Buying a new progressive camcorder - suggestions?
 

I am looking for a new camcorder, progressive. This form focuses on video restoration/editing/producing, so I figured it would be a good baseline.

I would like to keep it under $500 if possible. This is only a personal camcorder, but I would like to avoid all the painful capture and editing and general troubles of VHS-C. I know most technology has come a lot farther than that format, but what should I be looking at?

I like the Canon handycams, any other ideas?

VHS-C and S-VHS-C was terrible.
Video8/Hi8 was way better.
DV was better.
Even the video from my little $100 Canon APS-C point-and-shoot camera is better!

Under $500 can be done ... but does it need to be HD?
Anything else?
Or just be progressive?

If there's anything I hate, its interlaced video. PITA. Besides that, not terribly lousy in low light, but I don't need night vision either. I would like to have the video saved in a digital format like h.264 (mp4, AVCHD) that keeps me from having to re-compress. Besides that, I'm pretty open.

Did you ever make a decision on what you were getting?

Like you, I like the Canon brand, especially for the higher-end models.

See all Canons current here here: http://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=U...6FQ3THQQSHTBB3
There's several in the $300 range.

Canon is really leading the video world right now, for both cameras and DSLRs. They've even beat out RED on a few things! I keep eying them every 6 months or so, to see if what I want exists yet. It's getting closer.

As stated, most under $500 cameras act the same. That's a budget consumer line.

Unlike a lot of topics we cover here -- web hosting, VCRs, TBCs, etc -- cameras are a lot like CD-R. They're so mature now that they are almost all the same.

The only differences are:
- zoom length
- the tiny minutia. Example: Sony uses their proprietary flash cards, not SDHC.
- mostly-useless "features", such as in-camera editing (consumer fare not found on pro cameras)

As far as pointing it at something, hitting the record button, and expecting good video, they'll look the same. In some ways, home user cameras haven't improved since the 80s. For example, the exposure is still as awful now as it was on the old shoulder-mounted tanks. The "details" are all soft, due to small little sensors in the consumer cameras. You won't be using it to shoot the next episode of your favorite TV show.

Understand I say all of this from annoyance. I want a better camera as well, for under $500 (even $1K!), but it's just not out there. In some ways, I feel as if video has downgraded from the days of DV. At least the "good" HD cameras went from $15k to $10k to now $5k in the past ~7 or so years. DSLR cameras are also just 1-2 generations away from being more than just novelty. I can't do what I want, without breaking the bank. Shooting video is just hobby for me. (As opoosed to what we do here, which is professional video work, for video that's already been shot.)

I like Canon, but I bought one of the sub $500's and returned it because it was so noisey in low light. Sony's camera was better in low light but resulted in some blurring. Panasonic seemed to be the best from what I tried.

I did buy a camera, and am very happy with it - the Panasonic X920. I got it on sale for about $700, and its pretty much the best camera you can get under $1500 IMO. I tested three and this blew out all the others in low light. My only grief is the auto white balance doesnt do the best job, but setting manual yields great video.

Below is a link to a guy that runs a video business that actually uses it as their primary camera, hes posted a lot of videos with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAE9Vmb84bE

If I was to buy a different camera now, it would be Sony's FDR-Ax100 that shoots 4k video. Its ridiculous how good it is even in HD. Considering that I don't have a 4k monitor and my camera was $1300 less, I am pretty happy.

Yes, when you leave $500 and head toward $1k, you get a slightly better sensor (ie, better low light).

When you exceed $1k (yet under $5k), there's several good options. But I cannot justify the expensive, not being business, only personal.

Right now, 4k is mostly a gimmick. Much like 1080p under 50", the detail gets lost at small sizes when viewing. And then the cheap sensors that claim it are just adding motion to the megapixel myth. The files may technically be that resolution, but it's unlikely that the actual image detail is too. (HD is probably good, however.) You're wise to pass on this tech for now.

Yes, camera white balancing (sort of the same as exposure) is pretty much universally awful on the sub-$500 cams, and even the $1k+ cams. You have to manual it. Of course, with the cheapest cameras, that's the problem -- there is no manual controls!