This one surprises me quite a bit, as it's usually the Canon cameras that tend to have higher colour saturation in comparison with the Sony's.
Sony's problem in my opinion is that they have a bit too much image processing built in, while it removes some sensor noise quite nicely, it's at the cost of some of the crispness in the edges. But at 0:43 it does seem like the Sony have a slight advantage in the shadows of the trees, while the Canon seem to win overall with the rest of that image.
Both are amazing devices but if you look to the finer details- the Canon is a better product with a more natural look while the Sony has a digitally enhanced look to it.
Great Video! I have always been partial to Canon, And this video just backs up my feelings on the HF S100, It is such a great camera for the price! So much more crisp, The Sony seemed like it was not even in HD in some frames. Thanks for the comparison!
First Video Canon wins easy ! alot shaper and real colours ! 2nd Video . The river looks real you can see the light coming off the water you cant on the sony ! ! ! 3rd video well it just looks aweful bad rendering if you ask me ! 4th again more realistic looking and real unlike the sony ! Cannon wins hands down , if you was to go to air show or make movies then you want the best video and best looking my money is on cannon X
@iJsturgess . Thanks for your comment. I tend to agree. Despite classification, I believe we are almost talking apples and oranges here. I believe the Sony (now the HDR-XR550 with max bit rate of 24mbps) is perhaps the best overall consumer/family everyday camcorder on the market. The Canon, with its gain limiter, 24p and manual aperture, is really a pro camcorder in a consumer size/price. Under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, a pro using the Canon may produce more professional results.
@BugAttraction Definitely. I went with the XR500V 1-2 years ago though because it has a huge leg up on the Canon though. It has a 120 GB hard drive vs 32 GB max on the Canon (card not even included!). The recording time doesn't compare. It also does night vision and 240 fps (interlaced) for slow motion and the Canon just can't compete there if you're looking to do time-lapse or slow motion videos.
I've used both. I own the canon and my father-in-law owns the sony. Personally, I wish I could swap with him. I think the Sony is MUCH better as an "out-of-the-box" camcorder. It has better low light performance, MUCH better image stabilization, HUGE LCD screen. Sony wins. The only reason I haven't returned my Canon is because I got it for a great price. Otherwise, if money wasn't an issue, I'd jump on the Sony.
to be honest here i was half half personally i own the sony HDR XR520V and i love it but the cannon was my second choice but looking at these photos for half i liked 1 side better then the other half i liked the other side to all in all i think they are both excellent cameras i do love sony but im not biased and i really couldnt pick 1 as clear favourite from this video it was extremely well dont and both cameras performed with awesome qaulity but stead shot sony wins hands down its amazing...
very informative. would you guys say sony in general has the best image stabilization overall? what do you guys suggest for someone who is planning to film while walking most of the time?
In another video I posted, i placed both cams side-by-side on my dashboard and drove around for a while. Sony, without question, has far superior stabilization. I found the Canon image stabilization to be just one step shy of useless. Sony's latest improvements with "active steady-shot" are simply outstanding.
Despite Sony having supposed 5.1 surround, I did not find it any better than the Canon. 5.1 surround may be a novelty if you are playing back from the camcorder into HDMI with a surround sound system. But none of the editing programs I used recognized anything but stereo sound. I personally would not base my decision on sound quality. Both are excellent and I believe a blind test would leave one challenged to decide which was which.
Ill take the canon. As a matter of fact I did. I looked at these kind of shootouts on the toob and the Cannon was always the winner to me. I got the HF S11. Been lovin it ever since I got it last month. I had an HV20...the S11 kills it dead!!!!
One thing to keep in mind here is that the Sony camera does NOT record in HD quality when using fully automatic settings. So, it's not really a fair comparison.
Point well taken and some clarification is required. There is a "fully automatic" setting called "easy mode" that is not HD. However, that was not the setting used in this case. I should have been more specific and said "default" Highest quality settings - in other words, full HD 1920x1080 maximum MBps on both cameras, auto white-balance, auto-focus, auto-iris, etc. I believe it is as close to an apples & apples comparison as is possible.
Ummmm, wow. Haven't really done that kind of stuff since the early 70's. But if memory serves, probably the Sony. That is if you prefer your reality bright, warm, a little softer and smooth.
Now if you don't mind a reality that is super-crisp, less saturated, and requires a steadier hand, Canon.
1) Both camera's don't film 100% realistic colors; canon is slightly too cold (blue), Sony slightly too warm (yellow). Canon to my eye is closer to natural. It depends on the shot too. 0:38 look at the ground- canon bluish, sony - yellowish.
2) Sharpness evidently better on Canon
3) Steadyshot - new models by Canon are much improved and closer to Sony.
4) Any color correction is easy in post production with both camera's.
I wish I could give a definitive answer. But it really does depend. If you'll be filming on a tripod from the sidelines, the Canon will give you better quality from a "specs" standpoint. But for greatest versatility, and how I'm assuming you'll be using it, the Sony is your best choice.
I prefer the canon, and did get it. This is one of the videos that influenced my decision. The canon just looks more realistic and detailed than the sony and the sony makes thing to vibrant for me and sort of animated
Great question. If by cinematic, you mean "film-like" then the Canon in my opinion. It shoots 24p and has a max bit rate almost 50% higher than the sony.
I was in doubt between these 2. I chose canon. Low light is significantly better in 24p mode than sony's. I actually like the color saturation and tone of the sony. For my taste the canon could be a tad warmer. But the color accuracy of canon is better in this video. I also appreciate the 'pro' features. Besides, when color is not off too much (like on panasonic tm350), you can do any color correction in post processing.
I have some "old" friends who prefer the sound of the old vinyl albums to CD's. The claim that new vinyl sounds richer, warmer. There is no disputing the specs of CD are far superior. Guess same could be said of these cams. Though not quite as different, the specs of the Canon are inarguably better. Image control is more precise in almost every way. But the Sony is warmer, often richer looking. It has about twice the light sensitivity, and stabilization is unrivaled. (continued below...)
I have been in a position to recommend to a camcorder to friends and family. Almost without exception, I recommend the Sony. Last check, its available under $900. And for 90% of the events, school plays, outdoor soccer games, indoor sports, family get-togethers, birth of a child, the sony will be easier to use and result in better overall "movies" with less effort. The Canon strikes me as a pro camera in a consumer body. Pro is great. But much harder to get consistently good video. (more...)
...So if you are a professional or experienced amateur, and want to able to limit AGC, and want to set specific shutter and aperture, and you are almost always going to be shooting from a tripod, and you want the best possible image quality from a sub-$1000 cam, the Canon is, not just in my opinion, but according to measurable specs, a more pro camera. If you have the Canon, good choice. But unless you're a pro, I can say confidently, hands down, the Sony XR500 is the best bet for you.
@BugAttraction - I had the XR500 for 7 days I was very dissapointed - This camera is only good when its (( sitting still )) - (( move around )) zoom in & out thoough - that overated piece of shit camera shakes like a race car engine even when you have image stabilization on !! it does nothing !! The CX100 / 500 dollars less & if you colour correct perfectly usuing ur editing software - you get the same result - I RETURNED THE XR500 after 7 days - That camera is definitley not worth a $ 1,000 $..
Thank you for your reply. Its useful to get all sides and experiences. I can't help but wonder if perhaps you got hold of a defective unit since my experience and that of others has been unsurpassed image stabilization. The CX100 is an excellent value, but also has a much smaller image sensor and thus, lower light sensitivity. But I'm not one to suggest owning a more expensive camera if it surpasses your needs. For my application, the XR500 has proved invaluable. True, its not for everyone.
i have a question. i have seen differet videos. sometimes canon shows better quality than sony but in other videos sony shows better quality than canon :S!! HELP MEE!! I WANNA BUY ONE BUT IM NOT SURE OF WHICH ONE! :S
Please allow me this opportunity to state both opinion and fact. The Canon produces a sharper image. This is verified by capturing both into Final Cut and opening scopes. The waveform on every comparable shot is measurably crisper with the Canon. This may be the 24Mbps vs Sony's 17Mbps, and may be the higher saturation Sony uses by default. Higher color produces higher noise. But the Sony is so close that the features outweigh the Canon overall. For concerts, buy the Sony. You'll be happier.
@BugAttraction - The sony xr500 standing still and filming is amazing - try moving around quickly or zoom in and out quickly - that thing shakes like an F1 SPRINT CAR ENGINE - even with image stabilization on - That camera is not worth $1,000 -- I had it for 7 days & returned it - LoL -- Bought the the Sony CX !00 - saved 500 dollars - colour corrected perfectly & made it look as if i had been recording with the XR500.. that cameras wayyy overated I cant say this about cannon - never tried it..
hmm it seems the sony has more vivid colors, but the canon seems to have sharper image when dealing with full shots, the sony on the other hand having sharper close up shots, but since i work mostly with full shots, and add color corrections myself, the hf s10 would be the best choice for me..
I have occasion to record seminars. These are often in darkened ballrooms with slideshows, etc and sometimes no stage lighting at all. I've found the Sony to be just about the best all-around tool for recording these and seriously considering buying two more. I can place them in stationary positions and record the entire event (up to 14 hours) , then use Final Cut to multi-cam edit like a 3-cam live show. Better in low light than my Canon XH-A1 ($3500). 3-Sony's = $2100. No Brainer.
wow; pretty clear difference in the image quality, especially that creek scene. Im really leaning towards the Sony XR-500 or 520 mainly because of the Night Shot and all around quality, but man, that Canon was pretty crisp.
Based on the footage, the Canon looks like the clear winner for outdoor shots. The Sony looks washed out in every instance except the first shot. I'm a little confused as to why you recommend the Sony when the footage points the other way. I am well aware of the poor indoor performance for most of Canon's cams though so as you said it would depend on your needs.
Great comment and question. I think its more of a snow tires v. street radials argument. The Canon has better specs, more professional features, and a higher bit rate. If you're using a tripod, know you want to limit the AGC to 3db and set aperture priority to f/1.8 then the Canon is likely for you. If you want to power up and take handheld HD video of the kids b-day, I would lean toward the sony. If you've already purchased one or the other, I certainly would not regret your choice either way.
Thanks for clearing it up. Tough call really. I'd like to use it for backpacking as a still camera just doesn't really capture the experience of a foraging bear or a rushing stream. However, I'd also like to use it for the family - dogs playing in the yard, kids birthday, trip to the aquarium/zoo, etc. I doubt I would be using a tripod very often if at all. Since reading your review I also researched Canon's image stabilization which I now know is virtually non-existent.
What did you notice about it that you thought was good? There are visual comparisons and technical comparisons. If you can be just a little more specific, I'll answer to the best of my ability.
Ahh yes. I've been looking for comparisons of these exact two camcorders. My wife and I are looking at these models to buy before the birth of our firstborn. We want a camcorder that will take crisp, clear, color rich video of our family and possibly some documentary type filming. We will rarely use a tripod, mostly handheld. Also, most of our footage will probably be put on DVDs or on Youtube for our family to see. Based on that usage, which one would you suggest?
For handheld and especially in natural light, I think the Sony is the clear choice. One nice feature is the ability to spot meter, on baby's face for example, by merely touching the portion of of the screen you want light to balance on. Wil also do the same fro focus.
Thanks for the quick response! I forgot to mention. I'll be using my intel iMac to do all the editing, etc. Given that consideration, is the Sony still a better choice?
Be glad you have a Mac. I find editing with Windows to be like running backwards in snow shoes. I think the Sony is still your best bet. Sony memory sticks are more expensive, but with 14 hours (twice that on the XR520) of record time on the Sony HDD at the highest quality, I have yet to fill it up and haven't purchased a memory stick. Also, probably due to Canon's higher bit rate but because of SDHC vs. HDD transfer speeds, I find the Sony transfers to my Macbook much faster than the Canon.
Further use of the Canon has shown it to be consistently "crisper" . But only when shooting in good light from a tripod. Sony borders on Steadycam performance for handheld and is the cleanest low-light image I've seen from any camera, consumer or pro. But Sony has serious control limitations and no 24p. So I guess it depends on your application. I have found need for both. Adding DOF adapter and for Pro look? Then Canon. For all around versatility, go Sony. If you can afford both? Then both.
excellent comparison
yoda6677 1 year ago
This one surprises me quite a bit, as it's usually the Canon cameras that tend to have higher colour saturation in comparison with the Sony's.
Sony's problem in my opinion is that they have a bit too much image processing built in, while it removes some sensor noise quite nicely, it's at the cost of some of the crispness in the edges. But at 0:43 it does seem like the Sony have a slight advantage in the shadows of the trees, while the Canon seem to win overall with the rest of that image.
AGrandt 1 year ago
Both are amazing devices but if you look to the finer details- the Canon is a better product with a more natural look while the Sony has a digitally enhanced look to it.
whiteyonwelfare 1 year ago
Great Video! I have always been partial to Canon, And this video just backs up my feelings on the HF S100, It is such a great camera for the price! So much more crisp, The Sony seemed like it was not even in HD in some frames. Thanks for the comparison!
pwashington99 1 year ago
First Video Canon wins easy ! alot shaper and real colours ! 2nd Video . The river looks real you can see the light coming off the water you cant on the sony ! ! ! 3rd video well it just looks aweful bad rendering if you ask me ! 4th again more realistic looking and real unlike the sony ! Cannon wins hands down , if you was to go to air show or make movies then you want the best video and best looking my money is on cannon X
iJsturgess 1 year ago
@iJsturgess . Thanks for your comment. I tend to agree. Despite classification, I believe we are almost talking apples and oranges here. I believe the Sony (now the HDR-XR550 with max bit rate of 24mbps) is perhaps the best overall consumer/family everyday camcorder on the market. The Canon, with its gain limiter, 24p and manual aperture, is really a pro camcorder in a consumer size/price. Under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, a pro using the Canon may produce more professional results.
BugAttraction 1 year ago
@BugAttraction Definitely. I went with the XR500V 1-2 years ago though because it has a huge leg up on the Canon though. It has a 120 GB hard drive vs 32 GB max on the Canon (card not even included!). The recording time doesn't compare. It also does night vision and 240 fps (interlaced) for slow motion and the Canon just can't compete there if you're looking to do time-lapse or slow motion videos.
iSOBigD 4 months ago
I like the canon colors best :) but on some shots the Sony looked a lil better.
ImSoBoooooooooored 1 year ago
I've used both. I own the canon and my father-in-law owns the sony. Personally, I wish I could swap with him. I think the Sony is MUCH better as an "out-of-the-box" camcorder. It has better low light performance, MUCH better image stabilization, HUGE LCD screen. Sony wins. The only reason I haven't returned my Canon is because I got it for a great price. Otherwise, if money wasn't an issue, I'd jump on the Sony.
genkidama20 1 year ago
Sweet!!! Excellent Vid!
Nora721 1 year ago
Is it me or the Canon camcorder has more realistic colors ??
the Sony has more bright colors ?.
PaintBallM3n 1 year ago
to be honest here i was half half personally i own the sony HDR XR520V and i love it but the cannon was my second choice but looking at these photos for half i liked 1 side better then the other half i liked the other side to all in all i think they are both excellent cameras i do love sony but im not biased and i really couldnt pick 1 as clear favourite from this video it was extremely well dont and both cameras performed with awesome qaulity but stead shot sony wins hands down its amazing...
thelostlegend3000 1 year ago
very informative. would you guys say sony in general has the best image stabilization overall? what do you guys suggest for someone who is planning to film while walking most of the time?
philsaddiction 1 year ago
In another video I posted, i placed both cams side-by-side on my dashboard and drove around for a while. Sony, without question, has far superior stabilization. I found the Canon image stabilization to be just one step shy of useless. Sony's latest improvements with "active steady-shot" are simply outstanding.
BugAttraction 1 year ago
@BugAttraction tyvm for the advice. much appreciated!
philsaddiction 1 year ago
which will be the best one to get when it comes to sounds?
08darlei 1 year ago
Despite Sony having supposed 5.1 surround, I did not find it any better than the Canon. 5.1 surround may be a novelty if you are playing back from the camcorder into HDMI with a surround sound system. But none of the editing programs I used recognized anything but stereo sound. I personally would not base my decision on sound quality. Both are excellent and I believe a blind test would leave one challenged to decide which was which.
BugAttraction 1 year ago
on sony the sun flower look alive
on canon the sun flower look dead
jhonsebastiantv 1 year ago
Ill take the canon. As a matter of fact I did. I looked at these kind of shootouts on the toob and the Cannon was always the winner to me. I got the HF S11. Been lovin it ever since I got it last month. I had an HV20...the S11 kills it dead!!!!
tramoliter 2 years ago
One thing to keep in mind here is that the Sony camera does NOT record in HD quality when using fully automatic settings. So, it's not really a fair comparison.
iWillBlog 2 years ago
Point well taken and some clarification is required. There is a "fully automatic" setting called "easy mode" that is not HD. However, that was not the setting used in this case. I should have been more specific and said "default" Highest quality settings - in other words, full HD 1920x1080 maximum MBps on both cameras, auto white-balance, auto-focus, auto-iris, etc. I believe it is as close to an apples & apples comparison as is possible.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
Suppose you must jump into one of these frames and the movies becomes your new reality. Which one would you jump into?
measwel 2 years ago
Ummmm, wow. Haven't really done that kind of stuff since the early 70's. But if memory serves, probably the Sony. That is if you prefer your reality bright, warm, a little softer and smooth.
Now if you don't mind a reality that is super-crisp, less saturated, and requires a steadier hand, Canon.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
My 10 cents:
1) Both camera's don't film 100% realistic colors; canon is slightly too cold (blue), Sony slightly too warm (yellow). Canon to my eye is closer to natural. It depends on the shot too. 0:38 look at the ground- canon bluish, sony - yellowish.
2) Sharpness evidently better on Canon
3) Steadyshot - new models by Canon are much improved and closer to Sony.
4) Any color correction is easy in post production with both camera's.
Was that 4 cents? :)
measwel 2 years ago
Which is better for filming motorcross or mountain biking?
BluSpiderProductions 2 years ago
I wish I could give a definitive answer. But it really does depend. If you'll be filming on a tripod from the sidelines, the Canon will give you better quality from a "specs" standpoint. But for greatest versatility, and how I'm assuming you'll be using it, the Sony is your best choice.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
Ok. Thank you
BluSpiderProductions 2 years ago
I prefer the canon, and did get it. This is one of the videos that influenced my decision. The canon just looks more realistic and detailed than the sony and the sony makes thing to vibrant for me and sort of animated
asdfg9634620 2 years ago
which camera is better for cinematic vid?
khatranak 2 years ago
Great question. If by cinematic, you mean "film-like" then the Canon in my opinion. It shoots 24p and has a max bit rate almost 50% higher than the sony.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
I had no idea VAT was so high! Ouch!
BugAttraction 2 years ago
By the way, vinyl does sound a LOT better than CD to my ears :)
measwel 2 years ago
I was in doubt between these 2. I chose canon. Low light is significantly better in 24p mode than sony's. I actually like the color saturation and tone of the sony. For my taste the canon could be a tad warmer. But the color accuracy of canon is better in this video. I also appreciate the 'pro' features. Besides, when color is not off too much (like on panasonic tm350), you can do any color correction in post processing.
measwel 2 years ago
I have some "old" friends who prefer the sound of the old vinyl albums to CD's. The claim that new vinyl sounds richer, warmer. There is no disputing the specs of CD are far superior. Guess same could be said of these cams. Though not quite as different, the specs of the Canon are inarguably better. Image control is more precise in almost every way. But the Sony is warmer, often richer looking. It has about twice the light sensitivity, and stabilization is unrivaled. (continued below...)
BugAttraction 2 years ago
I have been in a position to recommend to a camcorder to friends and family. Almost without exception, I recommend the Sony. Last check, its available under $900. And for 90% of the events, school plays, outdoor soccer games, indoor sports, family get-togethers, birth of a child, the sony will be easier to use and result in better overall "movies" with less effort. The Canon strikes me as a pro camera in a consumer body. Pro is great. But much harder to get consistently good video. (more...)
BugAttraction 2 years ago
...So if you are a professional or experienced amateur, and want to able to limit AGC, and want to set specific shutter and aperture, and you are almost always going to be shooting from a tripod, and you want the best possible image quality from a sub-$1000 cam, the Canon is, not just in my opinion, but according to measurable specs, a more pro camera. If you have the Canon, good choice. But unless you're a pro, I can say confidently, hands down, the Sony XR500 is the best bet for you.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
@BugAttraction - I had the XR500 for 7 days I was very dissapointed - This camera is only good when its (( sitting still )) - (( move around )) zoom in & out thoough - that overated piece of shit camera shakes like a race car engine even when you have image stabilization on !! it does nothing !! The CX100 / 500 dollars less & if you colour correct perfectly usuing ur editing software - you get the same result - I RETURNED THE XR500 after 7 days - That camera is definitley not worth a $ 1,000 $..
DEEJAYDAVEDENALI 2 years ago
Thank you for your reply. Its useful to get all sides and experiences. I can't help but wonder if perhaps you got hold of a defective unit since my experience and that of others has been unsurpassed image stabilization. The CX100 is an excellent value, but also has a much smaller image sensor and thus, lower light sensitivity. But I'm not one to suggest owning a more expensive camera if it surpasses your needs. For my application, the XR500 has proved invaluable. True, its not for everyone.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
Cannon FTW
YoungJordan23 2 years ago
i have a question. i have seen differet videos. sometimes canon shows better quality than sony but in other videos sony shows better quality than canon :S!! HELP MEE!! I WANNA BUY ONE BUT IM NOT SURE OF WHICH ONE! :S
which one has better quality in concerts?
natloveralex 2 years ago
Please allow me this opportunity to state both opinion and fact. The Canon produces a sharper image. This is verified by capturing both into Final Cut and opening scopes. The waveform on every comparable shot is measurably crisper with the Canon. This may be the 24Mbps vs Sony's 17Mbps, and may be the higher saturation Sony uses by default. Higher color produces higher noise. But the Sony is so close that the features outweigh the Canon overall. For concerts, buy the Sony. You'll be happier.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
@BugAttraction - The sony xr500 standing still and filming is amazing - try moving around quickly or zoom in and out quickly - that thing shakes like an F1 SPRINT CAR ENGINE - even with image stabilization on - That camera is not worth $1,000 -- I had it for 7 days & returned it - LoL -- Bought the the Sony CX !00 - saved 500 dollars - colour corrected perfectly & made it look as if i had been recording with the XR500.. that cameras wayyy overated I cant say this about cannon - never tried it..
DEEJAYDAVEDENALI 2 years ago
hmm it seems the sony has more vivid colors, but the canon seems to have sharper image when dealing with full shots, the sony on the other hand having sharper close up shots, but since i work mostly with full shots, and add color corrections myself, the hf s10 would be the best choice for me..
Narutotjuhh 2 years ago
Sony Best
FERNAND0MJ 2 years ago
sony seems to have better color tone pick up while the canon has more contrast to it.
sanchopanza123 2 years ago
SONY IS BETTER!
MrVossler14 2 years ago
i reaaly sure canon is better guys
MultiIvis 2 years ago
I appreciate your opinion and your response. In what way do you find it better? What would be your application?
BugAttraction 2 years ago
i really sure canon is better guys
MultiIvis 2 years ago
This is def a Canon win.
BfeoAdmin 2 years ago
I have the sony and love it!
redchun 2 years ago
I have occasion to record seminars. These are often in darkened ballrooms with slideshows, etc and sometimes no stage lighting at all. I've found the Sony to be just about the best all-around tool for recording these and seriously considering buying two more. I can place them in stationary positions and record the entire event (up to 14 hours) , then use Final Cut to multi-cam edit like a 3-cam live show. Better in low light than my Canon XH-A1 ($3500). 3-Sony's = $2100. No Brainer.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
sony won all the way but i would get either or
frostysteez 2 years ago 2
wow; pretty clear difference in the image quality, especially that creek scene. Im really leaning towards the Sony XR-500 or 520 mainly because of the Night Shot and all around quality, but man, that Canon was pretty crisp.
SergeantRryan 2 years ago
Based on the footage, the Canon looks like the clear winner for outdoor shots. The Sony looks washed out in every instance except the first shot. I'm a little confused as to why you recommend the Sony when the footage points the other way. I am well aware of the poor indoor performance for most of Canon's cams though so as you said it would depend on your needs.
k9education 2 years ago
Great comment and question. I think its more of a snow tires v. street radials argument. The Canon has better specs, more professional features, and a higher bit rate. If you're using a tripod, know you want to limit the AGC to 3db and set aperture priority to f/1.8 then the Canon is likely for you. If you want to power up and take handheld HD video of the kids b-day, I would lean toward the sony. If you've already purchased one or the other, I certainly would not regret your choice either way.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
Thanks for clearing it up. Tough call really. I'd like to use it for backpacking as a still camera just doesn't really capture the experience of a foraging bear or a rushing stream. However, I'd also like to use it for the family - dogs playing in the yard, kids birthday, trip to the aquarium/zoo, etc. I doubt I would be using a tripod very often if at all. Since reading your review I also researched Canon's image stabilization which I now know is virtually non-existent.
k9education 2 years ago
In last 2 clippings comparison Canon was GOOD, how?
chandyou 2 years ago
What did you notice about it that you thought was good? There are visual comparisons and technical comparisons. If you can be just a little more specific, I'll answer to the best of my ability.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
nice
au1947 2 years ago
Ahh yes. I've been looking for comparisons of these exact two camcorders. My wife and I are looking at these models to buy before the birth of our firstborn. We want a camcorder that will take crisp, clear, color rich video of our family and possibly some documentary type filming. We will rarely use a tripod, mostly handheld. Also, most of our footage will probably be put on DVDs or on Youtube for our family to see. Based on that usage, which one would you suggest?
bellarex 2 years ago
Hi Bellarex,
For handheld and especially in natural light, I think the Sony is the clear choice. One nice feature is the ability to spot meter, on baby's face for example, by merely touching the portion of of the screen you want light to balance on. Wil also do the same fro focus.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
Thanks for the quick response! I forgot to mention. I'll be using my intel iMac to do all the editing, etc. Given that consideration, is the Sony still a better choice?
bellarex 2 years ago
Be glad you have a Mac. I find editing with Windows to be like running backwards in snow shoes. I think the Sony is still your best bet. Sony memory sticks are more expensive, but with 14 hours (twice that on the XR520) of record time on the Sony HDD at the highest quality, I have yet to fill it up and haven't purchased a memory stick. Also, probably due to Canon's higher bit rate but because of SDHC vs. HDD transfer speeds, I find the Sony transfers to my Macbook much faster than the Canon.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
Hey Branman. For your purposes, positively the Sony. You will be much happier with the results, I'm certain.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
canon seemed a little more clear
what did you find better?
Branman1994 2 years ago
Further use of the Canon has shown it to be consistently "crisper" . But only when shooting in good light from a tripod. Sony borders on Steadycam performance for handheld and is the cleanest low-light image I've seen from any camera, consumer or pro. But Sony has serious control limitations and no 24p. So I guess it depends on your application. I have found need for both. Adding DOF adapter and for Pro look? Then Canon. For all around versatility, go Sony. If you can afford both? Then both.
BugAttraction 2 years ago
if you were to go to the park with your family and you wanted to film the whole thing which would you choose?
also which one is better at movement because I hate cameras that are choppy when you move them
Branman1994 2 years ago
Grat comparison 5stars!!
WroclawMojeMiasto 2 years ago