Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Hybrid Still/Movie/MP3 Digicams

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 27, 2008, 11:07 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Surprise, surprise.

CamcorderInfo actually mentions a hybrid; in this case, the DXG 567V.



Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 28, 2008, 10:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

Just don't expect any review they do of it to be full of praise. The words 'poor','bad' along with the word 'video' tend to appear in their reviews of these type of camcorders quite often. I remember them slamming the more expensive High Definition Sanyo.

Just look at the review of the mino. While they praise it's low light ability, the words 'Poor video' appear as expected and you can see their general attitude towards these devices with their comment at the end:

Pros / Serious Hobbyists
Maybe as a joke...

It backs up the fact that they seem to be more interested in pro devices than cheap consumer devices.

I was looking at some video a short while back that I had shot on my Aiptek ISDV of my son during his first six months or so. This is a camera they would've laughed at, especially as it had poor low light ability. Yet had I not had this camera I guarantee I wouldn't have shot this video. Tape camcorders just don't lend themselves to quick adhoc short video 'snaps'.

This forum is probably the only place on the internet at the moment where you can get a fair and unbiased opinion from people who actually use them.
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 12:19 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

My criticism of CamcorderInfo is that their articles are often riddled with factual errors; they often goof up the specifications of the models they write about.

The other huge problem is -- you're right -- they come across as relatively well-to-do, arrogant, snot-nosed, trust fund suburbanites who sneer at any product that regular people can afford.

My other criticism is that they "discover" the obvious usually about a couple of years after the fact.

It was obvious to me that AVCHD was going to defeat HDV in the lower cost camcorder category and that's pretty much happened.

CamcorderInfo sneered at AVCHD and now -- only after AVCHD has matured to the point where the encoding is on a par with HDV -- do they reluctantly acknowledge that it has triumphed.

Now, CamcorderInfo is finally paying attention to hybrids.

The real reason Sony, Panasonic, Canon, and JVC are being displaced in the consumer camcorder space is due to the fact most consumers simply can't afford the $500 - $1500 price tag of the mainstream brands with gas approaching $5 per gallon, corrosive health care costs, home values in the toilet, and a stock market on life support.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that low-cost hybrids are grabbing a much larger share of the consumer camcorder market.
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 4:31 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

I think we might be over reacting. I guess we both have had negative experiences over there, and on another site like dvinfo, with moderators that left me with a desire for something better. I offered to do better reviews for them years ago (actually I was one of the people pushing for them before they eventually caved in). I did not even receive a reply to my message, the few emails I did send, most of the time, virtually never received a reply. I can sympathise with what you are saying. Anyway, then they got some guy in, forget wherever he was on dvinfo, or one of the Sony HDV forums, and the reviews improved again, though still not as good as what my look a like did over in Germany (Wolfgang Winnie) would do from a technical angle, and how many times have they every published actual footage in recent years?

They were correct about AVCHD. We were expecting a lot more from it then it delivered. Ambarella had been talking to manufacturers, and we were hoping to see those chips in it (higher data rates than the ones we use here) that would have been much much much much (you get the picture ) better.. Now AVCHD is taking over from HDV. so we can change our tune. We can't be like a certain site that published a long thread hyping on the future release of the Hitachi BluRay recorder with altasens altachrome chip, or the Canon AVCHD camera.

But you read what they they are comparing the 567 too, some old, not so crash hot camera line. They also go into the new Creative camera, and how this all now changes things etc. Hello, from the first HD Aiptek under $200, and Kodak 720p cameras, the writing has been on the wall for these cheap things. Didn't they every see the 720p Aipteks going for close to $100. In the past I would let them know of significant release, I think up to months, before they would acknowledge them in the news (this happened at least once). Did they every review the 720p Gigashot Hitachi Camcorders? Actually, how many cameras do they not review of all the ones available these days? The Chinese crowd (and Digital still with HD video) is now significant enough to review. Have you ever constructively commented on a review thread about something that was up/wrong, and hoped to get a response from the reviewer or Liz?

With the right team, you could start up a rival and easily enough put these people out of business.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 5:28 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

They were dead wrong about AVCHD.

Period.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 5:33 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

AVCHD's win over HDV had less to do with image quality than other factors.

Mainly, AVCHD won due to convenience; a significant percentage of consumers were willing to accept slightly less quality in exchange for the ability to record on memory cards, discs, disks, etc. instead of having to hook up cables and "play" the contents of their tape cassettes into the hard disks of their computers. It was convenience.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 8:32 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

Wayne12, I don't think we are overreacting and I think Private Idaho is right, camcorderinfo do come across as obviously biased. I have no problem with them saying that the cheaper cameras just aren't up to the prosumer crowd but they do it in a condescending way. I mean when they say such things as 'It's up to you to decide between a really bad or just bad camcorder.' when comparing the Sanyo HD1 and HD2 you have to wonder whether to take them seriously when looking at non prosumer devices. I have seen stunning footage from the HD1.

I have also read dvinfo and have found genuine interest in the hybrids and Sanyo on their forums unlike on camcorderinfo.

As Private Idaho said, they keep forgetting that most people don't need the very best in Image quality and can't afford it anyway. If you just want to record family events and vacations for fun, a decent $300 camera is good enough and certainly much better than having a non existent $800 camera because you can't afford it.

It's the reason I recommended a $300 Panasonic miniDVD camcorder to my brother-in-law even though it can only record 20-30 minutes at a time (unless you use the lowest quality mode of course), and editing is a pain. In an ideal world I would suggested a solid state device to them, but without a PC it's just not workable for them. The miniDVD may not have the best image quality but they just shoot and view straight in their DVD player. Guess what? They actually use the thing! Even with cheap a minDV that may have better quality they would need to transfer it to a DVD since that is the preferred medium these days as noone bothers to get out a camera to hook it up to the TV.

Unlike digital still image cameras which have a few websites to choose from, unfortunately camcorderinfo seems to be the only one. We need another less biased site aimed more at the average consumer than the prosumer crowd
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 9:25 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

I have even more criticisms of CamcorderInfo.

Their Web site forces you to click through annoying ads; that's EXTREMELY lame.

Also they censor, censor, censor... to a Nazi-like degree.

That's why I no longer visit CamcorderInfo except about once every month or two.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 9:25 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

I took my Aiptek Action HD out to the park today to shoot some roses and I compared the shots to some shots I had taken with my Sony HDR-UX1.

Obviously, the video from the Sony HDR-UX1 is better, but you know what?

It's not terribly obvious in every scene.

So I'm pretty certain I could get away with cutting back and forth between footage shot by the Sony HDR-UX1 and the Aiptek Action HD.

The Sony HDR-UX1 sold for over $1,000 early on; I paid around $700.

My Aiptek Action HD cost less than $200.

This was the only way I could afford a two-camera HD setup.

Sure, I'd prefer higher data rates.

But -- for the money -- both of these camcorders seemed to be pretty good deals.
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2008, 10:07 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

My $99 Jazz HD camera looks much better than the standard definition miniDVD camcorders I have used.

These camcorders may be bitstarved but the designers have made clever use of the limited bitrate such that for the type of scenes consumers at this level are likely to use them for, they won't notice the difference just as you say Private Idaho.

It's actually amazing how low a bitrate you can get away with for video if it's a good quality source. I have even made Video CD's (not DVD's!) from my regular Aiptek MPVR that when shown on even a large tv, looked pretty reasonable from normal viewing distance. They were far more interested in the content than how fantastic the video quality was.
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:13 AM.