny V700 has a 1/2.5" sensor and produces pretty good quality @ 1080-60p.Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
i believe your V700 has a single 1/2.33 (rounded up to 1/2.5) High Sensitivity MOS Sensor, but dont let small sensors fool you, some of them, especially the 3MOS sensors like in my 3 cameras produce very good image over many of many cams using the bigger but single MOS sensors.
my panasonic SDT750 and X900M both have a 1/4.1 3MOS (tripple) sensor, and my AG-AC90 wedding camera has a smallish 1/4.7 3MOS (tripple) sensor, and although they may seem small, i still prefer a cam with slightly smaller 3MOS sensors over a slightly larger single MOS sensor camera, but that is personal preference.
i am upgrading my fleet of cams in june this year, but not sure which direction to go, stay with avchd with ProRes option using my ninjs2, or go to a Cinema camera that shoots native 220Mbps ProRes and Raw CinemaDNG.
thing to remember, i use the panasonic cams that i currently have essentially because of the 3MOS sensors, and because they have brilliant OIS and AF systems, and shooting in hand held mode like i do, i need both.
Last edited by glenpinn; 5th Apr 2014 at 18:52.
I think I'm going to stick with the HV20. I'm having a hard time convincing myself that going away from MiniDV is a good thing...
racer-x, let me know what you want for it. I may be interested.
Apart from the auto white balance and the reliability, the panasonic hc-x920 beats the HV20 in every area. sharpness. image stabilisation. view finder. low light. audio. 50p (60p). zoom. wide angle. You name it, it's better - except I wish it had cinemode. And mine has gone back for repair. AGAIN.
I agree that tapes have a certain safety to them. But only as long as you can find something to play them. And only as long as they still play. And only as long as you have the patience to re-capture them all in the event of needing to call on them as a backup. HDDs are now cheap enough to keep several backups. Cheaper than tapes. More convenient.
I see the problem though - you can throw tapes in a cupboard and be fairly sure that someone will be able to play them in 10, maybe 20, maybe even 30 years time. Far less hope with a hard drive.