"I'm a fan of Canon products,... I have been looking at the Canon HF200"

I've recorded hundreds of hours of my son's soccer and my daughter's field hockey and would find it very, very difficult with a camera that did not have a viewfinder.

I don't know how you intend to record football. If you're on a tripod from above, I'm sure a viewfinder is not required, but if you're handheld on the sideline getting close-up action, it seems to me that it would be very difficult without a viewfinder.

My kids are now past the sports scene, but I just purchased a Canon HG21 that, I believe, would work for sports action very well. It's a little above your budget - mine cost $700.

The HV30 recommended by Eugenia has a viewfinder, but my personal preference would be to stay away from tapes.

My thoughts,
...Jerry

I have an HV20 and while it has a viewfinder, I have never used it in my life. In fact, I hate it. It's so small that's pretty much useless. I shot a wedding with that cam (using a $45 shoulder rest gadget from B&H), and had no problems at all.

As for the HG21, not sure you want to go with a hard drive. Much heavier, and error prone.

"I have an HV20 and while it has a viewfinder, I have never used it in my life. In fact, I hate it. It's so small that's pretty much useless. I shot a wedding with that cam (using a $45 shoulder rest gadget from B&H), and had no problems at all."

Preferences are like chocolate & vanilla. I would not have a problem shooting a wedding without a viewfinder, but I would have a problem shooting a fast moving soccer game without one. Others may disagree and I respect their opinions.

As for the HG21, not sure you want to go with a hard drive. Much heavier, and error prone."

From the Canon User manuals:
HV20 = 535 grams
HG21 = 490 grams

As far as the "error prone" hard drive, I'm not particularly concerned about disk errors. However, I prefer to record directly to a 16GB Flash card. Not because of the reliability, but rather it is much easier to move clips from the camcorder to the computer.

...Jerry

>HV20 = 535 grams
>HG21 = 490 grams

You compared the weight of the wrong cameras. I suggested to the guy the HF20/200 or HF11/HF100, not the HV series. The HV cameras were discussed for other reasons, not as a suggestion to purchase. The HV series are tape-based, and therefore heavier than AVCHD flash-based cams like the HF series. The HF series are very light compared to either tape or hard drive cams.

>I'm not particularly concerned about disk errors.

I would be. If the drive dies and you're out of warranty, you're stuck as you would have to carry around dead weight -- even if you manage to continue shooting via the SD card. If you drop your cam, the first thing that will die is the drive.

>I would have a problem shooting a fast moving soccer game without one

The thing with the Canon camcorders that do have a viewfinder is that it is a very small one. As I said, I have a camera that has one, and I can't use it. My eye doesn't fit in there, it's a joke. It feels like a feature that's half-implemented, just so Canon can say that the camera has it.

I'd love to get a SD Card (Flash memory) only HD camcorder with a bigger/better viewfinder in the $700 price range. Do you know where I can find one?

My only point to RudyJelly was that after hundreds of hours of shooting sports videos, I found a viewfinder important. He (or you) may not agree - it's up to the user.

...Jerry

Thank you both for sharing the benefit of your experience. And thank you Eugenia for the articles that you put up on your website. Your Beach Boardwalk and Garden Spinners videos made me think maybe I can finally produce some game video without all the motion artifacts.

I only recently escaped the wilderness of Roxio and entered the promised land of Vegas Movie Studio. Man, what a difference!

I didn't even think to include whether I prefer using a viewfinder or not. The truth is that even though my Elura does have a viewfinder, I've only used it once. I wear glasses and I have difficulty using a viewfinder. I do appreciate what you're saying about using a viewfinder from the sidelines to catch the action, Jerry, but what I'm doing is shooting game footage of formations and plays from as high up as I can get. I use the flip out LCD display to frame the formations and then zoom and follow as they unfold.

I would like to get away from tape and hard drive, so I think barring any other input, I'll probably go with something like the HF200. I'm still open to further input if anyone else wants to offer it.

RJ

The Canon consumer camcorders don't have a competition in their price ranges I am afraid. The Sony and Panasonic cams come with fewer controls, less bitrate, smaller sensors usually -- and a look that so punchy that screams "consumer video". If you have the money, I suggest you go for the HF-S100, as it has lots of other features (e.g. zebra support to help you not over-expose) and bigger sensor, but if not, the HF200 will do the job well.

Thanks for posting the question, i was going to but i didn't have all my ducks lined up yet, and more importantly--thanks to Eugenia for the answers.

I have a Panasonic PV-GS400 (DV) 3ccd brick, which I've used since 2004 (I've been using the same 8 tapes that long too). It's big and heavy, but I'm used to it and I like the weight. I do not use a tripod--but i should. I ALWAYS use the viewfinder--the newer displays "probably" work better in bright light than mine, but i could never tape the outside events i do using an LCD display only--I almost always have the sun at my back. I have used the LCD when I need to have the CC above the crowd--and it works fine.

All that being said, i am favoring the Canon HV40. I understand the drawbacks with tape, but the archiving, easy retrieving the clips via firewire, the less lossy compression (hopefully this shows up as a better video) all result in something i'm used to. And hopefully future versions of VMS will continue to support DV-mini.

There are no stores where I live for me to try the HV-40, so if I buy one, I'll have to make sure I can return it for a refund---IF the viewfinder doesn't work for me.

Thanks for all the ideas,
Ron

I too am currently doing some research on a good camcorder in the $500-$1,000 range.

My primary criteria are:
SD card (no tapes or Sony memory sticks)
Good low light
1920x1080P (30fps)
1280x720P (60fps)
Compact

The three that I'm down to are the HFS11 (1/2" CCD) (HFS10 includes 32Gig memory which means more $$$), Panasonic HDC-TM300 (3CCD), and the Sanyo Xacti HD2000 1/2" CCD.

All 3 have great low light specs and meet all of my criteria. I'm leaning to the Sanyo because of the portability, 1080P 60fps and price which is approx half of the other two, so I'm thinking about picking up two of these for multi-cam shoots. They just came out with a HD2000A which is the "American" version (2 months before Christmas... hmmm) that features an 810x540 iframe portable format that Apple claims to have invented (..uhhh) and is adopting so I'm waiting on the reviews if this new feature is just a firmware upgrade, adds anything to the hardware or enhances the poor IS. I suspect it's only a firmware upgrade though.

One main drawback of the HD2000 is the image stabilization sucks. I've seen it on Vimeo so you must use a tripod, have a really steady hand or good camera technique. I really like the size of the HD2000 because I use my cams on the end of a mono pod a lot and size really makes a difference.

I've been using 3 Canon Powershots 720, 560 and 520 using the CHDK hack USB remote control and really like being able to use multi cams. I bought the 520 3-4 years ago because it was one of the first consumer digital cameras w/ with good video quality 30fps movies. It has no image stabilization so I'm quite used to shooting movies w/out image stabilization. The 720 has since died but the 560 and 520 are still going strong.

I agree with what amendegw (Jerry) said, I'd stay away from tapes.

Check out the demos of all the cameras you're looking at on Vimeo.

Eugenia has some nice demos on Vimeo too using her camera.

Keep us posted what you end up with! (:

>All that being said, i am favoring the Canon HV40. I understand the drawbacks with tape, but the archiving, easy retrieving the clips via firewire

Actually, AVCHD's USB-based retrieval is way more compliant and easier than firewire. In fact, most new PCs and even Macs don't come with firewire anymore.

>the less lossy compression (hopefully this shows up as a better video)

It's better compression than DV, but not better compression than AVCHD. 24 mbps AVCHD (as all new Canon AVCHD cams have), is _way_ better than 25 mbps mpeg2 HDV. h.264 AVCHD is twice as good as mpeg2 HDV on paper, and in real life usage about 1/3 better.

Here's the HV40 vs the highest end AVCHD Canon cam, the HF-S10:
http://hv20.com/showpost.php?p=189150&postcount=334
The HF-S10 has sharper image than the HV20/30 (and HV40, since it's the exact same cam as the HV30 plus 24p). However, the high pixel count of the HF-S10 creates worse low light support. So it's a trade off.

None of the 3 cameras you mention are good in low light actually. As I said above, the more megapixel they pack, the worse their low light ability will be. They are in fact worse than their previous generation cameras that only had 2 or 3 or 4 MP imagers. These new generation comes with 8 MP or more, and at sizes that vary from 1/2.7" to 1/4, which is way too small IMO. The HF-S10 is known to be sucky under low light.

Personally, if I were you I would wait or the new crop of Canon AVCHD cams this January. Who knows, they might get a clue and offer 1/2.0" sensors. Of course, the bigger the sensor, the heavier the camera will be, because the size of the sensor requires bigger, heavier glass to maintain that same 10x zoom range. So you will have to trade better low light for a heavier camera too.

I understand - and yet I don't understand - the aversion to tapes.

I own an HV20 and for me it's no big deal to start a transfer and then just walk away and come back when it's done. Patience, Grasshopper.

On the plus side the HDV format is easily handled by most desktops, so I'm spared all the problems that many people seem to have with AVCHD; they get the video on their machine quickly but then spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with it.

Tortoise and hare, kids, tortoise and hare.

BTW, regarding the iFrame you mentioned: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2009/10/16/regarding-apples-iframe-spec/ It's one of the worst ideas ever.

>I don't understand - the aversion to tapes.

My main camera is the HV20, which is tape based, and I hate the waiting on capturing, the occasional OS capturing incompatibilities and dropped frames of it, the less and less availability of firewire ports on laptops and Macs (not fixable via Express cards anymore as it used to be with PCMCIA cards!!!), the the added bulkiness and heaviness of the camera.

AVCHD indeed requires a 3 year old or newer desktop machine to edit fast, but it doesn't have the above problems, and it has ~1/3 better quality than HDV. I mean, if you are doing HD video editing, then you ought to yourself to be current in terms of system.

As for archival, external hard drives is how I do it right now, even with HDV. I dislike stacking tapes and tapes of stuff that I never revisit. Since I don't shoot family stuff but mostly abstract art, as long as I am done with a piece and have uploaded it online (with the ability to download the originally uploaded 720p file), I don't care much if I lose the masters in the future.

This summer I also bought the Canon SX200 IS digicam ($300) that has a *very* good HD video mode: http://www.osnews.com/story/22106/Review_The_Video_Mode_on_the_Canon_SX200_IS
I am finding myself shooting with it more and more, even more than the much more serious HV20, because of the convenience of it all.

Reply by: Eugenia, Date: 10/28/2009 8:34:48 PM
I totally agree, I would never shoot in iFrame format. IMO it's just a marketing gimic.

Personally, if I were you I would wait or the new crop of Canon AVCHD cams this January.
Yes, good point, it will be interesting to see what they will be comming out with. I haven't clicked the "buy it now" button yet. (:

It's an arms race in the tech industry, bottom line is if you need it now buy it now if you can wait, wait because something will be twice as good in 6 mos It's nice to see that Moore's Law is alive and well in the camera industry as well as PCs (;

Of course, the bigger the sensor, the heavier the camera will be, because the size of the sensor requires bigger, heavier glass to maintain that same 10x zoom range. So you will have to trade better low light for a heavier camera too.
You're right on target there in my decision, trade-off of some quality for portability.

Reply by: M_Matt, Date: 10/28/2009 8:15:13 PM
IMHO Basically tapes are fine until the player goes. Just had a co-worker email the whole dept if anyone had the same type of camcorder because his camcorder broke and he wanted to xfer his home videos, which were on tape to his PC. I guess the best practice is to x-fer and archive the videos off the tapes ASAP, which also I'd presume would reduce the cost for having to stock more tapes. I'd also think that ware on the tapes would cause degradation where as direct to digital media is lossless and the media i.e. SD cards can be xfered to other devices in a pinch.

Reply by: Eugenia, Date: 10/28/2009 8:45:45 PM
That's a nice point-n-shoot (PS), looks like Canon's answer to the Panasonic TZ5, TZ7 but less $$. (I have the TZ5 which also shoots nice 720P videos for a PS, but has severe flaring (blue-pink lines in bright light) poor low light, I think they kind of reduced this effect but not eliminated it in the TZ7.

Eugenia, I have read your review of SX200 - looks like this is exactly what I have been looking for. I also have HV20, and need to complement it with something smaller when traveling.

Just a quick question - I have VMS Platinum 8, is it good enough to edit SX200 video clips in MOV container? I read some people complained about it... Would be great to hear your comment.

Also, what format would you recommend to export it to view on 1080i TV (that VMS Platinum 8 supports)?

>I have VMS Platinum 8, is it good enough to edit SX200 video clips in MOV container?

No, none of the Vegas versions are good to edit formats that are handled internally by Quicktime. There is a lot of slowness and crashing. You need Cinefrom NeoSCENE to do the job I am afraid. It sells for $99, and it's fast to encode too, without losing quality. This is what I use too to edit that format (and Canon's 5D/7D formats).

On my 2.4 Ghz Quad Core PC, the SX200 IS 720/30p h.264 MOV format previews in "preview/auto" or "preview/full" at just 21 fps. With Cineform it's real time.

You can use my free way with proxy files though to go around the problem, but you might experience crashes at the final export: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/12/12/proxy-editing-with-sony-vegas/

I wish that Sony gets serious about these formats and optimize their Quicktime support to at least not crash that much (more than a few such clips in the timeline and kaboom).

>Also, what format would you recommend to export it to view on 1080i TV (that VMS Platinum 8 supports)?

Get an XBoX360 or a Sony PS3 to playback movies on an HDTV, that's how I do it. The VMSP8 can export in WMV, as I show on my blog: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/11/09/exporting-with-vegas-for-vimeo-hd/ in 720p. You can also do DVDs. I don't suggest the AppleTV though, since it can only achieve 720/24p as maximum though, not 30p.

Thanks again for all the ideas. I'm going to wait until after CES in Jan to see what new offerings Canon has, per Eugenia's suggestion. By then we should have a new release of VMS and see if it handles the MOV files without problems.

I don't "need" a HD cc for the next few months. Even tho i really want a cc with a "real" viewfinder, i decided to wait, even tho the HV40 will do everything i need for the next 4 years or so--certainly my Panny GS400 has for the past 4 years, ex HD of course.

I'm sure there will be some discussion here and HV20.com about the new offerings.

back to lurking,
Ron

I ended up with a Canon HF200 (big surprise, I know ;-) ).

So far, I'm happy with it. I've done some research on what settings give the best low light performance. I've been very pleased with the brief footage that I've shot and pulled into VMSPPP.

Next, I'll need to think about upgrading my Wallymart special tripod and then get some Blu-ray equipment. Thank goodness it looks like I'll be getting a bonus from work soon.

At some point, I'll need to address the limitation of DVD Architect Studio not being able to author Blu-ray discs with menus.

I think you'll be happy with the HF200. I have the HF100 and can't find much to gripe about. Even decent in low light.

CAUTION - if you use AVCHD with VMS you MUST keep the bitrate of input and output to no more than 15 MBit. VMS has a serious bug in the AVCHD that prevents proper decode of higher bitrate files...

I have a Canon Vixia HF20 - I can't use the 1920x1080 modes with VMS because the bitrate is 17 or 24 MBit. The 12 MBit mode works fine but I wanted higher quality and full HD resolution though the difference is not that much visually.

So with your Canon HF200 you will be limited to 1440x1080 at 12 MBit setting.

Just a warning - no idea when and if Sony will fix this problem.

Regards,

Rob

This is not true. VMS has no problem with the input of high bitrate AVCHD. It only has a problem when you export that back out at high bitrate, in HD, with the Sony AVC codec in specific. But any other codec should work fine. So keep using 24mbps.