I recently bought a digital video camera. I became frustrated with it, returned it, and got a different one. Throughout this, all of the advice I could get was from people who helpfully pointed out that $2500 cameras were substantially better than what I was getting - not exactly news. So, I'm putting up a page with some comparison information about a couple of lower-end cameras, including a couple of samples of the image output.
The camera I kept (so far, anyway, but I seem to be liking it) was a JVC "GR-DVL920". It's probably the top of their current consumer line; it's officially described on their page as being $1099. I paid $999, and I've heard of people getting them for as low as $799, but it sounds like these are people with better contacts than I have.
The camera I returned was a Canon ZR50MC. It was priced at $800, and is also the top of its respective line.
This page has an overview of both cameras, and then a section comparing their pros and cons. I even have a couple of sample images.
The crucial feature, for me, was analog to digital in. Both cameras provide this. The cheaper Canon ZR45MC and ZR40 also (I'm told) support analog to digital conversion; none of the other cameras in JVC's line-up do. If they did, I would probably have gotten a cheaper one.
Both cameras use the MiniDV cassette format. My general impression is that this is regarded as the right choice for normal consumer work. The format used, in both cases, is essentially Motion JPEG, using streams of 720x480 images. Both cameras also support recording still images to SD or MMC memory cards. Both have a USB cable for downloading stills to a PC (a feature I have never looked at), and both support IEEE1394 for video transfer to a PC.
I'll give a brief overview of each camera, as I first played around with it.
The ZR50MC is a cute little camera. It's fairly small, and has a fairly small lens. It has a viewfinder and a smallish LCD display. If the LCD display has been folded out, the viewfinder turns off, but if you turn the LCD towards the subject you're filming, the viewfinder turns back on. The viewfinder and LCD are both color. The camera has a small speaker, but also supports headphone outputs. (I never used the headphone output.)
The ZR50MC has a menu system, activated by hitting a menu button, and controlled by using a jog wheel.
The ZR50MC has a 460k ("290k effective") pixel CCD, and claims 22x optical zoom, and your choice of 88x or 440x digital zoom.
The 920 is a substantially larger camera. The lens is a bit bigger, but the plastic surrounding it is much larger, so the lens cap is about twice as big as the Canon's. The LCD display is relatively big; 3.5".
The GR-DVL920 has a "megapixel" CCD, and has 10x optical zoom, and your choice of 40x or 700x digital zoom.
Well, to be blunt, I returned the Canon, and bought the JVC. The single, absolute, killer difference for me was resolution; the Canon simply could not produce a clear or sharp image, under any circumstances. I attribute this almost entirely to the CCD, which I think is grossly insufficient; 290k pixels (their "effective") size simply isn't enough to cover a 720x480 video stream. However, there are other features where the Canon looked pretty good.
Canon's manual seemed better put together, although it was a little confusing to find things in.
The optical zoom on the Canon was substantially greater than the optical zoom on the JVC. The JVC's zoom feels comfortable for recreational use; the Canon gave the impression that it could go further than that, and that it had enough zoom that you wouldn't really need a telephoto adapter for normal use.
The Canon takes lens attachments, filters, and the like; I see no evidence of such support for the JVC.
The Canon's battery life was (at least as described) vastly better; they described typical recording time as about an hour and 55 minutes, while the JVC suggests that it can probably record for under an hour, except under the most ideal circumstances. With expensive add-on batteries, the Canon claims 9 hours, the JVC claims a 4-6 hour window.
The Canon could be hooked up via IEEE1394 with the LCD closed; there were buttons behind the LCD panel, but no connectors. The JVC has the S-video and IEEE1394 ports both behind the LCD, so you can't use it as a VCR without the LCD coming on.
The Canon's menus are a bit better organized; it distinguishes between modes (things like "spotlight" or "sunset" which tell it how to do the autoexposure and white balance) and digital effects (such as a sepia tone filter). The JVC puts them all on one menu, with the cryptic warning that "some features cannot be used at the same time."
The Canon supports faster shutter speeds, and gives more manual control over shutter speeds.
I think the Canon's night mode may have been more usable than the JVC's; it didn't seem to lose clarity as much, but this may simply be because there wasn't much clarity to begin with.
The Canon could superimpose still images over video, using either chroma or luminance key. This didn't strike me as very useful, but it was cute. I'd rather do it in post-processing.
The Canon has a powered "accessory shoe" for things like lights and microphones.
The Canon is just fine with having the power plugged in and unplugged while it's running off battery, and it can charge the battery while running. The JVC resets itself if you unplug the power, and only charges the battery while the camera is off.
The JVC can produce 1280x960 stills. They aren't as good as you'd expect from a megapixel still camera, but they're reasonable. The Canon was stuck at 640x480, and even at that, they looked a bit blurry.
The JVC's output is amazingly improved compared to the Canon's. There's still a gap between the JVC and high end cameras like the Canon XL1s or the Sony VX2000, but the JVC can, when in focus, produce reasonably clear images. The Canon really can't.
The JVC's LCD monitor is a lot bigger. This wasn't a big deal for me, but I can easily see how someone would think it's important, and it is a very nice monitor.
The JVC's menus are both opened and accessed using the same jog wheel, and the jog wheel is positioned for use with your index finger while you're holding the camera. The Canon's was a thumb wheel, and you had to hit the "menu" button (which you couldn't reach with your right hand at all) to bring up menus, then manipulate them with the thumb wheel; this was sort of painful, especially if you were using the menus much.
The Canon tended to cause iMovie (on the Mac) to emit weird error messages when beginning or ending AV->digital conversion. The JVC didn't. In general, I had more problems with the IEEE1394 with the Canon.
The JVC has a built-in light. It's probably not as good as the kind you might buy and put in an acessory shoe, but it's perfectly suitable for casual home use. It also, of course, contributes to bad battery performance, making a difference between 55 minute and 35 minute expected life on the small battery the unit comes with. Still, it's a nice thing to have occasionally.
The JVC can make little 160x120 MPEG movies. I'm not sure this is much of a feature for me, but I can see why it would matter.
Here's a pair of pictures of my cat. The JVC has a slight advantage here from being a bit further zoomed in, but the difference in clarity is still pretty stunning. These were taken in whatever natural light was making it into the room; in both cases, the cat was in radiant light from a window, but not in a sunbeam.
My Cat (ala Canon)
My Cat (ala JVC)
Of some interest is that the JVC picture shows more interlacing effects.
Here's a more interesting one: Fairly similar pictures of a very cluttered bookshelf, done by the (non-natural) light in the room. The room is fairly brightly lit, but this isn't the brightest part of it.
Bookshelf (ala Canon)
Bookshelf (ala JVC)
Unfortunately, my framing isn't too good. Of some interest is that the text on the Mandrake Linux box is closer to readable in the JVC picture, even though it's slightly smaller.
Comments about this web page can be sent to:
seebs@plethora.net
