Sony hdr cx760/panasonic hc x900m/canon hf g10

If cost didn't matter canon is the best all around camera. Panny 900 2nd but for the money great camera. Sony has great stabilization but I didn't like how it focuses always hunting. (560 & nx70)

Time will tell for the newer models

I'm planning to get a new camcorder, and my short list was exactly the same. I have decided on the Panasonic, because it is much smaller than the other two, and fits more easily into a jacket pocket. When I'm on a trek in Mongolia this summer, for example, that will make a big difference. If your main use is personal/hobby, that may be a relevant consideration for you.

"If cost didn't matter canon is the best all around camera."

If video resolution (sharpness) doesn't matter and you don't care if you have to shoot either interlaced video or at the archaic frame rate 24fps, then maybe the canon is for you.

Oh, and Trusted Reviews gave the Panasonic TM900 a 10/10 overall rating, the G10 9/10, but what do they know? http://www.trustedreviews.com/panaso...mcorder_review

Wow, it is one year old. A stone-aged junk. Completely outdated. Avoid, avoid!

24 fps is not archaic, it is just different. Also, at least the G10 records 24 fps as native progressive, while the Panasonics use pulldown (ewwwww!). Sure, there is 60p, but it cannot replace 24p.

Well, we have moved beyond 24fps (which really is old, back to silent films when it was too costly to up the frame rate) and interlaced video, which was dictated by tube TV technology.

Almost everyone has moved to 108060p video but Canon.

We are responding at the same time: I am sorry, but 60p, or at least 48p is replacing 24p by professionals (the director of Avatar, the Director of the Ring have now rejected 24p).

It does not matter to many if 24p is not handy, if one has no interest in jerky action videos that 24p gives.

I have owned the panny 700,750,900 they all had the fan noise and the 900 chirped like crickets in a quite room. I owned the canon xa10, hfg10 and xf100. The canons are as sharp as the pannys in good light and as I stated blow the pannys out of the water in low light. I tested them to my standards of use non pro family stuff. I test things myself and i think you do to so I don't always go by the reviews. What canon camera have you tested your 900 out with of the group to compare. I even did some video comparisons last year to let people see for themselves. I most likely will buy the new 900 to test it out I like the pannys. You have way more knowledge on the tech stuff end on these cameras than I do so I like reading your posts and learning.

Fair enough. The chirping comment is misleading, though - you had a defective unit. But your statement makes it seem like this is a characteristic of all TM900's. None chirp now (it was true for early units). No reviewer has mentioned chirping - they certainly noticed fan noise; they would not miss chirping. No user on this site with a TM900 has chirping.

I agree that real experience can trump reviewers opeinions. But on sharpness, every reviewer agrees and shows charts showing the fact that the TM900 is substantially sharper than the G10 and all consumer camcorders in 108060p mode (*only*). Whether sharpness is conspicuous in real use depends very much on the scene being shot. A complex forest scene or indoor shopping mall (Tingham's video) reveal extraordinary sharpness. A living room scene or a face may not.

Ultimately it would be really great if every consumer could try out the cameras he or she is considering for their own special uses and needs. But they need to know what settings work and don't work well -if someone insists on not using 108060p with the TM900, I would definitely recommend the G10, since it's interlaced mode beats that of the TM900. But at 108060p in most lighting situations the TM900 is another class (I dislike its auto mode, though).

Because there is nothing special about the Sonys. Well, except for having both 1080p60 and native 1080p24.

Honestly, can you tell us why anyone here should be interested in 24P. Really?

Are you asking me? I don't know. Why anyone should be interested in religion, for example? Millions swear by it and kill in the name of it. 24p is like religion to many. Like religion it distorts reality, but when used professionally it produces pretty images and can be broadcast worldwide without introducing too much additional distortion (IMO, 4% speed change is better than 60Hz-to-50Hz conversion). Not that most of us will ever shoot a real movie, still this does not diminish positive qualities of 24p. It compresses better than 60p just because there are fewer frames, and it will look miles better on a regular DVD player than shimmering interlaced crap simply because standard DVD players cannot play 60p. (Yes, most of us have moved on to Blu-ray, but what about friends and family members?)

Anyway, I was not advocating for 24p. I simply mentioned that Sony cams might be interesting to those who want both 60p and 24p.

There is one practically always neglected point in the reviews - is how well camera compresses the highlights. That means, whether you get blue skies or a washed out white area.

Sony does a better job at compressing highlights. I have a Sony camera and accidentally found, that they dynamically change the gamma curve for the top part of the highlights. So for probably just that (plus the stabilization) I would stick with Sony. Panasonic still seems to have the ever present aquamarine tint, and of course it harshly blows the highlights.

These two videos illustrate the highlights problem very well:
youtube.com/watch?v=sVkBawdLcwk (Sony)
youtube.com/watch?v=yxRyUJ2cJWc (Panasonic)

Additionally in the low light situation Panasonic gives a fuzzy picture, but keeps the correct colors. Sony can see more light, but the colors are completely off. Also Sony has troubles capturing wooden and orange colors, making them appear more red.

As for Canon - it has a very good picture quality, but indeed it doesn't have the 60p option. Also it suffers from the 'wibbly-wobbly' effect, also dubbed 'jello-vision'. The optical stabilizer axis distorts the picture, which visibly wobbles to the sides - this can be found on youtube.