The definitive Mino HD Vs. Vado HD video? I found this excellent video on Vimeo.com showing just about side by side footage of both of these pocket cams. Again, to my eye the creative labs Vado HD still looks better than the Mino HD by at least 25% I would say. Watch it and judge for yourself. They also brought up a good point and stated that the Vado HD has a wider angle lens on it as well. It really made a difference.http://www.vimeo.com/2523815Oscar V. The definitive Mino HD Vs. Vado HD video? I found this excellent video on Vimeo.com showing just about side by side footage of both of these pocket cams. Again, to my eye the creative labs Vado HD... » Read More The definitive Mino HD Vs. Vado HD video? I found this excellent video on Vimeo.com showing just about side by side footage of both of these pocket cams. Again, to my eye the creative labs Vado HD still looks better than the Mino HD by at least 25% I would say. Watch it and judge for yourself. They also brought up a good point and stated that the Vado HD has a wider angle lens on it as well. It really made a difference.http://www.vimeo.com/2523815Oscar V. « Show Less
1951013
Yeah, and as you say, apples to oranges.Just like the old saw about the pencil sharpener that also mixes salads (the salads end up tasting like lead and the pencils smell like vinegar) it's far better to get a camcorder for video and a still camera for, well, stills. Those that do both seldom do either very well.But backpacking -- that's another ball game. If that's what you are doing then weight won't be a huge factor for you and I'd recommend you get a much better video camera. The Canon HF series may cost a little more but will give you MUCH more bang for your buck. If you're going to all that effort to get somewhere nice you're going to want to take some nice video of it. Yeah, and as you say, apples to oranges.Just like the old saw about the pencil sharpener that also mixes salads (the salads end up tasting like lead and the pencils smell like vinegar) it's far better to get a camcorder for video and a still camera for, well, stills. Those that do both seldom do either very well.But backpacking -- that's another ball game. If that's what you are doing then weight won't be a huge factor for you and I'd recommend you get a much better video camera. The Canon HF series may cost a little more but will give you MUCH more bang for your... » Read More Yeah, and as you say, apples to oranges.Just like the old saw about the pencil sharpener that also mixes salads (the salads end up tasting like lead and the pencils smell like vinegar) it's far better to get a camcorder for video and a still camera for, well, stills. Those that do both seldom do either very well.But backpacking -- that's another ball game. If that's what you are doing then weight won't be a huge factor for you and I'd recommend you get a much better video camera. The Canon HF series may cost a little more but will give you MUCH more bang for your buck. If you're going to all that effort to get somewhere nice you're going to want to take some nice video of it. « Show Less
1951014
Oscar...Please clarify the last sentence. Do you think the Mino HD is a better deal, or did you misspeak?
1951015
In looking at the video I do think the Vado image quality is better. But I'm actually one who would much prefer the shorter angle lens of the Mino.Let's face it -- in photography it's all about filling your frame with your subject. If your subject is a mountain or building then a wide angle is by all means necessary. But most of the time your subject is a person or a couple of people and then you can't get too close, truly. Just look at the lowlight "joke" portion of that video to see what I mean -- it's far superior shot close up.So I'm torn -- I wish the Vado didn't have that wide angle, but I do love the picture quality. Sigh -- why won't someone invent one of these that has even a 2x optical zoom? In looking at the video I do think the Vado image quality is better. But I'm actually one who would much prefer the shorter angle lens of the Mino.Let's face it -- in photography it's all about filling your frame with your subject. If your subject is a mountain or building then a wide angle is by all means necessary. But most of the time your subject is a person or a couple of people and then you can't get too close, truly. Just look at the lowlight "joke" portion of that video to see what I mean -- it's far superior shot close up.So I'm torn -- I wish the... » Read More In looking at the video I do think the Vado image quality is better. But I'm actually one who would much prefer the shorter angle lens of the Mino.Let's face it -- in photography it's all about filling your frame with your subject. If your subject is a mountain or building then a wide angle is by all means necessary. But most of the time your subject is a person or a couple of people and then you can't get too close, truly. Just look at the lowlight "joke" portion of that video to see what I mean -- it's far superior shot close up.So I'm torn -- I wish the Vado didn't have that wide angle, but I do love the picture quality. Sigh -- why won't someone invent one of these that has even a 2x optical zoom? « Show Less
1951016
Bill,Thank you for the information. I also looked at some HD solutions from your typical consumer digital camera's but was turned off by the short recording time and large storage space required. It seems you cannot use the zoom feature at all with the DMC-FX35K while shooting video with it. For $199.99, I think the Vado HD is your best choice for HD video recording. Cheers!Oscar V.
1951017
Jim,Thank you & I agree. Lets all just please try and keep the information here as unbiased and honest as possible. While I seem to make a lot of posts against the Mino HD in favor of the Vado HD, its only because I honestly believe the Vado HD is a better deal. Oscar V.
1951018
Jim,It has been edited, I still think the Vado HD is a better deal. Thank you :-)Oscar V.
1951019
Don't worry Oscar...some (who?) will claim the comparison was doctored by a Creative employee. Things have gotten so out of hand here....sadly...Rather than an educated helpful discussion from which we can all benefit...we get accusations that are beyond acceptable and total nonsense. It's the old silly attack the messenger tactic. Sad. We need to learn from each other and help each other make informed unbiased decisions no matter which unit we buy.
98677
Hello Aaron. I wish I have the Glidecam to compare both units. I can tell you the Opteka works and do good videos. If you read the reviews on other brands, you'll see lot of complains on setup and quality. Well, that is not a problem with this unit. Setup is really easy and the quality is pretty decent. My "concern" is that it's heavy and after some time, you will feel the weight. I wish Opteka could replace some parts and use aluminum to make it a "perfect" unit (price v/s quality). Now, keep on mind this is for fun... I tried on some parties and all my friends got in love with the unit. BUT if you want to make some money and do it professional, then you'll need to pay more. I hope this helps....
1851594
I owned both versions, the first, without vr was still capable of great images because of it's small size and light weight, I don't know the price difference, but if it is wide, go for the early one!
98675
Hello Aaron. I wish I have the Glidecam to compare both units. I can tell you the Opteka works and do good videos. If you read the reviews on other brands, you'll see lot of complains on setup and quality. Well, that is not a problem with this unit. Setup is really easy and the quality is pretty decent. My "concern" is that it's heavy and after some time, you will feel the weight. I wish Opteka could replace some parts and use aluminum to make it a "perfect" unit (price v/s quality). Now, keep on mind this is for fun... I tried on some parties and all my friends got in love with the unit. BUT if you want to make some money and do it professional, then you'll need to pay more. I hope this helps.... Hello Aaron. I wish I have the Glidecam to compare both units. I can tell you the Opteka works and do good videos. If you read the reviews on other brands, you'll see lot of complains on setup and quality. Well, that is not a problem with this unit. Setup is really easy and the quality is pretty decent. My "concern" is that it's heavy and after some time, you will feel the weight. I wish Opteka could replace some parts and use aluminum to make it a "perfect" unit (price v/s quality). Now, keep on mind this is for fun... I tried on some parties and all my friends got in... » Read More Hello Aaron. I wish I have the Glidecam to compare both units. I can tell you the Opteka works and do good videos. If you read the reviews on other brands, you'll see lot of complains on setup and quality. Well, that is not a problem with this unit. Setup is really easy and the quality is pretty decent. My "concern" is that it's heavy and after some time, you will feel the weight. I wish Opteka could replace some parts and use aluminum to make it a "perfect" unit (price v/s quality). Now, keep on mind this is for fun... I tried on some parties and all my friends got in love with the unit. BUT if you want to make some money and do it professional, then you'll need to pay more. I hope this helps.... « Show Less
722138
Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell... » Read More Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) « Show Less
784693
I have both so I show how both compare in a video I uploaded, hope this helps eveyone: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3H93U55IRPTZ4
158251
Only viewed videos once and didn't see any noticeable gap. But I wasn't paying much attention to that. I was more concerned with checking quality of video. While I like the camera, I suggest you look at other models. As stated in my review, it bugs me that the correct date can't be set.
755915
The only real difference is low light ability. I noticed the audio sounds less tinney as well, but that's a personal observation. The increased low light ability is available on spec sheets, and does make a difference in real life.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLQsuzgbB-w this is one of the videos I made when I first got the camcorder. Only complaint is a slight color bleed on the reds in very bright scenes using auto mode. Using manuel settings its not an issue at all..
1341714
It's really not a matter of Foscam being inferior to Dropcam. They have different attributes to do different things. Here's a brief comparative list: 1) Both have WiFi that supports the latest encryption. 2) Both can be accessed and controlled remotely by smartphone. 3) Both have night vision. 4) Both have 2-way audio. The speaker on the Foscam is a little weak. I can't speak to the quality of the Dropcam speaker. 5) Both are decent color cameras. 6) The Foscam is a standard definition MJPEG camera. With MJPEG, there is no compression. The Dropcam has two HD models with H.264 compression. 7) With the MJPEG Foscam, all frames are the same size. With the H.264 Dropcam, the compression can cause a variance in frame size with a possible loss of detail. 8) The Foscam will push up to 15 frames per second. The Dropcam will push up to 30 frames per second. 9) The Foscam will use less bandwidth due to the lower resolution and frame rate. The Dropcam can use up to .5 Mbps per camera. This can be significant with several cameras. 10) The Foscam is a pan and tilt camera with no zoom. However, the lens is interchangeable. The Dropcam has a digital zoom with no pan or tilt. 11) Both can detect motion and sound. The Foscam's algorithm is rather rudimentary. I can't speak for the Dropcam. 12) Both can send email alerts. 13) The Foscam can record video to wherever you wish. The Dropcam requires a subscription to their cloud service. This can get expensive. 14) Both are considered to be indoor cameras. However, I've had three Foscams mounted outside for three years. I can't speak for the Dropcam. 15) The Foscam is recognized by third party security programs such as Blue Iris and Evocam. The Dropcam is not. 16) The Foscam will be more difficult for the technically challenged to set up. The Dropcam is easy. 17) Overall, the Foscam is probably the more versatile of the two. The Dropcam takes a more canned approach in what it does. So, both are decent cameras with their pros and cons. It really boils down to what you want to do.
57174
That is a fundamental difference with the Vado HD as compared to the Flip Mino HD. The Vado HD comes standard with an HDMI cable and a RCA cable as an option ($9.95). With ALL of these HD cameras you need a sufficiently powerful CPU/video card because of the HD files demands.
1150547
I think if you can find the HD at a decent price I'd go with it. I got mine (Ultra HD) at Best Buy on sale for $169.99 plus I had $10 dollars in rewards coupons, so $159.99. I think there is about a $50 +/- difference in the two. I love the video on the HD, but I've seen two Ultra video reviews that look pretty darn good in quality. I'm thinking of getting my son the Ultra non HD for Christmas, just because he will trash it quick and why spend the extra $$$.
980356
The video seems to be just as good as our point and shoot which has full HDmovie as well. Seems like people have left poor reviews because of the microphone being an internal monomic vs capability for an external stereo mic. The sound quality as is seems fine. The video is also fine, one caveat would be that I am not sure if it can autofocus when zooming in during recording. Hope this helps.
42098
The Nocticron IMO is better corrected and more Leica-like. The Voigtlanders get a tiny bit more light but the rendering is different. The 42.5/0.95 was excellent before the Nocticron was released but after comparing images from both, the Nocticron just seems to be better. The 25/0.95 is a different focal length but is also a fast lens which now has a clickless aperture ring. I'm a stills person so this is from a stills perspective. If you're into video, the Voigtlanders are tough to beat due to the clickless aperture rings. If you need optical stabilization however, the Nocticron is your best bet that is still fast and mid-telephoto. The Nocticron IMO is better corrected and more Leica-like. The Voigtlanders get a tiny bit more light but the rendering is different. The 42.5/0.95 was excellent before the Nocticron was released but after comparing images from both, the Nocticron just seems to be better. The 25/0.95 is a different focal length but is also a fast lens which now has a clickless aperture ring. I'm a stills person so this is from a stills perspective. If you're into video, the Voigtlanders are tough to beat due to the clickless aperture rings. If you need optical stabilization however, the Nocticron is your... » Read More The Nocticron IMO is better corrected and more Leica-like. The Voigtlanders get a tiny bit more light but the rendering is different. The 42.5/0.95 was excellent before the Nocticron was released but after comparing images from both, the Nocticron just seems to be better. The 25/0.95 is a different focal length but is also a fast lens which now has a clickless aperture ring. I'm a stills person so this is from a stills perspective. If you're into video, the Voigtlanders are tough to beat due to the clickless aperture rings. If you need optical stabilization however, the Nocticron is your best bet that is still fast and mid-telephoto. « Show Less
1753951
Yes this camcorder does take excellent action shots, and for the other post you get the MAC software from the Creative site and it works with the original Vado HD.You can buy the original V-HD with 8 gig for less than the newer version. No difference other than color, memory and software. You can get the software you need from Creative.
71837
Flip has been in the market before Creative Vado and thus a lot of people is still not aware of Creative Vado HD's existence. Creative Vado HD is the first product in this area that truely shines. The original Vado is more for fun and does not offer high quality video/audio. If the Vado HD works as expected and is easy to use for PC and mac, I believe it will catch up sooner or later.
376899
I think Creative Vado HD is superior to the rest. You can search Amazon.com for Creative Vado HD or look at http://nothingbutcreative.blogspot.com/ for sample clips from Vado HD. It's really promising.
1730165
Hi Danilo, if you follow the link you can view a comparison of the two cameras made by Graham Houghton and you can learn so much more from his video. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdFdjloBrd8 Best of luck Sandro