Pan TM700 today or Canon HF M41 Tomorrow

I was in the same boat yesterday, but in the end I decided for the TM700. The TM700 is a proven camcorder and you're basically getting a $1000 camcorder for $750. The viewfinder on the TM700 is nothing to brag about, but LCDs are simply useless in the sun, so just having it there (even if it's a low-res one) is a useful feature for those times you absolutely can't see the display. I'm sure the Canon is more solid and that it has better low-light performance but you have to really think about how you are going to use this camcorder. I personally will be filming mostly in the daytime and in outdoor settings, and maybe a few times at night (the TM700 is still no slouch in low-light). The TM700 will be the sharper cam in daylight and I think I will be do quite a bit of slowmo, so having a 60p source will mean I can run the material at half-speed, plus still have a smoothe video.

It's a tough one, I'm sure the M41 will be great, but if you plan to take a pic here and there, along with a lot of outdoor footage, I'd lean towards the TM700.

I also believe the M41 has no manual controls...big bummer.

EDIT: Sorry, I'll be honest I only skimmed through your post. Seems like you will be doing a lot of indoor stuff and pics will probably not be a feature of much use to you. Have you looked into getting a DSLR like the T2i or T3i? For theater productions, the shallow depth of field a dslr can provide would really be beneficial to the quality of your video (give it a more "artsy" and professional look). I bought a t2i and returned it, cause my main issue with it was that it was hard to focus outdoor while I was moving around. But if you have it on a tripod, you have full manual control of the focus, and also spectacular low-light performance due to the immense sensor. Plus, over time you can always add a lower aperture lens like the $100 Canon 50mm f/1.8 for an even better shallow depth of field.

If I were you i'd look into getting something like a Canon T2i/T3i.

Here are some videos made with the T2i:
http://vimeo.com/groups/38034/videos

The T3i I believe has the same internals, but you will be paying $100 more for a swivel LCD and 3x-10x digital zoom (presumably with no quality loss).

Considering that low light is important to you, there's no doubt that the M41 will be significantly better than the Panasonic. It's bigger brother, the HF-G10 was already described by CCI as having overall better PQ than the 700 and the M41 uses the same sensor as the G10. It's also very possible the Canon will display a greater dynamic range than the Panasonic since that's something Canon claims to have worked on. Time will tell.

It may also depend on how important 1080p is to you. At one point, I thought I'd never look at a camera that didn't have it, but having tested a Panasonic 750 next to a Canon S20, I felt the overall PQ on the S20 was a bit better than the 750. There have been a number of people complaining about the 700's rendering of blues. I had the 700 and rarely had an issue like that, but having seen numerous 700s displaying the issue, I think it's something that can't be ignored. The 750 I tried had some issues with its AWB and that seemed to underscore some of the color issues some have had.

The Panasonic will take better still pix than the Canon, but personally I can't recall ever using a camcorder for taking stills. My Iphone4 would probably do better than most cams.

I think most people would agree with most of what you said. Though I do have some qualms with the claim that the M41 will do SIGNIFICANTLY better in low light...a bit early for such big statements I think, given that there are important differences between the G10 and the M41, and even the G10 was not exactly a breathtaking difference, just better.

But, the real reason I am commenting here is to point out one important aspect to consider. If you are planning on filming the actual performances, then the lighting on stage will be more than sufficient to keep the db gain low enough to eliminate noise. Thus, you would end up with an image that has VERY vibrant well saturated colors, exceedingly sharp image, and you would have the 60p option to give a better source material, with improved manual functions, and some of the other obvious benefits of the 700. The 60p, improved sharpness, and better colors indoor in moderate light would be more than worth it to me, as long as I knew I would be focusing on a well lit stage. (I recommend using manual mode, and either setting gain yourself, or being ready to adjust it if needed)

The only real risk would be if you plan to shoot b roll footage of the audience, etc. Then you will probably get a lot more noise with the 700/900, and may well be worth the shift to M41.

In addition, the bondi blue issue is not huge, and would not be relevant for your (OP) primary shooting purpose, to be sure. I think in these settings the 3mos will render much better color, as long as you can keep the gain low enough to eliminate noise.

I didnt mean to sound like I was confirming the missinformation provided by the fellow above.

The M41 certainly DOES have a manual mode. But, from looking at the pictures I understood you had to use the LCD to make adjustments...certainly a problem if you are serious about working with manual frequently, though good enough for my home video needs...

But, since I am made such claims, I am looking at the manual and Canon site now and will update in a moment when I have positive information.

EDIT: After looking at the manual for a moment, I can confirm that the only method of adjusting manual controls is via the LCD rather than a focus ring as on the 700/900. In addition, it appears from reading the manual that the only option is to set either the aperature or shutter, but that the camcorder will automatically make the secondary adjustments to force proper exposure. Whether adjustments can be made during filming, and what limitations are during specific settings...those will probably have to come from hands on experience.

There is also no mention in the manual of zebra stripes, histogram, etc. Thus, while it does have manual controls, they are limited in terms of practical application on an LCD screen.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...Specifications

I think the major problem with the bondi blue issue is that often you don't know when it will pop up. It seems nobody can duplicate it with any degree of reliability and that concerns me as much as the issue itself. I'd like to know when and how an issue arises, otherwise it becomes more concerning when capturing important events. If you know when & how, you have a better idea how to avoid it.

Regarding the 3mos giving 'much better' color, I think that's a stretch. The Canon S20 (1 chip) gave every bit as good a color, and actually better color given its AWB performed better than the 750. I agree that all other things being equal, 3 chips will generally perform better (but not by that much) than a single chip. However the caveat is 'all things being equal'...they rarely are! So the design of the camcorder once again becomes the most important factor.

1080p is also no guarantee of the 'best sharpness or detail' just as 3 chips are no guarantee of the 'best color'. We are, as always, at the mercy of the guys that design and build these camcorders.

BTW, after having seen some of the footage from the new Sony on my Pioneer plasma, I would say if anyone is interested in superb quality, the Sony should be on the short list. I have been down on Sonys for the last few of their generations, but these new puppys are really showing their stuff.
These might be the best of the new units out there. I'm sure giving them a close look.