Is it worth the extra $500 over the cx300? How much better is video performance than the cx300, which costs $500 less? Both seem spec'd similarly, other than size of cmos sensor and internal storage. Is it worth the extra $500 over the cx300? How much better is video performance than the cx300, which costs $500 less? Both seem spec'd similarly, other than size of cmos sensor and internal... » Read More Is it worth the extra $500 over the cx300? How much better is video performance than the cx300, which costs $500 less? Both seem spec'd similarly, other than size of cmos sensor and internal storage. « Show Less
1504712
not really..I does NOT shoot in 1080p resolution...try the panasonic TM700...thank me later..!!
1504713
I've owned both. I would say it is worth it. The steady shot appears to be more stable, it has better low light sensitivity for some reason, it zooms faster, it has a built in gps, it has mic and headphone jacks, better ergonomics and hand strap, it has nightshot, it has a viewfinder, six bladed iris, a huge higher resolution screen and manual focus control. Also, i personally think it is far more sexy than cx-300. one thing to note is that the built in mic on the cx-550v doesn't have good channel separation. The build quality is also much more durable for the CX-550V. The video quality isn't noticeably different tho. I've owned both. I would say it is worth it. The steady shot appears to be more stable, it has better low light sensitivity for some reason, it zooms faster, it has a built in gps, it has mic and headphone jacks, better ergonomics and hand strap, it has nightshot, it has a viewfinder, six bladed iris, a huge higher resolution screen and manual focus control. Also, i personally think it is far more sexy than cx-300. one thing to note is that the built in mic on the cx-550v doesn't have good channel separation. The build quality is also much more durable for the CX-550V. The video quality... » Read More I've owned both. I would say it is worth it. The steady shot appears to be more stable, it has better low light sensitivity for some reason, it zooms faster, it has a built in gps, it has mic and headphone jacks, better ergonomics and hand strap, it has nightshot, it has a viewfinder, six bladed iris, a huge higher resolution screen and manual focus control. Also, i personally think it is far more sexy than cx-300. one thing to note is that the built in mic on the cx-550v doesn't have good channel separation. The build quality is also much more durable for the CX-550V. The video quality isn't noticeably different tho. « Show Less
1504714
you guys are seriously going to pay over a grand for a camcorder that doesn't even do 1080p? Go ahead. I got something that costs less than half and does a better job.
347542
I am in the same boat, XSi or D90. Right now, I am leaning towards the Xsi, for around $650 at Amazon, this is a big savings, the camera was $900 in April. I would like the video option, and I believe that the Nikon will provide better detail in low light. However, I still am having a hard time justifying the extra, almost $600. I could almost buy another Xsi for that difference. I am not sure that the price difference is justified.
1134717
I am torn between these exact same two camcorders also. Looking forward to your follow-up post!
727216
I am strongly looking at the Nex c3 myself. It has a new sensor, less heat (better low light) more shots out of the same battery. Lots more good stuff here... http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/DxOMark-Sony-NEX-C3-Review-a-great-sensor-in-tiny-a-camera I do think they will upgrade the Nex 5 also though. I have also heard talk of a Nex 7, don't know what your budget is but it really looks like a beast, 24mp and an oled screen. It is way out of my current budget though.
2235088
I was just debating the SX20 vs SX30, so I was really glad to find this discussion. I assumed the 30 would be an improvement, but it sounds from this discussion and many customer reviews that 20 is a better choice for image quality.
1315013
thank you for your feedback. I am using the cx100 a lot these days, just bought the 8gb memory stick recommended in the owners manual and works great as well. Also per manual, you have to tell the cam to work off the internal vs stick memory.Nice to know we can get info hits 10 weeks later that are emailed to us.--LarryOC
1507429
I too am stuck! Although POWER is supposedly better than MEGA I think either would be sufficient... I've read places that POWER is more of a software improvement and just processes things faster. Mechanically they are similar.It comes down to video as you both mentioned. I'm off to France in 3 weeks and would like a camera upgrade from 5 years ago. But which?! lolOne other thing I was thinking about with MJPEG vs AVCHD: Since MJPEG uses twice as much space, you'd need twice as fast a card to keep up with the video being written to it, otherwise you'll get dropped frames/choppiness. I too am stuck! Although POWER is supposedly better than MEGA I think either would be sufficient... I've read places that POWER is more of a software improvement and just processes things faster. Mechanically they are similar.It comes down to video as you both mentioned. I'm off to France in 3 weeks and would like a camera upgrade from 5 years ago. But which?! lolOne other thing I was thinking about with MJPEG vs AVCHD: Since MJPEG uses twice as much space, you'd need twice as fast a card to keep up with the video being written to it, otherwise you'll get dropped... » Read More I too am stuck! Although POWER is supposedly better than MEGA I think either would be sufficient... I've read places that POWER is more of a software improvement and just processes things faster. Mechanically they are similar.It comes down to video as you both mentioned. I'm off to France in 3 weeks and would like a camera upgrade from 5 years ago. But which?! lolOne other thing I was thinking about with MJPEG vs AVCHD: Since MJPEG uses twice as much space, you'd need twice as fast a card to keep up with the video being written to it, otherwise you'll get dropped frames/choppiness. « Show Less
69009
both are great cameras your choice comes down to whether the difference in price is worth it for the video capability and the higher resolution lcd screen. Personally I think it is worth it. Video on DSLRS is entirely different from camcorders.
1254698
The number o megapixals is only part of the what makes a good camera.This camera supports 24p in the video. records at 240fps in video. has panorama built into camera, is a CMOS vs most cheaper being CCD, It has a higher resolution screen at 461 dots , 20x Zoom, The light sensitivity is 3,200ISO vs others at 800 ISO, It shoots more pictures faster than less expensive cameras 3.2 Photos ps. I frequently shoot photos while Horse Riding, This camera gives me much crisper photos. Other cameras I've owned always seemed to be slightly blurred because the horse just won't hold totally still. Because of this cameras faster speed, my photos turn out much better than most 16m cameras. The number o megapixals is only part of the what makes a good camera.This camera supports 24p in the video. records at 240fps in video. has panorama built into camera, is a CMOS vs most cheaper being CCD, It has a higher resolution screen at 461 dots , 20x Zoom, The light sensitivity is 3,200ISO vs others at 800 ISO, It shoots more pictures faster than less expensive cameras 3.2 Photos ps. I frequently shoot photos while Horse Riding, This camera gives me much crisper photos. Other cameras I've owned always seemed to be slightly blurred because the horse just won't hold totally still.... » Read More The number o megapixals is only part of the what makes a good camera.This camera supports 24p in the video. records at 240fps in video. has panorama built into camera, is a CMOS vs most cheaper being CCD, It has a higher resolution screen at 461 dots , 20x Zoom, The light sensitivity is 3,200ISO vs others at 800 ISO, It shoots more pictures faster than less expensive cameras 3.2 Photos ps. I frequently shoot photos while Horse Riding, This camera gives me much crisper photos. Other cameras I've owned always seemed to be slightly blurred because the horse just won't hold totally still. Because of this cameras faster speed, my photos turn out much better than most 16m cameras. « Show Less
485681
From what I have read, and I have read about this camcorder and the TM700 & TM900 extensively, is that the low light is slightly poorer than the TM700. I imagine it has to do with it not have the same 3CCD sensor setup with seperate Red,Green and Blue sensors, it has a single sensor "MOS" setup. It is good in low light, especially in it's price range, it is one of the best just not quite as good as the TM700 or the TM900. For a step down from the TM900 (that's VERY expensive) you can also look at the SD800. It has almost all the same features and the same 3CCD setup, but just lacks a few of the features. Actually after looking at the product description on another page it seems I was correct, an excerpt is below: "The HDC-TM700K uses three separate "MOS" sensors for video that approaches professional quality. The sensors process reds, greens, and blues separately, for color reproduction that's vibrant and true-to-life. The sensors also capture images in lower light conditions better than regular CCD sensors, so you get better detail in shots taken in dim settings."
1943433
I did a lot of research between these two cameras before I bought mine (the Panasonic FZ35) and the most helpful website was cameralabs.com. They have side by side comparisons of pictures and video footage so you can see for yourself the difference in image quality.
846653
If you go to cnet, they have a more detailed comparison between the two. I'll try a link here...http://www.cnet.com.au/camcorders/0,239035877,339272971,00.htm
1556513
For about $30 difference, the 330 is a much better buy, and for several reasons.First, the CMOS sensor with only 12 megapixel in the 330 is so much better than the CCD sensor with 16mp (remember, in small sensors like this camera, less megapixels is actually better than more!)Also the range is much better, the 330 has a wide-angle lens of 24mm, and the 130 starts from 28mm. And it's also longer, 10x optical zoom on the 330 vs. 8x on the 130.Then you have the Digic5 processor on the 330, which has many advantages over the older Digic4 processor on the 130.Video on the 130 is maxing out at 25 fps, not good enough in my book. The HS330 had 30fps, much more smooth. For about $30 difference, the 330 is a much better buy, and for several reasons.First, the CMOS sensor with only 12 megapixel in the 330 is so much better than the CCD sensor with 16mp (remember, in small sensors like this camera, less megapixels is actually better than more!)Also the range is much better, the 330 has a wide-angle lens of 24mm, and the 130 starts from 28mm. And it's also longer, 10x optical zoom on the 330 vs. 8x on the 130.Then you have the Digic5 processor on the 330, which has many advantages over the older Digic4 processor on the 130.Video on the... » Read More For about $30 difference, the 330 is a much better buy, and for several reasons.First, the CMOS sensor with only 12 megapixel in the 330 is so much better than the CCD sensor with 16mp (remember, in small sensors like this camera, less megapixels is actually better than more!)Also the range is much better, the 330 has a wide-angle lens of 24mm, and the 130 starts from 28mm. And it's also longer, 10x optical zoom on the 330 vs. 8x on the 130.Then you have the Digic5 processor on the 330, which has many advantages over the older Digic4 processor on the 130.Video on the 130 is maxing out at 25 fps, not good enough in my book. The HS330 had 30fps, much more smooth. « Show Less
928346
I am considering CX150 or CX110. Is there any difference between those two except 16GB internal memory in CX150? I have been researching camcorder for more than week and can't decide. Now boils down to one of these two - no reasons...just due to Sony brand. I know there better rated panasonic and canon out there in the similar price range...any comments???
786038
I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies! I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies!
2104522
Cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. The 25EXR will serve you well if you spend time really learning how to use it. I love the tilting LCD screen, but both the 25 and 30 have that feature. I have fired Studio Strobes with the 25 with good results. There is about $60 difference between the 25 and the 30. Depending on your level of experience, I recommend the 30EXR, because it will give you the ability to grow by shooting JPEG + RAW or RAW only. The 25 does not give you this option. With the 30EXR you will have the opportunity to Post Process your images using a program like Lightroom. Please take lots of photos. You will learn from your mistakes. Never apologize for that. Cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. The 25EXR will serve you well if you spend time really learning how to use it. I love the tilting LCD screen, but both the 25 and 30 have that feature. I have fired Studio Strobes with the 25 with good results. There is about $60 difference between the 25 and the 30. Depending on your level of experience, I recommend the 30EXR, because it will give you the ability to grow by shooting JPEG + RAW or RAW only. The 25 does not give you this option. With the 30EXR you will have the opportunity to Post Process your images using a program like... » Read More Cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. The 25EXR will serve you well if you spend time really learning how to use it. I love the tilting LCD screen, but both the 25 and 30 have that feature. I have fired Studio Strobes with the 25 with good results. There is about $60 difference between the 25 and the 30. Depending on your level of experience, I recommend the 30EXR, because it will give you the ability to grow by shooting JPEG + RAW or RAW only. The 25 does not give you this option. With the 30EXR you will have the opportunity to Post Process your images using a program like Lightroom. Please take lots of photos. You will learn from your mistakes. Never apologize for that. « Show Less
302592
A better comparison is the Sony HDR CX550 which has the same SDHC as the Canon. The Sony, at over 300 dollars cheaper and comparable performance seems to be the better buy.