24 frames per second effect Okay, a real reason that I want to get this camera is because I'm a young filmmaker, and a poor one at that. (That's needless to say of course since I already said I'm a young filmmaker). I have a film I want to direct this summer, (hoping to have it as my main portfolio piece when I apply for the film program next year) and I would really prefer to have it done in 24 FPS as opposed to the regular 30, so I wanted to know if anyone who purchased this can tell me, would it be wise for me to buy this solely for that purpose? Does the function work that well, is the audio good enough for sound, etc etc? I appreciate your time and your responses. 24 frames per second effect Okay, a real reason that I want to get this camera is because I'm a young filmmaker, and a poor one at that. (That's needless to say of course since I already... » Read More 24 frames per second effect Okay, a real reason that I want to get this camera is because I'm a young filmmaker, and a poor one at that. (That's needless to say of course since I already said I'm a young filmmaker). I have a film I want to direct this summer, (hoping to have it as my main portfolio piece when I apply for the film program next year) and I would really prefer to have it done in 24 FPS as opposed to the regular 30, so I wanted to know if anyone who purchased this can tell me, would it be wise for me to buy this solely for that purpose? Does the function work that well, is the audio good enough for sound, etc etc? I appreciate your time and your responses. « Show Less
1044041
You definitely do not want to purchase this camera for the film effect that it does. It has a lot of control over the amount of stutter effect (function is called "FLASH"), but you have to re-set it every time you turn the power off which can be a real nuisance. There is also a "Movie" effect but I feel that it adds too much stutter.
1044042
Hello. First of all the camera cannot do 24p, it has an effect that makes it sorta look like film but it still records at 30fps. The onboard audio is about as good as onboard goes, but there is no audio hookups for external gear such as a real boom mic. I've purchased both the sony mini boom mic and the stereo mic that can work on the camera, they work alright - but aren't anywhere near audiophile quality.You may want to checkout the Sony ECMHW1 Bluetooth Wireless Microphone if you decide to get this camera..
106672
there is a selectable scale of continuous shooting speeds, from 1fps over the duration of 30s (or it will stop sooner if you release the shutter button), up to 40fps within 1s. Your choices are 1fps, 3fps, 5fps, 7fps, 10fps, 15fps, 30fps, and 40fps. I think a lot of people who like photographing sports would disagree with your statement about the utility of 40fps, even with the 30 picture cap. I'm also surprised you think the Sony has a better feature set. I think you'd get more regular use out of longer battery life, slow motion video, and shutter/aperture priority modes than you would out of optical video zoom and panarama shooting.
1477873
This is my second Lumix and I only used it for a short while and gave it to my granddaughter. I think I had the same thing happen and fixed the flash part by playing around on the menu settings. When I got my first Panasonic about 3 years ago it was highly rated for taking fast in low lighting. I drop my small cameras alot and that took it's toll. That's why I won't pay over $150 for a camera and besides they change technology so fast. But I was disappointed in this camera because the focus is off in some of the shots. So I read new reviews and bought a Canon Power Shot ELPH340 HS this time. I am happier with the Canon but did pay more. Lee This is my second Lumix and I only used it for a short while and gave it to my granddaughter. I think I had the same thing happen and fixed the flash part by playing around on the menu settings. When I got my first Panasonic about 3 years ago it was highly rated for taking fast in low lighting. I drop my small cameras alot and that took it's toll. That's why I won't pay over $150 for a camera and besides they change technology so fast. But I was disappointed in this camera because the focus is off in some of the shots. So I read new reviews and bought a Canon Power Shot ELPH340 HS this... » Read More This is my second Lumix and I only used it for a short while and gave it to my granddaughter. I think I had the same thing happen and fixed the flash part by playing around on the menu settings. When I got my first Panasonic about 3 years ago it was highly rated for taking fast in low lighting. I drop my small cameras alot and that took it's toll. That's why I won't pay over $150 for a camera and besides they change technology so fast. But I was disappointed in this camera because the focus is off in some of the shots. So I read new reviews and bought a Canon Power Shot ELPH340 HS this time. I am happier with the Canon but did pay more. Lee « Show Less
333274
I've used a Canon A80 for the last three years (just bought the 710 this weekend) and have had excellent luck with it as an underwater camera. True you have to wait about four seconds while the photo is being stored to the disk, but it gave me time to decide weather or not I wanted to keep it (and believe me, I junked plenty of shots, anenome fish are not cooperative subjects.) I took the 710 into my pool (with the housing, of course) and found the shutter lag to be almost un-noticeable. I almost always use flash u/w, so I find the time waiting for next shot delay was a non-problem (have to wait for the flash to build up again). I was particularly impressed with the macro photos. My little $400 setup took comparable macro photos to my buddies who were using housed SLR's with twin strobe setups. I'm not sure what happened with your memory card (unformatted) but I think you'll be happy with the 710.
380971
Neither. It's more like 3 or 4 with a max of 7 in a row if you are doing DNG files. It does list out its specs on their website. It's not good for sports unless your extremely good with manual focussing, and capable of getting close to the subject--think wrestling or ping pong, not football, baseball or soccer, etc... Either way, for sports or spray and pray photography, there are much better cameras for less than this. This is a nice camera for good lighting situations like daylight street, outdoor family events, landscape, and vacations, but definitely not a top pick for rapid fire situations (IMO). Neither. It's more like 3 or 4 with a max of 7 in a row if you are doing DNG files. It does list out its specs on their website. It's not good for sports unless your extremely good with manual focussing, and capable of getting close to the subject--think wrestling or ping pong, not football, baseball or soccer, etc... Either way, for sports or spray and pray photography, there are much better cameras for less than this. This is a nice camera for good lighting situations like daylight street, outdoor family events, landscape, and vacations, but definitely not a top pick for rapid fire... » Read More Neither. It's more like 3 or 4 with a max of 7 in a row if you are doing DNG files. It does list out its specs on their website. It's not good for sports unless your extremely good with manual focussing, and capable of getting close to the subject--think wrestling or ping pong, not football, baseball or soccer, etc... Either way, for sports or spray and pray photography, there are much better cameras for less than this. This is a nice camera for good lighting situations like daylight street, outdoor family events, landscape, and vacations, but definitely not a top pick for rapid fire situations (IMO). « Show Less
166141
Hi Joel, i re-read what other people say about this cam..pls read Vance Marshall's comments too, it sums up what poorly it does. the touch screen is not as responsive. it doesn't function in indoor low lighting..its program robot kept focusing in low light, in fact won't do the job afterall. i didnt return this cuz the hassle of returning + it's only a hundred bux..i tried it in well lit indoor, the resulting photo was grainy. i know what im talking about cuz i also own a D-90..this is only CUTE AND TINY..is all..not for a real photographer..i bought another coolpix before = S3000 cuz of Ashton Kutcher commercial..that sucked too! i gave it away..the only reason i kept buying Nikon is bc the big dslr's are good..aside from D90 i have a d5100.. this sounds ridiculous telling i have cameras..i am just comparing the cool pix to dslrs..hope this helps!
466905
For me it was price, the IS was a little over my reach. You know you have a great camera you can push that ISO comfortable past 1600 . I recently did a wedding with only a spot light and no flash at 1600 at 5.6 or 2.8 between 15th 125 sec hand held it came out fantastic. Hand held is a trick to learn. I would think you will need to be above 125 second and higher with a depth of field f8 f16 and you said no tripod and I assuming no flash hand held. I think the IS would be worth the stretch if you can. For me it is beach pic on a tripod with weddings and party's One other thing I dont know what speed your camera sync for flash my Canon 60D sync at 250 or less but you can hyper sync flash above 250 but then you pick up a hard grain. If you intend to use flash the flash freeze the movement above 250 in hyper for no flash diffidently if you have the bucks I will assume the IS is as good or better in ether case you will have a top of the line lens good luck
1306987
I went out last Summer shot some excellent evening footage , and to me it looked excellent WVGA 240fps, and HD720P120FPS. they are not Hd1080P, Everyone sees things through their own perspective. and that I truly cannot answer for you. In my eyes it looks good. remember no sound is offered on slow motion, maybe the gopro you were looking at offers a different view point. check youtube out for those evening shots
903011
As of today, it actually costs a dollar less than $600 ;-) The bad reviews should maybe be reviewed too: Choppy videos are a consequence of HD shooting, not of the HF200, the software is poor but maybe that's because there is no need for any of it, hard disk or tape-based camcorders are totally obsolete nowadays, and too noisy anyway. The smaller sensor size compared to the much more expensive HF100 may or may not impact low light shooting (an objective comparison would be welcome), but there are also negative reviews about the HF100 low light quality. It might be a trade-off for the better optical and digital zoom. As for the review about non true progressive format, unless I misunderstand (I am no expert), this 60i format is just the internal format of the recording, and does not affect the capture or playback, which is 30p or 24p, depending on your set up. AVCHD seems to be supported throughout the whole editing/playback channel now, so the support issues encountered by the early AVCHD adopters are hopefully obsolete. We should look at the good points too, such as the movie mode (24p fps and movie color tone) which is rarely seen on consumer products at that price.
1609774
PD,Thanks for a really informative review. I'm in the process of trying to make this decision. I'm getting a 70-200. I just don't know which one. On your 2.8 w/o IS, and adding a 1.4 teleconverter, do you miss the IS? I know you said you use a tripod or monopod a lot. Is that how you overcome that? Or do you find yourself still able to shoot hand-held? I'd love to get that combination of the 200 + 1.4tc.Thanks!
1437595
http://www.youtube.com/user/artfacestudios/videos?view=0 these videos were pretty much all made with the hvr a1u. From the youtube clips ive seen using the dcrvx2100, i can tell you they seem similar, but maybe the dcrvx2100 is a little on top... Low light on the a1u is grainy, not as bad as some videos ive seen, but definitely noticeable! I also want to find a good low light video camera... Also a little off topic but...i will take the a1u footage over gopro hero2 footage any day. My friend shoots with a Canon D5 or something like that. He really has a lot of control with the camera and his footage is very similar to the a1u. Maybe even better! http://www.youtube.com/user/artfacestudios/videos?view=0 these videos were pretty much all made with the hvr a1u. From the youtube clips ive seen using the dcrvx2100, i can tell you they seem similar, but maybe the dcrvx2100 is a little on top... Low light on the a1u is grainy, not as bad as some videos ive seen, but definitely noticeable! I also want to find a good low light video camera... Also a little off topic but...i will take the a1u footage over gopro hero2 footage any day. My friend shoots with a Canon D5 or something like that. He really has a lot of control with the... » Read More http://www.youtube.com/user/artfacestudios/videos?view=0 these videos were pretty much all made with the hvr a1u. From the youtube clips ive seen using the dcrvx2100, i can tell you they seem similar, but maybe the dcrvx2100 is a little on top... Low light on the a1u is grainy, not as bad as some videos ive seen, but definitely noticeable! I also want to find a good low light video camera... Also a little off topic but...i will take the a1u footage over gopro hero2 footage any day. My friend shoots with a Canon D5 or something like that. He really has a lot of control with the camera and his footage is very similar to the a1u. Maybe even better! « Show Less
1559562
i'd suggest searching you tube/vimeo for the handful of clips f/tm700 that were shot in 1080p/24 cinema mode and the HA 1080i mode...judge for yourself if the quality is good enough...if you have at least a dual-core computer 2.0-3.0 ghz you should be ok power wise.
2239181
Hi Lisa, I took pictures at an indoor water park. The pictures came out okay. I just scrapbook the pictures, I don't typically blow them up to 5x7 or 8x10. So, for my use the pictures are fine. The fast movements were a little blurry. I have not taken any underwater pictures yet. I took the camera outside for our school snow days. Those pictures in the sunlight were bright and colorful. The fast movements came out okay. I have a few inside pictures during the day and they look pretty good. I have one picture taken at night in my bedroom. My navy blue shirt looks great, but my face is a little orange/yellow and the bedroom in the background is not crisp at all. I think the lighting is responsible for that. I have a few movies on the camera, but can't play them. They are MOV. I tried Quicktime, movie maker, media player. I'll have to play around with it. I hope I don't have to convert these. So, at the moment I can't give you any information on the movies. I wanted the camera to take out to the pool and so far it seems like it will work great for our use. Please let me know if I can help with any else. I'm not sure what you mean by artifacts. I don't think graininess is an issue, but I'm just a mom taking pictures of kids and my photography knowledge is limited.
1123631
I believe the techs say the auto focus is 7 frames per second. I'm not a pro, very amateur. I do set up the focus ahead of time by aiming at the subject and holding the button halfway down for like half a second to give the camera a chance to focus and then I push all the way down to get the shot. Also, if you turn off the welcome screen, the start up time is much faster. I would go to a local store and try out the camera in person and see how you like it before you buy. There are Nikon cameras that are faster, but more expensive and for pros. Usually when I get a bad shot, it is because I had the wrong setting or something, not the 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.
926055
That is the problem...you can't do rapid frames. The camera looks great, feels great to hold, but if you need something to capture a fast paced activity, this isn't the one for you. I like it and recommend it for a very casual user, however will be upgrading to a more advanced piece of equipment as soon as my budget allows.
1383743
Sometimes in low light it seems to be too long. It depends on the setting and if the lighting is appropriate for the setting you choose. There is a high speed burst feature that lets you take high speed single photos, like a movie only freeze frame that is really fast. Overall, I'd say once you are familiar with the settings and features its pretty quick. It does take some playing with it to get used to all the options.