backtop

Gadgets Sony Unveils Three New HD Camcorders
Marcus Yam (Blog) - April 27, 2007 7:24 AM
Print 48 comment(s) - last by Oxygenthief.. on Apr 30 at 12:59 AM

The world's smallest and lightest AVCHD high-definition camcorder

Yes, you look like a desert island

Having a hard disk drive adds size and space
Sony's three new camcorders bring high definition in small packages

Sony this week announced three new high-definition camcorders capable of recording full 1080 video onto Memory Stick Media or hard disk drives. The new Handycam HDR-CX7 model, which Sony claims is the world's smallest and lightest AVCHD high-definition camcorder, weighs just 15 ounces with the supplied battery and can record nearly three hours of full HD 1080 video on an 8-GB Memory Stick PRO Duo media card  in LP recording mode.

For those willing to give up portability for more storage space, the new HDR-SR7 AVCHD high-definition camcorder can record more than 22 hours of full HD 1080 video on its built-in 60GB hard disk drive, while the HDR-SR5 model's 40GB hard drive can hold more than 15 hours of footage, both in LP modes.

"Camcorder users are quickly embracing non-linear camcorder formats, such as hard disk drive and flash media, because they make it easy for anyone to view and access footage quickly," said Linda Vuolo, director of camcorder marketing at Sony Electronics. "Our models offer the added advantages of superior high-definition picture quality. With the widest range of consumer high-def models, we can satisfy the needs of virtually everyone."

All three camcorders feature 2.7-inch LCD screens and Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T optics. The new models  also support the AVCHD camcorder recording format based on the MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 codec for video compression and built-in Dolby Digital 5.1-channel surround sound recording.

The HDR-CX7 and HDR-SR7 models utilize a 3-megapixel sensor for full HD 1080 video and 6-megapixel digital still photos. They are also equipped with Super SteadyShot for optical image stabilization. The more budget-minded HDR-SR5 model integrates a 2-megapixel sensor for 1080 video and produces a 4-megapixel photo.

The HDR-SR5, HDR-CX7 and HDR-SR7 camcorders will ship in June for about $1,100, $1,200 and $1,400, respectively.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
worth it?
By dome1234 on 4/27/2007 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no pro in photography, but most ppl are using camcorders under non-pro conditions such as without proper lighting control, maybe a bit of dust on the lenses, etc etc, would the 1080p matter?

but i have to say the price isn't as well as I thought it would be.




RE: worth it?
By dome1234 on 4/27/2007 9:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but i have to say the price isn't as well as I thought it would be.


i meant,

but i have to say the price isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

alcohol's bad, mmmkay? haha sorry


RE: worth it?
By Cobra Commander on 4/27/2007 9:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you'd just have a super-clarified poorly-lit recording in that situation. It's still 'better'. HD is effectively about resolution - it can't possibly eliminate the many human factors involved - and that resolution exists regardless of these other variables... I don't see how that can be negated.?


RE: worth it?
By alifbaa on 4/27/2007 7:02:46 PM , Rating: 3
I was able to have these cameras demonstrated to me at Sony's headquarters in Tokyo last September. Obviously, the conditions were ideal, and the cameras were also mounted on tripods. I was able to test them out under a variety of different lights, but all the scenes were well lit. I must say, the cameras were phenomenal. They weren't just good, they were great! The quality of the picture was very nearly broadcast quality. It wasn't just a matter of better resolution. The color was very good. Flesh tones were accurate. The added resolution gave a depth to the images that was otherwise missing. They did a very nice job.

Having said all that, Sony tends to overprice its products. I would wait until someone else comes out with a competing camera, and compare them then. Chances are, you'll find something with better quality/features at a lower price.


RE: worth it?
By gsellis on 4/27/2007 10:04:49 AM , Rating: 4
i vs p, no, and you have the gist of it. HDV to look like movies is all about the lighting, composition, and the edit. Lighting, depth of field, and how stable the platform is are what makes a great source video. The 1080i's are stunning and you should see what just a simple Canon HV20 (60i or 24p) can do in the hands of a pro with the correct lighting and a mini-35mm adapter on it (allows prime lenses for real depth of field).

So, Uncle Bob can still make bad video at 1080i, but he will get better detail. But if he takes care, it can be really good.

It is not the tools, it is the tool user that makes it good.


RE: worth it?
By TomZ on 4/27/2007 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
It is not the tools, it is the tool user that makes it good.
That sounds nice, but it really isn't true. Good tools can improve the results of novice users, and poor tools can also keep experienced users from producing great results. So really the results are a function of both the quality of the equipment as well as the user.

There is no doubt in my mind that this type of camcorder will make "movies of my kids" look better than my older camcorder, regardless of my skill level.


RE: worth it?
By gsellis on 4/27/2007 1:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
HDV buys better color and detail. It does not improve anything else. In fact, a common complaint with HDV is that too much detail is a bad thing. That is why we do wedding shoots and model stuff using a SoftFX filter and that is with SD footage. It dials out any skin blemishes, wrinkles, and acne.


RE: worth it?
By TomZ on 4/27/2007 1:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand that, but I'd prefer to capture more detail initially and then add filters later, rather than recording at lower resolutions and/or using filters that distort the raw image.


RE: worth it?
By Oregonian2 on 4/27/2007 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
Being one who is just starting up the learning curve, and someone who loves to buy gadgets to overcome my lack of skills, I am finding that it doesn't really work. Good stuff certainly helps, but it's not the problem. I've seen many home-movies with zoom headaches, pan headaches, jiggle headaches, etc. Toys don't help any of those. Powerful toys like Sony's Vegas NLE (highly underated) that simultaneously has both "power" and an intuitive user interface helps do things better -- but could just as well help making headaches or snore-time better too.

It's like asking if having a real-time spelling checker helps those who want to write a best selling novel. Well, yes, it probably helps -- but having such a checker doesn't make a person anywhere near the goal. IOW, that's not the hard part.

Sure nice seeing the disk space down with H.264, with regular DV it's 13Gb for 1 hour. Hope there aren't any bad side effects.


RE: worth it?
By animedude on 4/27/2007 1:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Do you go to Bestbuy? Go there and take a look at these HD camcorders. The quality is outstanding.


RE: worth it?
By paulpod on 4/27/2007 6:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see, in the time prosumer DV cams have been on the market, digital still cams have gone from 0.5 MP to 8MP. Meanwhile, DV cams have been stuck with the same picture quality and an extremely inefficient encoder (and the insane 4:1:1 sampling).

The lack of excitement you see in the camcorder section of any store is the result of this stagnation.

That said, lack of true 1920x1080 chips and low quality encoding just to pump up the recording times will put a damper on this upgrade.

Further dampers are the barriers placed upon getting data out of the camera and into non-proprietary file formats and the lack of cheap, non-bloatware editing apps.


Sony should give full disclosure on the resolution
By Hulk on 4/27/2007 12:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
These cameras are not really 1080 resolution. They are anamorphic 1080i. The actual resolution is 1440x1080 and it is interlaced. The lens "squishes" the video into 1440x1080 and then the video interpolates it back to fit on your screen with the proper aspect ratio.

I personally think this sucks. First, interlaced video sucks. Who actually had a high definition interlaced display??!?

Second, you can't even play this back natively at the recorded resolution since all monitors are square pixel and this anamorphic format is not square pixel. It just means another conversion and a loss in image quality.

No thanks. I'll wait for an affordable, good 720p camera. Square pixels and no interlacing to deal with.

Just my two cents.




By TomZ on 4/27/2007 12:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure about that? Sony claims a 2MP sensor for video, which would be what 1920x1080 would require. The resolution you noted would only be 1.5MP.


By 91TTZ on 4/27/2007 1:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, interlaced video sucks. Who actually had a high definition interlaced display??!?


I have an interlaced HD display. It's a Sony CRT HDTV and uses the same fine pitch tube as the XBR. It has extremely good picture quality, quite a bit better than the LCD displays that I've seen.

Since my TV natively displays 1080i, watching a 1080i channel shows quite an improvement over a 720p station. My friend has a 720p LCD HDTV and he used to believe that there was no visible difference between 720p and 1080i, which is understandable, since his TV won't display anything higher than 720p. But as soon as he saw mine, he agreed that the difference is quite obvious.


By mjcutri on 4/27/2007 2:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think you need to get your facts straight. Try checking out this article on cnet:
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html?tag...

How good an image looks depends on a lot more than just if it's i or p. To get the best image, your source should match your display, to minimize conversions. But that only matters if it is all hooked up digitally anyway. Also, if you get your HD from cable or satellite, it gets compressed for transmission. So the only sources that really matter are OTA, HD DVD, Blue-ray, or from a HD camcorder like these. I currently have a Samsung 30" CRT HDTV with 1080i native resolution and both 1080i and 720p sources (i've never had a 1080p source to try) look spectacular on it.

If you haven't seen discovery's "Planet Earth" in HD yet, you need to, it is freakin' amazing.


RE: Sony should give full disclosure on the resolution
By Hulk on 4/27/2007 2:45:59 PM , Rating: 5
Actually I've co-written a book on HDV and high def video. You can look at it here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Hdv-What-You-Need-Know/dp/09...

My facts are dead on buddy. We are talking about the Sony cameras right? Why are you bringing up other formats?

I don't have time to write another book here but let me help clear some of this up for you because like most consumers you have a few facts and are making the rest up to fit your view of things.

I looked at the link you provided and don't have time to debunk the mass of misinformation there. He couldn't tell the difference between 1366 and 1920 horizontal resolution on a quality 46" display? Unless he was using crappy source material he's nuts.

Yes, 1080i and 720p both look much better than 480/60i but that's not the point. The interlacing of 1080i is very annoying to me and many people compared to the nice clean progressive images of 720p or 1080p. Slow motion looks better and freeze frames look better as well.

Most people buy these cameras to record their own movies and edit them right? Well you have to keep the field order straight when editing/rendering and more than likely convert the 1080i (remember anamorphic not full 1080 resolution)to a progressive format since NO ONE has an interlaced HD monitor. By the time you deinterlace you're left with about 720p resolution on any non-static scenes anyway. What's the point of Sony going with 1080i?

Marketing pure and simple. 1080 is bigger than 720. Never mind it's not full 1080 resolution and never mind it's an interlaced format that will only be displayed on progressive monitors.

It's easier to develop a CCD (or CMOS) that does 1440x1080 interlaced than full 1080.

They would be doing the video community a better service by offering 720p cameras with 60fps. The bandwidth would be more effectivelyl utilized in a 720p camera. Less macroblocking and other compression artifacts during fast motion.

In addition editing would be easier on the computer. No remapping of resolution or deinterlacing during rendering would be required.

It's just a smarter workflow for consumers. JVC is doing it right with 720p.

I'm not selling anything here I just want people to understand the facts so they can make intelligent decisions.


By Octoparrot on 4/27/2007 5:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Hulk that 720P done well is a good alternative for consumers. Just look at 24P film shows edited on 60i videotape & all the edit artifacts when you lose the cadence & you get blocky 240-line frames all over the place (Region 1 Futurama DVD anyone?).

However, I'm not sure what the big deal is about 1440 horizontal pixel elements. Surely as an expert, Hulk is aware that professional Sony HDCAM used this prior to the introduction of HDCAM SR in 2003, and some HD shows were taped with this. So some of that cable 1080i (especially I'm betting Japanese-originated NHK-filmed stuff such as seen on Discovery HD) has only 1440 horizontal resolution in its original source. Of course the quality of the optics & the electronics won't be the same quality as professional cameras used in those shows....


By 91TTZ on 4/27/2007 6:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most people buy these cameras to record their own movies and edit them right? Well you have to keep the field order straight when editing/rendering and more than likely convert the 1080i (remember anamorphic not full 1080 resolution)to a progressive format since NO ONE has an interlaced HD monitor. By the time you deinterlace you're left with about 720p resolution on any non-static scenes anyway. What's the point of Sony going with 1080i


I've done quite a lot of video editing on my MiniDV camcorder and I'll vouch for what you're saying here. Although interlaced video will look fine on an interlaced TV, once you try to view it on a computer monitor (progressive display) you'll instantly notice the interlacing, which will look horrible. Really your only option is to deinterlace it, which dramatically reduces the resolution (most deinterlacers just strip every other line then double the remaining ones). If you had a 720p camcorder, this would be avoided and you'd be left with a higher resolution video for computer use.


By maven81 on 4/29/2007 12:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
By the time you deinterlace you're left with about 720p resolution on any non-static scenes anyway. What's the point of Sony going with 1080i?

Marketing pure and simple. 1080 is bigger than 720. Never mind it's not full 1080 resolution and never mind it's an interlaced format that will only be displayed on progressive monitors.

It's easier to develop a CCD (or CMOS) that does 1440x1080 interlaced than full 1080.

Where are you getting this information from? Yes you can throw away information when you deinterlace the footage, but you can also preserve it. Recall that in 1080i at 60 fields you have a frame with half the resolution followed by a frame with the other half. It's easy to combine them together into a single frame with full resolution. So you can convert 1080i 60 into 1080p 30. This will most definitely look better then 720p unless you're shooting action sports, where yes 720p's 60 progressive frames will capture the action better. But with most footage I have shot and edited in 1080i the motion looks fine since nothing is moving really fast.
Also what makes you think it's hard to develop a 1920x1080 cmos chip? Plenty of cameras have them, and ditigal still cameras have much higher res chips. In fact 1440x1080 may be harder to develop because it would need very rectangular, not square pixels. That should be obvious to a so called professional! A lot of these cameras merely resize their 1920x1080 image into 1440x1080, dumping resolution in favor of lower bandwidth. But then these Sony cameras aren't HDV anyway are they?


By Oxygenthief on 4/30/2007 12:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually I've co-written a book on HDV and high def video. You can look at it here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Hdv-What-You-Need-Know/dp/09...
Ok tard, quick tip, since no one here has any idea what your actual name is beyond "hulk" (obviously over-compensating for something) for you to make a claim that you did anything like write a book, end world hunger, or even sleep with a girl for the first time last night is just simply retarded. Simply put, no one believes you and you can't prove it.

And if you don't understand or believe me, buy my books from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Smart-People-Can-Stupid/...

and

http://www.amazon.com/How-Spot-Liar-People-Truth/d...

And pay no attention to the misprint on the author line of book one, it should be the same as book two. I keep telling the publishing company to fix that but they never do, oh well.


By gsellis on 4/27/2007 3:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
You are confusing HDV and HDTV. Some of the cameras have 1920x1080 chips. But HDV for 1080 is 1440x1080 on tape. HD cameras can do 1920x1080. Note when watching Planet Earth that the cameras they are using a ENG (Electronic News Gathering) in format and are HD cameras, not HDV.


By Zoomer on 4/27/2007 6:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
False.

I believe Japan broadcasts their HD content at that exact resolution, and interlaced.

It looks very good, imho better than 720p video, assuming a good deinterlacer is used. (cubic interpolation is quite good)


Zoom Ring?
By BMFPitt on 4/27/2007 9:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
I can't tell from the pictures, but does anybody know if any or all these have a zoom ring?

I can't stand not having a zoom ring, and it seems like no consumer DV cameras have them.




RE: Zoom Ring?
By Cobra Commander on 4/27/2007 9:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know , but it doesn't look like it and I'd doubt it.


RE: Zoom Ring?
By gsellis on 4/27/2007 10:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
In the last couple of Sony's, it was missing. The HC7 has a dial IIRC. It looks like this carries forward. It does stink. Even on some of the more expense cameras, it is servo based and not mechanical. I still don't like it (VX2100/PD170 for example).


RE: Zoom Ring?
By TomZ on 4/27/2007 12:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that consumers, i.e., the target market for these products, care for a zoom ring. Actually, I would think most people prefer the servo zoom since it more smooth and linear.

What's the great benefit of a zoom ring anyway?


RE: Zoom Ring?
By BMFPitt on 4/27/2007 12:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Because servo zoom doesn't give you the granularity if you're zooming during a shot. It always comes out jumpy for me. Nothing says you can't have both (like the good old Sony VX2000 that I shot with in college.)

And while I understand these are still consumer cameras, they're still pretty high-end ones and not super-compact. They have room for it.


RE: Zoom Ring?
By gsellis on 4/27/2007 1:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
The ring is easier to use because you do not remove a hand from steadying the camera. The dials require a change in hand position and tend to "push" the camera.


RE: Zoom Ring?
By Oregonian2 on 4/27/2007 5:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the Panasonic 3CCD cameras have a zoom ring (actually I think the function of the ring can be chosen among several things). At least in their SD line, don't know about their hi-def ones.


Low Light capability
By Jackyl on 4/27/2007 10:50:26 AM , Rating: 3
The main thing I'm looking for, is decent recording in low-light. Currently all digital cameras are terrible, except for the Canon HV20 , but you have to use 24fps mode. All other cameras have too much noise. My dad's old VHS Quasar brand Camcorder , that you carry on your shoulder, had a lot more features, better lens, manual focus ring, etc.

Where is the improvement in today's camcorders? Today's cameras don't even resolve the full HD 1080 resolution. They are only resolving about half that many lines vertically. It would be better to just market it as 720p.

Features missing from most consumer cameras:
Focus Ring
External Mic/headphone jacks
Hot Shoe
Dedicated Fader Effect button (Fade in/out).
Dedicated Backlight button.




RE: Low Light capability
By Jackyl on 4/27/2007 11:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and can we get OIS (Optical Image stabilization) that actually works? Anyone seen the new JVC HD7 ? It is terrible low light and OIS. I have a cheapy Canon DV camcorder with EIS that keeps image stable at 20x zoom.


RE: Low Light capability
By Chadder007 on 4/27/2007 11:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The low light quality sucks on almost all new ones.


RE: Low Light capability
By sdsdv10 on 4/27/2007 1:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Features missing from most consumer cameras:
Focus Ring
External Mic/headphone jacks
Hot Shoe
Dedicated Fader Effect button (Fade in/out).
Dedicated Backlight button.


I didn't know things had gotten so bad. My ~5 year old Sony miniDV unit has all these features. I previously used the fader button (5 differnt built in types of fades) all the time, but now I do it better and easier in my video editing software. However, I still use the dedicated backlight button on a occasion. I've never used the manual focus ring, hot shoe or external mic.


RE: Low Light capability
By Hulk on 4/27/2007 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
You've got it right on.

They would be better off just focusing on producing good 720p cameras that actually do 720p well.


The wonders of marketing
By Justin Case on 4/28/2007 12:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
Conventions are a funny thing. HDTV resolution is 1920x1080. Since everyone just tends to call it "1080", Sony (and a few others) started making cameras that actually only record 1440x1080 (using anamorphic pixels). But hey, they're still "1080". Sony even did this with their first HD professional format, HDCAM.

Add to that the fact that most HDTV sets out there don't even have 1920x1080 physical pixels (a typical LCD TV resolution is 1366x768), and you have a lot of people getting something quite different from what they think they're buying.

Same thing with the "p". Most people assume that, since 1080i has 60 updates per second (60 fields), 1080p must have better quality. In fact, 1080p (as used by 100% of consumer-grade gear, and 98% of pro gear) is 30 frames per second or less (25, 24). So you have exactly the same total amount of information, but less updates per second. That means more defined stills when you pause, but worse motion fluidity.

There is a reason why standard-definition PAL and NTSC are interlaced; 25/30 frames per second simply isn't fluid enough for action scenes or sports. 50/60 fields causes some problems with freeze-frames, but it makes motion appear much more fluid.

Now, 720p (1280x720) can indeed be 60 full frames per second, so you have full detail per frame and excellent motion fluidity. Sure, you might not see every individual pore in the actor's face (or other body parts, depending on the particular kind of movie you're watching), but I'd definitely take 1280x720 at 60 fps over 1440x1080 (or 1366x768) at 30 fps.




RE: The wonders of marketing
By TomZ on 4/28/2007 9:50:52 AM , Rating: 2
HDV format on tape is 1440x1080, but since these camcorders don't use tape, I think it is possible or even likely that they are true 1920x1080. I can't find any clear statement in their specifications about the exact resolution, however, they state the aspect ratio as 16:9 and video resolution as 2MP, both of which are consistent with 1920 and not 1440.

Does anybody know for sure whether these camcorders are 1920x1080 or 1440x1080?


RE: The wonders of marketing
By crystal clear on 4/28/2007 5:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
SONY UNVEILS THE WORLD’S SMALLEST AVCHD HIGH-DEFINITION CAMCORDER

http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/di...


RE: The wonders of marketing
By TomZ on 4/28/2007 5:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link - but I don't see any clear definition there of the resolution of the recorded video. Do you?


RE: The wonders of marketing
By crystal clear on 4/29/2007 3:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
Did not have time to read the full text,but some of it here-

Memory Stick PRO Duo™ Media Slot
Capture still images up to 2848x2136
resolution, directly onto Memory Stick PRO
Duo™ Media for easy trasfer to PCs for
emailing, printing or shairing with other
compatible Memory Stick PRO Duo™
devices.
Dual Record
While recording video in High Definition
you have the ability to capture a 4.6
Megapixel still image directly to Mem

http://news.sel.sony.com/documents/consumer/digita...

also-

Specification Sheets
HDR-CX7 Specifications
HDR-SR7 Specifications
HDR-SR5 Specifications

http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/di...


RE: The wonders of marketing
By EclipsedAurora on 4/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: The wonders of marketing
By Justin Case on 4/28/2007 2:53:24 PM , Rating: 1
Sony carefully omits the horizontal resolution from all their HD product specifications (that's how they got away with 1440x1080 even for the first generation of their high-end format, HDCAM; the new HDCAM-SR is indeed 1920x1080), but other manufacturers will tell you the real resolution of each standard. Here:

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/sales_o/02...

Scroll down to "recording format".

Also, some retailers do include the true recording resolution even for Sony's AVCHD cameras:

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=...

Of course, as with the first generation of HDCAM, any camera can output a 1920x1080 video stream, but if it only stores 1440 luma samples per line, that's kind of pointless. It's like saying that 4:2:2 PAL can "display" full chroma information (it still only stores half).

If you can find any official Sony document stating that their AVCHD cameras actually record the full 1920 samples per line, I'd be very interested in reading it. Personally, I can't even find the strings "1920" and "AVCHD" on the same page in Sony's site.

If these models do have such a big resolution advantage over the old ones (not to mention over their competitors' products), as you claim, it seems a bit odd that Sony isn't calling people's attention to it. They certainly started to make a big fuss about the "1920" when their Bravia HDTV sets (finally) had true HD resolution (before they just called it "HD", now it's "True HD 1920x1080").


NO VIEWFINDERS!
By phusg on 4/27/2007 12:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Great, so only the most expensive camera has a viewfinder?!? I'm looking to get a Sony HDD camcorder (I particularly like the triple 'DD5.1' microphone built in) but HDR-SR7 is the cheapest one with a viewfinder on it!!! I don't understand Sony dropping the viewfinders, sure it saves a bit on costs, but who wants to use the LCD screen on a sunny day, or have it drain the battery prematurely?!?




RE: NO VIEWFINDERS!
By sdsdv10 on 4/27/2007 1:27:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but who wants to use the LCD screen on a sunny day, or have it drain the battery prematurely?!?


From what I gather, just about everyone. I have tried to get others (my wife, friends, etc.) who shoot with our camera to use the view finder. All refuse, even in bright sun when the LCD is almost unviewable. Doesn't make much sense, but I believe this is the reality with the average consumer.


expensive
By Murst on 4/27/2007 10:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
still too expensive. I'm looking forward to when these HD cams cost under 500. I'm no pro, and just recently bought a standard definition video camera (although it was widescreen), and I'll definetally be looking to upgrade once they become more affordable.

Yeah, I realize I'm not the target consumer for these atm.




RE: expensive
By Justin Case on 4/28/2007 10:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you were a pro you definitely wouldn't be buying one of these, either. These aren't even "prosumer", as such, they're very much low-end cameras (albeit in the HD segment).


Stay away from hard disc version.
By LatinMessiah on 4/27/2007 11:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
The hard drive makes a whining sound which is captured by the camera's built in mic.




By arazok on 4/27/2007 11:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
As an owner of a Sony SR1, I can say this is not the case. The hard drive is absolutely silent.


By novacthall on 4/27/2007 11:47:40 AM , Rating: 4
Great stuff, thanks for the laughs, Marcus.




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki