So the top dogs for Sony and Canon have been announced at CES. I'm looking for a new camcorder and until we get some reviews/hands on, I think this would be a great place to discuss comparisons of these two camcorders.

Here's what I've seen so far:

Canon's pluses:
24mb bit rate
30p / 24p
1/2.6-inch CMOS, RGB Prmary Color Filter Approx. 8.59 Megapixels


Canon minuses:
10x optical zoom
proprietary hot shoe?
No viewfinder
No internal storage / card only.

Sony pluses:
12x optical zoom
viewfinder
240gb internal storage
GPS ( is this even important? Probably not, just a neat feature)
"smooth slow" (just a feature)
1/3.15-inch back-illuminated Exmor-R CMOS sensor 6631K (how well it works?)

Sony minuses:
proprietary hot shoe (ais)?
memory stick - who uses that unless you have a barrage of other Sony stuff?
no bit rate info yet

Anyway, trying to decide between the big two, if it's worth saving the cash for one of these to start recording the new baby when he comes home or to get a HF-11 / SR12 now.

Anyone have any thoughts or agree/disagree with my pluses/minuses? And yes I know, we havent seen them in action yet.

Sony pluses:

1/3.15-inch back-illuminated Exmor-R CMOS sensor 6631K (how well it works?)



per this article (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/New-Back-Illuminated-CMOS-Sensor-from-Sony-Promises-More-Sensitivity-35234.htm) Sony is saying nearly double the sensitivity from the new sensor.

When is your baby due, I have a due date may 31st so hopefully either one of these two camcorders will be dominant. JVC finally joined the AVC ranks but I am not expecting them or Panasonic to be nearly as good as these two vendors.

He's actually due Feb 28th but they are planning on taking him early, Jan 16th! I have a SD Sony DV camcorder that's biggest feature is widescreen recording. Though viewing the footage from it on my 50" 1080p panasonic makes you a little nauseated.

He's actually due Feb 28th but they are planning on taking him early, Jan 16th! I have a SD Sony DV camcorder that's biggest feature is widescreen recording. Though viewing the footage from it on my 50" 1080p panasonic makes you a little nauseated.

I would go ahead and choose between the HF11 or SR12 (both around $850). I wouldn't miss a moment of photos and videos of my kids.

The new Sony's aren't scheduled to be out until March, and the new Canon's are scheduled for February. If you wait six months, you can upgrade your camera with one of the new ones for less than $1000, and you have effectively gotten two cameras for the price of one. (since the retail for the Sony XR520V is about $1500 and the Canon HFS10 is about $1300)

Just a thought -:D
Pam

With the amped-up specs on these newer cams, it does seem like a tough call...

If you're not concerned about all the extras (at least on the newer Canons) like zebra stripes/manual gain control, etc., I think something like the HF11 will be suitable for at least a few years to come.

I'm looking at it this way; if they're still releasing standard definition camcorders, then HD is already a step ahead. The day an image from something like the HF100 becomes the bottom (like what Flip standard definition camcorders are now), that's when I'd be concerned about the image quality of the HD cams that are out now.

btw, codeman, your title says "HF S100", but you describe it as having 32 gig storage. The HF S10 has the internal storage and card capability, the 100 can only record to cards.

No, not exactly. What I am saying is if you buy the top of the line now at around $800, and then you wait until Sept or so for the new "top of line" to come down in price - you will basically have two camcorders $1600. Where the Sony's XR520v will be around $1500 on debut.

(Also, I like to have a backup - Murphy's Law.) :D

-Pam

No, not exactly. What I am saying is if you buy the top of the line now at around $800, and then you wait until Sept or so for the new "top of line" to come down in price - you will basically have two camcorders $1600. Where the Sony's XR520v will be around $1500 on debut.

(Also, I like to have a backup - Murphy's Law.) :D

-Pam

ahh, I see...


P.S. Thanks, Mom! :)

ahh, I see...

(I actually deleted that post because I thought I went a bit OT, but thanks for answering.
You don't have to, but if you could delete my post, I'd appreciate it. I went on a Folger's-induced rant and funked-up his comparison thread.:rolleyes: )


No problem - Done deal. :D

With the amped-up specs on these newer cams, it does seem like a tough call...

If you're not concerned about all the extras (at least on the newer Canons) like zebra stripes/manual gain control, etc., I think something like the HF11 will be suitable for at least a few years to come.

I'm looking at it this way; if they're still releasing standard definition camcorders, then HD is already a step ahead. The day an image from something like the HF100 becomes the bottom (like what Flip standard definition camcorders are now), that's when I'd be concerned about the image quality of the HD cams that are out now.

btw, codeman, your title says "HF S100", but you describe it as having 32 gig storage. The HF S10 has the internal storage and card capability, the 100 can only record to cards.
My bad on that. I see a few people going crazy for "zebra stripes". Anyone care to dumb that down for me?

I think the SR11 might be it for me, considering time-frame, storage capacity, and features. Was looking at the HF100 (same as hf11/hf10 in performance in most cases) but by the time you start looking at storage cards... 32gb class 4 SDHC cards are like $130 on newegg right now. So you'd need about 2 of those to meet the capacity of the SR11, at a cost of $260. Yikes. With the amount of storage on board, I'd never have to buy a memory stick most likely. Authorized reatailer pricing isnt bad, at about half the price of the HDR-XR520V :) Not bad to dip your toe in HD waters. I think it makes the most *economical* bang for buck option.

I think the SR11 might be it for me, considering time-frame, storage capacity, and features. Was looking at the HF100 (same as hf11/hf10 in performance in most cases) but by the time you start looking at storage cards... 32gb class 4 SDHC cards are like $130 on newegg right now. So you'd need about 2 of those to meet the capacity of the SR11, at a cost of $260.

do you have any idea how much 64 gigs will store? you probably need that about as much as you need a hole in the head :-)

there have been a bunch of 8-gig card sales, class 6 of course, for pretty reasonable... it's a trivial expense, that's going to keep on getting cheaper over time.

I think the SR11 might be it for me, considering time-frame, storage capacity, and features. Was looking at the HF100 (same as hf11/hf10 in performance in most cases) but by the time you start looking at storage cards... 32gb class 4 SDHC cards are like $130 on newegg right now. So you'd need about 2 of those to meet the capacity of the SR11, at a cost of $260. Yikes. With the amount of storage on board, I'd never have to buy a memory stick most likely. Authorized reatailer pricing isnt bad, at about half the price of the HDR-XR520V :) Not bad to dip your toe in HD waters. I think it makes the most *economical* bang for buck option.

I just want to point out a 16gb Class 6 SDHC card can be had for $30. You don't have to buy a 32gb card - you just swap out another 16gb card. The other thing is that the Sony propriety memory sticks are going for $100 for 16gb.

I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm just clarifying. Whatever you do; flash or HDD make sure you have a method of backing up to external HDD(s) + DVD + whatever else, just because you said that you will be filming your baby and, since it's not tapes, you have to create an (important) archive.

I think the SR11 might be it for me, considering time-frame, storage capacity, and features. Was looking at the HF100 (same as hf11/hf10 in performance in most cases) but by the time you start looking at storage cards... 32gb class 4 SDHC cards are like $130 on newegg right now. So you'd need about 2 of those to meet the capacity of the SR11, at a cost of $260. Yikes. With the amount of storage on board, I'd never have to buy a memory stick most likely. Authorized reatailer pricing isnt bad, at about half the price of the HDR-XR520V :) Not bad to dip your toe in HD waters. I think it makes the most *economical* bang for buck option.

Have you considered the Canon HG21 - it's about $760 at Amazon. :)

I just want to point out a 16gb Class 6 SDHC card can be had for $30. You don't have to buy a 32gb card - you just swap out another 16gb card. The other thing is that the Sony propriety memory sticks are going for $100 for 16gb.

I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm just clarifying. Whatever you do; flash or HDD make sure you have a method of backing up to external HDD(s) + DVD + whatever else, just because you said that you will be filming your baby and, since it's not tapes, you have to create an (important) archive.
that's true about the cards. I have a Terastation that I back up to.

Have you considered the Canon HG21 - it's about $760 at Amazon. :)
No I havent, and I must have missed it as there was no review for it on camcorderinfo. What's up with that? Wow, 120GB hdd, 12x optical zoom, viewfinder, 24mbps, same specs as the hf11, you may be a winner!

My bad on that. I see a few people going crazy for "zebra stripes". Anyone care to dumb that down for me?

Zebra stripes is a pro feature found on any prosumer/pro camera. It indicates areas of overexposure that are above a prescribed limit. By clearly seeing where these areas are (in the form of stripes just like a zebra :)), it allows you to reduce exposure to properly expose those areas (if it's an important part of the video).

Zebra stripes is a pro feature found on any prosumer/pro camera. It indicates areas of overexposure that are above a prescribed limit. By clearly seeing where these areas are (in the form of stripes just like a zebra :)), it allows you to reduce exposure to properly expose those areas (if it's an important part of the video).
I see. Is that something that you typically have time to do, say at Disney World? LOL

No I havent, and I must have missed it as there was no review for it on camcorderinfo. What's up with that? Wow, 120GB hdd, 12x optical zoom, viewfinder, 24mbps, same specs as the hf11, you may be a winner!

I am pretty sure that the HG21 is reviewed at Camcorderinfo.com; and yes, the HG21 has the same optical features as the HF11 - menu too, I believe. Go under camcorder ratings - the HG21 is there.

Alot of us are trying both the HG21 and the SR12. I am trying to make a decision between the two and send one of them back. If money is an issue the HG21 is $100 cheaper than the SR12 and HF11 at amazon.com. ;)

By the way, the HG21 has the zebra stripes option.

Good luck, :D
Pam

Actually the rating is for the HG20 which is the same model, but 60gb HDD and no viewfinder. But again, the optical properties are the same as the HG21.

I am pretty sure that the HG21 is reviewed at Camcorderinfo.com; and yes, the HG21 has the same optical features as the HF11 - menu too, I believe. Go under camcorder ratings - the HG21 is there.

Alot of us are trying both the HG21 and the SR12. I am trying to make a decision between the two and send one of them back. If money is an issue the HG21 is $100 cheaper than the SR12 and HF11 at amazon.com. ;)

By the way, the HG21 has the zebra stripes option.

Good luck, :D
Pam

I made a mistake - it's the SR12 that has the zebra stripe option. That's what happens when you have been testing 2 camcorders for 2 weeks. :rolleyes:

Thanks Mom :) Let me know how your tests turn out! I'm definately eyeing the HG21.

Thanks Mom :) Let me know how your tests turn out! I'm definately eyeing the HG21.

If you want, you can also check Ken Ross's post on this subject. He has done extensive testing on the SR12 and HG21. :)

I see. Is that something that you typically have time to do, say at Disney World? LOL

Actually it is! :)

You can have the zebra stripes permanently active and then a mere touch of the exposure allows you to adjust exposure so the stripes disappear very quickly.

Surprised? Yeah, I thought you would be. :D

I am actually... :D

Well, I think I waited too late at this point to get the HG21 from Amazon for the baby's arrival. Wouldnt want to get a new camcorder and not know how to use it at such an important time. Maybe I will wait for tax return and reviews on the HFS100 and the HDR-XR520V.

I am actually... :D

Well, I think I waited too late at this point to get the HG21 from Amazon for the baby's arrival. Wouldnt want to get a new camcorder and not know how to use it at such an important time. Maybe I will wait for tax return and reviews on the HFS100 and the HDR-XR520V.

Did you wait too late because of the learning curve or too late because of stock. If it is because of stock, amazon.com has the Hg21 for $759.

Congratulations on your new arrival,
Pam

Did you wait too late because of the learning curve or too late because of stock. If it is because of stock, amazon.com has the Hg21 for $759.

Congratulations on your new arrival,
Pam
Learning curve. So now I'm looking between HG21 (available now as soon as I want to drop the $) or wait a bit and save $ if the new HFS100 or Sony HDR-XR520v are *that much better*, which for about 2x the cost, I doubt it...

I think I will just be blown away from going from the Sony DCR-HC42 to the HG21's pq.

Learning curve. So now I'm looking between HG21 (available now as soon as I want to drop the $) or wait a bit and save $ if the new HFS100 or Sony HDR-XR520v are *that much better*, which for about 2x the cost, I doubt it...

I think I will just be blown away from going from the Sony DCR-HC42 to the HG21's pq.

Codeman, from what I've read it seems the new Sonys will offer improved low light over the current models through a bigger lens and a change in how the sensor is mounted...plus a few more 'gimmicks'. But surprisingly Sony stayed at their current 16mpbs datarate. I think this surprised more than a few of us. This is not to say that bitrate is the final determining factor in PQ, but it's just one of many. In areas other than low light, I wouldn't anticipate any significant change in PQ.

Canon also went to a bigger lens, but more importantly went to a bigger sensor too. This combo should also improve low light, but it may also improve overall PQ in other lightning conditions. They also added a few other useful features (zebra stripes for one). Time will tell on how much of an improvement these changes will bring. Surprisingly though (at least to me), was that their top of the line cam will not offer a viewfinder. That's a bad decision in my book. It seems they like to reserve the viewfinders for their top of the line hard drive/flash units.

Surprisingly though (at least to me), was that their top of the line cam will not offer a viewfinder. That's a bad decision in my book. It seems they like to reserve the viewfinders for their top of the line hard drive/flash units.

I wonder if those kind of decisions are based on consumer marketing surveys?

Like showing a picture of a camcorder with and without a viewfinder and asking things like,
"Which of these two would you be more willing to purchase?"
"Do you find the presence of a viewfinder unattractive to the overall appearance of the camcorder?"
"Would you buy a camcorder with a viewfinder?", etc.

I don't know if this is what makes them decide their features; I am just pondering the fact that a viewfinder couldn't be all that much money to add on; could it?

I agree. I don't know for sure what the rationale is, but if you target market is the higher end- more video 'astute' market, you'd be wise to include a viewfinder.

Canon also went to a bigger lens, but more importantly went to a bigger sensor too. This combo should also improve low light, but it may also improve overall PQ in other lightning conditions. They also added a few other useful features (zebra stripes for one). Time will tell on how much of an improvement these changes will bring. Surprisingly though (at least to me), was that their top of the line cam will not offer a viewfinder. That's a bad decision in my book. It seems they like to reserve the viewfinders for their top of the line hard drive/flash units.

If Canon would spec. the HF S10 with a viewfinder, and at least 12x zoom; I would probably try one of those in a heart beat. However, for me the 10x optical zoom is a killer (even more so than no viewfinder). Just my 2 cents. :)

-Pam

If Canon would spec. the HF S10 with a viewfinder, and at least 12x zoom; I would probably try one of those in a heart beat. However, for me the 10x optical zoom is a killer (even more so than no viewfinder). Just my 2 cents. :)

-Pam
Curiously, is it worth it to pick up a tele-converter lens? The one for the HG21 mentions it increases the focal length by 1.5x, so 12*1.5 = 18x ?

Curiously, is it worth it to pick up a tele-converter lens? The one for the HG21 mentions it increases the focal length by 1.5x, so 12*1.5 = 18x ?

You make a good point; however, to be quite honest - I have never used on of those lenses on my camcorders. I would like to know what the down side to their usage is - other than a increase in f-stop. :)

i have the canon teleconverter, it adds a dark barrel around the picture edge at full wide... so you are limited with how wide you can back the zoom out.

i think that anytime you add external glass like that, there will be a loss of resolution... i haven't evaluated the quality of the teleconverter on a big screen.

If Canon would spec. the HF S10 with a viewfinder, and at least 12x zoom; I would probably try one of those in a heart beat. However, for me the 10x optical zoom is a killer (even more so than no viewfinder). Just my 2 cents. :)

-Pam

I'm with you Pam! I just don't get it.

I’m not sure why neither the Panasonic TM300 or HS300 isn’t mentioned here. They have a view finder, a real focusing ring, 3 native ¼” MOS chips which means no pixel shifting and a 12X zoom range. The only thing that’s negative about the camcorder is that the highest mode is 17MBPS. Considering all of the factors that make up a good camcorder, this really is a very strong competitor.

I’m not sure why neither the Panasonic TM300 or HS300 isn’t mentioned here. They have a view finder, a real focusing ring, 3 native ¼” MOS chips which means no pixel shifting and a 12X zoom range. The only thing that’s negative about the camcorder is that the highest mode is 17MBPS. Considering all of the factors that make up a good camcorder, this really is a very strong competitor.

For me personally, I haven't considered a Panasonic camcorder since I purchased the Sony TRV950 many years ago. At the time, I was looking for a 3CCD camorder and Panasonic always has smaller sensors than Sony or Canon. Whether this will be an oversite is yet to be determined, but since that time frame (about 8 years ago) I have never really considered a Panasonic camcorder again.:rolleyes:

But, I hope Panasonic can come through this time.

As Pam said, those 1/4" imaging chips will always be a handicap relative to 1/3" chips. I think, in general, the performance of a single 1/3" chip can be better than 3 1/4" chips.

Hi Ken. Can you explain, in simple English, why one 1/3" sensor would be better than three 1/4" sensors?

Thanks.
Mike

Those chips are about the same size as the chips on the Sony V1u.

Hi Ken. Can you explain, in simple English, why one 1/3" sensor would be better than three 1/4" sensors?

Thanks.
Mike
In comparison of the Panny HDC-SD100 to the Canon HF100, it was said that:
"When it comes to video performance, the Canon HF100 can't be beat. Quite simply, the HF100 produces better-looking video than the Panasonic HDC-SD100, thanks in large part to superior resolution and a single, large sensor that improves low light sensitivity."

For me, a lot of recording time will be indoors or in crummy lighting conditions until my baby is old enough to really venture outside and play, so low light performance is important. How well the new Pannys compare will be interesting to see, but the new HFS100 has a HUGE sensor with mega native resolution. I guess we have to wait until people actually get their hands on them so we can see.

The top camcorders that was announced this year are dramatically different than the prior generation camcorders. Like I said earlier, the Sony V1u also has ¼” chips and their must have been a reason Sony used 3 ¼” chips instead of one 1/3” chip.

Personally I really don’t care which camcorder has the best picture, I just don’t think we should skip Panasonic just like that. On another forum I’m defending Canon's decision to have a lot of pixels on the chip and I don’t think people should say it’ll be terrible in lowlight situations when the camcorder isn’t out yet. Still the Panasonic has slightly higher effective resolution when you combine the chips but that doesn’t matter. If I were to choose a camcorder it would probably be either the top Panasonic or Canon offerings but I would still keep a close eye on Sony’s top offering because you never know.

Three 1/4" sensors have a larger area to capture light than a 1/3" sensor.
Panasonic consumer camcorders had until now three 1/6" sensors, therefore the poor low light performance...

Hmm..

Three 1/4" sensors have a larger area to capture light than a 1/3" sensor.
Panasonic consumer camcorders had until now three 1/6" sensors, therefore the poor low light performance...

How can that be? If 1/6 is small then 1/3 would be large and 1/4 would fall somewhere in between.:cool:

How can that be? If 1/6 is small then 1/3 would be large and 1/4 would fall somewhere in between.:cool:

He is talking about having 3 instead of 1 sensor. 3 small sensors can be better than just 1 larger sensor. Capice ?

He is talking about having 3 instead of 1 sensor. 3 small sensors can be better than just 1 larger sensor. Capice ?

Got it - :p

However, that doesn't always hold true. If you take the effective area of the 3 - 1/6 sensors, it is greater than the effective area of 1 - 1/3 sensor; and the low light performance was still poor.

But, with that said - I will leave this mathematical debate for the experts. I just know what I see. :D

If the dimension (1/3 vs. 1/6) represents the diameter, then the single 1/3" sensor area is about a third larger than the total of three 1/6" sensors.

If the dimension (1/3 vs. 1/6) represents the diameter, then the single 1/3" sensor area is about a third larger than the total of three 1/6" sensors.

Hmmm - diameter implies circular to me, but I understand what you are saying.

However, the designation 1/3" (for example) doesn't imply 0.3333". At least this is my understanding from another member. Anyway, I will opt out of this conversation because I don't really know enough to debate. ;)

Here's a list of various sensor sizes:


http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/buying/unravelling-sensor-sizes.aspx

By making some simple calculations we get a surface of 17.28 mm2 for a 1/3" sensor. Three 1/6" sensors have a total surface of 13.28 mm2 and three 1/4" sensors a total surface of 29.16 mm2....
However the optical system of the three-sensor design is much more complicated, it has more lenses and some prisms that absorb light...
So we can't know for sure how well this camcorders will perform in real life until they are tested...

How can that be? If 1/6 is small then 1/3 would be large and 1/4 would fall somewhere in between.:cool:

Pam, you are correct and the previously mentioned Sony V1U was never known for its performance in low light. The V1U is actually a relatively old design at this point. If the Panasonic performed well with its 1/4" chips, it would be a first. This isn't to say that they may have not come up with some engineering miracle, but the 3-chip Panasonic designs during the same time period as the competing single chip cams from both Sony and Canon, were simply outperformed by these 1-chippers.

It's such a different ballgame today then it was just a few years ago when 3-chip cams always had better color and performance. Today, the better single chip cams can compete very favorably with 3-chip designs in terms of color and clarity. It's almost embarrassing that some of the 1-chip consumer cams have better resolution than their big prosumer brothers. Of course the larger cams can do other things the smaller guys can't, but based simply on raw performance, it's nothing short of amazing.

Curiously, is it worth it to pick up a tele-converter lens? The one for the HG21 mentions it increases the focal length by 1.5x, so 12*1.5 = 18x ?
From one of the reviews I read, it appeared to me that the tele end of the range was pretty good, but at the wide angle end it wasn't wide enough. The review did a comparison to 35mm SLR lenses and I think they said the tele end was something comparable to a 600mm lens and the wide end was in the 40-50mm range. If that is the case, then I would use a wide angle adapter with this camera.

I can't remember which review I saw the reference in.

a tele converter will make the camera a real pain to hand hold.

a tele converter will make the camera a real pain to hand hold.
It should balance out with a Rhodes mic, right? The mic is the same size as the camcorder LOL

Pam, you are correct and the previously mentioned Sony V1U was never known for its performance in low light. The V1U is actually a relatively old design at this point. If the Panasonic performed well with its 1/4" chips, it would be a first. This isn't to say that they may have not come up with some engineering miracle, but the 3-chip Panasonic designs during the same time period as the competing single chip cams from both Sony and Canon, were simply outperformed by these 1-chippers.

It's such a different ballgame today then it was just a few years ago when 3-chip cams always had better color and performance. Today, the better single chip cams can compete very favorably with 3-chip designs in terms of color and clarity. It's almost embarrassing that some of the 1-chip consumer cams have better resolution than their big prosumer brothers. Of course the larger cams can do other things the smaller guys can't, but based simply on raw performance, it's nothing short of amazing.

So is it because of the advanced electronics that make these newer I chip cams better than the 3 chip ones (one 1/3" vs. three 1/4"), dispite the larger surface area provided by the three chips? That is the only thing I can think of as being the reason for improved performance.

Mike

I'm sure that's part of it. It always seems as if Panasonic runs a somewhat distant 3rd in this part of the market. In general the Panasonic images tend to be somewhat noisier than the Canons & Sonys. It seems that both Canon & Sony do a better job with their electronics to suppress noise.

The FX-7 [i have one]has 3 1/4 cmos chips and the resolution iis very good from this cam,camcorderinfo.com gave it more resolution than the canon A1 when they tested it.Most of us have our preferences i had a SONY 2100 and the low light ability meant very little to me as i see little point in filming in low light unless its a must,but the colour performance of the 2100 never pleased me that much and i prefer my present FX-7 and SR-12.

Thanks Ken. As nontechnical as I am, that is the only thing that I can figure is that it is the "electronics" (whatever that may consist of; processors maybe?) that makes the difference between a single 1/3" CMOS chip and three 1/4" CMOS chips as far as PQ. However, when I compare an image from my SR11 and that of an FX7, they are so close; in fact I almost like the image from the FX7 better. Could it be because the three 1/4" chips each handle a seperate color thereby producing the colors better and making me think the PQ is superior?

Flinty, I agree that both the FX7 and my SR11 produce great images.

Mike

Mike, since I had the FX7 for awhile, I can agree with Flinty in that its image quality is very good. It has greater apparent sharpness than the SR12, but I think its image is somewhat noisier.

In terms of color, since it's more in the prosumer arena, the colors may tend to be a bit more accurate and a bit more subdued than the SR12. Most consumer cams tend to have 'punched up' colors which consumers love and pros hate. ;)

Of course, most of what we believe is conjecture until we have actual reviews, but it appears from the first looks and specs that Canon has made more positive changes than Sony in the recentlt announced models. For example, Sony's expansion of HDD capacity to 240gb does nothing for me. I don't go anywhere far from my laptop and never take more than a couple of hours of video before syncing. The solid-state memory of the HF S10/100 is perfect for my needs and yields more compactness, durability and battery life. Both Sony and Canon appear to make important improvements to their optics and PQ, especially in low light.

I am eager to get more information as their availability draws closer.

I’m really disappointed in Canon’s decision to not include a viewfinder in any consumer HD camera using flash memory. Their products seem to be best in class except for this one oversight. I’ve waited several months for them to expand their AVCHD line upward toward the prosumer, but they seem to have a blind spot toward those of us who don’t want to stare at a washed out screen at a distance that makes it hard to focus on small objects or recognize framing subtleties or camera shake. I've given it a shot with an otherwise high quality point & shoot, and still am not used to it.

So, my question is to those of you who used to use a viewfinder and no longer do. How did you make the transition…are you fully satisfied with the video-taking process and the resulting product?

For you experts: what is Canon thinking? :confused: Like bernhtp, I have no desire to carry around a hard drive (Sony)...I guess I have to hope that Panasonic has made great progress.

My guess is their market research shows that relatively few want the viewfinder with its trade-offs of additional cost, size, weight and complexity in a sector that puts a premium on compactness and low cost. Despite preferring the viewfinder in some/many shooting situations, I might myself buy a VF-less model if I had a choice given the attendant trade-offs. I think the key for Canon and anyone else taking this route is to maximize the usability of the LCD, especially in bright daylight.

I know this is a deal-breaker for some but I have little doubt Canon made this decision consciously.

More or less to bump this discussion, I note that comparisons online are very scant due to the later release of the HF S line compared to the Sony (which is already out and which I have now). So, among the slim pickings is this translated analysis from Japan:

Link (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=ja|en&u=http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs//20090204/zooma397.htm&prev=/language_tools&usg=ALkJrhgixQ9XjVJ4FRNFmjXQpNjrAn6bBQ)

I saw the Sony HDR-XR500V at the Mall of America yesterday. Without seeing the Canon I have no hopes for Canon being as good or better than Sony. The image stabilization on Sony was fantastic. At wide angle no matter how fast I moved the camcorder the screen still looked smooth. Also the slow motion mode looked very high resolution but the online manual says it is a degraded quality. I would love to test the low lux mode on this camera.

maybe the way to evaluate camcorders in the store is to take your memory cards, and bring the footage home with you, so you can look at it on an hdtv.

maybe the way to evaluate camcorders in the store is to take your memory cards, and bring the footage home with you, so you can look at it on an hdtv.

that is a great idea!

i'm thinking that you might need a seperate memory card for each camcorder, then format the card in the camcorder before using.

and mark it ahead of time... "canon" "sony" whatever... then try to duplicate the shots you take.

not ideal, but...