DVD vs. MiniDV Camcorder

[cumi]

Hi there!

I am considering to by a new camcorder and I can not decide between DVD and MiniDV camcorder.

1. My favorite DVD camcorder is the Sony DVD-201, what I can buy for about 850 Euros. It is nice to record directly to DVD (8cm), I don't have to edit/use on my PC anything. I can also make photos (Megapixel), but it records it to DVD, but it is not clear for me, how will I print it or transfer it to my PC... Another thing: there is a slightly price difference between 0.8 and a megapixel DVD camcorders (Sony DVD-201 and DVD-101 (700 Euro), or 200 and 100 - not sure about the difference). Is the difference only between the photo resolutions or the recorded movies has also different qualities?

I read a lot of posts here and I found that actually with a camcorder I will never be able to make good photos. So is it worth to by (a bit) better resolution camcorder?

Further, I don't have a DVD reader or writer on my PC, only a CD writer. So, if I will have to make copies of DVDs I will have to buy a DVD writer (80 Euros).

2. And what about the MiniDV camcorders? I found nice Canon and Sony ones, like: Sony DCR-HC40 (700 Euro) or HC20 (550 Euro) and *Canon MV-750i (550 Euro). The Canon one is cheaper and has better optical zoom factor. Any other differences?

If I want to burn the move to a SVCD, then I will have to buy a Fireware card for my PC (20 Euro). As I read here, the USB 2.0 port is not quite good for transfering the movie.

3. Another aspect: the price of the raw mediums: the DVD 30Min costs 10 Euros, the MiniDV 60Min costs 5 Euros.

I really don't know which one to buy. Is the Sony DVD-201 worth of it's price, comparing to Canon MiniDV one? Is it worth to record directly to a DVD? Is it better to have a Megapixel camcorder then a 800.000 pixel one? I mean, both of them has much worse resolution than any of the cheapest digital cameras... Does the megapixel one has really so much better movie quality?

If I take a MiniDV camcorder, I will have to buy a memory stick to be able to make photos...

I am not a kind of professianal movie maker or a photo guru. I just want to make some movies about the family events, and give it to other family members, to watch it (the most of them have DVD players (with VCD/SVCD abilities too)). I am making photos, with my (simple - non-digital) Canon IXUS-M1 camera. I am very satisfied with it, I don't see any reason, to by a digital camera with I don't know how much billions of megapixels. I just like to have my photos printed out by my one-hour-photo shop on the corner...

Will I have the same picture quality with a megapixel or 0.8 M pixel photos, made by an camcorder???

If deciding to buy a MiniDV camcorder, witch one should I buy? The Sony HC20 or the Canon one?

* - I am not sure, but I think in Germany and Austria Canon has a different names for their camcorders. In English or American sites I didn't found these, but I found Canon camcorders, with names like Optura xxx... Here is the link for the Canon camcorder I am talking about and thining to buy it: http://www.canon.de/pro/vid/dig/mv700



Every tipps and suggestions warmly welcome!

Nice weekend to everybody,

cumi

[Flay]

Buy a cam for filming and a camera for phot, even a cheap camera is beter than a cam for phot !!

If you look at price vs quality than the dv is better than dvd.

Most pc today have firewire but if not look for cam with a pack who includ one (canon did it).

The most important thing to look for is the quality of a film, when you film indoor !!! you will have litle or no problem outdoor, with today cam.

When it goes to photos forget the cam it's poor quality and not easy to use.

[ZAPPER]

Dude don't spend a dime for at least a week! Take some more time and research the subject. You won't loose out on any thing. The older cams will get cheaper and the newer cams will get better.

I too have to say that still photos are not a real consideration when buying a camcorder just a cute little bonus.

I think that the first consideration is the true optics. Buy the best and most that you can afford.

I also think that digital 8 is the best option.(it is cheap and durable and does just about anything you could need)

I don't like DVD (stand back the shit is gonna hit the fan!) Here is why. The format is great as far as what it is and can be made to do, but the disk themselves are too damb fragile! They scratch way to easy. They need to be handled like they are babies, which is hard to do when you are outside shooting. You have to put them right from the case to the cam and vise versa and this can become a juggling act. At least tapes can go straight to your pocket or be set down with out too much worry. There are way too many varitys of quality with DVD discs themselves. I could go on but this wasn't to bash DVD just to defend my opinion on tape v/s disc.

To be continued.... I got to take the family out.

[lenti_75]

don't go fooled that camcorders can do pics....get the cheapest camera and is A LOT BETTER, the megapixells mania is good for recording, that is what to look for.

now, about DVD vs minidv....i preffer minidv.....the price is lower, the media is cheaper, the cam is smaller and the quality is THE SAME.....the recording is done digitally on both, it's just the media that differs.

anyway, this is too damn relative......go for what you can affort and LIKE THE MOST....

I, wouldn't buy what other people tell me......

[ZAPPER]

Continued...

More opinions(You know that opinions are like ********, everybody has one and they all stink, except for mine)

Mega pixeles and ccds: True the more the better! Buy all you can afford. But in reality I think that after a point you wont notice that much differance on a regular TV.(stand back some pureist techs head is going to explode!)

Low light: This is a big area of bullshit. I have not seen a cam that is all that great in low light and their claims and measurements are subject to interpitation. Most cams can work in low light but the quality always suffers. Some don't focus as well, some are grainy as hell and so on. Video needs light. The more the better. If you plan to do any low light shooting you should look into adding your own light to the shot.

Bells and whistles: The more ports and jacks the better(USB, Firewire, s-vid, sound, mic, LANC and so on) You may never use any or all of them but it is easier to grow into somthing that is already there.

PCworld.com has a little buyers advice article that may be worth reading and I am sure that there are many other professionaly written guides on the subject of choosing and buying a camcorder.

I like to recomend a book called "the little digital video book" It is not really about buying a cam but more of an introduction to using one and that will get you thinking in the right terms of what you should be looking for in a new cam.

[cumi]

Thanks for the advices. Actually, the things you wrote are not far from what I am thinking. I am happy to read that you confirm my thougths.

I still don't know what does the pixel number means for the camcorders. In "movie-mode" (no stills), does it makes a difference is it an 800K or 1.3M one, or is this parameter only relevant for the stills?


Thanks,

cumi

[cumi]

Dude don't spend a dime for at least a week! Take some more time and research the subject. You won't loose out on any thing. The older cams will get cheaper and the newer cams will get better.

I know this. Actually I am planing to buy a camcorder since more than a year (I think you can even find here my older posts).

But now the time is up, in september my son will born and we want to film all his nice moments.

[pete2828]

I still don't know what does the pixel number means for the camcorders. In "movie-mode" (no stills), does it makes a difference is it an 800K or 1.3M one, or is this parameter only relevant for the stills?

the more pixtels matter only you start doing digital zoom ( not optical). Anything more than 680K is a waste. What is more important is the size of the CCD. I was told that the bigger the CCD the better low light quality is. 1/4" would be a good size.

[takeshi]

Camcorders with megapixel CCD's will only shoot at such resolutions for still photos. A megapixel CCD is of no benefit to video.

[T ft. D]

MiniDV has 2.5 a better qualtiy than DVD (25 mps v.s. 10 mps). It's hard to tell cause 10 mps is still great quality, but hey.

I would not recommend DVD to anyone. It's a great format, but not to film with. The price is higher, the quality is lower, and it's WAY and WAY more venerable. Don't see the big plus in it.

[Jester700]

DVD quality CAN match DV, at least visibly. BUT the reason it can do that at lower bitrates is the lossy compression it uses. The problem is, that is a beyatch to edit with, and if you have a PC and a cam, you WILL get into editing. So stay with DV or D8.

Bigger CCD is better in low light, but most cams are using SMALLER ones these days so the cameras are smaller. If you want good low light, look at a 3-chip job like a Sony TRV900 or 950 or the new Panasonic just coming out. They're using bigger chips in that one.