Does the pixel count affect video quality? I need a large sensor and 24p on a budget. Should I just get the cheaper a3000?
1452221
I don't know much about videos, using cameras only for stills. For stills, I mostly use only around 6 mp. One time when I wanted to put pictures on the side of my van, I went up to the 24.3 mp. It only affects the largest size you can amplify to. Also, when you use high Mps, it slows transfers of pictures and you have to cut it down anyway, for emails, Facebook, etc. Sorry I don't know about videos!
1452222
The A77 and the A3000 both record the same 1080 24p video. You might also consider the A58, the A77 is weather resistant. the extra pixel count is in the still photographs, not the video . Biggest difference in A77 and A3000 is in build quality, things it can do, the focus system, and size. Stop by a camera store, if you can, and get a feel for the camera. If you only need video buy a dedicated video camera.
1820223
Just purchased the Canon SX40. It is truly amazing. There are not too many boats out on the ice right now, but I think it will do what I want. The picture quality is fantastic. Shortcomings? Since I'm a newbie I don't understand why some pics are blurry and others not; but that is probably more my inexperience than the camera. Also, it shoots 1080 video only at 24 fps. This is still pretty good, but there are some situations where a moving video is less crisp. But I could always switch to non HD if I choose, and have 30 fps that way. Thanks for your help.
431840
The res is excellent, more like 720p! Best cams money can buy, trully great! Good luck, night vision is amazingly clear. &#128077;&#128077;
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!
620265
That IS a question that can't be answered as such because there are things just as important to quality than mere pixel count. Just because a camera has higher pixel count than another does definitely not mean the quality is superior. It could be inferior to a specific camera with less pixels. Too many people think higher pixel count equals higher quality. Not necessarily so!!
652337
I have an a6000 and now I just bought the RX10, used from Amazon Warehouse deals for under $800 and it's so much better image quality wise then say, an a6000 with kit lens or 16mm F2.8 pancake lens. I have both cameras now and love them both but if you needed to pick just one, here is my recommendations... If you are a VIDEO person, get the RX10. If still image quality with fast accurate AF is your deal breaker, an a6000 with the 18-105 F4 G lens is a killer combo. NEX-7 vs a6000??? I sold my a77 and didn't like the NEX-7 or a65 becuase of horrible low light, high ISO image results. The a6000 with same 24megapixels + new bionz-x processor = excellent low light camera, close to a99's low light performance in stills. No mic input (stay with NEX-7) if that's a deal breaker but overall the a6000 is better than the NEX-7 in almost every way, including the new alpha style menu structure.
821607
I bought one, never worked in 1080p, 720p. Also had several dead green pixles so I returned it and the second one was worse. Consider another one.
1148633
Hi David. Can you explain why so many reviewers have said there are bad problems with visual "noise" at so many settings, and even worse in low light? I really want to buy this camera for every other reason, but worried about image quality. Your experience seems quite difference. I also read a pro review that said all the images were soft/not finely detailed because of the Venus processor's over-suppression of the images. What do you think?
356702
I Have upgraded from D300. I find the D=600 to be a good camera with full frame capability which is what I wanted to get. I would recommend it.
2087912
I am trying to decide between the a650 and the a630. I'm leaning towards the a630 because of possible reflection/glare issues I could have with the a650. How is the a630 working for you? Thanks!!
1434301
================== &gt;&gt;BRiT says: The HD-A30 does 1080p output. The HD-A3 is the one that only does 1080i. &lt;&lt; ================== Thanks BRiT, ... Your Correct, ... I corrected my post above!!!
722141
Frank, thanks a million for your comparison review of the SR100 vs SR300. I am dissapointed in the low light video's of my SR100 and thought the SR300 would be better as the low light lux specs are better. After reading your review of the low indoor video quality of the SR300 I will stay with my SR100. I shoot mostly indoors so the quality of indoor video's are important to me. Dean M.
1071780
I'm going through the same debate. 300 hs has a greater zoom and +.1 f stop to make it marginally brighter and also has zoom and autofocus in video mode. But it has a smaller lcd screen. I think if video is important to you, the 300hs may be the better camera, but is it worth $50? I don't know
746899
Dear Patrick, This is from the back of the box: APS-C size sensor; full stereo movie recording (1920 x 1080p) @30fps. Does this help? John
1770760
Wow, thanks David!That was an incredibly informative post, and I'm sure others will benefit from it as well. Based on what you said, and pending reviews of course, I'm going for the M300. Low light performance is important, but the sony would have to take extremely better video in low light to be $120 better. The other sony features aren't all that important to me, though I am glad to see them finally move to sdhc. I have several of those on hand already.So it looks like the M300 for me unless it tanks in reviews, which I don't see happening.Thanks again David!
1070318
I'm an armature photographer.. but have explored both d3100 and a33..1) similar image quality..2) both do 1080p HD video with auto focus but sony gets a bit warm (hot for some) while video recording.. although I've yet to record for this long3) sony is a tiny bit smaller..check out their detailed reviews at dpreview.com.. they helped me make my decision..
658797
The 164 has better resolution then the c230...hope this helps..both are excellent indoor cameras