I'm looking at getting my parents a cheaper camcorder, something SD which is so much easier to just dump onto a DVD and watch. HD just isn't worth the difference than the really nice looking high DVD quality standard definition widescreen you can also get on a budget.

So here's the dilemma - I've done a lot of research on the quality of these cameras and essentially all of them end up at 500 lines of horizontal resolution. I'm not sure what having more pixels of effective resolution helps if it isn't used. But things being equal, I've narrowed down the field and it comes down to this:

1) If I'm getting standard definition, I shouldn't be spending more than $400, $500 at MOST including media. At that price point you begin to think about high definition.

2) Canon and Sony make the best Standard Definition, not surprising. The Sanyo Xacti is entertaining but many report issues that most of us here would not tolerate (e.g. very poor field of view, low light issues, etc.) JVC makes good value items but it seems their size sensors and other factors are questionable in their camera builds. Panasonic is good but it's the same problem - tiny size sensors even though there are three of them. OK, so it's Canon v. Sony. Note, all these cameras use 1/6" sensors.

3) DV Tape v. mini-DVD/Flash: This is where it gets more difficult. Is recording on miniDV any different than Flash/DVD any more? In comparing models, while previous examples showed miniDV tape to have more effective pixel coverage, they no longer provide any greater numbers than their DVD/flash recording counterparts. The exception to this is the Sony miniDV H62 which does 520 lines of horizontal resolutions versus the 500 done by miniDV/Flash counterparts (DCR-DVD6/7/810). Does the 20 pixels difference matter at all? At 720 x 480 DVD, you're already getting more horizontal lines than will appear on the DVD.
_________________
mechanic salt lake city
Contact Car Parts Warehouse