Any digital camera in that price range isn't going to look as good as your ES- 1000. Unless you can find something with at least a single 1/3 CCD it won't look as good. That's why older Hi8 cameras with standard 1/3 CCD have a much sharper image than most currect consumer digital cams with their puny little 1/6 CCD and lots of useless features.
The only thing I remember the ES1000 lacking was an external microphone jack and headphone jack. That's a shortcoming, but not enough to give up 1/3 CCD resolution for 1/6 CCD resolution.

John

In the DV world, I just got a Sony TRV950 (3CCD for $1600!!!) which is fantastic and the last step before you hit the $2k+ level. You may also check out the Panasonic PVDV953 for about $400 less (but I've had bad experience with panny in the past).
Jeff

Don't know if it's in your price range but Sony TRV80 seems to give half decent images and a useable stills capability.
Of course as craftech has said you're mostly paying for useless widgets.
But it does have some useful features, just wish they went the whole hog and incorported GPS and GSM.

Just think how useful that we would be on holidays, tape data could include exactly where you were when you shot the footage and it'd save carrying around a phone. With a bit more engineering they could fit a shaver into it well, just on the edge of the pop out LCD should do it.

Just hope no one at Sony reads this, they might end up doing it.

Don't quite know how it'd work out if the wife wanted to shoot me shaving in the morning in some strange place while I'm talking on the phone.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I would assume that most DV cameras (if not all) would run circles around any Hi8 camera. You just can't compare the two--after you've seen the rock-steady stability of a DV image, the jitters inherent in an analog image are just so obvious. And it is so elegant to hook up a firewire cable to the side of the camera and capture the video bit-for-bit into the PC for Vegas editing. Very slick.

It's true there are a lot of worthless "features" out there. For example, run away from any camera that advertises "400X" zoom. The optical zoom is typically 10X, so any additional zoom just means you are enlarging the pixels. On a decent DV camera, any digital zoom beyond 2X is pretty obvious.

Likewise, there must be a market for cameras that do fadeouts and dissolves, but the fact you're on this board implies that you're WAY beyond that consumer type.

As for brands, I've had great success over the past 3 years with my little Sony miniDV TRV8 camera. It's traveled the world and has never failed me, and the results are pretty darn good. I just moved up to a VX-2000, which is a truly excellent product in the $2k price range when it comes to image quality, especially in low light level shooting.

I would not hesitate to buy used, especially if you know the history of the camera. A thorough overhaul/cleaning/recalibration and you're good to go. I would expect to pay about half of new street price for a used camera in very good condition.

Get a camera on condition that you will use it for a week and will have no hassles returning it for any reason if you're not satisfied. Then use it for a week. Based on what you've said, I'd get a TRV-900 3-chip miniDV camera. Used, maybe $800-900. Some folks like them better than the TRV-950 that replaced it.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I would assume that most DV cameras (if not all) would run circles around any Hi8 camera
=========================================================
Absolutely not. Most of them don't look as good as many of the SVHS cameras of yesteryear. In terms of Hi8 an older Canon A1 had a great image.
If you like digital fine, but there is no question that the optics of consumer cams has gone downhill especially since the Average Hi8 had a 1.3 CCD, then later a 1/4 CCD and now most consumer cams that I see have a 1/6 CCD. They simply don't gather as much light. They are designed to (If I may borrow from Chicago) "Razzle Dazzle 'em" with "features" but little substance.
The reason some of you don't realize this is that you are buying semi-professional cameras typically with three 1/3 CCDs. Not a fair comparison.
To the original poster I would suggest one of them as a suitable replacement to the ES-1000, but not a digital 1/6 CCD Digital 8 or some other consumer cam. They will not have the same quality image (but you can do digital editing with them if you want to play.) Big deal.

John

Sorry but I have to disagree. I too prefer the look of some of the older cameras, even the old still cameras made of wood and brass with uncoated lenses took photogrpahs that had something missing from modern cameras.
But that's just a preferance, not a technical reality.

Modern CCDs don't need to be as big as they used to be, they don't need as much light ans hence they don't need as much glass. The technology has moved on. Thats not to say it's all gone in the right direction. Certainly cramming more pixels into a smaller CCD isn't a step forward. It's purely driven by marketing, not by a desire to produce better images. But even so cameras today at the same price point do produce sharper images than those of years gone by. Whether you prefer the 'look' of those images is entirely subjective.

I'd also add that despite crappy mics on most consumer DV cameras they record better audio too, and I don't think that's subjective.

I have a JVCGR800 and a Sony Hi8 (I do not remeber the model number).

The sony is easier to use and produces better pictures. Although the sound from the JVC is significantly better. I have had a number of difficulties using the JVC firewire capture with vegas including two tapes shot back to back without changing settings, one downloaded the other did not. I basically stick to the analog capture.

Bottom line I would avoid JVC.

Modern CCDs don't need to be as big as they used to be, they don't need as much light ans hence they don't need as much glass. The technology has moved on.
===========================================
You really should take a look for yourself if you have access to some of the aforementioned older cameras. The simple facts haven't changed. Larger CCD=more light gathering ability. It's really obvious when you look at the images. Try comparing with lower light images and watch the details disappear on faces especially from a distance using 1/6CCD cameras as opposed to 1/3CCD cameras.

John

Best image quality under $1000?

Look for a used Sony VX-1000. Three 1/3" CCDs, the industry standard for first-generation DV cameras, good, bright optics. Not as good low-light performance as its successor, the VX-2000, but in good light, a fine image.

I just found three up for sale on E-bay for about $500 apiece. I don't know if Sony still does this, but they used to do a complete factory service and recondition for a flat $250 fee.