A mom very happy with her first video camera.
Written: May 28 '03 (Updated Jul 12 '03)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Durability: |
|
|
| Battery Life: |
|
|
| Movie Quality: |
 |
|
|
Pros: Great video quality.
Cons: Probably more features than I will ever need or use.
The Bottom Line: Hard to see how anyone could be disappointed with this camera.
|
|
|
| clskeen's Full Review: Sony Handycam® DCR-TRV70 Mini DV Camcorder |
I hesitate to write a review when I haven't even had the chance to test many of the features of this camera (and it's the first video camera I've ever owned, so my ability to make comparisons is limited), but I noticed that there weren't any reviews of this camera yet, and I thought I could contribute some thoughts.
Warning: this review will not give you a run-down of all the camera's specs and features. That information is easily found elsewhere and is probably better summarized by "experts."
What this review WILL provide is the perspective of a mom who needs a camera for home and family use (I have a four year-old and another child due in a few weeks). I should also mention that I have a lot of experience with SLR film cameras and have a particular interest in avoiding flash and using natural light. So when I went looking for a video camera my priorities were:
(1) excellent image quality (color, resolution)
(2) ability to record good images indoors in natural or low light
(3) compactness (I didn't want anything so big that I wouldn't want to bring it along on trips and outings)
I don't have a digital still camera, so although I still prefer using my film cameras for still pictures, the idea of being able to use the camcorder for stills was also a factor.
The brands I considered were Panasonic, Canon and Sony because I felt that they had the best reputation for optics and overall quality. I ruled out the Canons when they seemed to be getting mixed reviews. I was initially interested in a Panasonic PV-DC 352, but by the time I got around to purchasing, the camera had been discontinued and was not available anywhere. I was less impressed by the newer Pansonics because they had reduced the size of the CCD, and I had heard that a larger CCD meant better image quality in low light.
I narrowed it down to the Sony DCR-TRV 70 and the PC-105. The optics on the TRV 70 seemed better, but I thought that I might prefer the PC-105 for its compactness. (I should mention that I was basing my opinions on specs and information about the cameras given on the Sony website and other websites, as well as discussion of these cameras at camcorderinfo.com.) At this point I decided to see the cameras in a store to see and feel what they were like. Once I saw them, I realized that the TRV 70 is not really that much bigger than the "supercompact" PC-105 -- certainly it was not so much bigger that I would be less likely to bring it with me somewhere. However, the lens is considerably bigger (which means better optical quality), and I preferred the traditional elongated shape to the boxy 105 -- it seemed easier to handle and keep steady. (Also I have heard that an advantage of this shape is that the microphone is closer to the subject and further away from the camera operator.)
I decided I would get the TRV 70. I bought it online for about $950. It was easy to start using right away, and it was easy to hook up to the TV. Some people have complained about the new touch LCD screens that Sony provides now instead of buttons, but I don't have any problem with this feature. The 2.5 inch LCD might be small for those who like a big one, but I prefer this size because it uses up less battery power and is perfectly adequate. Outdoors in bright light I prefer to use the viewfinder.
I haven't tried to take any still pictures yet, so I'm afraid I can't report on that feature. But at 2 megapixels I'm sure that these will turn out fine.
I also haven't tried to hook the camera up to a computer yet.
A common complaint heard about Sonys is that the zoom control is too fast/sensitive. While it is true that it is fast, it can be controlled by using a very light touch. Also, I can see that the advantage of a fast zoom is the ability to zoom quickly in order to set up a shot while still in standby mode (it looks more professional not to be constantly zooming in and out while recording anyway).
In terms of my initial priorities, this camera performs beautifully. Video quality is really excellent. And low light quality is really impressive (better I would say than what I can achieve with my manual-control SLR cameras). Colors are a little more washed out in very low light, but this doesn't bother me -- the color that is there still seems true.
And the camera is compact and solid -- doesn't feel plastic-y.
Okay, here's an update:
I finally got around to taking still pictures with this camera and I'm addicted! I haven't used a digital camera before but have taken plenty of pictures with film cameras, and I have to say I'm impressed with the quality of the stills I can take with this camera. (The setting I use most often is "fine" and 640x480, which produces images with good resolution that are only about 100-150 kb and so easily sendable via email). The still camera feature is not as good in low light, but the pop-up flash compensates for that. I've also tried capturing stills from video, and that works moderately well, though it is obviously not going to produce as good an image.
One feature I really like in the still camera is the "bracketing" feature which takes 3 shots in quick succession at different exposures -- this is great for trying to capture expressions on quick-moving babies/children's faces!
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 950
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
clskeen
|
|
Reviews written: 12
Trusted by: 0 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.