As we were dealing with entry-level DV cameras, we set a price ceiling of $2,000 and in fact, five of the seven cameras tested came in at under $1,500, with one even under $1,000. Given this, we looked at them as an average consumer would, and not as a power user, so more effort was put into looking at the basics rather than some of the fancier bells and whistles.
The important features included ease-of-use, image quality, zoom functionality, low light capability and PC connectivity as well as editing software.
Ease-of-use covers the 'out-of-box experience', in other words -- how easy it is to unpack your camera and get it operating -- preferably without having to spend hours reading the manual.
The biggest problem in doing that was finding where all of the appropriate connections and functions were. Digital video camera manufacturers have, through necessity, become masters at packing an incredible amount of functionality into a very small package. However, USB, FireWire, AV, power and other ports must be protected from the elements, and as a result are usually hidden behind removable panels, which are often unmarked or poorly labelled.
This means new users can often waste many frustrating minutes just trying to find where to plug in the battery charger.
One of the major appeals of a digital video camera is its dual capability to take both video and still, however, while some of the more expensive cameras now offer a still image resolution as high as some digital still cameras, that is definitely not the case at the entry-level. While all but one of the cameras provided memory card storage for stills, the highest resolution for most was 640 x 480 (VGA), which is adequate for basic screen use, but not good enough for printing.
It is commonly thought that digital video provides better image quality than VHS, and while that is generally true of the more expensive cameras, it is not always the case with entry-level. In fact, VHS quality is about standard in a cheaper DV Cam.
Image quality was measured in a variety of light conditions from a dark room to bright sunshine and shooting continuously from one to the other to test auto focus and auto white balance. We looked for crispness, clarity, lack of grain, and colour accuracy and image stability when hand holding the camera. The most noticeable difference was in the time taken by some cameras to adjust to the changing light conditions. However, overall there was little difference in image quality -- the cheapest performed comparably with the most expensive.
Zoom functionality looked at the clarity of the magnified image and the smoothness of the operation of zooming in and out. DV cameras have two zoom modes -- optical and digital. Optical is the magnification delivered by the camera lens, while digital is a software-enlarged image. We have made our views known before that digital zoom serves little purpose and that offering a 700x digital zoom (as the two Sony cameras do) is ridiculous beyond belief. Bandying such figures around may look good on the packaging but should be ignored by you.
Each camera had its different performance aspects rated numerically, and then had the numbers combined to form an overall score.
The image quality test consisted of filming a test subject and analysing the quality onscreen, and then doing the same with a still image. Both tests were given a score out of 10 with video test representing 80% of the overall score, and the still image 20%.
Each camera was then given an overall score, with 100 representing the average of all the cameras on test. This meant, at the end of the day, you got an immediate indication of the overall quality of a particular camera in relation to the others in the Lab.
The same process was carried out for the non-performance related aspects of the camera such as warranty, build quality, LCD size, optical and digital zoom, weight, battery life, accessories, media supported, interfaces, software, and so on.
Each feature was given a point value and the same averaging calculation carried out. Quality and features were then given a weighting of 50:50 and the combined score was then weighted against the price of the camera to get a value score.
The final overall tally for each camera was the average of the scores for quality, features and value. While the formula sounds complex it gives the fairest possible representation of how each camera tested.