Canon HF20/HF200 really that bad?

I've been struggling with the same decision, and ended up going with the HF200. It will be here the end of the week. I'll make sure to post my impressions and maybe some test vids.

It won't be of any consolation, but if you read the reviews for last year's Canon models, they also say low light performance is bad. I've downloaded tons of samples from the current models and last year's, and it really is a mixed bag with noisy low light.

No

dont trust so hard the camcorderinfo review

download original MTS files to see the real quality

in 24p the night videos looks great

I pulled the Trigger today on the HF200. My last camcorder was a Sony Trv-15. And to tell you the truth I never did use the still photo that much or the advanced controls. Maybe I went alil too much on features set on the last camcorder.

The HF200 is $663 right now at amazon in stock. I figured I can buy a big memory card, a sony S290 camera (which I also need), for less than the price of the HFS100.

I noticed the specs of the video megs of the HFS100 to the HF100 are alot higher. Does anyone know how this affects the HD performance? What does the cannon light attachment run for? Will this help the low light issues if there are any? I guess I'll see on Thursday when it arrives to test out for myself.


On a side note:

I still have a quite a few minidv tapes to transfer. Anyone have the quickest, fastest, cheapest way to transfer those to digital? I only have laptops at home and none of them have AV inputs to do a analog to digital conversion. Dont want to mess with editing right now for those, just straight mpeg2 transfer.

Nice. Keep us updated. [IMG]http://www.******************/storage/411.jpg[/IMG]

I assume your content is on 8mm video tapes from the TRV-15, not MiniDVs, correct? Because if you have content on MiniDV tapes, its already digital and all you need to do is to transfer it into your laptop via a Firewire connection using s/w like MovieMaker or WINDV.

But if its 8mm video from your analog TRV15, you will need to capture the analog video and store it on your laptop/PC. You can do it two ways...
1. get a video capture card for your computer
2. get a digital camcorder with video pass through function that will allow you to send the analog signal out from your Sony into the digital camcorder and either record it to MiniDV or send it directly to your laptop via firewire.

Either way its time and disk space consuming work. Even more so if you want to convert the captured video to an MPEG-2 file.

FWIW... Right now I am in the process of transferring many MiniDV tapes onto an external HDD. Its very time consuming as each tape needs to be played back in real time in order to transfer the data to my PC. And... each 1 hr long MiniDV tape consumes 13 GB of HDD space.

rw2003:


You know I must of been half dead, its been 3 years since I last transfered. Your right its not 8mm it mini dv and firewire the way I used to do it. But it was SLOW back then. I have a new sony vaio laptop curretly. If I remember right the sony camcorder can talk to a sony vaio and speed up the process of transfering, but not sure if its at real time or faster.

Is it easier to transfer/convert the mini dv once it on the hard drive to mpeg2 or mpeg4? Never thought that one mini tape would take up 13gigs. I do have a NAS drive at my house with 1 terabyte free currently. But Id definilty like to compress down and keep the original quality. Would mpeg4 be the solution? Especially if I want to stream via PS3 or others?

Jonathan

I would probably go with the HF100, it is cheaper(even if its not much) and It have bether low light. HF100 was a big step forward, the HF200 are a smal step forward in sharpnes but also a step back in lowlight.

But how big is the diffrences in sharpnes? I do not think its that big when I am looking at samples.

What do you think for you self? Have you looked at the samples available on the web for the both camcorders?

Don´t forget that the HF20 is the same camera as HF200 besides built in memory. It may be easier to find samples on the HF20.

I found those in a fast searth

http://vimeo.com/4009296
Yes not the best.

http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/s...325_76262.html
Yes its not easy to read but there is alot of samples to download and watch.

There should be alot of samples for the HF10 or HF100, becourse its older.

Let me know what you think.

I bought my self the Sony TG3 but I am not sure about keeping it, maby it will be a HF100 instead (Need the indoor qulity if its really that good).

I have now got the possibility to try both the Sany HD2000 and the Canon HF200.

My first impresson is:

HF200 do not handel dark indoor vary well
HF200 extra light do not do much
HF200 have really grate sharpness and picture when sufficient lighting exists.
HF200 is a litte harder to learn
HF200 looks and fells grate, besides the strange placement of choosing video, photo or Video/Photo button.
HF200 Have bether menu system
HF200 is hard to connect, there is no dock so you will have to open and close alot of doors to connect.
HF200 handle zooming grate(no shaking)
HF200 handle focus grate

HD2000 Should handle dark indoor bether then the HF200, but it isn't? The picture become vary unsharp and some times it loses frames?
HD2000 Do feel grate to hold
HD2000 Have a grate stand where all the cables can be connected at the same time.
HD2000 Do not focus as fast as the HF200, its a big diffrence
HD2000 Do shake alot when using zoom(no optic stabilization)

The cameras have been tested in aout mode only.

Do you know where I can find WA to HF200? and is there more then 1 model?

If you run your HF200/HF20 in low light conditions, what settings are you using?

Yes as I mentioned before, I have now tested the Sany HD2000 and HF200.

The HF200 do tend to be a little grainy in lowlight, but the HD2000 are worse in auto mode.

If there is enough light the picture is really nice.

I will see if I can get a sample.

am I missing something? what's wrong with the HF20?

Hey!

Sorry, I have had much to do. But I will run some tests in the days to come and I will try to publish some pictures here.

It will be Sanyo HD2000 and Canon HF200.

thanks lapino. and the 20/200 are exactly the same except the 20 has 32GB built in.

Im going to compare HF200 to Sanyo FH1.

Outdoor:
HF200 has much better colors that are not over saturated. FH1 has too much contrast and looses highlights and a bit of shadows. I think HF200 handles contrast way better. (i always film with Vivid setting in HF200) and its not nowhere close to the saturation of FH1. Focus in HF200 is pretty much instant and totally owns Sanyo. Like everyone states, picture is sharper on the Canon.

Sanyo wins in the regard that its 60p, so motion looks VERY GOOD.

Indoor.
FH1 has less noise and better color saturation. But focus isn't great. I would say its good, but it does take a while to focus, where canon is instant. Also FH1 goes out of focus sometimes, so its kinda hunting in focus, where Canons focus is pretty much always correct. There is def more noise in HF200, but its not that bad at all. In 24p, noise is pretty much the same but i do not like the motion of 24fps, a bit too jumpy.

Stabilization in Sanyo FH1 is just terrible, i had a very shaky picture and at 10x zoom the picture handheld isn't really usable. Had to use Deshaker to fix. On the other hand Canons Optical Stabilization picture is nice and steady. So way less work that has to be done to the video to make it usable.

Menu system is just as easy to use for me on Sanyo or Canon. But Sanyo does give you more control. Wish Canon gave as much control. But we can't have everything.

In conclusion. I think i would rate Canon HF200 9/10 for Outdoor use (-1 comes for less manual control and 60i intead of 60p) Sanyo FH1 I would rate 7/10 (-1 for oversaturation and overblown highlights + too much contrast. Another -2 for No good Stabilization)

Indoor Rating 8/10 for Canon HF200(-1 Noise, and -1 no manual controls like sanyo)
Indoor Rating 9/10 for Sanyo FH1 (-1 for not so good Focus)

In conclusion, I like my Canon HF200 not much better, but a bit better then Sanyo FH1. Hopefully my little comparision will help some of you decide on which camcorder to pick up.

The FH1 is pretty much the same as the HD2000 if i get it right?

Then we simes to have the same view on the diffrences, besides the low light picture.

I have only tested HD2000 with auto control, and in normal indoor light it is worse then the canon, and in almost total darkness it is more or less the same.

But I have got some sugested settings to try on the Sanyo but even if the Sanyo do shine in darkness if will be wary hard to choose it over the HF200 because of the reasons that you mentioned.

lapino I saw on the other forums that you had bought the HF200. I'm in the same dilemma as you were.. can you please post some indoor footage (also some raw footage if possible) to get an idea of how "bad" it is?

I'd appreciate it! The difference between the HF100 and HF200 is 50$ right now...

I wouldn't say its bad, i'd say a bit not as good (noise wise)

I will try the Sanyo HD2000 and Canon HF200 todoay I hope.

If I got it right all HD camcorders are bad in lowlight, the question is which one is the best. Sanyo HD2000 should be one of the bether in that pricerange but this far I am not impressed at all.

I have now recorded some samples with Sanyo HD2000 and Canon HF200. I do think that the Canon HF200 are the bether camcorder.

Sanyo outdoor
Sanyo indoor

Canon outdoor
Canon indoor

I have only used auto mode, I tried to lock Exposiore and Focus on the Sanyo but I dident manage to get a bether pictures?