How would you compare it to Zoom Q4?
227097
I am not familiar with the Samson - the Zoom is still a little grainy unless light is really strong. YOu have to shoor HD at 30 frames and not 60 or motion seems jumpy. The hardest part is that since it does not have a mechanical zoom on it placement is everything. So, if you are 20 or 30 feet away from band then the sound is recorded better but much of your pixel area is wasted on "non band". I use it for more a seld training tool than trying to get super accurate movies.
227098
I don't own the Zoom Q4. I know the Q3 has it's issues with HD video quality, but from a sound perspective it's extremely good. I especially like the "line in" feature as I use it as my capture device coming out from my behringer mixer with whatever audio/video I want to record. It's very handy, not bulky and I like that the microphones are protected in this model. On the newer one, I can see where the product can be broken (i.e., the LCD screen, the flip up microphones.) Either way, the audio will be good. As far as durability, I would have reservations about the Q4. I do see that they made the Q4 to hold a lithium ion battery. The Q3 only uses AA batteries which die FAST! So, I always use mine plugged in with the charger I had to purchase separately.
802309
Hi Samuel Why would you NOT pick the Zoom Q3? Because the Q3 doesn't have a proper manual level setting. It offers you Low, High and Auto. "Low" is 24 dB lower than "High", that's a big jump. "Auto" lowers the recording level when it needs to, but never raises it. Unfortunately, it doesn't put markers in the file to tell you when it lowered or how much it lowered, which makes it a bitch to correct the audio file for level changes. And if the applause after your first number is louder than your second number's going to be, you have to turn off the Q3 and start over. The Q3 can use the same wall-plug power unit as the H mics, but it's not included in the nice price. If none of this bugs you. its a really great machine.
1649318
Has anyone seen any actual reviews of this camera as opposed to marketing spec lists? Sometimes I've seen pre-production models of cameras that get reviewed prior to actual release. It is the low light ability claims of the Nikon that I'll need to see put to the test. That's probably the biggest Achilles heel of all these superzooms. It may have a CMOS sensor (which explains the burst speed of this camera) but it is still the same small size sensor as all the superzooms so I'm dubious about any huge improvement in low light. All of the previous versions of this new crop of superzooms (Nikon, Sony, Fuji) only got a flat four star rating in Amazon while the Panasonic FZ35 and FZ40 both are at 4.6. This new group has longer zooms than the Pansonics but I need to know if the picture quality is improved in any way.
2142660
As far as I can tell - it does not have any 1/2 zoom increments. I have used the Zoom a few times and haven't seen those type of increments. Hope that helps!
263093
Larry, I'm looking at this for recording our church services and possibly our worship service as well. We recently purchased a Q8-Zoom because of the audio recording capabilities and audio interface between our soundboard and computer. We need to record from about 40 feet away from the stage. Does this Panasonic do a good job in low light and focusing at this distance? So far, the Q8-Zoom doesn't seem to capture video much better than our old webcam at this distance. It definitely is more clear, but not the quality I was really hoping for.
298163
If you like travelling, I think Zoom is better. If you are staying in a city and working somewhere, I think, you had better to use S4
1423364
I don't remember. I sent mine back. To me the size and zoom feature were not acceptable.
176119
Actually a fast zoom with rocker switch. Remote control zoom is significantly slower. Both work well though.
1583707
Definitely. You answered your own question by referring to the sensor size. The quality of the image with a 1" sensor versus the one in the QX10 is the difference between a serious photographer and a point-and-shooter. The QX10 is basically comparable to a point and shoot camera with a great 10x zoom. The QX100 is comparable to Sony's own RX100, a $750 camera that has received critical acclaim for its image quality. I guess to be fair, it depends upon your intentions. If you want a nice zoom lens that provides better image quality than the smartphone's camera (and is primarily going to be used to share photos on the web and via Facebook), the QX10 is great. If you want to achieve the highest possible quality (large print quality), then the QX100 is for you.
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
31101
i am pretty happy with the auto-focus mode, and that might adapt to the different lighting... additionally, I find it much easier to switch "scenes" on this one than my older S4 Coolpix. I have not tried anything indoors at concert type venues, so I can't give you a good answer on that.
1721988
check out this website, they hv compared both cameras. good luck! http://www.cameralabs.com/buyers_guide/superzooms_and_premium_compacts/best_high_end_compact_camera.shtml
1569582
Yes! It's not the worlds best web UI, but it allows you to do some amount of zooming, etc. It also has an API which you can use to integrate in with your own internal monitoring if you have such a beast.
1518077
I think zoom is pretty much bang for buck. Never had any issues. My zoom 505II still works!
740245
I have limited experience so far but I will say I had the Q-see 4 camera system and doesn't compare to the Zmodo system. The cameras are more accurate . I will recommend the Zmodo right now as I am very happy with it. The user manual is not worth anything so you will have to learn on your own. Once you do it is a great system for the money
1734204
"Very" is subjective. It was noisier the 35 and kit zoom on E1. I returned it. And E1. And got x100s. Love it.
1368768
The solo5 is a much better choice. It is 5 megapixels over 3, has auto focus and and a larger shooting area. Actually, the solo8 just came out! For 349 dollars NOTHING comes close to that.