The HF200 will be released sometime this April.
Should I pony up the extra $$ and wait for its release, or should I just get the HF100 now?
Is the HF200 going to really be THAT much better?
What would you do?

I will be using the camcorder for family events and my sons sporting activities. I am guessing I will be using it equally as much inside the home as I will be using it out side.

Thanks in advance. :)

It is actually very possible the HF200 will be worse because it has a smaller, higher resolution sensor. However, the HF200 does have a few advantages over the HF100, such as a higher recording bitrate, updated image processor, 15x optical zoom and a few new features. It really could go either way.

If I were in you're position, I'd wait until some reviews come out. Unless the HF100 is significantly better, I'd say go for the HF200.

Might look into the HFS100 if you can afford it. That has a similar feature set to the HF100 but with a larger sensor.

Thanks all for your replies. :)
I still have not pulled the trigger.

Any more news on the HF200??
I am surprised there are no reviews of it yet.

Any more news on the HF200??
I am surprised there are no reviews of it yet.

Here are some HF20 videos (same as the HF200 but with built-in memory):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1128709


Camcorderinfo just released a review of the Sanyo Xacti VPC-HD2000:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sanyo-Xacti-VPC-HD2000-Camcorder-Review-36280.htm#

They do comparisons to other camcorders, including the HF20; with charts and videos. They mention noise on the HF20 images in low light - but wait for the actual review. They'll probably mention comparisons to camcorders like the HF100/HF11 in the actual HF20 review.

It looks like they tested a bunch of new camcorders all at once. The HF20 review should be out soon at camcorderinfo.

Thanks xfws.
I'll keep watching camcorderinfo for that review.

Thanks again...

Seems very good will keep a eye on ithttp://www.********************/pics/6/7.gif

Might look into the HFS100 if you can afford it. That has a similar feature set to the HF100 but with a larger sensor.

I have a question.
What is the difference between the HF100 and HFS100?
Is HFS100 really worthy of being double the price of the HF100?
I am seeing a lot of the same features that will be available on the HF200 that the HFS100 currently has.
Plus, the HF200 will be newer and is cheaper.

I have a question.
What is the difference between the HF100 and HFS100?
Is HFS100 really worthy of being double the price of the HF100?
I am seeing a lot of the same features that will be available on the HF200 that the HFS100 currently has.
Plus, the HF200 will be newer and is cheaper.

Suffolk,the HF S100 has the larger sensor, higher resolution video and stills.

As far as being worth it; it has features ike zebra stripes (it will tell you where the image is over exposed), gain control and other assist functions that can be quickly accessed from the custom dial. You can adjust manual focus with the dial (instead of a joystick on the HF20/HF11).

If someone wants to do things like a short film or music video and doesn't want to use a taped-based cam like the HV30; the HF S10/100 is very promising.
Many people are picking this camcorder apart to death with claims of poor low light performance Even if true, when they make pro movies; they need to assist the image with light...a lot of light.

Anyway, if you are planning to just point and shoot without wanting to bother with the wealth of features on the HF S100 to assist in the shot, then something like the HF11/HF20 would be more suitable.

Thanks xfws!!!
From looking at the features on Amazon, I believe the HF100 and 200 also have features like zebra stripes for help with exposure.
I am sure the S100 is probably more powerful, but is it twice the price more powerful??
It looks like the big difference is in the sensor and perhaps the lens?
But who knows, the soon to be released HF200 may be a sizable step towards the level of the HS100.
Since there are no reviews of the HF200, information seems real sketchy at this point if the HF200 will even be any better than its predecessor the HF100, let alone in a league where it could compete with the HS100.

To add a side note: I wish Cannon would identify their camcorders with model numbers and names that were a bit more different. Coming from a camcorder layman, (that would be myself) it is very confusing to keep them all straight and I consider my self more tech savvy than the average person.

The HF20 doesn't have the assist functions, like zebra stripes, as does the HF S100.

It may be worth paying more money if someone's intent is to produce videos where control over the image is imperative; i.e. a short film.

Otherwise, the larger sensor and higher resolution, which gets scaled down, may be not worth it in a point and shoot context.

Yea... I'll be making low budget home "B" movies. :D

Thanks XFWS. :)

Yea... I'll be making low budget home "B" movies. :D

Thanks XFWS. :)

"B" movie or "P" movie ;)

I personally don't think it is worth paying twice the cost of the HF100 to get the HFS100 just for general family use. I recently tried the HF100 and indoors it seemed to have pretty good low light ability and of course you have that 12x optical image stabilized zoom capability for Sports events. Now if it was just $100-200 more then I might have been interested in getting the HFS100.

The video was pretty nice on the HF100. The problem I had was the reds were too pink and I had tried to exchange it incase it was just defective (after email conversation with Canon). Unfortunately amazon.com didn't have any stock and only offered a refund. When they did get it back in stock, they increased the price up to $899 (more than MSRP!) and as such I haven't been able to try another one. I am bit nervous buying it from anywhere that only allows exchanges and not refunds incase those pink reds are a normal quirk of this camera and I decided I can't live with it. My other camcorders don't seem to have this problem. What leads me to think it may be a quirk and not a defect is that I have since seen a couple of other videos on vimeo.com that seem to exhibit this.

I had also read that the Pixella software didn't work on Vista 64 yet it seemed to work fine on my PC. I do have Vista 64.

It seems to be an awkward time for a camcorder purchase as we seem to be in a transition between models from the major manufacturers.

The video was pretty nice on the HF100. The problem I had was the reds were too pink.

I just picked up a HF100 over the weekend and shot some footage of my daughter's soccer games. I thought the image tended a little blue which could cause pinkish/purplish looking reds. This was with the "EASY" setting.

I would assume that this would have be rectified had I performed a manual white balance. I'll have to test that out further.

Overall, I'm very happy with my purchase.

I just picked up a HF100 over the weekend and shot some footage of my daughter's soccer games. I thought the image tended a little blue which could pinkish/purplish looking reds. This was with the "EASY" setting.

I would assume that this would have be rectified had I performed a manual white balance. I'll have to test that out further.

Overall, I'm very happy with my purchase.
Yeah I tried the manual white balance and that didn't seem to really fix it in the cases where this was happening.

You can see some still image samples here:

http://www.pbase.com/rgv523/hf100

I got the same effect in the video mode.

The dartboard and first fire hydrant shows it the most not to mention the pinkish cast to the SUV. I showed these images to Canon and they did seem to think it could've had a problem. If the price comes down on amazon.com I may try again although I am edging towards trying out the HD2000 since I have an older Standard Definition Sanyo and like the color output from that.

Now of course I have had people say you can fix things like this afterwards but it's not really practical as it's for general family use rather than making independent movies etc.

I wonder if anyone can tell me, that since Canon records both progressive and interlaced video in the same 60i container, can this potentially cause problems in some video editing software? ie because it would think it's interlaced when it isn't, or this just part of the AVCHD standard? I had gotten the impression that this was perhaps only Canon that does this.

It does seem as though you need to archive the original files in labeled folders that denote 30P or 60i etc. as I haven't found any media info programs that can tell you what they were originally recorded in. They all seem to report 60i.

"b" movie or "p" movie ;)

:d

Would appreciate answers regarding the following:

1) Canon manual states something to the effect that you should not hook up the camcorder to the computer and access files directly for transfer but should instead use the software. Has anyone had any problems removing the SD card and inserting that to the computer and transferring files that way?

2) What is the largest SDHC card you've tried?

3) What is the best software to do minor editing of the AVCHD files? Does the software that comes with the camcorder permit trimming, splitting files, joining files, etc.?

4) Playback. Has anyone used anything like the Western Digital box to play back the AVCHD files? Otherwise it seems to me that the camcorder is pretty much required for playback. How does the camcorder react to edited AVCHD files? Or AVCHD files that weren't created by it?

This looks like an awesome HD camcorder. Thanks for your input!

1. No, you can take the SD card out of the camcorder and put it in a card-reader and have your computer access the card directly without any involvement of the camcorder itself. I think the issue might be that there are a number of meta-data files that describe the actual video file (in the STREAMS directory). If you copied over individual files you may lose the ability to see a pictorial index of all your files and secondary stuff like that. However, provided you copied over the .mts file you will still have all your raw video.

Personally, if going that route I would only make a copy of the entire card from the top level PRIVATE directory down. That way you should be able to write back to a card and not lose any functionality.

2. I've tried a 8GB and a 16GB card without issue. I haven't tried anything larger.

3. ???

4. ???

Would appreciate answers regarding the following:

1) Canon manual states something to the effect that you should not hook up the camcorder to the computer and access files directly for transfer but should instead use the software. Has anyone had any problems removing the SD card and inserting that to the computer and transferring files that way?

2) What is the largest SDHC card you've tried?

3) What is the best software to do minor editing of the AVCHD files? Does the software that comes with the camcorder permit trimming, splitting files, joining files, etc.?

4) Playback. Has anyone used anything like the Western Digital box to play back the AVCHD files? Otherwise it seems to me that the camcorder is pretty much required for playback. How does the camcorder react to edited AVCHD files? Or AVCHD files that weren't created by it?

This looks like an awesome HD camcorder. Thanks for your input!

Thanks for the responses!

What I was asking about regarding editing is whether the software included with the HF100 works well to permit minor editing of clips - for example, if I have a 15 min. video and want to chop off the first minute, and/or chop off the last 2 minutes, will the software facilitate that? For playback, can I place the edited file onto a SDHC card, place in the HF100, and the HF100 will play back the file without choking? If the included software doesn't work, is there any free software that would perform such minor editing? Computer specs are Windows XP, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.8 GHz per core processor, and 3 GB RAM if memory serves.

The Western Digital Media Player:

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=572

is a fairly low-cost solution to play HD video. The specs say it does H.264 but I'm not sure about AVCHD. I was wondering if anyone had tried to play an unedited AVCHD file from the HF100 (or an edited fiel as described above) on the WD Media Player and what the results were.

I am trying to get my wife interested but she is frugal...I know the HF200 will be releasing shortly, what do y'all think of the possibility that the HF100 will reduce to about $400?

I playback unedited AVCHD files, from an HF100, onto the WD Media Player, with zero problems.

For those that use the HF100 for sports.
How well does the slow motion video work?
I would be also using the camcorder for video analysis of mechanics and such.
Is slow motion and freeze playback pretty clear?

For those that use the HF100 for sports.
How well does the slow motion video work?
I would be also using the camcorder for video analysis of mechanics and such.
Is slow motion and freeze playback pretty clear?

Hf100 is good for sports (@60i) you can use 30p but I'd recommend 60i for movement.

Slow motion is good, but really you should consider the SANYO HD2000 it's a fantastic camera and 60P will be smoother and should equate into better freeze frame.

Hf200 will be awesome in freeze frame but it's a dog in low-light.

I'd almost settled on the HF100 until today when I noticed that the prices for the HF100 seem to have stabilized and the HF200 prices appear to be dropping...noticed a few sub-$700 prices on the 200 while the best deal I can see on the 100 is about $530. I had hoped the HF100 would go sub $500 but that doesn't appear to be in the cards at least for reputable retailers.

The advantages of the HF200 appear to be slightly greater optical zoom, DIGIC III processor (is this used for video or for still photo only?) and the 24 Mbps recording mode. The biggest plus to me is the 24 Mbps mode, the question is how much sharper this would be vs. 17 Mbps of the HF100. I'm also a bit concerned about the smaller size sensor in the HF200 - is it an absolute that this would affect low-light performance, or just speculation?

I am trying to figure out if the HF200 is really worth the current premium, over the HF100, of about $150. I'm getting more confused the more I mull this purchase!

I'd almost settled on the HF100 until today when I noticed that the prices for the HF100 seem to have stabilized and the HF200 prices appear to be dropping...noticed a few sub-$700 prices on the 200 while the best deal I can see on the 100 is about $530. I had hoped the HF100 would go sub $500 but that doesn't appear to be in the cards at least for reputable retailers.

The advantages of the HF200 appear to be slightly greater optical zoom, DIGIC III processor (is this used for video or for still photo only?) and the 24 Mbps recording mode. The biggest plus to me is the 24 Mbps mode, the question is how much sharper this would be vs. 17 Mbps of the HF100. I'm also a bit concerned about the smaller size sensor in the HF200 - is it an absolute that this would affect low-light performance, or just speculation?

I am trying to figure out if the HF200 is really worth the current premium, over the HF100, of about $150. I'm getting more confused the more I mull this purchase!

yeh, I hear you..it's getting a bit confusing lately...
After the camcorderinfo review, I was convinced that the HF20 was going to be garbage. Now, after actually seeing some videos online, I'm more impressed with the cam. (I think we were all expecting too much from their review.)

Someone posted this review in another thread here, you can download the files and see the quality is really good (translated from Japanese/check out the one called "sample"):
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fav.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fseries%2Fzoom a%2F20090325_76262.html&sl=ja&tl=en&history_state0=

The other advantage of the HF20/200 is it has higher resolution than the other Canons.

As far as the low light, you can wait and see the next few weeks, it will become clearer when more people own them and post videos and give their impressions.
You could always use bright lights for indoor videos.

As far as the price; I'm sure the HF200 will be near $600 (or cheaper) by June. Whatever you get, don't freak out; all the Canons from the HF100 to the HF S10 are very decent in their own way.

I'd almost settled on the HF100 until today when I noticed that the prices for the HF100 seem to have stabilized and the HF200 prices appear to be dropping...noticed a few sub-$700 prices on the 200 while the best deal I can see on the 100 is about $530. I had hoped the HF100 would go sub $500 but that doesn't appear to be in the cards at least for reputable retailers.

The advantages of the HF200 appear to be slightly greater optical zoom, DIGIC III processor (is this used for video or for still photo only?) and the 24 Mbps recording mode. The biggest plus to me is the 24 Mbps mode, the question is how much sharper this would be vs. 17 Mbps of the HF100. I'm also a bit concerned about the smaller size sensor in the HF200 - is it an absolute that this would affect low-light performance, or just speculation?

I am trying to figure out if the HF200 is really worth the current premium, over the HF100, of about $150. I'm getting more confused the more I mull this purchase!

The HF200 murders my HF100. No comparison.

HF100 - 600x675 12x digic 2 17Mbps
HF200 - 800x900 15x digic 3 24Mbps

The HF200 is pro level video. I've taken over 2000 videos with my HF100 and with just 4 HF200 videos it's obviously sharper.

I love my HF100 but HF200 is better.

When the HF200 hits 500$ it's mine....and the HF100 will be on Ebay.

I just hope there are poor reviews of the HF20/200. So they won't sell well and have to drop the price to move them! :)

The HF200 murders my HF100. No comparison.

HF100 - 600x675 12x digic 2 17Mbps
HF200 - 800x900 15x digic 3 24Mbps

The HF200 is pro level video.

Oh, man. Thanks! That about settles it for me, the HF200 looks like the way to go. I could probably live with the HF100, but the HF200 looks like it has "room to grow," which I like. As far as light levels, I currently have a Panasonic PV-GS250, which does nice video, but is SD, and I can't believe the HF200 would be worse than the GS250.

I don't know if the HF200 will ever hit $500, but the low $600s in the near future does look possible. I'll keep looking, and will be working on a good sales pitch for my frugal wife.

If I can talk my wife into it, I'm leaning toward the HF200. I shot some test footage at the local Best Buy (with an HF20), and brought it home to check -it looks awesome! For panning and zooming around the store, it looks great.

B&H photo has it for $678... not bad.

The HF200 murders my HF100. No comparison.
HF100 - 600x675 12x digic 2 17Mbps
HF200 - 800x900 15x digic 3 24Mbps
I love my HF100 but HF200 is better.

Those specs means very little in real life. You forgot to put in the sensor size for comparison too; which, of course, is the reason for the major downgrade and poor showing of HF200's low light performance.

Is all footage shot with the HF100 interlaced, no matter what P setting you have the camera set on? The specs show it can do 1280x720@60p, which really peaked my interest, but if it's not true progressive recording in that mode, then i'm not interested.

Would any HF100 owners mind checking on this for me?

Hi i am new to this forum and i've been thinking of three camera's to buy. i live in the uk so obviously the price difference im guessing is quite a bit different.

the three cameras are the Canon HF100 or Canon HF200 or the Sony HVR SR11 camcorder. i was at one point also considering the newer Sony cam (the HDR XR105) which i believe is £100 quid up, but i dont really like the idea of having a hard disk drive, really coz its mechanical, and it so expensive comapred to memory cards. then again it is a better option than DV or even HDV tapes i think.

i must say after looking at video footage between the sony and canon, i am much more swaying towards the canon, the image is clearly alot sharper and plus i'd much rather go for an SD can rather than DV tapes given the experience at college of ending up with so many damaged tapes.
the only thing that bothers me about the SD is the recording format which is AVCHD correct? in which case, i do all my editing on a mac in final cut pro 6, which i'm pretty sure doesn't support AVCHD format and you have to convert it to pro res. Is this really such a big thing to consider though? its not like i am actually going to be able to playback the footage on a compatible player anyway. (its only blu-ray or ps3 that recognises it right?)

i will be doing alot of filming like short films and music vids etc. and just general home usage too. most of my stuff is quite action oriented, but again this sways me more towards either canon because of the cinema feel it gives. Most of my stuff is outside, and i prefer to film outside anyway because of the natural lighting, but in some cases i will be filming inside but the low light thing isn't really a big deal to me, as compared to some of the cameras i was looking at it seems really good.

plus whats the difference between the Legria HF200 and the Vixia HF200? is there any difference between these two?

The Sony camera was the first i came across that i liked. The only good thing about it that i can see is the face detection sensor it has, but im not entirely sure how much use this would really be outdoor wise.

I had my mind set on the HF100 till today when i checked Jessops website and they got a £50 rebate on the Legria HF200 at £599. The HF100 was £499.97. is it worth a £50 difference essentially? and what is the deal with the smaller sensor? is that for picking up light meaning its worse in filming in low light? i'd be grateful for someone to clear up the meaning of that for me. plus i really like the paint job on the HF200, but then colour is definately not the reason why i would upgrade. As far as I know Jessops is do the cheapest deal on these cameras, and they even price match which i have been trying to...but dont seem to be successful with either cam!

i'd like to know what you guys think and your advice on this. Thanks alot.

Edit: also i am curious to know on how the weight difference between the HF100 and HF200 effect you filming? do you find it easier than HF100 or harder handheld?

just purchased the HF200 from J&R. Anxiously awaiting its shipping :)

about to pull the trigger on a boatload of accessories:

Canon DM100 Mic
Canon VL-5 Video Light
Canon SC2000 Carrying Case
32GB SDHC card

also just purchased the 819 battery.

we're buying it for our wedding, so we'll want really good sound and indoor lighting during the reception.

Time to plug my YouTube video! :)

SVVaEQa9hgs

The HF200 is a terrific camera. Just remember to use the manual controls in low light, and you'll be fine.

Time to plug my YouTube video! :)

SVVaEQa9hgs

The HF200 is a terrific camera. Just remember to use the manual controls in low light, and you'll be fine.

Francois: I really appreciate you creating and posting this review. It seems I have mainly read about how bad the low light is, especially on camcorderinfo seeing they used auto mode.

Is there a more detailed thread/discussion/video giving step by step low light for dummies on the HF200 using the manual controls/ 24p & cinemode ?

Which mic did you see as the best per your reviews?

I would like to see you review light attachments, Francois!

fZSwCCM1vq4

HF200 - 1080p/24 (Full Auto, w/built-in mic)

Matt Nathanson doing American Girl live at the Zoo in Chicago. I taped the whole show, this is just the encore. This is recorded in 1080p but the compression with Youtube and a little graininess from being at night makes it look worse - looks great on the original but it's HUGE :)

Remember, this is outdoors in the middle of a crowd (obviously) and the speakers aren't the best around. It still sounds great, IMO. I've got the DM-100 mic coming soon to flesh out the sound even more.

here's a great test for the DM-100 mic (not my own video):

VdX5XI2s8mY

Francois: I really appreciate you creating and posting this review. It seems I have mainly read about how bad the low light is, especially on camcorderinfo seeing they used auto mode.

Is there a more detailed thread/discussion/video giving step by step low light for dummies on the HF200 using the manual controls/ 24p & cinemode ?
All I can offer you is the following video compilation of my various night shots with the Canon HF200.

oijXmRVh_-E

Which mic did you see as the best per your reviews?

It depends on the application. If I'm indoors and I'm interviewing individuals or groups of people, I prefer to use the Rode shotgun Videomic. If I'm outdoors or I need to either record background sounds or musical performances, then I prefer to use the Rode Stereo Videomic.

The use of the high-pass filter depends entirely on the environment. If there's a lot of low level background noise or very high winds, I turn it on.

Some microphone tests. First, the built-in mike. Note that no sound equalization is used at all in post-processing. All the Sony Vegas filters have been turned off.

OdgMcD_b6uA

Now the Rode shotgun Videomic. Again, no sound equalization is used.

-s2z9E26-NI

Finally, two videos of the Rode Stereo Videomic, one with the Sony Vegas hiss cut equalization option, and one without any equalization.

uRmxkoE3r_M

D1IMFWx2Dyg

I still have some microphone tests to do outdoors, but I'm waiting for an excessively windy day. :)

I would like to see you review light attachments, Francois!
Highly unlikely. I can get away with using an external microphone on the camcorder. But for proper lighting, that will require an elaborate lighting rig to make the recording look good, which is beyond the scope of what I'm trying to accomplish.

vBd-Zxw6iyI

Here is a shot of a small creek outside I took over the weekend....

Canon HF200 Daylight 1080p/24 with DM-100 Microphone (Shotgun) Water

New microphone test! This one has a few surprises.

h89b7ITRHus

I just got a Vixia HF 200. The videi is good but refuses to play via HDMI on my two LCD HDTVs, a Sharp Aquos and a Sylvania. Caon tech replied some home recirded HD videos can not be played using HDMI. I can play home recorded 1080 videos from a Sony HD camcorder and the same HDMI cable. I can also play the video recorded at the highest 1080 setting on this Vixia when I put the SDHC card in the Panasonic blue ray player which has a SDHC slot and is AVCHD capable. Help, anyone?
Thanks.
Ravindra.

I just got a Vixia HF 200. The videi is good but refuses to play via HDMI on my two LCD HDTVs, a Sharp Aquos and a Sylvania. Caon tech replied some home recirded HD videos can not be played using HDMI. I can play home recorded 1080 videos from a Sony HD camcorder and the same HDMI cable. I can also play the video recorded at the highest 1080 setting on this Vixia when I put the SDHC card in the Panasonic blue ray player which has a SDHC slot and is AVCHD capable. Help, anyone?
Thanks.
Ravindra.

The canon tech (like most other techs) does not know what he/she is talking about.

Most likely you just do not have the HDMI cable seated correctly when you're trying to connect your camcorder to your TV. Make sure it is firmly pressed in.

Are you getting any sound? Can you see the menus but not the recorded picture? Are you using the same cable that you use with the Sony camcorder?

If you're not seeing anything, it's most likely the connection.