Can't decide between Canon HG10 and Panasonic HDC-SD9 Help! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 Old 02-11-2008, 03:41 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
letstub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My wife gave me the go-ahead to get a new camcorder! Yes!

Well I have it narrowed down to 2 models, the Cannon HG10 and the Panasonic HDC-SD9. I am new to the high def sceen so I could use a little advice. Which media format is better between the HDD and SDHC? Does any of them have an advantage besides the obvious size difference? Will the Panny have the same picture quality that current reviews are giving the HG10? Is there anything else I should know between the two? Any input is much appreciated!

Don
letstub is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 Old 02-11-2008, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
If I were you I would take out the Canon HG10 and replace it with either the newer HF10 or the HF100 to go up against the Panasonic SD9. Solid state is much, much better than a hard drive because there is no moving parts and less chances of loosing your footage if you drop the camcorder.

Before the first consumer reviews come in, you can’t really tell which camcorder will be the best in the picture department but I can help you in certain areas.

They both give you the option to shoot in 1920x1080 60i and 24p with a bit rate of around 17Mbps. The camera that is the most portable and most likely will have the best stabilizer is the Panasonic SD9 and as for the Canon HF10 and the HF100, it has a 30p option that the SD9 lacks. The HF100 has a standard memory card slot just like the SD9 but the HF10 also has 16 gigs of internal flash memory.
Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #3 of 30 Old 02-11-2008, 04:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,692
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 770 Post(s)
Liked: 851
Paulo, aren't the SD9 and HF10/HF100 almost the same size? I seem to recall seeing the dimensions and they were almost identical. The other thing I'd add is that Canon's picture quality is invariably better than Panasonic's.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #4 of 30 Old 02-11-2008, 05:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I might have to recheck on the dimensions but it's too early to tell which will give a better image since we haven't seen anything from the SD9 yet and when it finally comes out, it can be very subjective. You'll have people on one side complaining about the pixel shifting of the Panasonic and people on the other side complaining about the rolling shutter of the Canons.
Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #5 of 30 Old 02-11-2008, 05:10 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
letstub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think you are right. I think I will go with a solid state model. Doesn anyone have a definate street date for the Panny and Canon models? We are going on vacation in May and hope to have one plenty of time before that to get used to it.
letstub is offline  
post #6 of 30 Old 02-12-2008, 02:47 PM
Senior Member
 
DaveKennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Most reviewers have given the nod to the optical image stabilizer on the Panny SD5 (SD9 should be identical). I have an SD5, and when viewing some footage, a friend accused me of using a tripod. A more stable image trumps a slight improvement in image quality (and I'm not even sure that's true). Removeable flash memory for me - too much at risk in a non-removeable HDD. The DVD burner bundled with my SD5 is a nice addition. I'm sure it will work with the SD9 too - you just have to buy it!

Good luck!
Dave
DaveKennett is offline  
post #7 of 30 Old 02-12-2008, 04:54 PM
Member
 
otakuon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Have they fixed the bandwidth issues with the solid state devices? From what I understand, AVCHD is a much better codec then HDV, but because solid state devices can't write the data to the chips fast enough, it has to be highly compressed. Therefore HDV footage (like from the HV20/30)looks "cleaner" than AVCHD footage from a solid state device (like the HF10). I really am curious becuase I am on the fence as to wether I should get an HF10 or an HV30 or wait until solid state devices have improved bandwdith capabilities so that they can take full advantage of the AVCHD codec.
otakuon is offline  
post #8 of 30 Old 02-16-2008, 02:28 PM
Senior Member
 
rbouch8828's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Panasonic SD9 is slated to be shipping in March. I don't understand the comment "HDV footage (like from the HV20/30)looks "cleaner" than AVCHD footage from a solid state device".
rbouch8828 is offline  
post #9 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 02:59 AM
Member
 
otakuon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbouch8828 View Post

The Panasonic SD9 is slated to be shipping in March. I don't understand the comment "HDV footage (like from the HV20/30)looks "cleaner" than AVCHD footage from a solid state device".

I am refering to the bitrates for HDV vs AVCHD which is the codec that most (all?) Solid State and HDD based camcorders use. Solid State can't handle a bitrate of more than 15-17 Mbps due to limitations in flash write speeds while HDV devices that write to HDV tape have a bitrate of up to 25 Mbps. Becuase of this, video that is stored on solid state devices have to be more heavily compressed which leads to a degradation in picture quality. Even though they are capable of a higher resolution than HDV (1920x1080 vs 1440x1080), the need to compress the video more in order to prevent dropped frames causes the picture to have more compression artifacts and a generally lower quality image than what you get with traditional tape. I am just curious as to wether or not anyone has made any recent comparisions and if HDV/Tape is still the best quality format or if Solid State/AVCHD camcorders have caught up.
otakuon is offline  
post #10 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 03:30 AM
Senior Member
 
rbouch8828's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by otakuon View Post

I am refering to the bitrates for HDV vs AVCHD which is the codec that most (all?) Solid State and HDD based camcorders use. Solid State can't handle a bitrate of more than 15-17 Mbps due to limitations in flash write speeds while HDV devices that write to HDV tape have a bitrate of up to 25 Mbps. Becuase of this, video that is stored on solid state devices have to be more heavily compressed which leads to a degradation in picture quality. Even though they are capable of a higher resolution than HDV (1920x1080 vs 1440x1080), the need to compress the video more in order to prevent dropped frames causes the picture to have more compression artifacts and a generally lower quality image than what you get with traditional tape. I am just curious as to wether or not anyone has made any recent comparisions and if HDV/Tape is still the best quality format or if Solid State/AVCHD camcorders have caught up.

otakuon, Not sure where you are getting your information about the read/write speed of solid state memory, but I do know that Panasonic uses solid state memory in its professional broadcast cameras operating at up to 100 mb/s. Also, you cannot compare the picture quality of AVCHD at its low bit rate with the picture quality of HDV at its higher bit rate. AVCHD uses MPEG 4 which is a much more efficient compression scheme versus the HDV compression. MPEG 4 is used on all the Blu-ray and HD-DVD's and the picture quality there is superb.
rbouch8828 is offline  
post #11 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,692
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 770 Post(s)
Liked: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbouch8828 View Post

otakuon, Not sure where you are getting your information about the read/write speed of solid state memory, but I do know that Panasonic uses solid state memory in its professional broadcast cameras operating at up to 100 mb/s. Also, you cannot compare the picture quality of AVCHD at its low bit rate with the picture quality of HDV at its higher bit rate. AVCHD uses MPEG 4 which is a much more efficient compression scheme versus the HDV compression. MPEG 4 is used on all the Blu-ray and HD-DVD's and the picture quality there is superb.

That's correct. He was wrong about those bitrates. AVCHD uses SDHC cards with a higher read/write speed and can handle the higher bitrates without any issues.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #12 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 12:39 PM
Member
 
otakuon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well...I guess what I am talking about is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Controversy

It has also been a topic of much debate in other forums dedicated to DV. I really want to get a HF10 when it comes out, but I am concerned that the picture quality will suffer compared to the HV30 which records to HDV tape. The HF10 and many other consumer grade Solid State camcorders are limited to a bitrate of 15-17 Mbps in order to accomodate cheaper flash memory cards. AVCHD's bitrate is capable of 24 Mbps. So if the camcorder is scaling it back to 17 Mbps then there is going to be a loss in quality. Lower Bitrate = less information stored per pixel which causes issues such as macro-blocking and other compression artifacts which degrade the picture quality of the video image.

Also see this comparing the image quality of an HG10 vs HV20:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=998

And this:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...erformance.htm
otakuon is offline  
post #13 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 01:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,692
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 770 Post(s)
Liked: 851
There is no macroblocking in the current Canon HG10, so I don't believe macroblocking is an issue with the newer and better AVCHD units. Also there is nothing cheap about the memory cards these AVCHD cams take to record HD video. Compared to tape they're far more expensive with the higher capacity SDHC cards running anywhere from $100-200.

I've compared footage from an HG10 to my Canon HV20 and it does quite nicely. On my 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma, the pictures appear almost identical from a distance of about 8'-9'. When you get closer to the screen, the HG10's picture becomes a bit less smooth than the HV20's. I would anticipate the new HF10 and HF100 to have an even better picture with their higher resolution and bitrates.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #14 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 01:20 PM
Member
 
otakuon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well...I hope so...this is something that has really bothered me. I do know that Canon has upped the bitrate for the HF10 and HF100 to 17 Mpbs. I guess we will just have to wait untill May when they come out to see if it makes a difference.
otakuon is offline  
post #15 of 30 Old 02-17-2008, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

There is no macroblocking in the current Canon HG10, so I don't believe macroblocking is an issue with the newer and better AVCHD units. Also there is nothing cheap about the memory cards these AVCHD cams take to record HD video. Compared to tape they're far more expensive with the higher capacity SDHC cards running anywhere from $100-200.

I've compared footage from an HG10 to my Canon HV20 and it does quite nicely. On my 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma, the pictures appear almost identical from a distance of about 8'-9'. When you get closer to the screen, the HG10's picture becomes a bit less smooth than the HV20's. I would anticipate the new HF10 and HF100 to have an even better picture with their higher resolution and bitrates.

were both cameras in progessive or interlaced mode,and did the compared footage include panning or head on shots.thanks
flintyplus is offline  
post #16 of 30 Old 02-18-2008, 10:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,692
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 770 Post(s)
Liked: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

were both cameras in progessive or interlaced mode,and did the compared footage include panning or head on shots.thanks

Both were in interlaced mode and yes, panning was included.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #17 of 30 Old 02-18-2008, 11:19 AM
Member
 
ericvonzipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i'm still confused on the sd9's bitrate? if it is 17(vbr)? I would have thought the review at simplydv would have noticed the increase in bit rate?!?!? they mention it's VERY similar performance to the sd9(which I don't like).
i'm still going with the hf100, but since I have to wait anyway....panny still has a chance.....
ericvonzipper is offline  
post #18 of 30 Old 02-20-2008, 05:22 AM
Senior Member
 
rbouch8828's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I believe the HG10 is 1440x1080, while the SD9 is 1920x1080.
rbouch8828 is offline  
post #19 of 30 Old 02-20-2008, 06:49 AM
Member
 
ericvonzipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbouch8828 View Post

I believe the HG10 is 1440x1080, while the SD9 is 1920x1080.

HG10 sensor is full hd 2 megapixel(1920X1080 +) it just records to the hdd in 1440x1080, but the image is very close to the current champion hv20(also 1440x1080)

I've compared enough stills and movies to know the Hg10 has a better image sensor than the SD5(and probably SD9)

I've done too many comparisons and would have problems not going for the best sensor.

I would love to own the SD5/9, but I've seen to much.
ericvonzipper is offline  
post #20 of 30 Old 02-26-2008, 05:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Dawg90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Also there is nothing cheap about the memory cards these AVCHD cams take to record HD video. Compared to tape they're far more expensive with the higher capacity SDHC cards running anywhere from $100-200.
.

And that's with current flash fabs at way overcapacity. They are laying off people and have stopped buying capital equipment due to the memory glut. Today's low memory prices will actually go up in the short term.
Dawg90 is offline  
post #21 of 30 Old 02-26-2008, 06:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,692
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 770 Post(s)
Liked: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericvonzipper View Post

i'm still confused on the sd9's bitrate? if it is 17(vbr)? I would have thought the review at simplydv would have noticed the increase in bit rate?!?!? they mention it's VERY similar performance to the sd9(which I don't like).
i'm still going with the hf100, but since I have to wait anyway....panny still has a chance.....

I recorded a few clips on an SD9 today at Circuit City. Putting those clips into ULead Studio 11, the clips were showing a bitrate of 16.8. That's a huge jump over the 11.8 I got with the SD5! It seemed the video was cleaner and the colors were definitely better and brighter.

The problem is there was no way for me to test the unit outdoors where I found the SD5 to have a very limited dynamic range and easily blown out in the highlights. But the indoor Circuit City video was very very nice. My concern with the SD9 is that the very small chips may be the issue with limited dynamic range and not the bitrate.

I think this is the year though that AVCHD is catching up with and perhaps surpassing HDV in overall picture quality. It's just a guess, but I'm hopeful.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #22 of 30 Old 02-27-2008, 06:02 AM
Member
 
ericvonzipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I recorded a few clips on an SD9 today at Circuit City. Putting those clips into ULead Studio 11, the clips were showing a bitrate of 16.8. That's a huge jump over the 11.8 I got with the SD5! It seemed the video was cleaner and the colors were definitely better and brighter.

The problem is there was no way for me to test the unit outdoors where I found the SD5 to have a very limited dynamic range and easily blown out in the highlights. But the indoor Circuit City video was very very nice. My concern with the SD9 is that the very small chips may be the issue with limited dynamic range and not the bitrate.

I think this is the year though that AVCHD is catching up with and perhaps surpassing HDV in overall picture quality. It's just a guess, but I'm hopeful.

Thanks for the update!

16.8 is fantastic. Choosing a camera just got worse. :-(

And I agree with AVCHD probably surpassing HDV. The HDV grain is very annoying. Too much bitrate?

Hf100 is still number one on my list, but the sd9 is back in the race.

When is Sony releasing the CX9? :-)
ericvonzipper is offline  
post #23 of 30 Old 02-28-2008, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CKNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by otakuon View Post

Well...I guess what I am talking about is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Controversy

It has also been a topic of much debate in other forums dedicated to DV. I really want to get a HF10 when it comes out, but I am concerned that the picture quality will suffer compared to the HV30 which records to HDV tape. The HF10 and many other consumer grade Solid State camcorders are limited to a bitrate of 15-17 Mbps in order to accomodate cheaper flash memory cards. AVCHD's bitrate is capable of 24 Mbps. So if the camcorder is scaling it back to 17 Mbps then there is going to be a loss in quality. Lower Bitrate = less information stored per pixel which causes issues such as macro-blocking and other compression artifacts which degrade the picture quality of the video image.

Also see this comparing the image quality of an HG10 vs HV20:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=998

And this:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...erformance.htm


I do not know where you get the idea that solid state memory is slower. It is opposite. Solid State memory is faster than hard drive or HDV. AVCHD does not need higher data rate than 17Mbps as AVCHD (Mpeg4 h.264) is much more efficient than Mpeg2. Mpeg4 h.264 should give you the same quality as Mpeg2 at 30Mbps.
CKNA is offline  
post #24 of 30 Old 03-19-2008, 04:23 PM
Member
 
tjh3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
HDC-SD9 video outdoors is very nice and the SD card can be run straight in a PS3.
Indoor quality is so so....needs lots of light or you see graininess.
A 16 GB card holds slightly over 2 hour of video at 17 Mbs VBR. The battery should run at least 1hr 15min.

TJH3
tjh3 is offline  
post #25 of 30 Old 03-23-2008, 03:16 AM
Senior Member
 
smokenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjh3 View Post

HDC-SD9 video outdoors is very nice and the SD card can be run straight in a PS3.
Indoor quality is so so....needs lots of light or you see graininess.
A 16 GB card holds slightly over 2 hour of video at 17 Mbs VBR. The battery should run at least 1hr 15min.

TJH3

i just got an SD9 and waiting for an SDHC card to arrive,I've been playing around with my digital cameras standard 256mb SD card. I notice the video jumps and is a bit jerky. Would this most be likely from using a standard SD card opposed to the SDHC, or does SDHC only have higher storage capacity advantages?
smokenz is offline  
post #26 of 30 Old 03-23-2008, 03:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Whoa? put that 256mb SD card away, thats depressing. Newer SDHC cards are faster, better. The higher the class of the card the better. What card are u expecting.
img eL is offline  
post #27 of 30 Old 03-23-2008, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Never mind standard SD cards, but there are people who say that not even class 4 SDHC cards should be used. To be on the safe side, you should stick with class 6.
Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #28 of 30 Old 03-23-2008, 02:03 PM
Senior Member
 
smokenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
yeah i know standard SD card is weak, but what do you expect when you have no other card, it's easter so you can't get any good deals for SDHC so you all you can do is wait haha. would this be a likely cause as to why the video is jittery though? it still says around 16mbps when played on PS3.
I'm getting a Class 6 16GB SDHC 2.0 card. I'm getting it for $95us, which isn't too bad I think.
Looking forward to it turning up so I can do some real testing. Also waiting for a Mini HDMI cable to arrive also.
smokenz is offline  
post #29 of 30 Old 03-23-2008, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Make sure your stabilizer is on and the recording set to 60i.
Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #30 of 30 Old 03-24-2008, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,787
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

there is nothing cheap about the memory cards these AVCHD cams take to record HD video.

The point was that Class 2 cards that are limited to 2MBps == 16Mbps are cheaper compared to Class 4 or Class 6 cards. Since SDHC standard includes all three classes, manufacturers may seem that it is already arrogant enough to require SDHC instead of older SD, so they don't want to infuriate customers even more by requiring a specific -- a faster one -- class of a card. I can understand why manufacturers are doing this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Compared to tape they're far more expensive with the higher capacity SDHC cards running anywhere from $100-200.

8GB card for $35, 16GB for less than $100. I don't know what $200 you are talking about unless you mean 32GB card. I personally would stick to 8GB cards, nice one-hour replacement to tapes, also the more cards, the less likely you lose ALL footage if you lose one card. EDIT: Oh, I guess you are talking about Memory sticks. Sony rips its customers off with proprietary technology, eh?
Ungermann is online now  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off