The kids are growing too fast and I'm needed to jump on the next generation of camcorders to preserve the memories. The oldest plays soccer year round and the middle child is in cross country and show choir.

I'm looking at the Sony HDR-CX500, the Panasonic HDC-TM300, or the Canon VIXIA HF S100. (obvious choices)

What I am afraid of is the motion blur (jaggies) when trying to capture the action during the soccer games. My heart is not set on the above camcorders so if you have others to recommend, please do so! For me, handling motion with minimal blur/jaggies is most important. Second is probably image stabilization, with color/picture quality a close third.

I also need the camera to be able to record in theaters and gyms for show choir but this isn't as important as I can have a tripod, but the camera will need some level of low light performance (although I think all the camera's I've listed will be ok for this purpose).

Thoughts or examples of motion performance? Thanks in advance!

The kids are growing too fast and I'm needed to jump on the next generation of camcorders to preserve the memories. The oldest plays soccer year round and the middle child is in cross country and show choir.

Sounds familiar... I have shot video of practically everything my kids have done in middle school and high school, including my daughter's soccer... she's a sophomore on the JV team here.

There are a couple of concerns. For band and stage shots, you will probably start to realize that most schools don't have the same level of talent applied to lighting as they might to the acting or music. So it's probably darker than you'd like... thus, a camcorder with great low-light performance is critical.

For sports, you have two real issues... speed, and video CODEC failure on fast motion. More on that...


I'm looking at the Sony HDR-CX500, the Panasonic HDC-TM300, or the Canon VIXIA HF S100. (obvious choices)


Yup... all excellent choices. Of the lot, I was fairly strongly leaning toward the HDC-TM300 myself this year, but decided to wait a bit.. mainly for the move to SDXC, and maybe another year or two of improvements to AVCHD.

On the other hand, I shoot nearly every soccer game, and that was more wear and tear on my HVR-A1 than I wanted.. plus, getting video converted and put online, I wanted a computer-like medium. I had a chance to mess around with the Hitachi BD70A Blu-Ray camcorder, but there was too much artifacting to make me happy.

I recently picked up a Sanyo VPC-FH1... this was really a stopgap, a fill in for the Blu-Ray camera when I need casual shooting or something quick (without bothering my daughter to user her Panasonic HDC-SD9.

This is pretty cool, for the price.. it does 1080/60p, which is very nice for sports, though you have to move it to a Blu-Ray format (1080/60i, 720/60p) to make a disc, or possibly even play it. But that choice is left to your editing phase.


What I am afraid of is the motion blur (jaggies) when trying to capture the action during the soccer games.


It's not motion blur.. that's a normal aspect of action faster than your shutter speed can freeze, that's so much of a problem, but the encoding of very fast motion that can be a problem. You're basically getting compression artifacts, due to the fact that the AVC (or even in an MPEG-2 camera) wants intraframe compression, but you're not giving it frames with anything the same between them.

Most any consumer/prosumer HD technology is going to be a problem with really fast motion, simply because intraframe encoding is just weak at it. The Sanyo isn't quite as good as my Sony on this, but it's much better than the Hitachi (which is AVCHD from a few years back... the Sanyo is actually MPEG-4 AVC, but not technically AVCHD... and I think Sanyo's been working with AVC as long as anyone). That suggests that the others are probably of similar development.

I haven't tried the Sanyo's 1080/60i mode on soccer.. like the Panasonic, that's limited to about 17Mb/s (1080/60p is variable, averaging around 24Mb/s)... really fast motion is one place you might see a small difference between 24Mb/s in the Canon (not sure about Sony).. nothing else I've read seems to find much difference.

You can find my soccer videos here:
http://www.frogpondmedia.com/soccer
However, this is all streaming Flash video at about 600kb/s and 640x360 or so.. I don't know how useful it'll be. The first two are shot with the Hitachi, the rest with the Sanyo, and the Sanyo's should be at 60p.. I'm not sure if I like that with the flash encoding or not. Go to last year's page to find flash and .mp4 downloads shot with the Sony, which would be about the same for any HDV camcorder -- MPEG-2 was pretty mature when HDV came out, you don't see much difference between encoders. Wish I had the bandwidth for full HD up there :-) Again, given the low bandwidth web video, I don't know if you'll learn much useful there.


My heart is not set on the above camcorders so if you have others to recommend, please do so! For me, handling motion with minimal blur/jaggies is most important. Second is probably image stabilization, with color/picture quality a close third.


If you're doing anything serious, use a tripod. I use one nearly all the time. Of course, my Sony and the Sanyo only offer digital image stabilization, which is not ideal. I have a Canon HV10 as well that does optical stabilization (originally bought as a backpacking camcorder.. I also have a hiking stick that doubles as a monopod) -- much better. Last I read, Panasonic's optical stabilization was best this year... these guys improve it all the time. I like it in a still camera, but even though I'm a really stable shooter, I don't like the look of handheld video, with or without the stabilizer. But if you're planning to lots of handlheld shooting, you want the optical technology, no question about it.


I also need the camera to be able to record in theaters and gyms for show choir but this isn't as important as I can have a tripod, but the camera will need some level of low light performance (although I think all the camera's I've listed will be ok for this purpose).

Yeah, there are all very good in low light. Canon's been the leader in that for years, the Sanyo has the largest sensor of the group, Sony's gotten better, and their "ClearVid" technology actually trades a bit more sensitivity for a bit less color info.. though at 1/2.8", it's the smallest single sensor. Panasonic has had bad low-light performance with their consumer models.. 3-chippers are inherently better (three chips get nearly all of the light that goes in, a single chip filters 2/3 of the light going to any given sensor site). The TM300 has three 1/4" sensors, which seems to deliver very good low-light performance.

Another issue.. if you're shooting plays and music, particularly on a tripod at the back of the gym, your audio will be all but useless with the built-in on-camera mic. I typically use two good mics on my Sony... one was included, and another is a Rode NT-1, which cost nearly as much as the Sanyo camcorder (I wouldn't use the Sanyo as an "A" camera in such situations). Where possible, I also set up a laptop or a field recorder and some close mics... but then again, I've been an audio guy longer than video guy. Anyway, I believe your choices all permit at least some kind of add-on mic, whereas cheaper ones like the Sanyo leave that option out. If you have off-camera audio, you don't need the in-camera audio except for sync, or maybe rear-channel effects if you want a 5.1 mix on a final DVD or BD.

I'd look over the reviews online, particularly in-depth such as camcorderinfo.com (they haven't done the VPC-FH1, but they did the VPC-HD2000, which is similar). I haven't actually seen a recent comparison of these modern AVCHD camcorders on something like sports video... that would be pretty interesting.

Thanks hazydave for your excellent reply... much food for thought. I've looked high and low on the web and can't find any reviews of the new Sony HDR-CX500V (or the HDR-CX520V for that matter). Not much on you tube either... I wonder why? I've also looked for info on the HF S11, with it's new dynamic super shift image stabilizer... not much out there on this unit either to know if it's worth the extra $$..

Thanks again hazydave!

Thanks hazydave for your excellent reply... much food for thought. I've looked high and low on the web and can't find any reviews of the new Sony HDR-CX500V (or the HDR-CX520V for that matter). Not much on you tube either... I wonder why? I've also looked for info on the HF S11, with it's new dynamic super shift image stabilizer... not much out there on this unit either to know if it's worth the extra $$..


Both the Sony HDR-CX500V, the Canon HF-S11, and the Panasonic HDC-TM350 are the typical "mid-year upgrades"... the new models are announced at the Consumer Electronics Show (January) or something similar, then the release an upgraded version in about six months. So, these haven't been in reviewers hands for long, yet.

The HDR-CX500V does look pretty good, if you can get past Sony still clinging to the proprietary memory stick technology... less of a difference when you get 64GB of internal flash. I know Sony's right on top of the latest tricks and features. They have the same "face following" trick Panasonic put out in the TM300.. you can select a person in a shot, and autofocus will follow that person. Trippy!

Perhaps of more use, they have a new anti-shake technology, "Active Mode", which layers a digital stabilizer on top of the existing optical one, specifically to deal with camera rotations, a thing regular optical stabilizers can't deal with all that well. Sounds cool. Also has a built-in GPS receiver, for geotagging your shots.

On the down side, far as I've been able to discover, the CX500V does only 1920x1080/60i video.. no progressive modes. That's typical Sony -- both Canon and Panasonic offer at least 24p in just about every HD model these days; I think Canon also offers 30p. Curiously, like many of the newer models, it won't record in standard definition either, but it seems to be able to spit out SD-encoded MPEG-2 in realtime from an HD source.

I never consider the HDD models. For one, flash is roomy enough for more kinds of shooting, and very reliable. HDD becomes the weakest link.. the most likely thing to fail in the camera, particularly if you drop it (obviously, not a goal, but it happens). They also have issues with vibration (due to travel or very loud noise) and altitude (questionable operation over about 9500 ft)... all of which would have been an issue on my last backpacking trip (my Canon HV10, along with eight 83 minute HDV tapes, did the job... flash would have been smaller/lighter and less risky, but it wasn't ready back then).

Canon's is much like the S10, only with 64GB of flash, and, as you mention, a new stabilizer technology, too -- "Dynamic SuperRange OIS". I haven't figured out what they're doing, but the claim is that this works much better for "dynamic" situations. Regular OIS systems were designed initially to stabilize the image against normal handheld shake when you're really trying to keep the camera steady. This is supposed to aid in situations when you're doing that less well -- you're walking and shooting, you're in a car with lots of vibration, etc. If it works -- great... OIS is worthwhile, as long as it's not a drain on image quality (I have such in the HV10 and several DSLRs and a pocket still camera). Again, don't know if this works like Sony's, or in some other way.

Sounds familiar... I have shot video of practically everything my kids have done in middle school and high school, including my daughter's soccer... she's a sophomore on the JV team here.

There are a couple of concerns. For band and stage shots, you will probably start to realize that most schools don't have the same level of talent applied to lighting as they might to the acting or music. So it's probably darker than you'd like... thus, a camcorder with great low-light performance is critical.

For sports, you have two real issues... speed, and video CODEC failure on fast motion. More on that...



Yup... all excellent choices. Of the lot, I was fairly strongly leaning toward the HDC-TM300 myself this year, but decided to wait a bit.. mainly for the move to SDXC, and maybe another year or two of improvements to AVCHD.

On the other hand, I shoot nearly every soccer game, and that was more wear and tear on my HVR-A1 than I wanted.. plus, getting video converted and put online, I wanted a computer-like medium. I had a chance to mess around with the Hitachi BD70A Blu-Ray camcorder, but there was too much artifacting to make me happy.

I recently picked up a Sanyo VPC-FH1... this was really a stopgap, a fill in for the Blu-Ray camera when I need casual shooting or something quick (without bothering my daughter to user her Panasonic HDC-SD9.

This is pretty cool, for the price.. it does 1080/60p, which is very nice for sports, though you have to move it to a Blu-Ray format (1080/60i, 720/60p) to make a disc, or possibly even play it. But that choice is left to your editing phase.



It's not motion blur.. that's a normal aspect of action faster than your shutter speed can freeze, that's so much of a problem, but the encoding of very fast motion that can be a problem. You're basically getting compression artifacts, due to the fact that the AVC (or even in an MPEG-2 camera) wants intraframe compression, but you're not giving it frames with anything the same between them.

Most any consumer/prosumer HD technology is going to be a problem with really fast motion, simply because intraframe encoding is just weak at it. The Sanyo isn't quite as good as my Sony on this, but it's much better than the Hitachi (which is AVCHD from a few years back... the Sanyo is actually MPEG-4 AVC, but not technically AVCHD... and I think Sanyo's been working with AVC as long as anyone). That suggests that the others are probably of similar development.

I haven't tried the Sanyo's 1080/60i mode on soccer.. like the Panasonic, that's limited to about 17Mb/s (1080/60p is variable, averaging around 24Mb/s)... really fast motion is one place you might see a small difference between 24Mb/s in the Canon (not sure about Sony).. nothing else I've read seems to find much difference.

You can find my soccer videos here:
http://www.frogpondmedia.com/soccer
However, this is all streaming Flash video at about 600kb/s and 640x360 or so.. I don't know how useful it'll be. The first two are shot with the Hitachi, the rest with the Sanyo, and the Sanyo's should be at 60p.. I'm not sure if I like that with the flash encoding or not. Go to last year's page to find flash and .mp4 downloads shot with the Sony, which would be about the same for any HDV camcorder -- MPEG-2 was pretty mature when HDV came out, you don't see much difference between encoders. Wish I had the bandwidth for full HD up there :-) Again, given the low bandwidth web video, I don't know if you'll learn much useful there.



If you're doing anything serious, use a tripod. I use one nearly all the time. Of course, my Sony and the Sanyo only offer digital image stabilization, which is not ideal. I have a Canon HV10 as well that does optical stabilization (originally bought as a backpacking camcorder.. I also have a hiking stick that doubles as a monopod) -- much better. Last I read, Panasonic's optical stabilization was best this year... these guys improve it all the time. I like it in a still camera, but even though I'm a really stable shooter, I don't like the look of handheld video, with or without the stabilizer. But if you're planning to lots of handlheld shooting, you want the optical technology, no question about it.



Yeah, there are all very good in low light. Canon's been the leader in that for years, the Sanyo has the largest sensor of the group, Sony's gotten better, and their "ClearVid" technology actually trades a bit more sensitivity for a bit less color info.. though at 1/2.8", it's the smallest single sensor. Panasonic has had bad low-light performance with their consumer models.. 3-chippers are inherently better (three chips get nearly all of the light that goes in, a single chip filters 2/3 of the light going to any given sensor site). The TM300 has three 1/4" sensors, which seems to deliver very good low-light performance.

Another issue.. if you're shooting plays and music, particularly on a tripod at the back of the gym, your audio will be all but useless with the built-in on-camera mic. I typically use two good mics on my Sony... one was included, and another is a Rode NT-1, which cost nearly as much as the Sanyo camcorder (I wouldn't use the Sanyo as an "A" camera in such situations). Where possible, I also set up a laptop or a field recorder and some close mics... but then again, I've been an audio guy longer than video guy. Anyway, I believe your choices all permit at least some kind of add-on mic, whereas cheaper ones like the Sanyo leave that option out. If you have off-camera audio, you don't need the in-camera audio except for sync, or maybe rear-channel effects if you want a 5.1 mix on a final DVD or BD.

I'd look over the reviews online, particularly in-depth such as camcorderinfo.com (they haven't done the VPC-FH1, but they did the VPC-HD2000, which is similar). I haven't actually seen a recent comparison of these modern AVCHD camcorders on something like sports video... that would be pretty interesting.
HazyDave,

Since you have the camera also, do you know if there is anyway to view while you record via an external monitor vs the 3" LCD? I've tried the component and the hdmi outputs which both send the picture to my 7" external LCD UNTIL I hit record, then the picture switches to the camera's 3" LCD. Having a hard time keeping my kid's soccer game in frame (missing half the action as my head follows it, but not the camera...lol) and the larger monitor would solve that.

Thanks

Since you have the camera also, do you know if there is anyway to view while you record via an external monitor vs the 3" LCD?


Not that I know of. But I haven't tried it.


I've tried the component and the hdmi outputs which both send the picture to my 7" external LCD UNTIL I hit record, then the picture switches to the camera's 3" LCD. Having a hard time keeping my kid's soccer game in frame (missing half the action as my head follows it, but not the camera...lol) and the larger monitor would solve that.


I occasionally play "where's the ball", but usually, I can follow the action. I shoot from a tripod, and I'm getting better at this, after a couple of years.

Between last year and this, I found one good rule... use the HD. I found that, given the small screen, I was thinking "standard definition" when shooting, so I have everything zoomed in too much, which also made it more likely I'd get confused when the ball left the frame. This year, along with the 60p, I'm keeping a slightly wider shot.

I think you also develop a "field sense".... I have a pretty good idea where the ball's going to land depending on how it was kicked, that kind of thing. I haven't tried a large monitor (the Sony HVR-A1 I used last year has small screen, too, as did the Hitachi Blu-Ray model I played around with earlier in this season), but I'm not sure I'd like that, either.

Not that I know of. But I haven't tried it.



I occasionally play "where's the ball", but usually, I can follow the action. I shoot from a tripod, and I'm getting better at this, after a couple of years.

Between last year and this, I found one good rule... use the HD. I found that, given the small screen, I was thinking "standard definition" when shooting, so I have everything zoomed in too much, which also made it more likely I'd get confused when the ball left the frame. This year, along with the 60p, I'm keeping a slightly wider shot.

I think you also develop a "field sense".... I have a pretty good idea where the ball's going to land depending on how it was kicked, that kind of thing. I haven't tried a large monitor (the Sony HVR-A1 I used last year has small screen, too, as did the Hitachi Blu-Ray model I played around with earlier in this season), but I'm not sure I'd like that, either.

Thanks for the reply. Its just maddening that those sequences you really want to catch (run to goal/finish) are usually missed as the cameraman gets too caught up in the moment and follows the action with his head/eyes instead of the camera lens....Maybe a forehead mount is my next solution...lol

The real slick setup for soccer is with one of those $5000 rigs that puts the camera in the air about 20 ft. Once you see your kids game recorded from that perspective, ground level is really left wanting....

Thanks again and if you ever stumble upon a solution to my external LCD problem (Sanyo has been zero help), I'd appreciate it.

I can only give you my experiences with my Canon HG20 as I have not tried any other camcorders.

My son plays varsity soccer and football (as well as club soccer) and I think that the picture from this camera shown on my 55" HDTV is outstanding. I have never noticed any motion blur/jaggies. I have recorded both night & day games with no problem. I could even go frame by fame to see that my son's 75 yard kickoff earlier this season did in fact go through the goal posts!!

I have also recorded my daughter's cheer routines on the football field and in the gym and they also look fantastic.

The only thing I can't tell you about is low light recording, but if anyone else can give you a thumbs up on low light recording with Canon, then you can not go wrong with one of their HD camcorders.

Happy shopping and filming! :)

Thanks for the reply. Its just maddening that those sequences you really want to catch (run to goal/finish) are usually missed as the cameraman gets too caught up in the moment and follows the action with his head/eyes instead of the camera lens....


That doesn't happen once you get experience, and a little discipline. When I shoot a game, I always look at the camera screen, not directly at the field. The only goal I missed this year (when present, anyway) was due to an overzealous ball girl, who seemed determined to always be in the shot.

The real slick setup for soccer is with one of those $5000 rigs that puts the camera in the air about 20 ft. Once you see your kids game recorded from that perspective, ground level is really left wanting....


Sure... also eliminates the aforementioned ball girl problem. At our home fields, it's always possible to shoot from up high. It's better for the coaches, too... you can pull back a little and get a better idea of what's happening on the field.


Thanks again and if you ever stumble upon a solution to my external LCD problem (Sanyo has been zero help), I'd appreciate it.

I think they would have to change the firmware, to keep HDMI active while shooting... if even possible. Not usually something they care about on consumer models.

HazyDave,

Since you have the camera also, do you know if there is anyway to view while you record via an external monitor vs the 3" LCD? I've tried the component and the hdmi outputs which both send the picture to my 7" external LCD UNTIL I hit record, then the picture switches to the camera's 3" LCD. Having a hard time keeping my kid's soccer game in frame (missing half the action as my head follows it, but not the camera...lol) and the larger monitor would solve that.

Thanks

Same issue here. < 3" LCDs are terrible for manual focus and other things. No way around that as far as I can tell. Not that it matters unless you're using that to feed an external recorder. Since you don't have access to manual controls WHILE recording. And manual focus on the Sanyo FH1 kind of sucks, the jumps between points are too large. The Canon's are a little better at options with this type of thing. Not a fan of Sony as interlaced really sucks in the digital age. And some of theirs ONLY shoot interlaced.

Low light - Sanyo
Action - Something with 60p and a higher bitrate codec. GH1?

Sanyo has 60p, but if you're not on a tripod or spider brace or some other larger than a beer can rig, it doesn't do that well. Some of that is stabilization, but most of it is the low bitrate codec IMO.

It really depends on your budget though. I record audio externally and my audio gear is 3x's the value of my video setup. And I don't expect that ratio to change anytime soon. And I'm really not wanting to spend more than $500 on video, since it's changing so much so fast right now. It's like spending $2K on a 386, when six months later you can get a 3GHz box for $300. (perhaps a little longer than that, but still)

The kids are growing too fast and I'm needed to jump on the next generation of camcorders to preserve the memories. The oldest plays soccer year round and the middle child is in cross country and show choir.

I'm looking at the Sony HDR-CX500, the Panasonic HDC-TM300, or the Canon VIXIA HF S100. (obvious choices)

What I am afraid of is the motion blur (jaggies) when trying to capture the action during the soccer games. My heart is not set on the above camcorders so if you have others to recommend, please do so! For me, handling motion with minimal blur/jaggies is most important. Second is probably image stabilization, with color/picture quality a close third.

I also need the camera to be able to record in theaters and gyms for show choir but this isn't as important as I can have a tripod, but the camera will need some level of low light performance (although I think all the camera's I've listed will be ok for this purpose).

Thoughts or examples of motion performance? Thanks in advance!

I've owned three Sony high-defs: HC7 (mini-DV), CX12 (last year's flash memory), and I just traded the CX12 for a CX500V three weeks ago. I have comparisons between marketing specs for the CX500V vs the CX12 and the XR520V posted on the HDR-CX500V/HDR-CX520V Owner's Forum here if you're interested - look at 10/22/2009 around 9:30 pm.

In terms of learning more about the CX500V, you can study any info on the XR5xxV series and all the optics info and most discussion outside of the hard drive vs flash memory will apply. That's how I decided whether or not it was worth upgrading from the CX12 to the CX500V. The deciding factors were that these Sonys have the best low-light performance and the best stabilization for their class of cams per the people who own them who have also owned or tried the other main cams (Canon and Panasonic in particular). I had a new need for low-light excellence, shooting regularly indoors for the first time this year. And with High Def, you can never get enough stabilization! The 500 also has better resolution than the CX12 and some other features that on their own wouldn't have been enough to make me upgrade. But getting those improvements on top of the significantly better low-light and stabilization was a plus and has been satisfying.

I agree with the comments made by the people in the XR forums - the low-light performance and stabilization of this year's Sony XRs and CXs is noticeably better than their own prior models. As to whether it outperforms the other vendors as people claim, that I can't address. Note that the people making these claims seem very objective - if they think the Canon bright-light picture is a little better than the Sony, they'll tell you that. As always, you have to look for the best blend of feature, excellence, and price that matters most to you - none of these cams are hands-down better than all the rest in all aspects.

I have shot many hours of soccer footage with the CX12 and was always happy with it, but I did it in a limited way. I shot two hours of test films with the CX500V as well just to make sure it was as good as the prior model. It looked comparable (probably marginally better due to a higher pixel count in the capture phase, but the max HD resolution itself is fixed at the TV level so having more pixels in the cam has diminishing returns at some point).

What I did because it may be different from what you need:

1. I was filming games where I was playing, not watching. So the filming was done from fixed locations on a tripod with all stabilization turned off as recommended. No one was manning the camera, so the aim and zoom were all set in advance and left there for the most part for many minutes or the whole game.

2. On the CX12, I was using 16 GB chips with the highest HD level, so I could film right around two hours with the standard battery. The new CXs could do twice that easily (32GB) or longer with the 64GB model and the huge battery.

3. I filmed some games to watch the flow and shot the whole field. The field has a hill down one side so you can shoot from above as others suggest.

4. The CX series have a 12x zoom, some people are saying the Canons have 15x. I don't think I ever came close to using the full 12x, even when I was trying to capture all action in a limited area such that the people would be 2/3 as high as the TV frame (widescreen 16:9). I suspect you'd have to be a long ways away for that extra 3x to be useful, or trying to make the whole frame fill with a person's head. Maybe someone else can comment on that if I'm missing something in this area.

5. With HD without a tripod, stabilization needs to be "on" and the lower the zoom, the less shake you'll see onscreen. If you thought you could see shake on regular DVD-level filming, wait until you try HD! What I've found so far with the newest stabilization is that I can use the full CX500V 12x zoom in places where I didn't use the full CX12 12x zoom because of shaking.

6. When watching video playback for both cams, I perceived very little artificating or motion blur - it looked fine to me even when zoomed way in. I can't speak to the quality of the video when handheld because 100% of the filming was from tripod with no adjustments. That's a whole different ballgame, so to speak. As a side note, though, if you try to isolate single frames from this video and people are moving fast, you will see a lot of blurring and will get a limited number of fully-focused standalone frames. At full speed, people are moving maybe 22 feet in a second (60 mph = 88 feet/second from old car driving classes). If you divide that into 30 frames, you're still getting .5 to 1 foot / second at a full sprint between frames, so it takes some luck to get a perfectly focused frame out of that. The Sonys do have a "burst mode" you can invoke that I think shoots 80 frames/second for 3 seconds. The resolution drops and the color and sound are also reduced, but it might be useful sometimes. I've photographed bees and insects that way, and it's neat. But you'd have to be lucky to get a soccer move in just the right timeframe.

7. AVCHD editing requires horsepower as noted on a ton of websites, but we're past the point where good editors are hard to find, and the hardware power curve also caught up with it a year or so ago. If you have the equipment already, this will be a non-issue for you. If not, it will add to your overall cost to go HD and AVCHD in particular.

Bottom line: it appears that this year's XR and CX models have a clear edge in the low-light and stabilization areas. There are other areas where they're not #1, but they're always up there somewhere. Their memory sticks are proprietary and thus more expensive, but getting 32GB to 64GB on board and buying a couple additional chips gives a lot of headroom. I prefer flash memory over hard drives as (a) I like the smaller weight and size and lack of hard drive moving parts and (b) size of the in-camera memory is not too important to me as I would never leave the only copy of something just in the camera. It's all headed to the computer for organization and editing and then to multiple large USB hard drives to show on TVs and as out-of-house backups.

Your choice hinges on correctly defining what's most important to you and then getting the cam that tests, reviews, and owner postings indicate performs well in those areas. These cams are not all the same so the bad news is that you need to study them some. The good news is that some cam out there will be the right blend of what you need.

I see some misconceptions here...since the talk seesm to be about shooting sport events and mostly the cameras in mention are 50i or 60i-native camcorders, these issues should be known:

1) 50 and 60i means that the camera records a picture every 50th or 60th of a second but of half the resolution...that said, generally, 1080 progressive modes (both 25 and 30 fps) as implemented on today's camcorders are absolutely unsuited for sports since these modes record a picture every 25th or 30th of a second so the motion is jerky on fast movement (which can be countered somewhat by using a slow shutter speed which in turn introduces motion blur)...720/50p or 60p modes are identical to 1080 interlaced in terms of motion handling and motion resolution and in broad daylight should never produce any distracting motion blur or jerkiness on any camcorder...

2) Interlace jaggies are not likely to be readily noticed on 1080i since resolution is so high but whether they're gone in actuality, actually :D depends on the de-interlacing and scaling quality of the playback or display device...

3) Cannot comment on Sanyo+s 1080/60p mode but it is such a data hog that I'm sure some compromises had to be made and some corners cut...

3) Cannot comment on Sanyo+s 1080/60p mode but it is such a data hog that I'm sure some compromises had to be made and some corners cut...

The compromise is a 25Mbps codec for 1080p60 footage (barely more than others use for 1080p30). Which comes out to about 4GB every 23 minutes. When panning fast or having a lot of action in frame, it gets a bit blurry at times(bitrate / codec). But it is progressive so no jaggies. And still top notch at DVD quality. And it also takes 8MP still images (only 2MP while recording video).

If you're wanting to capture some action, say lightning strikes, having 60p is very nice. It's amazing how those things take up maybe 3 frames at 60p. And depending on the timing, can end up being two half frames. but at 60p, better odds of having some on a full frame. You can't really play 1080p60 on most consumer grade gear anyway. Scaled to 720p60, there's a probability depending on how many filters you can turn off on your media player. And how recent your last computer was purchased. And probably a non issue with new hardware in coming years.