Question about DV cameras

A

auski

Member
Every person I've spoken to has said that effective pixels are one of the important considerations when choosing a video camera. More = better picture quality. What I've found is that most cameras that take 1 or 2mp digital stills have a higher number of effective pixels than those that don't, cameras which seem identical otherwise. That is giving me the impression that the 'effective pixels' doesn't entirely refer to the VIDEO quality, which is all I care about.

I'm in Australia and the two models I'm looking at are Sonys. One has 400,000 effective pixels and the other has 690,000 effective pixels (but it takes 1mp stills which I really don't care about). Which of the below cameras would give better VIDEO quality (I hope they are the same then I can get the cheaper one).

It's the DCRTRV22 V the DCRTRV33. Those cameras seem pretty much the same otherwise.

Thanks in advance, hope that all made sense.

 
Unfortunately I don't have that sort of cash. It's between those two models there (I don't know if the same models are in the US).

 
can you buy used or look at a Gl-2

__________________________________________

NS Special Education

Long is the way. And hard, that out of hell leadsup to light.
 
All right, I looked at the Sony USA site and first off obviously the 33 is more expensive ($100). But it is definately worth it. The effective video pixels on the 33 are 690,000 while the effective pixels on the 22 are 340,000. An extra 100 bucks give you quality twice as good.

I don't know if you don't like other companies, but don't limit yourself just to Sony. I just bought a Canon Optura 20 (690,000 pixels also) for just $605 at BuyDig.com. I already had a problem with it (a connection failed, so they had to soder it back together), but I sent it in on a Tuesday and got it back exactly a week later. Good luck man, and check out the internet for good deals, don't just buy it from Sony directly.

My only other advice is do NOT buy from INS digital. I ordered my Canon from there first and it never came...I called and they said it was the European version and might not ever come in. They post low prices for products you will never get. Later, hope that helped.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
 
Thanks dude, it did.

Yeah I have also been checking out the Canon's, Panasonics and JVCs. The main other option was the Canon MVX150i (850,000 effective pixels) but I read some less-than-good reviews and the Sonys have had no problems that I can find. Oh and don't worry, there's no way I'll be paying retail.

 
Yeah, that's the Australian version of what I have, but it has a few hundred thousand more effective pixels...I got shafted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
 
used an XL-1 today. awesome awesome awesome.

Fritz

'Try everything once, except incest and folk dancing'- Sir Thomas Beecham

'What fun is it being cool if you can't wear a sombrero?' - Hobbes

'When you smoke herb it reveals you to yourself.'

Bob Marley

*-FRITZ-*
 
Crap, I just realized something...if the Canon you are looking at is the same kind as mine, but has a different effective pixel value, make sure to check out the two Sony AUSTRALIAN versions to make sure those numbers didn't change as well. Sorry man, I only looked at the U.S. versions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
 
that camera is PAL not ntsc thats why there are more pixals. PAL format has a slower framrate with higher quality frames while ntsc has a faster framrate and slightly less qualty frames.

'I should put my camera on a tripod - its easier to drink beer that way' - dirty steve

NS royal gangstar

 
Yeh that's what I said, only because it was invented later (because the Americans got TV early so they got the early standard and it's been too expensive and difficult to ever bother changing).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top