Less is more

FCC Disclaimer: The following are my very own personal & truthful opinions.

Enthusiasts usually want the latest and greatest. They often go and buy expensive camcorders, dSLRs, or even 35mm adapters for them, only to never use them again after the novelty wears thin (and I’ve been guilty of it too). Or, more often than not, they use them, but they never fully use the equipment on its best of its ability. I know people who bought an HV20, and yet they always shoot in “auto” mode. They don’t take advantage of all the other features and settings the camera has to offer.

As some of you know, I’m a fan of the Canon SX200 IS, a $300 digicam that shoots 720/30p, and has more video manual controls than any other P&S digicam (read my review about SX200 IS’ video mode here). Around the same time the SX200 IS was announced, Canon also announced the SD780 IS. The SD780 IS has almost the same manual controls the SX200 IS has: exposure compensation & locking, contrast/saturation/sharpness control, manual white balance, macro/infinite focus modes, and focus lock. The only thing that’s missing compared to the SX200 IS is that it doesn’t have a manual focus mode, and that its lens is smaller, therefore letting less light hitting the sensor (so it’s noisier). But it’s $200, compared to the SX200 IS’ $300, so it’s acceptable.

My point is that these cams shoot good-enough video for the kinds of videos most people shoot. There is no reason to buy a camcorder, or even a dSLR if you’re not really serious about video. While a few more options would be nice (e.g. additional 24p frame rate, shutter speed support), even without these features, these digicams can offer amazing quality for the price. All it requires is to know how to shoot properly.

I wish people stop buying these terrible digi-recorders instead. They buy a Flip HD or the Kodak Z-series, while these Canon cams are actually much better for the same price: they have optical zoom, they’re smaller, they shoot still pictures too, they have optical stabilization, better lenses, higher bitrate codec, some exposure control, and other settings. Apparently, they also have a better microphone than any digirecorder, or Panasonic/Kodak P&S digicam too. In fact, the Sony and Panasonic digicams announced today at CES still don’t offer all the Canon video features, and Sony seems to be playing with our nerves for using just 6 mbps bitrate for their 720/30p video capture! Consider Canon’s 24 mbps.

I found this useful add-on for the SD780 IS that allows you to attach an ND filter and sunhood. For $50 you can get all three. The ND filter would help bring down the shutter speed, that’s normally too high on these cams, and the sunhood would help to not get CCD light artifacts.

So, while I already own an SX200 IS, I’m thinking of buying an SD780 IS to shoot a music video for a local band. Sure, I own an HV20 and a 5D MkII too. But I want to use the SD780 IS as part of “a project”. A project that details how to shoot properly, and what you can do with these small cams, in order to get an acceptable result out of them. I just want to prove to many people that you don’t need the best tool to create something that’s viewable. It’s not the camera that matters, it’s how you use it. From the moment you have the minimum acceptable tool in your hands, then all it takes is talent, not hardware. This proof of concept idea will end up costing me over $200 (I will probably buy some extra batteries too), but if I can convince one consumer, and one rock band to go that route instead of spending hundreds or thousands of dollars in equipment they don’t really need, it might actually worth it.

What has both surprised me and saddened me deeply is that after relentlessly searching for “artistic” or “atmospheric”, let’s say, videos on Youtube and Vimeo that were shot with either the SX200 IS or the SD780 IS, I found almost nothing! Except my own SX200 IS videos on Vimeo and this video, I found nothing else similar around. Every person who bought these cams (and they’re a lot of them) seem to be busy shooting their cats instead — handheld. They could do so much more! Same goes for most of the people who actually bought camcorders that don’t use in their fullest.

Such a waste.

46 Comments »

brandon wrote on January 6th, 2010 at 7:15 PM PST:

Have you tried the panasonic zs3, and if so how does it compare?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 6th, 2010 at 7:19 PM PST:

Yes, and I’ve talked about it a number of times. The Panasonic digicams don’t have exposure locking which is very important to make your video footage look professional. Also, some of them don’t have exposure compensation at all. Quality is ok, but only the high-end LX3 digicam has color settings for contrast/saturation/sharpness that can help you make your footage color-gradeable and good looking. By default, all their digicam models look pretty bad. Manual white balance is not present on all Panasonic digicams either. Plus, they’re more expensive than the SD780 IS. Their cheaper models only do MJPEG, not h.264 (even at 720p).

So even after this week’s CES, Canon still has the upper hand in the P&S digicam video department IMO.


Lemon wrote on January 6th, 2010 at 7:28 PM PST:

GREAT post and accurate for ALL MANNER of tech gear! Looking forward to the results!


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 6th, 2010 at 10:15 PM PST:

Just found a great-looking video of the Canon SD970, a higher model than the SD780 but with similar optics and abilities. Warning: it’s a video about pythons. The last scene, showing a big-a$$ scorpion looks fantastic btw. And the guy didn’t even upload an HD version to Youtube!


Himanshu wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 3:27 AM PST:

excellent post eugenia. Only if this cam had mic input …


Glenn wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 8:10 AM PST:

I have two or three videos planned from the footage I shot with the SX200 before I sold it. Agreed, they’re great video cameras and much better than those toy flip cameras, they’re just not only good for stills.

If I was to buy another though I would probably go for one of the other models with a faster f2.8 lens. The SX20 looks nice and is cheap also, if you can handle something a bit chunkier.


Florian wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 11:32 AM PST:

Not sure whether this video matches your criteria, but it was shot with a SX200is, all manual settings and aiming for a washed-out cinematic look.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 11:49 AM PST:

Yeah, this one is pretty good. Just make sure you always complete the tags on vimeo though, otherwise their search engine doesn’t return all results. They don’t have as a good search system as youtube has, so tags must always be completed.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 12:07 PM PST:

>Only if this cam had mic input…

Well, such small cams are not expected to have such things. But as I said above, the mic quality on the new Canon cams is much better than any of the other cams I have around, and especially the digi-recorders. I believe Canon now uses highly directional mics.


Florian wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 12:39 PM PST:

Btw., thanks for your good advice on this camera. Bought it on your recommendation, and running it with your settings. And amazingly capable little video camera (but an underwhelmingly noisy stills camera like all compacts). It produces clean moving images, has a nice wide angle, optical stabilization is amazingly good – the slow lens, 30fps and mono sound less so. In Europe, it can be now found as a discount item for around EUR 220-240.

But a word on the Flip cameras: For completely unsavvy point-and-shooters, a fixed/infinite focus camera is better than the SX200is. Not having to run mode dials and press multiple buttons for catching a particular moment – involving your kid or pet, for example – can also make a crucial difference. It’s a textbook example of interface design zen vs. spec sheet-tuned technology. Even a camcorder with an idiot-compatible auto mode might fail if the auto mode button or dial has been accidentally switched off. Built-in editing ultra-simple software is another issue (even iMovie can be overwhelming for someone with no video amateur aspirations). And last not least, the SD/VGA resolution Flips can’t be beaten as cheap low light cameras – thanks to the big pixels on their sensors, they produce unbelievably bright pictures in low light situations without gain artifacts.


Juan wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 12:55 PM PST:

Nice and right on. I’m new to the whole video scene and I’m lovin’ it, but one can definitely get caught up with the hype of a new this and a new that. It’s addictive. I own the 7d and I’m striving to use it to the fullest, but now I wonder if I could’ve started with something like a Canon digicam. I encourage you to follow through with your “proof of concept idea” so that the visual learners out there can understand what you’re saying. “It’s not the camera that matters, it’s how you use it”, love it!


Noah wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 1:09 PM PST:

Your post intrigued me.

I bought an HF200 recently but am sure I’m not even close to using it to the fullest potential.

How should I learn how to use this thing the way it could be used?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 1:22 PM PST:

You need to go to video forums, and read video blogs, tutorials, and other related material. And watch videos from the said cams on places like vimeo, and if you like something you see, you ask how it was done. But most importantly: experiment yourself.


Scott wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 3:39 PM PST:

Another good post Eugenia, and I couldn’t agree more that knowing the equipment, combined with really applying oneself goes a long way in creating something interesting. Just wanted to mention that it would have been nice if Canon had put the same stereo mics in the SX200 as they did in the not so successful TX1. Also I’m fairly certain the SX200 has digital zoom and not optical.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 3:53 PM PST:

As it’s explained in my linked review of the SX200 IS above, all the Canon digicams have optical zoom, but not when recording. You have to first zoom to the level you want, and then start recording. Which is how everyone should be shooting anyway. Except in some very rare situations (e.g. when trying to reproduce the ’70s b-movie style), no video should have zooming while recording, because it makes it look like a cheap home recording. So the fact that it doesn’t optically zoom while recording has a zero negative effect in my videos. In fact, I see it as a good incentive for people to not use it. 😉


Scott wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 5:02 PM PST:

I agree with what you are saying in regard to zooming while filming 100%. I only wanted to point out for those who possibly might not know the difference, that when any other reviewer speaks of whether a digicam has “optical zoom” or not in video mode they mean “while, or during recording”. It is however, as you’ve mentioned quite an unremarkable feature.


zazuk wrote on January 7th, 2010 at 6:04 PM PST:

For all that shooting movie “education” you bring to this world, canon should be giving you that camera! I am sure it will be profitable to them more than anything.
Thanks for your everyday contribution in helping novices better understanding their “friend-camera”.


Javier Suárez wrote on January 8th, 2010 at 12:27 AM PST:

Hi Eugenia. First, sorry for my English.
Some time ago I looked for a compact camera to record HD video and I found the SX200. Searching about this camera I found your review (thanks !!!). I bought the camera and it is spectacular.

Recently I recorded a videoclip with the SX200. I used studio lights and the result is really good.

When I finish editing the video, I’ll send you the link
Thanks for your review once again!


Glenn wrote on January 8th, 2010 at 12:45 AM PST:

Any thoughts on the IXUS 200 IS? I’m considering buying that as it has a faster f2.8 24mm to 120mm lens (24mm would be really nice), is about $80 less than I sold my SX200 for, and is a lot smaller also. Closer to the size of a phone.

There’s a 720P Olympus now also. Now idea how good it is.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 8th, 2010 at 1:44 PM PST:

Glenn, please use HTML for links. 🙂

So, stay away from anything non-Canon for now. Not only Olympus uses mjpeg, but they have no manual controls whatsoever. Panasonic has exposure compensation on their newest models, but no locking.

As for the SD980 IS (ixus 200 IS), it’s just the same as the SD780, but with a better lens. Quite more expensive too. If you’re to buy that model, you should have not sold your SX200 IS, since the SX200 is still better (it has manual focus, while the IXUS models don’t).


momchil wrote on January 9th, 2010 at 5:10 AM PST:

You can try searching for videos with Digital IXUS 100 IS – thats the name of the SD780 IS in Europe.


zima wrote on January 9th, 2010 at 7:36 AM PST:

Now, if only the prices for those two digicams didn’t add around $100 where I live…

What’s bizarre is that entry-level DSLRs (Canon EOS 1000D, Nikon D3000) are priced much more fairly here, so they end up costing not that much more than SX200; though without any video capability of course. SX20, which could be an acceptable compromise (if not for it being from the older generation, video capability-wise, as you pointed out once) is actually…more expensive than cheapest DSLR.

Nonetheless, I can’t wait to see the results of your experiment; I expect it to be very inspiring.

Florian, for that kind of segment, aren’t mobile phone cameras (or even iPod nano…) starting to be good enough? (and I don’t really buy their superb low-light capabilities – I expect the savings went towards smaller sensor too; plus HD cam shooting in SD might have effectivelly bigger ones)


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 10th, 2010 at 1:09 AM PST:

I found an interesting one, using the SD780. However, the best videos were taken by this guy, using his SD980 (ixus 200 IS). The same guy has way more videos on Dailymotion. If he learns to shoot flatter, he will be able to recover more detail and have his color grading look even better.


Glenn wrote on January 10th, 2010 at 6:30 AM PST:

The links, yes sorry about that. I always miss the fine print.

A great find there, those Kendy videos. Definitely the best I’ve seen from any of these cameras. By the look of it, where he works may actually be Dailymotion, as I saw the banner on the wall there.

The Ixus 200 IS is also the IXY 930 IS. Although I haven’t seen it listed as the SD980 here in Australia. My wife’s cousin posted a Christmas video from her Ixus 200 on Facebook, and the low light performance is noticeably better than the SX200, so the f2.8 lens must make a difference.


Woj wrote on January 10th, 2010 at 8:01 AM PST:

And what about newest Sony DSC-HX5 (10MPix, Full HD 1920 x 1080/50i, format AVCHD) ~350 USD available in March


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 10th, 2010 at 11:50 AM PST:

>And what about newest Sony DSC-HX5

As I wrote in my twitter (not everything I write anymore is on my blog, so please follow me on twitter), these cams have very little bitrate and no manual controls (apart from a exposure compensation, but no locking or good color settings). The 720p mode of these cams for example only has 6 mbps, so I don’t expect their 50i version to be super-great either. So I will have to re-iterate: stay with Canon for the time-being.


raymundo dionicio wrote on January 10th, 2010 at 3:26 PM PST:

Just the tool and no more than the tool. You are absolute right about this, Eugenia. 🙂

Samsung does not rock on this area, but I find audio PCM lacking. And This is the case still with the Canons. Samsung’s 550 and 500 models gives 13′ 21″ per Gb or about 10 mbs which is something ready for broadcasting (on apparently AC3 mono audio). The recorded video is saved as an H.264.

Anyway audio should be replaced for a high quality sound track in your project.


William Eggington wrote on January 10th, 2010 at 4:10 PM PST:

I got an Aiptek HD-DV 1080P over a year ago to fool around with. Wobble vision was my conclusion. 🙁 Fun for family videos but a big letdown for anything serious.


Michael wrote on January 11th, 2010 at 6:14 PM PST:

I recently damaged my camera (Sony DSC-H2, 6MP, paid less than $300 almost 3 years ago) and was looking for new one. I was excited about HD video mode after reading Eugenia’s review of SX200. I bought 12MP SD980 and indeed the video was great! But … the quality of pictures was terrible, even while taking from a tripod in a bright sunlight. Then I tried 10MP Panasonic ZX3 (b/c reviews on Amazon) – the picture quality is WAY better than Canon’s, but still not even close to my 6MP Sony (also, the video on ZX3 is terrible).

SD980 and SX200 have the same sensor – 43MP/cm^2. My cheap 4-year old Sony: 24MP/cm^2. Yes, the video on Canon SX200 is great, but that’s ALL that camera has. Why would anybody want a digital camera that so poorly does its MAIN job – taking pictures?

It appears that Panasonic LX3 is the only choice if you want a digital compact camera (as it’s MAIN purpose) with HD video (as it’s SECONDARY purpose that is nice to have). None of Canon cameras come close if you want camera purposes to be in that order.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 11th, 2010 at 6:43 PM PST:

The LX3 takes good pics, and has exposure compensation, but it has no exposure locking. This is a NO-GO, as far as I’m concerned. Additionally, the LX3 uses mjpeg, not h.264, so quality is much worse in video quality than any of these Canon digicams. Similarly, the ZX3 has no exposure locking.

As for the SX200 IS pictures, I have absolutely no problem with them at all. I believe the quality is certainly up to par with what I would expect from a $300 camera. I mean, by the time you either resize these pics for web usage, or you print them in A4 format, their quality is very acceptable.

The only problem with SX200 IS and most other digicams with 1/2.3″ sensors is the bad low light. Which is something you already knew, because you said that you bought the camera after reading my review (where I clearly mention that). So I don’t see why you’re complaining… 😉

Finally, your acknowledge that video is indeed of great quality with these cams, but the stills aren’t. But you fail to understand that this is a video-related blog. This blog post is about getting a video camera on a small body, that also happens to shoot good pics, not the other way around. So if you’re MAINLY shooting pictures, the LX3 is definitely a better buy. But if you’re mainly shoot video, or at least you’re equally interested for pics+video, then the SX200 IS is a better buy.


Glenn wrote on January 11th, 2010 at 9:59 PM PST:

The photo capabilities were why I sold my SX200. Sure, I took some great looking photos with it, but they didn’t have that sharp crisp look of photos taken on my previous Ricoh Caplio R7 and GR Digital. Plus, it’s interval mode was awkward and almost impossible to use, so I couldn’t use it to shoot any videos like this one or this.

Not to mention it’s macro capability. The SX200 has a great 0cm super macro mode, but anything between 1cm and 20cm was extremely difficult or impossible to focus on. Very limiting depending on how far you zoom in. Then another issue I noticed was the purple fringing around the edges in quite a few photos. Plus the camera was a bit too bulky in my pocket. So when I sold it this is the camera I bought to replace it, and it’s brilliant! So many cool features.

That said, I do miss the HD video mode of the SX200, which is why I’m considering the Ixus 200 IS (SD980) solely for video. It has a touchscreen focus mode and is smaller, so should fit more comfortably in my pocket. One pocket for that, another for the CX1.

HTML ok? 🙂


Michael wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 11:50 AM PST:

Why would anybody want to buy SX200 just for video? Wouldn’t any camcoder be better?

As far as quality for $300 price range – this doesn’t make any sense. My 4-year old 6MP Sony cost probably less than a $100 today, but its pictures are much better. I am sure any 4-year old Canon cameras take much better pictures than SX200. 2-3 year old Canon cameras in Fry’s are sold for less than $100 – their pictures are WAY better.

SX200 is targeted for clueless consumers who think 12MP make better quality. For smarter consumers Canon came up with S90 (10MP, 23MP/cm^2 sensor), yet without HD video. LX3 is the camera in the same class (10MP, 24MP/cm^2) but with HD video.

Unless you want to carry both SX200 and S90, Panasonic LX3 is a better choice. It might not have all manual control options for video, but it is certainly a much better value for the money. Until Canon adds HD video to S90 it will stay way behind Panasonic.

By the way, LX3 was sold above MSRP in the past. Leica sells exactly the same model and some retailers are raising its price. I guess as consumers discover the poor quality of cameras such as SX200, they will look for compact cameras with high quality photos AND an HD video. So far it appears LX3 is the only choice.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 12:29 PM PST:

Michael, as I have requested many times in this blog, please use HTML for your links.

Second, the SX200 IS’ pictures are not as bad you make them to be. They look fine enough. And no, for many people who are interested in a combo device that does both a great video and pics, the SX200 IS is a great purchase. The SD-series too.

Since I’m one of these people who like small combo devices, I’d never touch the LX3. Not only because it’s 2x the price, but also because of no exposure locking. For a serious-amateur videographer, no exposure locking is simply non-acceptable.


Michael wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 1:35 PM PST:

Eugenia,

First, sorry about non-HTML (didn’t see the note at first).

Second, I am just curious about why exposure locking is so important for you. The most common case for exposure to change is when the camera moves – either you move it in your hands, or you rotate the head of the tripod. From your blogs I know you hate shaky video footage and throw away anything that was shot without a tripod 😉 So, I imagine that you want to lock the exposure on SX200 when you shoot with a tripod when you want to rotate tripod’s head. So we are not talking about a mini-tripod, we are talking about a bulky tripod with a floating head. If you want to carry such a bulky tripod so you can use the exposure locking feature of SX200 – why not to carry HV20 with it as well? 😉

My point is that to use SX200 exposure locking feature you need a bulky tripod with floating head which kind-of defeats the main advantage of the camera (over, say, HV20) – its size.

Am I missing something?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 2:45 PM PST:

Exposure locking is not only useful when you move the camera, but when the subject in front of you moves. For example, when I shot my Santa Cruz video last year (and I was not allowed to use a tripod, so I used trash cans as stabilization method), I forgot to lock exposure with my HV20 at one point, and the exposure was jumping like crazy since the subjects in front of the camera were moving in high velocity. I couldn’t use that footage.

And besides, what if you want to go somewhere also shoot pictures and you naturally take your tripod with you? Doesn’t mean that if you also want to shoot some video you should get the HV20 with you too. Personally, I find exposure locking very important.


Michael C. wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 3:23 PM PST:

I know you use Cineform. I don’t. Do you have any recommendations to easily – and, preferably, for free – rewrap H.264 from MOV to M2TS?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 3:41 PM PST:

There are freeware tools out there that do it, and I have done so successfully, can’t remember their names though (found them on Videohelp.com). The problem is, if you’re using Vegas, it can’t read the specific .m2ts files, because they’re not 100% the exact same format as the AVCHD files found on cameras (they’re close, but not exact). There is no utility available that creates files exactly as the format cameras use.

So if you’re using Premiere or other editor, it might work. But with Vegas it won’t. For Vegas, you need to either use Avid DNxHD’s intermediate format if your PC is fast (Core2Duo 2 Ghz and faster), or Cineform if slower or if you just need a fast codec. No way around it.


Michael C. wrote on January 12th, 2010 at 11:56 PM PST:

I remember that I could use DNxHD in MOV container with Vegas 8.0c. Now I have Windows 7 64-bit and Vegas 8.1 64-bit, and it does not accept these QuickTime files. Ah, well, I transcoded to MJPEG, still looks pretty good. What do you do with your videos? Upload to the Web only? What about Blu-ray? Do you slow them down to 29.97, set playback rate to 0.999, and then export to AVC 720p59.94 ?


Michael C. wrote on January 13th, 2010 at 12:04 AM PST:

Actually, I take it back. I just rendered to 720p AVC @ 10 Mbit/s from MJPEG, and it looks like crap wherever there is slightest bit of motion. Need to make these DnXHD work.


Michael C. wrote on January 13th, 2010 at 12:11 AM PST:

Hmm, I take it back again. WMV from MJPEG looks ok, but AVC looks horrible. Don’t know why.


Glenn wrote on January 13th, 2010 at 4:18 AM PST:

Ok, I’ll admit I miss having a pocket sized HD camera, so I’ve just ordered an Ixus 110 (SD960) which I’ll be using soley for video. Much cheaper than the SX200 IS and Ixus 200 (SD980). It’s what that French guy Kendy was using before he broke it and upgraded to the Ixus 200. I like what that guy is doing, and he’s consistent too with a new video almost every day.

I’m guessing they will release a few new models soon, but it will take a while for the prices to drop.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 13th, 2010 at 12:26 PM PST:

>Do you slow them down to 29.97, set playback rate to 0.999, and then export to AVC 720p59.94 ?

No, why would I do that?

>Vegas 8.1 64-bit, and it does not accept these QuickTime files.

You need Vegas 32bit to use 32bit codecs. That’s why most people haven’t moved to Vegas 64bit. Windows can be either 32 or 64, it doesn’t matter.


Ivan wrote on January 13th, 2010 at 9:06 PM PST:

I ‘m a filmer using the LX3 as my main camera (for now). No artistic movies on my account, just regular homemovies, but I do make the most of my camera, AND Eugenia taught me alot.
Yet, these are my comments:

1) The LX3 doesn’t have ‘exposure lock’, but selecting ‘center weighted’ metering will greatly reduce gain shift. Take a look at this video: there is no annoying gain shift. http://www

2) The LX3 is by far superior to the sx200is in low light conditions: http://www

Where are the low light sx200is movies? They all end up in the garbage bin because they are much to noisy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmdmN58qWl0

For all practical means, I find low light capabilities much more important than exposure lock.

ps
I don’t do html anymore, it is archaic. 😉


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on January 13th, 2010 at 11:09 PM PST:

>but selecting ‘center weighted’ metering will greatly reduce gain shift.

Depends what you shoot, and how. This doesn’t make anything better, IMO. Eventually, it still jumps.

>The LX3 is by far superior to the sx200is in low light conditions

If you’re shooting family stuff indoors, sure. But if you’re into shooting more artistic videos, or travel stuff, it doesn’t matter because you’re making sure you have enough light in these situations. And let’s not forget, the LX3 has a bigger sensor alright, but also double the price.

>They all end up in the garbage bin because they are much to noisy!

This is not true. I filmed a music show with an SX200 IS, under VERY low light conditions. It came out fine.

>For all practical means, I find low light capabilities much more important than exposure lock.

I don’t. Any video that its exposure jumps is AA amateurish to me.

>I don’t do html anymore, it is archaic.

This is your right, but on my blog, please use HTML. Plain links don’t look good. They’re messy, and if they’re too long, they destroy the design too.


Ivan wrote on January 14th, 2010 at 2:04 AM PST:

Filming a concert is not a good example of ‘low light’ conditions, because there are usually quite a lot of spotlights on stage.
There should be a vimeo group where users post their ‘one candle’ shots, with different cameras, to compare true low light capabilities.


Nate wrote on January 15th, 2010 at 4:31 PM PST:

While I’m not a big fan of the SX200, because I don’t like its quality stills especially after coming from the SD870 which took marvelous pictures (I’m still waiting on a SD990 or S90 w/ HD video (darn you Canon!)), I will have to agree that 720p60 not included in Canon’s HF S21 is infuriating!

I know purists will argue that 24p footage is the best, but I will argue that 60p footage when filming a lot of motion (ie. soccer game) is the best and easiest to enjoy watching later.

Also, 60p -> 24p looks gorgeous… or at least from what I’ve seen on youtube or vimeo.

So yeah… since we probably won’t be getting 1080p60 for a long time because of the whole AVCHD & Blu-ray spec mess (although they are already support 3D), the camcorder manufacturers could at least be kind to just give us consumers camera adopters nice 720p60 action.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.