I almost have one picked out. Help! :)

This is going to be my first camcorder purchase. I had posted a different thread earlier discussing the advantages and disadvantages of MiniDv and HD camcorders.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=213432#post213432

But I am thinking I might have a change of heart on the type of media I would like to record on. I am comparing three models of the Panasonic.

PV-GS320 (MiniDV, estimated price of $424.99)
SDR-H18 (HD, estimated price of $469.99)
SDR-H200 (HD, estimated price of $649.99)

I added a Mini DV camcorder in that list to compare it to a certain hard drive camcorder. And I am most likely going to purchase a Hard Drive camcorder, because the idea of not having to purchase extra media to record on.

Would it be a fair statement to say that the SDR-H200 is a comparable model to the PV-GS320 minus the Leica lens on the PV-GS320 and type of recording media?

I noticed that the SDR-H200 has a smaller optical zoom of 10x compared the the SDR-H18's 32x optical zoom. In my mind I would think that a the larger zoom should be in a more expensive model. Is there a certain point in the zoom where the image really gets distorted, or useless?

The more the better. The SDR-H200 has 3CCD, while the SDR-H18 has only 1CCD. I know from reading that the 3CCD would produce better colors, but I was wondering if you all have any examples of the image produced by each?

I feel that for the price, I should get the SDR-H18. But at the same time, I feel that the 3CCD might be worth the extra money in the long run.

And if you had to chose from only these three camcorders listed above, what would you choose?

Thanks a lot,
Steve

I think I have decided on the Panasonic SDR-H200! I went to the store and it felt so good in my hands!

I will update you all if I end up getting it and provide a review

I added a Mini DV camcorder in that list to compare it to a certain hard drive camcorder. And I am most likely going to purchase a Hard Drive camcorder, because the idea of not having to purchase extra media to record on.


Tapes are cheap, and SD DV runs 13GB/hour (yes, those miniDV tapes hold the equivalent of 13GB each).

They also become their own archive...

With a drive-based camera, you

1) tend to get some form of MPEG encoded video (which, granted, is what HDV on miniDV tapes uses, but you aren't looking at high definition cameras, are you?) -- a bit more complex to edit;
2) need to archive your footage, probably by burning data DVDs of the captured MPEG files (and has anyone discovered what the lifespan of a home-burn DVD really is? Magnetic tape technology has been around for decades -- the historical problem is not that the tape is unreadable, but finding a device that reads the tape format... Much different from having drives that handle the disc, but discovering the data on the disc degraded <G>)


I noticed that the SDR-H200 has a smaller optical zoom of 10x compared the the SDR-H18's 32x optical zoom. In my mind I would think that a the larger zoom should be in a more expensive model. Is there a certain point in the zoom where the image really gets distorted, or useless?


The bigger the sensor, the bigger the physical lens has to be for the same "magnification" and "speed". People want "small" cameras (small lens/body) with low-light capabiltiy (bigger sensor).

Say you have a camera with a 1/4" sensor, and a physical lens of 4mm to 80mm. This is a 20x zoom range. Next to it you put a camera with a 1/2" sensor (I know, no consumer cameras use that yet). For the SAME magnification (coverage area) and 20x range, this camera will need a lens that runs 8mm to 160mm. And, lets assume both lens are f1.8 capable at the telephoto end. 80mm @ f1.8 means the lens is 45mm (just over 1.75inches) in diameter (not counting filter ring, etc.). The 160mm @ f1.8 is 89mm (3.5inches). A 10x range would be 8mm to 80mm, and the same 1.75inch diameter.

Most video cameras actually use even shorter lenses (The big Canon XH A1 is 1/3" sensor and takes 77mm filters, has a 20x zoom 4.5mm to 90mm, but the speed is f1.6 at the 4.5mm end, and a slow f3.5 at the 90). Many consumer cameras are using 32-40mm filters, and really short lenses.

Man, I really don't know what to do now...

I really want to get the Panasonic SDR-H200 hard drive camcorder. But I think I should get the Panasonic PV-GS320 because of all of the feedback I have received and read here.

I honestly don't know how much I will be editing the video, since I've never even owned a camcorder. Could I get some examples/scenarios that would help explain to me why it is harder to edit video produced by a hard drive camcorder?

Could anyone who owns the SDR-H200 or the PV-GS320 tell me what they like/don't like about their camcorder?

And for the people who chose a hard drive camcorder over a mini dv camcorder, could you tell me what persuaded you to that decision?

If I've been repeating myself too much, I'm sorry. Thanks everyone for your help

I honestly don't know how much I will be editing the video, since I've never even owned a camcorder. Could I get some examples/scenarios that would help explain to me why it is harder to edit video produced by a hard drive camcorder?


The main factor, for standard definition, is that SD DV format on miniDV tapes treats each frame as an independent unit. So when editing, you can edit (cut, overlay, etc.) right down to a specific frame of video.

mini-DVD and hard drive models compress the video -- typically to some form of MPEG-2. MPEG-2 has one complete frame at the start of a group of fifteen, and the other fourteen are some mix of "this section is different from the previous" or "copy what was at location (x1, y1) of the first frame to (x2, y2) of this frame". Simple editing software will only allow you to cut at the 15-frame boundary -- that's every half of a second. Complex software may permit cuts inside the group, but then it has to recompute the entire 15-frame group (with the correlated losses -- similar to editing JPEG photos and applying lossy compression on top of lossy compression).

NOTE: HDV, while using miniDV tapes, needs to use MPEG-2 to fit the 4+ times pixel data into the same tape.

NOTE2: AVCHD is an MPEG-4 compression. Some articles claim it is better then MPEG-2 in terms of resultant quality yet compressed more... But it also needs even more CPU to edit, and not many NLEs support the format for editing.