OT - Sony VX3 Hi8 Camcorder

DelCallo wrote on 4/24/2005, 4:11 AM
I've seen these for sale on Ebay - they seem to be selling from $350 to $800. My current equipment: Sony CCD-V220 - an 8mm analog cam that, in good light stills produces good footage; Sony CCD-V5000 - a Hi8 cam that produces images that rival my digi8 cam; Sony TR917 Hi8 handicam - images compare favorably to my digi8 footage; Sony TRV 103 - early model digi8 - makes great pictures - no pass thru, though.

According to the descriptions, these three CCD cams make pics that rival today's digitial cams. I just completed the purchase of some old technology in the V5000. It works, makes good pics, will be a useful short-term tool for me.

Question: Will I see much improvement over the CCD-V5000 if I buy one of these VX3 three-chip machines? I already know that the audio will be a step down from my CCD-V5000.

Thanks in advance for your advice/info.

Caruso

Comments

craftech wrote on 4/24/2005, 5:14 AM
The camera was an excellent Hi8 camera. Very well built and took great video.
It has Three 1/3 CCD's as opposed to the single 2/3 CCD of the V5000. It needed to be carefully white balanced as it leaned toward Red if you didn't. It didn't have image stabilization.
Essentially it is the same as the VX1000 so if you can find a VX1000 in the same or better condition for the same price I would recommend that camera instead. It has better features and is digital. It also has a better image.

John
mdopp wrote on 4/24/2005, 6:02 AM
I've seen many descriptions of very old analog camcorders were sellers on EBAY claim that "this Hi-8 camcorder is practically as good as digital".
This is all nonsens.
Even if the camera itself were superb, the recording standard Hi8 is certainly not and will ruin all the original quality.
Get yourself a MiniDV camcorder (unless you can afford HDV, of course) and you'll be suprised about the quality gain over Hi8.
craftech wrote on 4/24/2005, 6:08 AM
As a general statement I disagree. The industry has chosen to save money by shrinking CCD's down to a pathetically small level. They count on people making the same false assumption you have that the fact that it is digital will make up for it. It will not. Low light capability has suffered, motion throws the tiny CCD cameras for a loop, and manual controls are either non-existant or buried deep within menus. Many of the older cameras took much sharper video, were easier to use, and easier to hold because of their weight.

John
DelCallo wrote on 4/24/2005, 3:46 PM
Most of the VX3's I see on Ebay are going for more money than I care to spend on them. I'd love to give one a test drive, though. I am always amazed at the good results that can be achieved even with old cams as long as you shoot within each cam's capabilities.

Old footage I shot with my single chip analog 8 Sony CCD-V220 still impresses me, today. Obviously, I can detect some color bleeding in certain situations (a bright yellow golf ball against the green carpet of a miniature golf course, for instance), and plenty of graininess in the dark areas of nighttime shots. But, on a sunny day, the thing did a pretty good job, and, of course, the footage of my family is simply priceless.

I wouldn't consider footage ruined just because it was shot on Hi8 instead of DV any more than DV footage might be considered ruined because it isn't HD. They are just different media - given a decent picture, I tend to concentrate on the content, the editing, and how all of that comes together to make the piece interesting to those who will be viewing it.

Thanks for the replies.

Caruso