http://www.canondv.com/opturaxi/index.html

has anyone seen the new Optura Xi yet, I mean physicaly held one? any intial thoughts after reading specs? According to the specs it's pixel count is almost that of the GL2 and with optical stabilization, it looks like a real contender. Or am I just being fooled like the average consumer should be?

It's always hard to tell from advertising banter, but it looks like it's definitely a step up from the ZR series. The Xi is 2CCD and I believe all ZRs are just 1. The GL2, however, is three, but then again there are a lot of 1CCD cams that are comparable to 3 chippers.

All things aside, I just like how the GL2 looks!

Sorry, where's the reference that it has two CCD's? I thought I was pretty sure it's a single-chipper.

Eh, yeah, it doesn't have 2CCD's, thats for sure. I've heard of there being some prototype/experimental cameras with 2CCD's, and some with 4CCD's before, but that I know of, there are no 2CCD DV camcorders in existense today.

For the price it will be going for, i'd much rather get a Panasonic DV953...

Oops! I just misread the "2.0 megapixel CCD" part.

2CCD would be like freakin Two Color Technicolor process from the early 30's...lol...

Am I the only one uncomfortable with all these camera manufacturers squeezing as many pixels as possible onto these CCD's? 3MP on a 1/3" CCD? geez....buy a separate digital camera if you want digital stills. Last time I checked, my VX2000 had 380,000 pixels on each 1/3" CCD, and that's all it should ever have. We currently don't have some "super format" that can take advantage of all these extra pixels laying around....if my camera has 3 million pixels, I want it to record a 2048x1536 video at 24fps with 48Khz sound. If I could output at 1:1 2k film resolution with a handheld camera, would be happy.

It's unfortunate than marketing has taken over the design of camcorders. The manufacturers are squeezing more pixels onto the cameras just to inflate their numbers. To me, digital stills is a useless feature and just robs CCD area from the video recording portion of the camera, resulting in poorer low light ability and crappier video.

To me, digital stills is a useless feature and just robs CCD area from the video recording portion of the camera, resulting in poorer low light ability and crappier video.

Yup. I agree. Personally, I'd like to see all CCD pixels go for video. For stills I prefer 400 ASA Fuji color. (stick_tongue_out.gif)

I shoot almost everything on Fuji Velvia and cross-process it in C41, then use my Minolta DiMage film scanner to get VERY nice 6megapixel scans. Sure, Digital is more convenient, but since I shoot 75% wider than 22mm, Digital isn't good for me because of the focal length conversion. Full frame sensors are still way too expensive.

I still love film for photography, I've never tried digital and I won't for awhile until I can afford a good DSLR. And I agree, I really hate that photo button on all cameras nowadays. If you want digital stills, get a digital still camera!!

The big advantage of having an SD card and "digital still photo" capability on a camcorder like this is the highly useful, oft overlooked title mix function which lets you superimpose an image from the SD card over live video as it records. Instant logo bugs, instant 16x9 letterbox matte, instant titles are a few of the variety of uses for this handy function. I'm glad it's there.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Chan : It's unfortunate than marketing has taken over the design of camcorders. The manufacturers are squeezing more pixels onto the cameras just to inflate their numbers. To me, digital stills is a useless feature and just robs CCD area from the video recording portion of the camera, resulting in poorer low light ability and crappier video. -->>>
I think another reason to go for 1CCD instead of 3CCD is about the size. Currently all 1/3" 3CCD model are very large in size and may not suitable for normal users and travel use. Pansonic has some compact 3CCD but with smaller 1/6" CCD.

Recently Sony just announced a new compact DV model DCR-PC300K which have 3M pixel (2M pixel effective for video), 1/3" CCD but with RGB color filter is try to make a balance between 1CCD and 3CCD. 2M pixel for video (1600x1200) with RGB color filter may equal to 'effective pixel of 3CCD of 800x600', i.e. almost equal to pack 4 1/6" CCD together to capture the color.

The low light condition is definitely poor than real 1/3" 3CCD model but the size and weight may suit casual use and get comparable result from 3CCD model.

Of course, if there exists compact DV model with 1/3" 3CCD (most probably from Panasonic) in 1 or 2 years later, it may be a good choice for normal users as well.

Do these 2 new Opturas have OIS or DIS? I haven't had time to go through all the specs. Thanks.

Okay, I found out that the Japanese version of the Canon Optura 300 has OIS.

Optura Xi is definitely OIS, but contrary to what Frank reports, I'm fairly certain the Optura 300 is DIS (in the U.S. anyway). Hope this helps,

Oops. I made a mistake. The Xi has the optical stabilizer---that's the poker shaped model, not the upright. The Japanese version of the Optura Xi is called the FV-M1. Babblefish either didn't translate correctly, or the stabilizer of the upright is mentioned as OIS or DIS. There's also a new upright with a 1/6" CCD, 690K video effective. Perhaps it's an Elura version in the US/CAN. Anyways, the Japanese model numbers got me confused.

How about the most important question, at least in my mind - where does the tape load? I can't see why any self respecting videographer would purchase any of these stupid new camcorders that load the tape from the bottom. I hope the camcorder manufacturers get the clue real soon that it just doesn't work.

If I seem a little bit edgy, please forgive me, my head's been upside down for almost a week. I'm on a missions trip ministering to children in the Outback of Australia, in Halls Creek in W.A to be exact. Check out our web site at http://www.mcaonline.org outback to see how we're doing for the next week and a half. I hope to get some video clips up there while we're here, but they'll have to be short since I can only get a 26.4 kbps connection to the 'net down here.

Hi David,

Unfortunately the Optura Xi is a bottom-loader. However the other new camcorder (the Optura 300) is a back-loader. Hope this helps,

Bottom loading is great to keep the size down (PC9 size), but it's horrible for any prosumer or high end amatuer cameras. The best loading mechinism i've ever used (Minus ENG-style) is on the VX1000...you could switch the tape w/o taking your hand out of the grip! Nowadays with LCD screens, that approach isn't quite as easy. I still don't care too much for the loading style of the VX2000 or the XL1s.

The worst is probably on the 2002 model Digital8 cameras. I used a TRV120 since it came out for a Hi8 feeder deck (I do alot of analog home movies to DVD) and as an occasional long-range zoom secondary camera (i LOVED the 25x zoom) then when Sony released the 730 and eventually the 740, I decided to step up for a good 15x 1megapixel spotting scope (30x with a Century 2x extender) Sure it isn't NEARLY as good as my VX2000 for color quality, but for quick 4x6 prints of birds and whatnot, it worked great. Anyway...I got the 740, and was horrified at how difficult it was to use as a feeder deck (the camera literally has to be upside down to do ANY tape swapping) and when I'm doing 4-5 Hi8 tapes, turning the camera over is a pain in the ass. I reverted back to the top-loading TRV120 for feeding (only downside of having an aging camera that gets alot of use is quarterly tape-path cleanings at Best Buy)

"Unfortunately the Optura Xi is a bottom-loader. However the other new camcorder (the Optura 300) is a back-loader. Hope this helps,"

Thanks, Chris. I figured this would be the case since it seems to have the same design as the Optura 10 & 20. They all seem like great cameras and I like some of their features a lot, but I just can't deal with that bottom load situation. I can't wait to see the day when the manufacturers see the error of their ways and decide that small size isn't the most important thing in a camera.

Oh well, I guess I'll keep looking. I don't seem to ever have enough money to buy a camera anyway, but I keep hoping.

Dave,

I also hate the loading mechanism of the XL1. That inside mechanism seems to catch everyone who uses it, even the pro videographers I've let use ours. I've been using a TRV820 Digital8 camera on our trip to Australia and I like the simplicity of only one thing to close. It does have a flip-up panel above the door with the eject button on the inside, but that's not a problem. The worst part about this camera is the weight of the nearly useless (to me anyway) printer that's built in. I love the 4" screen, though.

I aways got a kick out of that printer feature! My friend bought an 820 from Circuit City open boxed for like $500 a few years ago and used the awesome 4" screen to entertain his kids with movies transfered to Digital8 tape (most kiddy movies fit into the LP mode on a standard Hi8 tape)

The printer wasn't even a good idea to begin with...If you're going to make prints from video, most people are going to put it back onto a computer and not use a horribly compacted dyesub printer that's built into a camera.

330,000 pixels per CCD is not enough to do both 4:3 and 16:9 on the same chip. Also if you have digital IS you need extra pixels. Also if you want the digital zoom to have any meaning you need lots and lots of extra pixels. Not that I would use digital zoom unless there was a UFO landing a mile away.

I can't see why any self respecting videographer would purchase any of these stupid new camcorders that load the tape from the bottom.Then I'm afraid I lack self-respect. I own a "bottom loader." Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.Not that I would use digital zoom unless there was a UFO landing a mile away.I hear ya. But I would use my digital zoom for a lot less, especially at the beach.

I respect you Frank! :o)

- don

I don't think my wife does. :-((

In all honesty, I haven't found my bottom loader to be a problem, unless I find myself having to change tapes quickly and the cam is screwed on to my tripod.

Well since it's a small camera, you'd probably be using a smaller Bogen 3130-style tripod,,, so all you really need to do I think is use a Bogen quick-release plate on the head... I think it's small enough where you wouldn't have to unscrew it? You know the type I mean, it's the small heavy duty metal plate http://www.bogenphoto.com/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=9&itemid=287

Oh, I'm sure your'e wrong and just imagining things about your wife not respecting you! hehe

- don

I think it's small enough where you wouldn't have to unscrew it?Na, you got to unscrew it. :-((

I bought an X1 about two weeks ago, in time to tape my kids' holiday activities. During this two weeks period I tried its various features and experimented with it in certain circumstances, such as indoor performance and outdoor during windy conditions, etc.

While I still have a long way to go in trying ALL of its features (for example, I haven't done a thing with its digital effects or any of editing yet), I will comment about what I've liked and disliked thusfar:

PROS:

1) Nice size; great feel in my hand; and funtional buttons in right places; overall very nice design and looks.

2) Intelligent shoe to go with Canon's quality accessories like directional mic and video and flash light; very nice and tactile manual focus ring.

3) 3.5 LCD screen can't get any better than this.

4) Very good zoom pace unlike other brands that have uncontrollable and inconsistent "bolting" pace.

5) Easy menu.

6) Very powerful flash for low light indoor stills, such that I need to stand back a couple feets or more and then zoom in on the subject a bit to get the desirable results.

7) Excellent indoor performance as long as there's enough artificial or natural lights. Its low light performance is okay with some manual adjustments.

8) It's outdoor performance on an ordinary day is simply amazing. I'm not sure if a 3 CCD camcorder could outperform this camcorder in any noticeable manner. Whatever this "RGB Primary Color Filter" thing is and this thing called "DiGiC DV," they sure work!!

9) For a camcorder/still combo, it produces excellent stills -- ideal choice camcorder for those who desire both in one. I have a stand alone digital camera, but since I take tons of photos, I don't mind this addition.

10) Remote control that comes with it is so good that I actually did use it and will be using it very frequently. It's great for self-timer still shots of the family with the LCD facing you for composition.

11) Wish it had more manual control levels, but it's better than most other brands in this price range, so I can't complain.

12) The software that comes with the package is good enough for amateurs like myself. I used it for photostitching with excellent results.

13) Unlike other Canon camcorders with so much motor/tape transport noise problems, I'm happy to note that the X1 comes with a very low level. Whatever the low level of noise, it certainly didn't get picked up on TV viewing, either.

CONS:

1) Since I hardly use its viewfinder, I consider myself fortunate. The viewfinder is highly pixelated. It does come with diopter adjustment for focusing, and it can be pulled out and up.

2) It's bottom loading, but frankly I haven't found this to be much of a hassle at all, since I don't do any filming that goes beyond a 60 minute casette tape. It should be a hassle for those who tend to film non-stop that requires more than one tape and who use a tripod.

3) Its mode setting dial button isn't "clicky." It almost feels like one mode is going to "run on" into another. This is probably the cheapest feel of the entire thing, but it's only the feeling and doesn't cause any problems.

4) The zooming feature should have been made with a push down button rather than a flat sliding button. It also should have been placed in the direction of the viewfinder-to-the-lens in order to prevent an accidental tilting motion.

5) When shooting in windy conditions, the built-in microphone picks up very annoying "howling" noise. However, with its "Wind Screen" feature ON, it did reduce the noise to a certain degree.

Honestly, other than the above minor faults, I've found the camcorder to be perfectly adorable. Now some comments about its special features:

1) I set the shutter speed to 500 maximum and set the still mode to "continuous" and had a great result with my wife's golf swing sequential shots. With the Still Image set to 1632 x 1224 size, you can produce up to 10 images with 2 frames per second. With 1280 x 960, up to 10 images with 3 frames per second. With only 2 or 3 takes, I was able to get all the frames with my wife's proper golf swing positions for sequential shots.

2) I also liked its Auto Exposure Bracketing feature. You push the button, and it gets you three shots with three different exposures for your choice.

3) Tried its 16:9 wide screen mode, but since I don't own a wide screen TV, I can't say much except that I did hear that this feature works better than other brands of similar price range.

4) I took still photos of my house with mountain landscape in the background for panoramic photostitching. It worked so great that I had another one done with my neighbor's house as a gift. I also appreciated the fact that using this feature isn't buried away somewhere. Just push one button to start and the same button to end it.

5) Its "Custom Key" button comes handy for setting certain effects the user tend to use often, such as Back Light Compensation, or Optical Stabilization if the user tend to do lot of panning, or using certain type of driving mode, or using the Zebra Pattern mode.

6) With this camcorder you can shoot the still shots while filming and save the still images to either the memory card or onto the tape. Since the quality of the stills suppose to come down a bit, I tend not to use this feature. The user also can make still images out of whatever images the tape contains.

7) This camcorder allows the user to manually focus, set the speed and aperture, as well as manually control the audio level.

8) The feature I appreciate is that I can set the flash light to be activated at all times or automatically.

9) The Night and Super Night modes are kinda gimmicky, but perhaps I could use them for some special effects at a later point.

Again, there are many other special effects that I haven't played with (like the entire Digital Effects that seem to produce quite a bit of cool effects) and other features I haven't touched (like Audio Dubbing, DVD transport, etc. etc.).

As for the Canon accessories to go with the intelligent shoe on X1, I've ordered a Wide Converter WD-H46 and a Video Flash Light VFL-1. The latter allows me to use it with its own battery power as both video light and flash for stills without eating away at the camcorder battery power. Both the video light and the flash come on and off automatically. I also purchased an additional rechargeable battery, BP-522 and using the original BP-512 as a backup. I'm now also thinking about ordering a Directional Microphone DM-50.

Hope the above comments are helpful just from my initial findings.

Myong Kim

Myong,

Thank you for such an in-depth user review! Iv'e been waiting for someone to recognize the power and speed advantages of the new Digic Processor inside the Xi,,, such as the little tricks that you mentioned. Have you also noticed how the built-in flash will keep on rapidly firing with almost instant recycle time in Continuous Shooting Mode? I am very impressed with your finding innovative ways to use your Xi. I'm sure that Chris Hurd will enjoy your post as well :o)

Have you noticed how color-accurate the Xi is? Even in Full Auto (Easy Recording Mode), the Xi is able to most accurately reproduce all colors very precisely - which really adds to the perception of a high quality image.

Have you tried shooting in "High Resolution True 16:9 Mode" yet? It's a sweet look. Try using that 16:9 Mode in addition to a Century Optics .55x Reversible for some funky MTV-like wide effects. Or, try using a Century Optics Anamorphic adaptor with the Xi set to HRTR16:9 Mode and you'll get lossless pseudo 2:3:5 Widescreen effects.

Would love to see some of your examples Myong.

Happy shooting,

- don

Have you also noticed how the built-in flash will keep on rapidly firing with almost instant recycle time in Continuous Shooting Mode?

Oh, yes... thanks for bringing this up as I forgot to mention this earlier in my post. The flash action was indeed impressive in the Continuous Shooting Mode with no breaks!! Sure ate up my camcorder battery quickly, but it's good to know that this mode works really well in dark conditions using the flash. (All the more reason for my getting the Video Flash Light.)

Have you noticed how color-accurate the Xi is? Even in Full Auto (Easy Recording Mode), the Xi is able to most accurately reproduce all colors very precisely - which really adds to the perception of a high quality image.

Some reviewers have been mentioning this "red color bias" quirk with X1, but I haven't noticed anything but brightly crisp and well balanced colors all around. I'm not a professional, and this is my first digital camcorder ever, so perhaps my untrained eyes can't detect what the trained eyes can. I've been shooting X1 mostly in Full Auto mode, and I'm so happy with the results I've been getting.

Have you tried shooting in "High Resolution True 16:9 Mode" yet? It's a sweet look. Try using that 16:9 Mode in addition to a Century Optics .55x Reversible for some funky MTV-like wide effects. Or, try using a Century Optics Anamorphic adaptor with the Xi set to HRTR16:9 Mode and you'll get lossless pseudo 2:3:5 Widescreen effects.

I've tried the 16:9 mode, but I'm not sure what you mean by "High Resolution True 16:9 Mode." In the manual, it just talks about "16:9 wide screen" mode and doesn't get into it much. Am I missing something here -- some sort of a trick? Since I don't own a widescreen HDTV, the picture on my standard TV comes out vertically squeezed (naturally). Even with a standard TV, I liked the way 16:9 displays that I just shoot everything in that mode.

Thanks for pointing out the Century accessories. I'm intrigued by some of the effects I could get out of them.

Myong

Myong,

Have you had a chance to play with the Panasonic 953? I was just looking for a comparison if possible.

J

Our good member, Tommy H, over at the MX Forum owned both an Xi and DV953 (and a PDX10, MX1000, VX2000, etc etc). He'd be a good person to ask about these cams. Also read Tom H's reviews and Allan R's reviews (posted on our forums).

Have you had a chance to play with the Panasonic 953? I was just looking for a comparison if possible.

No. Prior to purchasing an Xi, I went to a local store that carries higher end camcorders to compare among various brands. While they had Canon GL2, Sony 950 and Xi, unfortunately they didn't have Pana 953.

The rumor, however, has it that Pana 953 is being discontinued due to so many complaints about its mechanical failures. But I want to accentuate that it's only a rumor, and it hasn't been confirmed. I first heard of this rumor on another website called Camcorderinfo.com. You'd have to make your own confirmation as to whether this rumor is indeed true or not before making your own purchasing decision. Simply call Pana's 1-800 number and inquire.

I read numerous reviews on all of the above mentioned models before making the final decision on Xi. For me it's a major toy, so I had spent about a full month researching various models. Sony 950 was out of the contention early simply due to its pathetic zooming mechanism. I couldn't live with the bolting, bullit-like zoom action, since I tend to use the zoom a lot. I also didn't care for Sony's touch screen. I've also been anti-Sony ever since I got burned one too many times by Sony products in the past.

Canon's GL2 was also out of the contention due to its bulky size. For my purpose -- unobtrusive, take-it-anywhere-type of personal preference -- I needed something much smaller.

Also, from all that I've read about Pana 953, Xi seemed either as good as Pana or better, but certainly not inferior. Now, throw in the Canon's traditional excellence in camera optics.... that was the tilting factor. Sorry I couldn't give you any better information re: Pana 953. Good luck with your decision making.

Myong

<<<--
Also, from all that I've read about Pana 953, Xi seemed either as good as Pana or better, but certainly not inferior. Now, throw in the Canon's traditional excellence in camera optics.... that was the tilting factor. Sorry I couldn't give you any better information re: Pana 953. Good luck with your decision making.

Myong -->>>

No problem. I am just to get all the info I can before I decide which one to buy. Thanks to everyone that gave me their $.02.

>The rumor, however, has it that Pana 953 is being discontinued due to so many complaints about its mechanical failures.<

That's utter nonsense. The local pro shop here has sold a ton of them and none have came back for warranty work. Where did you hear this rumour? I'd be interested to know your source.

It's most likely being replaced to make way for a new model, like every year. This cam came out 1.6 months ago, in Japan; and it's replacement, the GS100, will also be getting replaced, probably in June. And I'm sure that Sony will be replacing their consumer line of cams as well (to make room for new models---not because of "complaints about its mechanical failures.")

"I first heard of this rumor on another website called Camcorderinfo.com."

This is the source of the rumor as I stated earlier. I'll try to get back in that site and get the actual quote.

Myong

Well, Frank, I just spent the past frustrating hour trying to dig through various threads in the Camcorderinfo.com in my attempt to relocate the rumor source -- but without success.

My apology is in order. Come to think of it, the original rumor did not provide the source, and that means I've done nothing but to spread the unsubstantiated statement made by someone I don't even know. Big mouth. Mea culpa!!

One of the things that concerned me a whole lot prior to actually purchasing the camcorder was the product reliability. For this reason I was more leaning towards Pana 953, as the Consumer Reports's survey placed Canon camcorders the dead last in reliability. It actually did worse than JVC, if you can believe that!!

Sony and Pana were the best in this category. But I couldn't get my hands on Pana 953 anywhere locally, and so my decision making came down to a bunch of professional reviews and customer reviews from various web sites. Ultimately I decided to take my chance with Canon's Xi, thinking that product reliability truly varies from one model to another even within the same brand, and even within the same model group. Now, if I just could get 3 years out of my Xi, I'd be happy, as by then I'd be looking into a more evolved line of camcorders regardless of whether my Xi is mechanically bad or sound still.

Maybe Canon owners are more abusive to their gear (pros) or are more finiky with getting service.

I suspect this happens with cars -- Cadillac owners want every little thing made perfect because they think they bought a nice car.

Regarding the Consumer Reports findings on camcorder reliability, one possible thing that is going on may have something to do with Canon's ZR series and few other models that make so much motor/trasport noise. Prior to purchasing an Xi, I did take home a Canon ZR70 for a test run. Well, the noise level was not only unacceptable but the camcorder damaged my brand new tape in the process of ejecting it. Now, while such "flaws" are NOT technically "defective," where do customers draw the line between what is considered "flaws" and "defective"? My point -- and my theory -- is that probably many customers are finding some of Canon's line of camcorders simply unacceptable and returning them as "defectives." If my memory serves me correctly, the Consumer Reports' product reliability scores combined both the repairs and returns rather than separating them. Even if I'm wrong on this, Canon's lousy productions of lower end camcorders are only going to hurt their traditional product reputation. A very poor marketing strategy on their part, I must say.

Myong, I read Consumer Reports Mag. all the time. It's a good guide when you don't know something about certain somethings, I find, for example, TVs, VCRs etc. What I've found, though, with cams is that a lot of cam models are skipped, and one model is used as a guide to represent a product line. I think for the most part Consumer Reports is fairly accurate.

Generally, I would have to agree that Sony consumer cams sit on top of the heap when it comes to reliabilty and features. But some models from other makers stand out. The PV-DV953 is one such cam. It's just too bad about its higher than average lux requirements.

Myong, please be very, very careful about "rumors" from other video-related websites, as they are often quite unsubstantiated, with little or no bearing on reality. The primary reason why I started DV Info Net was to get away from the sort of nonsense you read elsewhere and provide a safe haven for intelligent, serious discussion about this technology and the way we can use it. The rumors that you read on other sites are doing a serious disservice to you, and it becomes worse when such nonsense is spread around even further. I'm glad you found our place here; however I'd like to humbly ask to please keep the "rumor" sightings that you may have seen elsewhere, off of our boards. If something is legitimate and true, you'll find it right here; no need to look anywhere else. All of us here work hard to separate the myths and the nonsense from real information and real facts; that's what makes us different (and in my opinion, so much better) than other camcorder-related sites. Hope this helps,

Does anyone have the optional Xi mic? Does it eliminate motor noise? Is it an improvement for general use?

Robert, it is the same mic that's been extensively discussed in the GL2 forum. Do a search there for the "DM-50" and you should bring up several threads. Hope this helps,

I see people suggest to get the Schriber 568 instead, but that is not stereo. I will just figure out how much the motor noise bothers me first. I am very happy with the sound of the built in mic. My dog thinks it is really me talking, and you know how when you hear yourself in a recording and it does not sound like you? Well, the built in mic sounds like me! Then again, I was playing it on $20,000 speakers.

<<<-- Originally posted by Myong Kim : 9) The Night and Super Night modes are kinda gimmicky, but perhaps I could use them for some special effects at a later point.

Again, there are many other special effects that I haven't played with (like the entire Digital Effects that seem to produce quite a bit of cool effects) and other features I haven't touched (like Audio Dubbing, DVD transport, etc. etc.).

Myong Kim -->>>

The viewfinder is way pixilated because it is a color LCD. They should use a highres BW monitor and keep the color LCD for the flip-out only. But consumers would say 'black and white yuck.'

The Nightmode is great! How else can you get well lit video without that kind of slow exposure? I mean, it allows you to shoot in low light. Not gimicky at all. In fact, this camera has tons of gimicks, but that is not one of them. The other digital effects are stupid and muddy up the UI.

The camera cannot shoot mpeg4 in 16:9 for some reason.

How is the wide adaptor? Does it allow full zoom?

The camera is killer sharp and will focus real close.

I have a little mpeg from it here: http://www.photomosaic.com/movies You seem to need WM9 on a PC to play it.

When you are talking, your voice resonates inside you (kind of) and you hear it differently than the person you are talking to. If you take a recording of yourself and add reverb, it sounds more like you from *your perspective*. If the mic sounds like you then it doesn't necessarily mean that the mic is good. I'm just skeptical that's all. Camcorder mics tend to suck, so I'm extra skeptical.

The speakers issue: Listening speakers may not have flat frequency response and may be doing things to your sound (making it sound "better"), but that doesn't necessarily mean your mic is good. Speakers that expensive should have good dynamic range though, so you should be able to pick up motor noise...? For more accurate measurement of how good the mic is, you'd want monitor headphones like the MDR-7506 ($150ish?) or monitor speakers like Genelecs ($5k?). Your speakers seem to be too overpriced to be Genelecs (which AFAIK are the ultimate monitoring speakers, and the most expensive)??? Again I'm just being skeptical here, not trying to start some sort of pissing contest.

By the way, what kind of mic is the Schriber 568? Never heard of it.

http://www.nrgresearch.com/sa568.htm

My speakers are Meridian DSP6000s http://www.meridian-audio.com/p_d6k.htm

The Nightmode is great! How else can you get well lit video without that kind of slow exposure? I mean, it allows you to shoot in low light. Not gimicky at all. In fact, this camera has tons of gimicks, but that is not one of them. The other digital effects are stupid and muddy up the UI.

Well, I'm glad you find this mode more useful than I do. Perhaps I'll revisit it and give it a more extensive test.

Under what sort of night shootings have you found the Nightmode to be most effective?

The camera cannot shoot mpeg4 in 16:9 for some reason.

You also can't shoot any stills in 16:9 mode while videotaping.

How is the wide adaptor? Does it allow full zoom?

My wide adaptor and video flash light have not arrived yet to my disappointment, so I can't give you first-hand report on either of them. Also, I'm definitely going to order the ext. mic DM-50.

Myong

Well actually it was one way to get a normal exposure indoors last night when I first tried the camcorder. True, you can also go into TV and put in 1/15 or something -- but the whole point of those quick access modes is to quickly get some working set of settings for a given situation.

So now my issue is I don't like the aliasing I get in 16:9 mode. I have not tried 4:3 yet but I will today. But I have not been blown away by 16:9 although I don't have a Sony 330, 70, 80, or other camera here to compare it to.

When I tried the Night mode, it wasn't in an indoor environment. It was actually taken outdoors at night. Now you got me curious to try this mode indoors to see if I could get better results with this mode in comparison to TV tweaking.

I also do not have the first-hand experience with the Sony or Pana counterparts, but from all the user comments I've read, Xi's 16:9 feature suppose to produce better results. Comparing with other camcorders in the same price category, I wouldn't be disappointed with the Xi.