This camera issue is driving me nuts! Optura 60 vs. Panasonic PV-GS250

I'm really close to getting my first digital camcorder, and have narrowed my search down to these two. Canon's Optura 60 has a lot of features I'm looking for like true 16:9, but all the reviews complain about its's ability to film in low-light, very short battery life, and camera motor noise
The panasonic 250 has much better battery life and produces good images, but cannot film in 16:9.
Believe if or not, I am RACKING MY BRAINS over this! I know I should just get over it and just buy one, but I really don't want to make a mistake.
Does anyone have any real-world experience with either of these cameras? Can you offer any advice?

 

The GS250 is 3 CCD.

Nuff said.

 

Yeah, I'd say go wityh the GS250 as well, you can't have a better option than 3CCD.

Ask yourself this, would you rather have lower quality video, but in true 16:9;

Or better quality video, but with faked 16:9?


I'd opt for the better quality video over the 16:9 feature.

gallion311

 

If only it were that simple. A lot of single CCD cameras with primary colour filters are doing as well as their 3CCD bretheren. One of the things you have to realize is how much the DV 4:1:1 butchers the colour resolution anyway. 3CCD is as much a marketing ploy as anything else - the itty bitty CCDs on the low end Panasonics wouldn't be as good as a significantly larger single CCD with a primary colour filter.

Pick and choose or wait a bit.

-Spiff

 

exactly, a good 1 CCD sony will give you better image quality any day that a 3 itty bitty CCD system from panasonic

 

I'd stay away from the Sony's in this price range. Their total lack of manual control is uber-irritating.

-Spiff

 

so what, canon is the only good camera nowadays?

 

Heck no - the Panasonic GS series is great. The only issue here is 16x9.

-Spiff

 

There is also a sizable population out there who make the claim "jilm in 4:3, then you can crop to make 16:9"

Their thoughts are that if you crop in post-, you can decide where to cut off the image and exactly what will show in a given shot. Whereas, if I get the canon and film in 16:9, then I have my desired apect ration already and can't crop out anything.

Further thoughts and opinions?

 

I have the GS120, and the CCD's made a huge difference. I Had a one CCD panasonic (1/4") and my GS120 is 3 1/6". The old one may had better low light ratings, but that was it. It had a bigger lens.

 

Native 16:9 gives you a true widescreen pixel aspect ratio whereas cropping it in post does not. IMHO it depends on the look you are going for and what your hardware allows.

Hope that helps!

 

4:3 cropping to 16:9 is fine if that's your cup of tea. I think you should control the framing on set anyway, and personally, I like to crop to 2.35:1 - which doesn't leave you a lot of pixels in a 4:3 image.

You want to make sure there's no real digital up-sampling going on in the camera widescreen modes. So long as the 480 lines of resolution you get from squeezing are real (as opposed to a digitally upsampled 360, there's no need to shoot 4:3 and crop - shoot 16:9 and get as much image as you can to work with.

-Spiff

 

I would MUCH prefer to have a camera that can do true 16:9, rather than cropping in postproduction.
I understand the whole "3CCDs is better than 1", but the 3 in the panasonic are small, while the one in the Canon is pretty big and reviews say the color is very vibrant.