Opinions on a new Camcorder purchase?

test teh cameras out with your own flash card. Take a video in the store take teh flssh card home plug it in and compare the camers you are interested in.
Keep in mind that Sony is very slow to autofocus.

The Sony XR500 is two years old. I'm not sure I would buy that camera. He might just be trying to get rid of the last cameras in stock.

The Canon M4xx series is supposed to be very good. It can't quite match the quality of the Panasonic SD800 (or SD/TM900) in daylight, but supposedly has better low light capabilities.

While Steve Cebu certainly has a point that one might try the cameras out in a store, I also think you are looking for feedback from others, right?

I have not yet decided if I will by the Canon M400/M406 (US/EU, same model, AFAIK) or the Panasonic SD800 (which is a bit more expensive). But the fact that the SD800 and its more expensive brothers supposedly have superior quality in daylight while Canon M4xx only has 10x zoom makes me lean towards the Panasonic.

But that better low light performance of the M4xx sure is tempting. And the Panasonic might be out of your price range. What is the SD800 over there?

Anyway, my impression is that the Canon M4xx series is an excellent choice, with particularly impressive low light capabilities for the price.

Like you, I recently was looking for a new camcorder and the various specs were overwhelming. Luckily, this forum provided some great tips.

My first question for u is whether you want a camcorder with flash memory or a hard drive? Two of the models u listed have hard drives and, at least from my research, are appearing to be phased out.

I ultimately went with the Panasonic TMC-SD800. It has a 3mos sensor, great OIS and 12x optical zoom. I believe the Canon M series will give you better low light capability but the Panasonic seemed like a better overall camcorder. Plus, B&H had it on sale for $765 + a $100 gift card. I think that deal is still going on actually.

Good luck on your choice!

My current thinking is that the Canon M400 (M406 in Europe) is probably the best purchase for most people:

The Panasonic SD800 lacks things like a microphone plug, and it is a bit more expensive than the M400. The M400 also has better low light capabilities, which is probably more noticeable than the better daylight quality for the SD800 (unless you compare them side by side).

However, I do think 10x zoom is a bit low, as I like to be able to zoom in on things. And the SD800 has a 20x hybrid zoom.

Yeah.. decisions, decisions

The Canon HFM40 uses the same professional sensor as used in the HF G10, XA10, and the $4000, XF 100/105 models.
It does not however offer a usable wideangle mode (43mm). If that is important to you, avoid.
For me, wideangle was everything, there is nothing worse than not being able to fit something in a shot.

The Panasonic SD900 or SD700 (same cam, but within internal memory), offers the best image quality on the market sub $1000, and has a good wideangle and killer macro capability.

The Canon HF G10 and Sony HDRCX700V currently battle is out the best consumer camcorders money can buy. The Pana SD700/SD900 isn't far behind in image quality and almost half the price (and within your price range)
I opted to pay the most and get the Canon HF G10 because of it's pro sensor and optics, dual SD cards, and advanced external audio capabilities.
But if I only had your money to spend the Pana SD700 or SD900 is by far the best choice, and I looked at practically every datasheet on every camera on high end market.

Don't buy anything without external mic input and "shoe" mount. Audio quality is just as important as video, even more so. A $150 Rode Videomic will give you outstanding audio to match your video.

The greater the optical zoom, the smaller the sensor and lower capability of the optics. If you want top image quality, you MUST get low optical zoom.
That's why the super cheap $200 cams offer 40x optical zoom, but the $1500 prosumer ones only offer x10 or so.

IMO avoid the hard drive camcorders, there is just no need for it, more power consumption, can make noise in very quiet environments, and not a rugged as SD card. If you store all your vide o on camcorder hard drive and don't back it up, you are just begging to lose it.

Dave.

Not sure what you're smoking Dave, but the TM900 smokes the CX700v both in sharpness and colour reproduction. The HF G10 kills the TM900 in low light, but can't match the motion and sharpness of the TM900

I don't know about the TM900, it does not seem to be available in Australia where I am from, only the HDC-SD900 which is what I was talking about.
I presume it's different? If not then I've read the opposite to what you claim.

And quite frankly when it comes to these high end cams, I don't think the differences are that great in practice, and most likely will be of little relevance to someone who asks the usual "which is the best cam" question like this on a forum.

Let me guess, you are a TM900 fanboy?

Dave.

Given that, you might wwant to make sure your cam has a 24P/25P mode.
If you want to shoot in progressive mode and it only has the higher end 50P/60P, then you might not like the extra bitrate and file size required.

Dave.

The SD900 and TM900 are exactly the same - they just differ in the medium in which they record to (sd card vs flash memory)

It is a known fact the Panny produces much better colours and a sharper image than the Sony... Check out any footage of the 2 cams, ask someone on this forum who has had experience with both (Ken, Steve), or go to camcorderinfo.com

I'm not trying to say the Sony is bad, but your comment stating that the Canon & Sony are the best camcorders is far from the truth

Dave, the TM900 and the SD900 are basically the same camera.
No idea if you can get a TM900 is Oz but I don't live there.
I had a TM900 and in bright light it's great, it does have some known issues with making the sky, cyan sometimes and the fan does make noise loud enough to hear in a quiet room.
Reviiews are very positive on the TM900. If it had better low light I would have kept mine.
The differences between the TM900 and the HF G10 which I own are night and day. Very low light on the Canon is nothing short of remarkable. The Panny just can't keep up. I tried everything and all you can do is add more light which it loves.
There is no "best" cam, it depends on what you will use it for. the midrange cams have no best either. Some are better in some areas than others.
I'd be wary of reviews that say the TM900/SD900 is crap.
I'd challenge that.

There have been some arguments on prior posts that the Canon M series does not shoot in native 24p whereas the Panasonic does. Also, the Panasonic will give you better color and images due to the 3mos sensor and it has a wider lens. But across the board, people seems to like the Canon for its low light capability.

The 900s are all the same except:

SD900: No built in memory
TM900: Memory built in
HS900: Hard drive built in

I hadn't even considered this! The Panasonic SD800 (which is the SD900 without optical viewfinder, mic input and some other things) is 35mm. This makes the Canon M4xxx series less interesting indeed.

The SD800 has more zoom, better quality in decent light, and wider angle.

The Canon M4xxx is quite a bit cheaper, and has better low light capabilities. But 10x zoom is not good enough, and now the not-so-wide angle...

This moves me even closer to getting the SD800.

I found this one:

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...ewsID=4727&p=4

It doesn't exactly say that the SD800 (800, not 900) is crap, but they claim that:

"larger screens tend to expose the graininess and artifacts in the video quality"

As if this is not a problem for other cameras in this price range? Am I missing something? If they point this out for the SD800, does that mean that other similar cameras do not have the same problem?

The price is different too. About $1000 for the TM900, and about 50%(!) more for the HF G10 - $1500. That's a huge difference.

And if I am not mistaken, the Panasonic 900 is not exactly a bad camera in low light?

Why do you need this, though?

I purchased a Panasonic FZ35 superzoom (<$250) and really like the HD camcorder built in... the newer models go up to 1080 though... better than most camcorders i've seen and the still pics are awesome... a 16G SD card will get you hours of video...

Here is the FZ40 for $300...

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-...p_ob_p_title_1

I'm not convinced that this camera can produce video quality that rivals the likes of Panasonic SD900 or 800, or the Canon HF G10 or M4xx...

I still can't figure out why. If you are shooting, say, a fast-moving target, wouldn't as many frames per second as possible be preferable? Why would the goal be to shoot something that might look like a movie?

What about the Panasonic SD800?

Correct. It is how much image fits into view at the widest zoom setting.
My old Sanyo Xacti 1010 had 48mm and it was very difficult to fit anything in frame unless the camera was way back form the subject.
For instance, I shot a car review the other week and trying to film the inside of the car with that (lack of) angle was almost impossible.
It was by far my biggest gripe with my old camera.

It is expressed in "35mm equivalent". Basically, under 35mm is good, over is bad. Lower the better.
You can often get screw on wide angle lens, but genuine ones are very expensive, and cheap ones are crap. Better to get this built in from the start.
Most Canons have terrible wide angle at >40mm.


Really, add external mic and shoe mount to that list. Trust me.

Dave.

Consider getting the SD700, without built in memory. I found it much more affordable here in Australia (like $200 diff). And I believe it's got the same optics and features as the other ones.

Or is the 800 the same as the 700 here in Oz?

Dave.

Because it has gotten to the point now where a $1000 consumer camera is good enough to win the Cannes film festival. Anyone has the capability to become a "movie maker"
People love thinking that they can shoot a movie with their camera, it's a marketers wet dream.

Dave.

The top of the line canon M4XX series cam has a viewfinder, the

Canon M41 - $800 vs panny SD800 - $800
Viewfinder - yes - no
Widerangle - not as wide - a lot wider
Mic Input - Aux in - no
1080 HD - Yes - Yes
24p - yes - yes
Low Light - better - not as good
HD Pic's - Yes - Yes


Overall if i where in your shoes i'd get the canon M41. It has the viewfinder you want, mic in is a key feature, espacially when pannys are known for fan noise. It's shots better in low light. Has 32gb built in...

If you are looking at the Panasonic 900 and 800, look also at the SDT-750. Based on Panasonics website and brochures it has all the same important guts.

It has:
*HQ 1080p HD (just so I can get back into filming)
*a 24p mode for cinematic effect (or so I'm told)
*something can film in the evening or a dim apartment
*a lens that captures much of the sides for a wider view.
*HD pictures, regardless of the zoom (10x for instance)
*Doubt I'll get a cam with a viewfinder (But I love those.)

Plus it has a mic input, viewfinder and shoe mount. It also has cheaper batteries than the 900 and an external charger. It comes with all the cords to plug into anything, including one to run the camcorder from the charger for extended use.

Last it comes with a 3D lens that is so ugly that the kit has been a market dud, hence good prices. The 3D logo peels off the camcorder and you can throw away the lens. On the other hand, it actually works and is fun if you have a 3D TV.

Bill --- a HDC-SDT750 fanboy.

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.
I quote

"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."

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).


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.