DCR-TRV240 vs. DCR-TRV140

Author's Rating:

Pros: Great picture. Easy to use. Loads of features. Backward compatible with Hi8 and 8mm recordings.

Cons: Hi8 and 8mm playback not perfect. Not that great for still pictures.

The Bottom Line: 
The TRV240 is a very good digital camcorder at a reasonable price. The TRV140 is also very good if you don't need backward compatibility.

Author's Review
I own two of the Sony Digital 8 camcorders, the DCR-TRV240 and the DCR-TRV140. Since the DCR-TRV140 isn't listed here on epinions, I will try to make some comparisons of these two camcorders for those of you trying to decide which one to buy.

These cameras have a lot of the same basic features. But here are some of the differences that I found to be important:

1. The 240 is backward compatible with Hi8 and 8mm recordings. This means you can play back your old 8mm tapes through the 240. Although this is a very good feature, I have experienced sporadic playback with the 240 when using Hi8 and 8mm recorded tapes. It does not work perfectly and sometimes it will gradually get snowy or will loose the playback altogether and just go to a blue screen. Rewinding a little and restarting sometimes restores the playback, but interrupted playback is a nuisance. The 140 is NOT backward compatible and will not play your old tapes.

2. The 240 has analog video IN ports which means you can record from any analog source such as your TV, VCR or old camcorder. The 140 does not have analog video IN. So if you want to re-record your old tapes to digital format, the 240 will do it. The 140 won't.

3. The 240 tape deck loads from the bottom, the 140 loads from the top. If you have the 240 on a tripod, you cannot load or unload a tape. The 240 can be a hassle in this regard.

4. The 140 has a built-in spotlight which can be used to help illuminate low light situations. This works okay for subjects within about 8 feet. However, the 140 has such excellent low light capability that the spotlight is rarely needed in most situations. You might, however, find it useful outside at night instead of using the Nightshot function (which I talk about below). The 240 does not have a built-in spotlight.

5. The 240 has an intelligent hot shoe which can be used with lighting accessories. The 140 does not have the hot shoe.

6. The 240 has microphone and headphone jacks. The 140 does not. In certain situations, I like the ability to use an external microphone because it can eliminate all of those camera noises, bumps, and camera operator sounds.

7. The 140 has a tape deck window so you can visually monitor the tape spools and roughly judge your position on the tape. The 240 does not have a tape window.

8. The 240 has 25x optical zoom and the 140 has 20x optical zoom. The 240 can bring you in a little bit closer which always seems to come in handy. More about digital zoom below.

9. The 140 is rated at minimum lighting of 1 lux and the 240 is rated at minimum 4 lux. This means that the 140 should be better in very low light situations. However, in my side by side testing, I can only see slight differences in picture quality in low light. The 240 does not show dark colors well in low light whereas the 140 does a little better. Also, the 240 picture is slightly more grainy in low light. These are very hard comparisons to make because everything is subjective when it comes to picture quality. These are my own observations.

Okay, now that I have covered the basic differences, I can tell you some other things about these cameras. For starters, both cameras take excellent pictures. If you are an average user, you will be more than satisfied with either camera when it comes to picture quality. However, since I am comparing the two, I will say that the 140 color representation is hotter than the 240. What I mean is that the 140 shows bluer, brighter whites and the 240 shows oranger-toned whites. Also the 140 color seems a little less saturated than the 240. For instance, the 240 shows deeper blues whereas the 140 represents them slightly grayer. These are VERY subtle differences and you would probably never know this unless you compared the two side by side. Color is a very subjective thing. I like the look of the 140's color representation because of the nice bright whites, but the 240 seems to give a more realistic image of the real life color. I am not saying this is good or bad for either camera, they are just slightly different.

Ergonomically, both cameras are "right handed" with an adjustable padded strap. The primary controls (On/Off, Zoom, Still Picture Button) are in the same position on both units. The zoom button is a slider switch that moves left and right with your index finger. This is unnatural to me and I don’t like it. I liked the older Sonys that had a forward/backward rocker switch that you could use with two fingers. This slider switch just seems hard for me to get used to, using only one finger. Zoom speed is infinitely variable. The mode selector switch (Camera-Off/Charge-VCR) is at your thumb and it is also a little difficult to work because it seems a little too high. You really have to reach your thumb up to work it. My hands are average size, small hands people might really dislike this switch - unless you have long thumbs. All other function switches and buttons are fairly easy to reach and operate (with your other hand) but they are in different positions on each camera. There is a one touch button which will replay the last few seconds of what you recorded to make sure everything was recording properly. Handy.

The viewfinder on both is monochromatic and both cameras also have a flip-out 2.5 color LCD you can use as a viewfinder or to watch playback. Some people think the 2.5 LCD is small, but I find it adequate. There is a menu function that will display your menu choices on the LCD where you can choose and set many camera functions (too many to talk about here). The menu system and roller mouse let you scroll through and choose menu items with ease.

Both cameras have manual focus capability, the 240 has a focus ring on the lens and the 140 uses a focus wheel on the back of the camera that you work with your thumb. Both work well. Also, both cameras have a threaded lens ring so you can add lens filters, wide angle or telephoto lenses, etc. (I recommend a wide angle lens as your first accessory.)

These cameras also have the Nightshot and Super Nightshot feature. In Nightshot mode, the camera will record infrared light, so the picture looks gray/green as if you are looking through a set of night vision goggles. Nightshot uses ambient infrared light, Super Nightshot turns on an infrared spotlight built into the camera to illuminate the subject even more. When using Nightshot, the picture quality is grainy but watchable. When using Super Nightshot, the picture is clearer but the shutter speed is so slow that any fast movement makes the subject blur. Also, your subject's eyes will glow brightly when using Nightshot which looks spooky and weird. Before I tried Nightshot I thought it would be a useless feature. But after playing with it, I think it's pretty cool

A smart feature that both cameras have is the Info-Lithium battery system. These 'smart' batteries allow the camera to display the recording time left before the battery runs out. Works pretty well and is fairly accurate.

Now a word about digital zoom. The 240 has 700x digital zoom and the 140 has 560x digital zoom. But this means absolutely nothing. As soon as you get into the digital zoom range (which is above 25x for the 240 and above 20x for the 140) the picture quality degrades rapidly. In fact, at full digital zoom, the picture is a total blur. You can barely recognize what you're shooting. I have no idea why Sony or any other camera manufacturer goes this far with digital zoom. Digital zoom is somewhat usable up to about 50x, but above that, it's worthless. So don't base your purchase on digital zoom numbers.

You can take still pictures with both cameras, but this is another function that doesn’t seem worthwhile to me. Picture quality is poor compared to digital still cameras and saving/retrieving images on tape is clumsy at best. If you want digital still pictures, buy a digital still camera or consider the TRV340 which has a memory stick. I wouldn't make still picture capability a major buying decision for the 140 or 240.

Both cameras have the same picture and digital effects capability which can be used while recording to make special effects. These are the types of effects you might see in a music video like frame skips, blurry motion, mosaic, sepia, etc. They work well and can make some neat effects on your videos. You can also superimpose a still shot over a video shot, add titles for your shots, and do a lot of other useful and cool editing functions. All I can say is, these are neat functions, but you can do all this and more if you are going to load your digital videos onto a computer and use editing software. But for a quick special effect, these features are nice. Both cameras can also do frame by frame and interval (time lapse) recording.

Uploading your videos from these cameras to your computer is done through a USB connection or iLink (firewire IEEE1394). The USB cable comes with the camera, the iLink cable is purchased separately. USB will only give you web cam quality video which is not very good at all. You really need the iLink connection and a firewire port on your computer if you want to do quality video transfer.

Happy videoing!