Looking for advice on older Camcorders
Hi!I have two working camcorders and I am trying to decide on which one would best fit my needs. I don't use camcorders as much any more as my iPhone has taken over all photography and video recording needs. However, my son will be playing travel soccer next fall and I know that using an iPhone to record his games won't work for many obvious reasons. So I have these two camcorders who have served me very well in the past and could still live on into the future!
The two camcorders are:
1. Sony HDR-SR11 (bought in 2008)
CNET specs guide: Sony Handycam HDR-SR11 Specs
2. Sony HDR-CX330 (bought in 2014)
CNET specs guide: Sony HDR-CX330 Specs
The SR11 was an amazing camcorder when it came out and was top of the line (Also major $$$$). It still works fine, may need to get new batteries. The touch screen failed a few years ago but I fixed it (wasn't cheap!). Its clunkier than the CX330 but has an HDD with 60gb built in. The CX330 was an entry level camcorder in 2014 that was significantly lighter and has the wifi option which is nice.
I feel like they are almost the same camera in the sense that the SR11 had all the major bells and whistles for its time while the CX330 is basic, but came out in 2014 and offered the same capabilities that the SR11 offers. Hence my request for your expert opinions.
As I mentioned earlier, the camcorder will function as main source of recording my sons soccer games. I will use a tripod to minimize movement. I would also like to upload the footage to youtube. The most important factor is video quality. My biggest concern is that the SR11 is very old and could run into problems (Although its made in Japan) fairly sooner than the CX330 (Made in China).
Another question I have is the use of wide-lenses. I have a .45x widescreen lens that works fine on the SR11 but not so fine on the CX330 as it gets the black tunnel on the borders. The CX330 has a wider built in lens than the SR11 so I am unsure which combination would work best for recording a soccer game.
I posted the specs above as I am not camcorder technology savvy and don't want to cause confusion when the exact specs can be viewed.
I apologize for the long write up and I really do appreciate any advice and/or opinions you may give me! Welcome...
IMHO the newer camcorder is the one to use . . . although yr "investment" in getting to these Games, Kit, Etc. might suggest a new Camcorder for 2018/19 Season could be a good idea... as you will have some practice with the 2014 camcorder.( maybe buy another battery?)
However, the CX330 was somewhat "budget"- so some features may not be up to yr needs . . . that WA-converter is at the wrong distance;so you are getting the corner cutoff. However, in my limited experience the problem with football is that ( I) can't see the ball except when it's being played on the field. As soon as it's kicked skywards I can't follow.... which why Pros use several cameras at different positions / Zoom settings.
Perhaps you can say how much of a Budget for now there is, ( unless it's Zippo, that is).
Do you have any special-access, so you can have a fixed camera at / near the Away-goal? -
Also, - Is this for your own family-use, or Public viewing (( You mentioned YouTube.)).... this can cause issues, these days...
In general the old Maxim: "Content is King" - applies and the quality of YT postings is secondary . . . so having alternative camera-views would be a great benefit.... esp. if the Club can pay for them.
Good Luck. If both are basically workable, I'll go with the SR11 as it has larger sensor and more pix.
Why do you need WA ? are going to be right on the field, and panning like crazy to keep the ball in? You better be a bit far and high. I would not use a wide angle add-on lens unless you camera does not go wide angle by itself. You may get viginetting with both cameras. When I use my add-on wide angle, I need to zoom in a bit to get a clean shot. Not sure about that "more Px" comment...HD needs only~2Mpx per frame - anything else is not used, although it might point to having a better lens / low-light performance etc.- but more pixels ....you won't need.
The SR11 appears to be~2008 camcorder HD.... I suspect it uses a HDD, which after 9-years may fail.... whereas a more-modern camcorder without HDD is "probably" more reliable although there are no G'tees in life.
To add to Terfyn'sWA comment too;
as I fail to understand why Mfr are so keen to show how wide their lenses will go*, since this makes the people smaller and outdoors....increase the sky ( giving exposure issues) and increase the grass ( giving colour-bias risk ).The whole point of a movie-camera is that it can move AS WELL AS the subjects.
If you need to include all the guests at a Wedding, say( or the Home Team at football ), then arrange them further back and then pan-closer to see the detail.
Because of the ~2Mpx / frame of HD, the definition is a compromise... it may look sharp from a normal viewing distance but that's the way our brains interpret the movement of pixels between frames. Look at a single-frame (in a photo-Editor) and you can see the break-up.
The only two situations IMHO where a Wide-view are acceptable:-is Indoors, when it's wet outside, or the interior of a building, ( like a cathedral) when the "whole-space" is magnificent.
Both should be held only briefly, then cut to detail so the viewer can see for themselves the content.
Cheers.
* BTW one reason may be it assists in removing User-wobbles and means the aperture is able to bring-in more light, = ideal for Birthday parties, etc.
Personally, I'd prefer a few-more "length" on the Zoom..... We are only now seeing pure Optical Zooms on 4K which are24x.
While some Sony's are still being sold with far less.
But still, Mfrs push how WIDE their lens will go... The wide angle add on is useful with inside shots or where enclosed spaces limit any movement (railway carriages for example)
There are house viewing programmes on TV where the slight curvature given by a wide angle shot is noticeable. I fully understand where a wide-shot might be used....but for interiors you can use a stills-camera - where there is abundant choice and in Edit any curvature can be "corrected" - although perhaps not to Professional Broadcast standards.
It is the "push" that Mfrs give to the wide-end spec, when in reality the other end of the zoom is potentially likely to be used. I have used my 55x Zoom over a lake, where it would be impossible to include the building head-on by using a 20x zoom.
So called digital zoom just throws away pixels as I'm sure you know.... what Mfr are doing with "extra-Zoom" ( various terms used ) ...I don't fully understand...but I'm guessing the sensor-pixels are being "thinned" - so only the centre is recorded. Whilst this is preferable to Digital-Zoom, pixels are being lost and with that some added noise must be present.
Most sensors are multi-pixel ( as needed for Stills ), and in Movie-mode they are grouped to minimise noise ( since there are more landings for photons ), - since ( as you well know ) the pixels-required for a movie-frame is quite small.....
I'm guessing no-one could sensibly market a stills camera with just 2Mpx sensor.... It took some change in Mind-Set to realise that a ( digital ) Stills camera already has all the optical bits for a decent movie-camera. Pity the shape harks back to the early Leica.
ANOther thing I fail to understand is why Pro Camcorders offer HD / 4K and cannot provide any Still-mode.
- I'm told ( by Pros), they have a stills camera for this purpose; but to my mind that's another piece of kit that needs Memory, Batteries, Case and possibly Tripod . . . so that's no logic to me.
By Contrast....
The March 2018 - Pana VXF1 offers 25Mpx in 16x9 Stills, as well as 4K- all in a modest package with a 24x Zoom ( something of a first for 4K consumer gear.). It also does HD. and a nifty Zoom-infeature where you can move the HD-record within the 4K framing dynamically . . . . with a good eye, you might achieve a vibration-free sequence.
This means that "practically" I can take some stills where a movie isn't required - after 12 seconds (HD) I'm gaining and just 3.5Sec in 4K . . . . but a 25Mpx still should be significantly betterthan a 8Mpx frame from 4K.
Of course if I'm stuck in situation where a really "wide" shot is needed, then my Sony NEX5 can shoot 5-frames and stitch them into a "Panorama" - although this is only fully satisfactory with static scenes.
Cheers H. You just create a HDR photo image from the video
Transform Your Videos into HDR Images by Jose Antunes - ProVideo Coalition To create panoramic shots I have used Serif photo panorama. It works by stringing photos with slight overlaps together to make one picture. The main problem is that it creates a long thin panoramic shot so is better when printed on A3 and then trimmed to size.
I think you are being too dismissive of the electronic zoom. The Panasonic "Intelligent Zoom" will take the 20X optical zoom up to 50X with no noticeable loss of picture quality. I have used "full" zoom handheld on many occasions and the biggest problem is shake, not the picture quality. Full OIS and Mercally work wonders. Incidentally Panasonic full zoom is 1500X - not often used.//static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
Pages:
[1]