Originally Posted by Steve Cebu
It really helps if you keep that review in context as they are comparing an MSRP SD800 to the MSP of the 900 series. So they figure spend an extra $100 is worth upgrading to the 900 series and I agree.
That context doesn't make sense, seeing as the SD800 is supposed to have the same video quality as the 900. That it lacks features is a different matter. The question is about the claim that there is graininess and artifacts, and if this is specific to the 800 (and therefore, by extension, the 900).
Originally Posted by Steve Cebu "The SD800 does what it's supposed to do and relatively well. But if you're willing to spend $849.99 on a camera that is lacking in so many departments, you might as well shell out the few extra bucks for any of the camcorders in the 900 series, which were clearly given preferential treatment and have many of the features that the SD800 is missing."
If my understanding of this is correct (that the 800 has the exact same video quality as the 900), then this conclusion is complete and utter nonsense.
The reviewer assumes that people need specific things, and that there is no space in the market for the 800. Let's see what his complaints are:
1. Zoom mic doesn't work
2. Graininess and artifacts (is this true for the 800, but not for any other consumer camcorder?)
3. No accessory shoe
4. No external mic jack
5. No manual lens ring
6. No mini HDMI cable
7. No onboard storage
None of these, with the exception of #2, are a problem to me. I don't use accessories I need an accessory shoe for, no external mic, I don't bother with manual controls much, I already have mini HDMI cables, and not having built in storage is a plus
to me because I can reuse the SD cards I already have in multiple devices.
Why on earth would I shell about another $100 for things I don't need? All I need is excellent video quality!
Now, I really only wanted to discuss the claim about graininess and artifacts, but when I think about it, it seems that the reviewer is desperate to find something to complain about. I'm quite disgusted, really. Of course you are going to get less when you pay less. But the thing is that the important part, the video quality, is supposedly the same as the more expensive models. Other reviews are far more logical, and conclude that if you don't need all those extras from the 900, the 800 is a great purchase and you get the highest video quality in this segment.
So back to the graininess thing: Is it exclusive to the 800? Does the 900 not have it? Do other camcorders in the same price range not have it? That's the question. Because then that would be a perfectly valid criticism, unlike the nonsense the reviewer desperately tried to come up with.