[nyfirefly11]

OK, so I have a GL-2, which is great, but I'm wondering whether I should sell it and get either the Canon HF200/20/21, the Sony 520/550, or the Panny TM300/700.


For the most part, I use it to tape theater productions, which sometimes have low light, so I need good low light and manual controls for f-stop and gain.


The GL-2 is great for that, and works flawlessly, but I'm trying to figure out if it's worth selling and upgrading to HD. (but only if they'll work well for what I need).


Any thoughts?

 

[emason17]

Camcorderinfo seems to think the Canon low light performance is lacking. I am also considering the Panasonic and Sony options. Any insights?

 

[Suntan]

The feeling I got from CCinfo, back when I went through the same process of evaluating my options, was that they tend to favor Panasonic stuff, and disfavor Sony stuff.


Normally, their reviews come out as Panasonic>Canon>Sony. Sometimes even when the general consensus around the net is that they are smoking something.


I found the general info that was compiled about each camera on CCinfo to be beneficial, but I found their conclusions to be suspect.


Don’t buy based on just one review found on the net, even if Ccinfos reviews do seem to look the most complete.


-Suntan

 

[Tom Gull]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/18162342


The feeling I got from CCinfo, back when I went through the same process of evaluating my options, was that they tend to favor Panasonic stuff, and disfavor Sony stuff.


Normally, their reviews come out as Panasonic>Canon>Sony. Sometimes even when the general consensus around the net is that they are smoking something.


I found the general info that was compiled about each camera on CCinfo to be beneficial, but I found their conclusions to be suspect.


Don't buy based on just one review found on the net, even if Ccinfos reviews do seem to look the most complete.


-Suntan

I agree 100%. I looked at the camcorderinfo CX500V review and also at the two European websites where features are compared side by side and where pictures at different lux levels are available. I actually bought after reading a ton about the XR500s and looking at the latter two sites (they're named in one of the Sony threads, I think - don't have them here). Then I bought the cam because the user review consensus was that the Sony low light was better than any other (again, not talking about super low light sensitivity, but filming indoors and in average low light). I already had a solid opinion of the cam before I read the camcorderinfo review, and felt pretty good after reading it. I figured if they were that positive about it compared against their normal Sony reviews, it was a validation of what I had observed personally. It was one of the stronger Sony reviews they've published.

 

[Paulo Teixeira]

Before the TM300 came out, A lot of people were saying that they have some type of conspiracy against Panasonic and that they were being payed off by Canon for extra favorable reviews.


I do see that their reviews aren't always reliable for example, the new HF S21 has fully native 24p and for some people that's huge news but it doesn't seam like the review reflected it that way.

 

[ericjut]

Curiously enough, the pro-Canon conspiracy theories happened during the time that CCI considered the Canon models to be the best of the crop. It's also worth noting that the majority of the ads on their site at the time were from Canon too. One could actually see a pattern in all of this.

 

[semiferger]

I like the most is Canon. The main reason is that the Canon stores your footage to a 32 GB internal flash drive rather than a 120 GB hard drive. The reason I personally prefer flash drive storage over hard drive storage is because there are no moving parts in a flash drive, and as in any consumer electronics the less moving parts the less likely you will encounter problems in the future.

 

[Shadow_7]

Theater use might prove problematic. You need good low light, and a decent focus attribute. The FH1 I have is a little slow to focus in low light. And if the backdrop is a black curtain and the subject matter is wearing mostly black, then focus gets a little off pretty easily.


Canons sensors have been getting progressively smaller so their low light attributes have not been improving over the past couple of generations. Good optics and fast focus for the most part. But I'll have to look at the current generation to know current trends. Generally speaking the September-ish releases are a little more interesting than those at the start of the year.


Canon:

HF S21 - 1/2.6" 8.59MP CMOS sensor

HF S200 - 1/2.6" 8.59MP CMOS sensor


Sony:

XR500V - 1/2.88" Exmor R (?6.6MP?) CMOS sensor

XR550V - 1/2.88" Exmor R (?6.6MP?) CMOS sensor


Sony's site sure is hard to navigate. Pixel gross 6,631K, I'm assuming that means a 6.6MP sensor. As I wonder how that yields a 12MP still image.


Panasonic:

HS700K - (1080p60) 1/4.1" 3.05MP MOS x3 sensor

TM700K - (1080p60) 1/4.1" 3.05MP MOS x3 sensor


JVC, Samsung, Sanyo, Casio, and others out there as well. The new Canons look interesting. Finally going back to a the bigger sensor size. Which generally means better low light, but not always.

 

[Shadow_7]

JVC:

GZ-HM550 - 1/2.33" 10.62MP CMOS


That one might prove interesting.

 

[emason17]

I am not able to wait for September releases. Should I choose the TM300K over the TM700K (presumably at a higher price point)? Are the Sony's better than the Canon's strictly for indoor usage?

 

[dustindu4]

JVC is always rated very low, bottom of the barrel. I don't know how they stay in business

 

[markr041]

"JVC is always rated very low, bottom of the barrel. I don't know how they stay in business."


That's nonsense. The JVC HM400 (on camcorderinfo.com) has much better sharpness in good and low light than any of the top Panasonic, Canon and Sony Camcorders. You can see it in the line-trumpet charts quite readily. It has better stabilization than the Panasonic TM300 and the top Canons (I do not see a comparison with Sony). Other features more or less the same, but higher noise in low light (but also higher sharpness). And the overall rating is higher than all of the top Sony models. It sells for a lot less than all of the top models from the other three.


JVC also has the top-rated (best) mid-level HD camcorder in 2009 according to that site.

 

[dustindu4]

My basis for comparison was consumer reports, or they could be biased like camcorder.info but in the opposite direction

 

[Tom Gull]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow_7 /forum/post/18166315



Sony:

XR500V - 1/2.88" Exmor R (?6.6MP?) CMOS sensor

XR550V - 1/2.88" Exmor R (?6.6MP?) CMOS sensor


Sony's site sure is hard to navigate. Pixel gross 6,631K, I'm assuming that means a 6.6MP sensor. As I wonder how that yields a 12MP still image.

Steve Mullen's guide to the CX12 included graphics about the Exmor sensor's light capturing elements. Most chips have these in horizontal rows, the Sony chip is shifted 45 degrees away from that. I think Steve's caption said something about that allowing many more pixels per physical size unit (think how arrangement of crystals or atoms can make a huge difference in this area). That then somehow is supposed to be allowing Sony to interpolate about 2x more information for a given area than the number of physical sensor elements there. Those details may be online somewhere. But the general answer is that's its tied to the chip design.

 

[markr041]

"My basis for comparison was consumer reports, or they could be biased like camcorder.info but in the opposite direction."


Now you are claiming camcorderinfo is biased? But this means you read their reviews and yet you still claimed that JVC is "always" ranked low. I am not claiming no bias; I am just troubled by your irresponsible and untrue statement.


BTW, this is what consumer reports says about JVC and camcorders: "Consistently produces good high-definition and standard-definition models in several different formats."


And the resolution chart pictures produced by camcorderinfo don't lie, do they?

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 /forum/post/18168936


And the resolution chart pictures produced by camcorderinfo don't lie, do they?

First, consumer reports is great for getting feedback on dishwashers and leaf blowers, I question how applicable it is for anything that someone actually takes an interest in.


Second, personally I've found myself questioning CCinfos bar graph charts. Quite simply, their bar graphs have tended to show one camera to be better than another, yet when I look at the relative image samples for myself, I disagree with their conclusions.


That said, I have no beef for or against JVC. I don't know if they make good cams or not, but I do know that personally I do not put a lot of faith into CCinfos conclusions, regardless of which cam they are discussing.


-Suntan

 

[markr041]

I was not talking about the bar charts, which are subjective (and thus could be biased). I was talking about the resolution charts (which is what I said) - you know, the ones with the trumpets etc.? They are not biased. And I agree that we can form different conclusions from them, but in many cases it is pretty clear on resolution which is best (can you see lines or not?).


Again, I am not defending either camcorderinfo.com or Consumer Reports, but I was calling someone for making a blatantly false statement. Nor do I claim that JVC models are superior in every way to the others.

 

[Shadow_7]

Interesting how many HV30's are flooding craigslist right now. I guess the newer models are all that. Sadly they want $700+ for said HV30's. There were $525 new at B&H two Xmas's ago. Although one of the few with webcam, A/V INPUT, and other extras.

 

[dustindu4]



Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 /forum/post/18168936


"My basis for comparison was consumer reports, or they could be biased like camcorder.info but in the opposite direction."


Now you are claiming camcorderinfo is biased? But this means you read their reviews and yet you still claimed that JVC is "always" ranked low. I am not claiming no bias; I am just troubled by your irresponsible and untrue statement.


BTW, this is what consumer reports says about JVC and camcorders: "Consistently produces good high-definition and standard-definition models in several different formats."


And the resolution chart pictures produced by camcorderinfo don't lie, do they?

Jesus H dude, what are you a PR rep for JVC? settle down Just smile and go cash your JVC check, you earned it today

 

[markr041]

no i do not work for jvc, i just own a jvc camcorder and know what it can do - see my other post. are you the working for sony?