[andijensen]

Hello all.

I am interested in purchasing a new camera to take HD videos and was curious to see if anyone had any opinions on what will give me the most bang for my buck. I am more interested in HD videos than still images, and I'm not interested in the MOST expensive, nor the LEAST expensive. Mid-grade; for mostly business-use with a little personal thrown in for good measure.

Any help/experience would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

[crazy4laptops]

Try the Pentax K-5 or Canon 60D if you want the ultimate control in HD video and you can kit out the Pentax or Canon for the same price as the HD camcorders.
I personally enjoy the Pentax better because of it's built-in image stabilization meaning I can hand-hold video and have it come out smooth with less jitter.

But also check out what Cnet has to offer-
http://reviews.cnet....-hd-camcorders/

I should note that the Pentax/Canon cameras have bigger sensors than the HD camcorders...

This post has been edited by crazy4laptops: 01 June 2011 - 08:46 AM

[Charles29]

hey,andijensen.
I also like you before, but now I found the answer, not the best camera, only the most suitable for your camera.

[Szczecinianin]

Hi,

And what camera are you using now? I have Sony H9 and even standard videos (size 640) are of good quality and the camera supports HD. So it all depends on your budget. Cameras recommended by crazy4laptops are rather expensive.

[mjd420nova]

For HD, you're only looking at 720P to start. 1080P is the goal and the video camera can do better. It becomes a trade off over options and price. I wish I had image stabilization but the most difficult are the older 8MM movies. Transposing them can prove unnerving with crazy angles and shooting into the sun. Another thing is to consider storage media, disk, or SD card you will run into time limits and find lower resolutions will yeild longer record times and format changes can take up less space but may not be readable by all DVD players or computers. I usually set the camera for its maximum resolution and gives astounding clarity but the files sizes are ten MB each. Huge but there's a lot of picture there and compression or reduction in size can be done to suit each need but the original one should be treated as a negative if you will. You never want to destroy that original content. You can modify, crop, all the crazy things you wish and save as another file of your desired flavor. Large files can take a long time to load and I've seen a few that users choose and the system balks at while trying to boot. Huge RAM space helps and can make rendering a snap when file sizes are below 2 MB. Standard NTSC video is 640 by 480. But HD has a changed aspect ratio. Video monitors depend on the originating source's interface. Many of the newest have live HDMI ports that can support an external monitor. Sure leaves for a big field of equipment to contemplate. Eventual storage media can be tough but until Blu-Ray become more prolific, is more problematic than DVD. My little CoolPix L22 with a measly 10MP is set for 3968 by 2232 resolution. That makes for huge files but the content can't and won't be any better, ever. And once you get started, keep going. Sometimes it takes a little more time to get timing and such right. It then becomes a snap and for me, seeing a finished project run fine on two different systems and display formats, well, it doesn't get any better. I'm only half way to getting four dacades of negatives and slides scanned in. I can't do them all but the handy preview function lets me view before scan. The scanner media holder only has four slots for negatives and the slides three. Slow, slow Process. I'm not real judge of quality by brand as I only get to see the broken ones. Most problems are user induced from neglect or abuse.

This post has been edited by mjd420nova: 26 August 2011 - 03:51 AM

[coastie65]

I am using a Samsung HZ50W and it does a good job.

[rain18]

canon is the best! but if you like cheaper brands try sony and samsung. they have good qualities and features too but no one can beat canon.

[nonseq]

Red is absolute top drawer. ( http://www.red.com/ ) You'll need $50-75K. Sony (http://pro.sony.com/...oadcastcameras/) and Panasonic (http://www.panasonic...-camcorders.asp) make some terrific equipment but you'll need to spend more than you will for the top Canon. It's all a matter of money.

Canon came early to the digital camcorder market and builds a very high quality device.

Sony has been in professional/broadcast equipment for decades and holds the number one position in those markets. Their technology is found in just about every other digital camera from the cheapest to the most expensive. Even their lesser models deliver in a big way.

Panasonic has also made a name in professional and broadcast situations and much of their technology has been licensed by others. Their lower priced units are really really good.

This post has been edited by nonseq: 20 April 2012 - 09:48 AM

[techmanusa]

Though I have Nikon D9000 and I am very pleased about it's picture taking feature but about videoing, it has to be Canon.

[Y]

I think canon is better. I have used this camera for many years.

This post has been edited by Y: 23 May 2012 - 05:01 AM