On Tue, 27 May 2003 16:16:37 -0700, "Michelle" <m@example.com> wrote:

>I know these cameras are verging on old, but I was hoping someone could give

>an opinion between both the Canon Optura 200mc and the Sony pc101 without

>going for one just based on brand name.

"Old" is not necessarily "bad" - some older gear can

be preferable to new for both image-quality and camera

controls reasons... BTW, the PC101 is almost identical

to the "new" PC105, and the PC9 has a picture that

is identical to the "old" TRV11, then 17, then 18, and

now 19 and 22... Often "new" gets you only a restyled

body with down-graded controls, alas...

>I may need to replace my Elura 10,

>so I've been in research mode. These are the 2 contenders. I'm not a

>professional, but I'm also not a novice. I'm looking for a prosumer type cam

>I guess. Though I'll be using it mostly for personal use. (Vacations, indoor

>family type stuff, etc..). I'll be using Vegas 4+ for editing. Here's what I

>value most and/or want to improve from my current cam..

>

>Most important is size. I want something vertical, and that I can carry with

>me everywhere. This is very important. I can go slightly larger then the

>Elura 10, but want to stay as small as possible. Micro DV is not an option.

>We don't like proprietary things, and it's not really as good anyway.

>

>I'd love to improve on the low-light (i.e.: avg room lighting) shooting of

>my Elura 10. Do either the pc101 or Optura200mc do better in low light?

Unlikely. I'm not familiar with the Canon models,

but anything with high pixel-count will not do as well in low

light as one with lower, all else equal... Sony does use

the more sensitive "HAD" CCDs, but this is used to offset

losses due to using part of the CCD area for stabilization

(forcing smaller pixel size for equal gross CCD size and

equal pixel count in the active image area). For decent

low-light ability (as 1-CCD Mini-DV cameras go...), look

at the low end Sony models (TRV19 and 22 - and PC9). (See:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm for

comparison of PC9 image in low light with other Sony

imaging types...)

>How

>do they compare to each other? My Elura does allright, but it gets grainy

>fast, and it needs more then the avg room lamp to work very well. I'd prefer

>non-grainy video in lower light, but if I can get decent enough footage, I

>can handle some grain I suppose.

The higher pixel count imagers tend to produce a smoother

picture in low light, but get darker sooner than lower

pixel count imagers...

>I like the accessory shoe and nightshot on the Sony, but I think I would

>probably get more practical use out of the Optical stabilization on the

>Optura. Does optical make that much of a difference to make it worth

>getting? I'm king of hoping it would be something I will notice, and not

>subtle enough to not really matter.

It won't matter. The Sony DIS is excellent, though it does

rob potential low-light range, unfortunately... If Sony

produced a 1-megapixel "HAD" CCD 1/4" camera with optical

stabilization, it would probably combine the technical

advantages of all those aspects, but they don't...

>I really don't like the idea of the Sony's touch screen for navigating

>menu's at all. If it also had buttons I'd be a moot point, but it doesn't

>so... But at the same time, it's not a feature that would necessarily stop

>me from buying the cam that I can foresee.

I agree. I detest the touch-screen controls, but put up

with them to have the other advantages of the PC9.

>I don't care at all about stills or memory cards. We have a Canon Powershot

>S400 for that.

The megapixel video cameras can make excellent 640x480

images for web use - I found this quite useful...;-)

>The focusing rings on both cams are a big selling point I think. I'd really

>like to step up to that.

The Sony AF is good enough (and the VF sharpness poor

enough in camcorders in general) that the MF is rarely

needed or useful...

>We're runing out of time before our big vacation, so if it comes down to

>having to replace my current cam, I just want to be ready and know what to

>go out and get. Is it even possible to go wrong with either cam? Both seem

>fairly equal overall other then a feature here and there. Is there anything

>else to consider maybe?

The Sony TRV22 for its better low light range (add a

circular polarizer [and rotate it! ;-] for best color

outdoors with it [remove it for use indoors], though

the color is nicely-balanced and saturated as-is...).