PowerShot G10: $500. DIGIC 4, 28mm OIS 5x lens.
RAW mode. 14.7 megapixels and 3.0-inch LCD II screen.
See http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=17624

PowerShot SX10 IS: $400. DIGIC 4, 28mm OIS 20x lens.
10 megapixels and 2.5-inch vari-angle LCD screen.
See http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=17630

Video modes on these cams are only VGA (640x480) but are now Mpeg4 in .MOV format.

In Europe, there's the PowerShot SX1 IS, seems to be identical to the SX10 IS
but also includes Full HD video... wonder if this one will make it to the U.S.?

See Canon PowerShot SX1 IS Digital Compact Camera - Canon Europe (http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_SX1_IS/index.asp)

The Canon SX1 IS uses a 17.5 Mbps H.264 encoding that is about the same, basically, as what they have on their current AVCHD camcorders. Compare that to the H.264 for the Canon 5D Mark II D-SLR, that uses 38.6 Mbps. I'd really be happier if they'd thrown another 5 or 6 Mbps into the SX1 CoDec, considering the availability of 32 GB cards. I see that in the new Vixia HD camcorders they've just announced, they've done that. They will have a 24 Mbps rate, the highest that AVCHD will support. The 4 GB file limit might cramp my style a bit for shooting political speeches-----wouldn't want to miss even a second of that hot air.

Some pro video producers have used advance units of the 5D, such as Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape and they seem to be impressed with the HD video quality, especially in low light. It has a full-frame CMOS, about 1.38 inches wide, while the SX1 has a CMOS about .3-inch across. A full-quality 5D video was put online yesterday, but was pulled after hundreds of thousands of hits ran up a download bill of about $50,000. for the host. I didn't get to see it, but have seen another poorly-shot example that wasn't at all impressive. Hopefully we'll get to see more from both cameras soon and determine how well they will match dedicated camcorders. One big issue is the difference in DOF with the large sensor. The much longer DOF in the SX1 would probably make it more suitable for casual shooting, while the 5D would require more precise attention to focusing.

Canon isn't talking (to me, that is, but maybe to you) about the SX1 in the USA. There is speculation that the new CMOS for it is in short supply and this model might be delayed and scarce in all countries. I really like the long-range results I get from its predecessor, the S5 IS, for still shots of wildlife. If the unneeded extra two megapixels they've stuffed into it doesn't degrade the image, I might be wanting to smuggle one of them to the states.

There is no means to attach lens accessories onto the SX1 or SX10. Canon told me they think that 560mm is enough to satisfy anyone and the built-in 2X video telextender and Safety Zoom feature for still pictures, will boost the equivalent FL to 1,120mm. However, I've already worked-out a design for a lens adaptor for it, that I'll make from either aluminum tubing or fiberglass and with a Raynox 2.2X telextender, I could get an FL of 2,464mm. That's 49.3X in equivalent magnification. I and my shoulder-mount would have to make a couple of upward steps in steadiness to use all that.

It's going to be interesting to see how the hardcore video pros around here, will regard this intrusion of a whole new element into their world of high-definition. A lot of the D-SLR photo pros already are expressing displeasure about video coming into their realm. Since the contributors to this forum are almost all D-SLR users, I imagine they'll have some comments to make about this.

Now that I've seen several sample videos from both the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D90, I've even more convinced that they won't make the majority of their users happy when they shoot video. Although they sounded great in their specs when announced, their large sensors give them too little DOF to be practical for the subjects I mentioned before, such as sports, wildlife and any other type that has much action. The autofocus function on the lenses they use doesn't seem to be fast and steady enough for video purposes. And of course, the size and cost of lenses that give enough X-power for these subjects would make them limited.

Possibly in the next year, a higher-quality, fixed-lens camera, with about a 2/3-inch sensor, a 2X built-in telextender and a mount for moderately-priced telextenders will appear. The Casio EX-F1 is the closest model to this right now, but probably doesn't have the quality level in either stills or video that would be needed to become too popular with professionals. We'll just have to wait and see what the Sony SX1 will do in video mode, but the inclination of pros to reject fixed-lens cameras, will be a handicap for it. Something that has a sensor, lens and recording format that is about halfway between the SX1 and the two D-SLRs, may be what is needed for the best HD camera video.

What would make their use any different than any of the HD cameras many of us shoot with with a P&S or Letus etc. adapter system? Same DOF and I produce much of my work with them much of it Olympic sports, and wildlife.

The autofocus function on the lenses they use doesn't seem to be fast and steady enough for video purposes. And of course, the size and cost of lenses that give enough X-power for these subjects would make them limited.

There isn't a pro shooter out there that shoots 35mm DOF, either video or film, and uses autofocus. We all use manual lenses either Cine primes or still primes hat are focused manually. What you are seeing is a bunch of people that don;t know how to focus properly, support their cameras, and for that matter edit out the blurring junk before they post it.

And regarding lens cost - are you kidding??

Have you priced quality HD lenses or cine primes?

The comparative costs in Nikon AIS primes or Canon L series lenses are so much lower.
Same thing with zooms. A 24mm -105mm is enough to shoot a feature film if you know how to shoot. You can get that from Canon with image stabilization for about a grand. I have a full set of the fastest primes that cost less than 3 grand.

It's just the opposite of your post.

... of lenses that give enough X-power for these subjects...Sorry but that's not a good choice of terms. "X-power" is simply zoom ratio, and a high zoom ratio does not always equal a very long focal length, and I think you may have meant to imply focal length instead. Conversely, it's very common to have low "x-powers" and still have very long focal length. Case in point: some 35mm still photography and 35mm motion picture cinematography telephoto zoom lenses have only 3x or 4x zoom ratios, and yet are long or very long in focal length, such as a 50-150mm lens or a 70-300mm lens. And two zoom lenses can have the same zoom ratio but offer different focal lengths, such as the 20x lenses on the Canon XH series vs. the stock 20x lens for the Canon XL H series (the XH series lens is not as long as the XL even though both are 20x).

Long story short, the zoom ratio or "x-power" of a zoom lens is no indication of just how long the maximum focal length of that lens really is. You can have a low zoom ratio and a very long lens, and you can have no zoom ratio and a very long prime lens.

There isn't a pro shooter out there that shoots 35mm DOF, either video or film, and uses autofocus. We all use manual lenses either Cine primes or still primes hat are focused manually. What you are seeing is a bunch of people that don;t know how to focus properly, support their cameras, and for that matter edit out the blurring junk before they post it.

And regarding lens cost - are you kidding??

Have you priced quality HD lenses or cine primes?

The comparative costs in Nikon AIS primes or Canon L series lenses are so much lower.
Same thing with zooms. A 24mm -105mm is enough to shoot a feature film if you know how to shoot. You can get that from Canon with image stabilization for about a grand. I have a full set of the fastest primes that cost less than 3 grand.

It's just the opposite of your post.

I'm speaking of the other 90% of the people who might use the video mode of D-SLRs, who aren't high-end pro video shooters. They don't know what you do about videomaking and would be at a loss to try to use these cameras for that purpose, without similar experience. And judging by what I've seen from the samples, no one is going to have an easy time using them for moving subjects. What percentage of their raw footage do you suppose would be usable? For major productions, this wouldn't be such a problem, but for personal and low-end pro purposes, glitch-filled videos wouldn't be acceptable. How could you use them for weddings, when everything from beginning to end, has to be unflawed? Answer: You have someone with a standard camcorder, shooting backup. Do videomakers go out to shoot features about Arctic Wolves with only 105mm? I think that small, HD-shooting cameras like the Sony SX1, will be far more practical for the majority of people, in most situations. And I did recommend a compromise type of camera with an intermediate sensor size and a proportionate increase in focal-length over D-SLRs. All of us are going to have to wait until these various types of cameras with video have been used for awhile and their capabilities proven, before we can make firm judgements.

Sorry but that's not a good choice of terms. "X-power" is simply zoom ratio, and a high zoom ratio does not always equal a very long focal length, and I think you may have meant to imply focal length instead. Conversely, it's very common to have low "x-powers" and still have very long focal length. Case in point: some 35mm still photography and 35mm motion picture cinematography telephoto zoom lenses have only 3x or 4x zoom ratios, and yet are long or very long in focal length, such as a 50-150mm lens or a 70-300mm lens. And two zoom lenses can have the same zoom ratio but offer different focal lengths, such as the 20x lenses on the Canon XH series vs. the stock 20x lens for the Canon XL H series (the XH series lens is not as long as the XL even though both are 20x).

Long story short, the zoom ratio or "x-power" of a zoom lens is no indication of just how long the maximum focal length of that lens really is. You can have a low zoom ratio and a very long lens, and you can have no zoom ratio and a very long prime lens.

I was thinking I would probably be called for using that term. There needs to be a short term or acronym that specifically means "equivalent magnification effect", that would convey the meaning and would be understood by most people at all levels of experience.

I have the Canon PowerShot SX10 IS. The Focal Length (35mm equivalent) is 28 - 560 mm which I find impressive for a low cost point and shoot still camera. The lens in full telephoto is f/5.7, a bit on the slow side. The 28 mm wide angle has been very handy for me for indoor family shots.



Rich

This HD video-capable compact Canon camera has been available in several countries by now with the exception of the U.S. Here in Bangkok it is priced at the very top among all higher-end compact cameras. Whether it's worth that kind of money I couldn't really say. Could any user give some comments on how the footage at 1920x1080/30p looks? I believe the codec is H.264 which is the same as the one used by the 5D Mk2 but at a lower bit rate. Not sure, though, if the file is wrapped in .mov.

It will be great if somebody can just post a few framegrabs.

Thanks
Wacharapong

I have a way of getting one in Singapore but haven't decided yet to do it. Hoping there will be a review from Asia soon.

Wacharapong,

I've had this camera for a couple of days, and being a cinematographer among other things, all this stills stuff is a bit of a mystery to me, but I am very impressed at how this camera nearly compromises the laws of physics but still comes up with very nice results.

In terms of the HD video capability I am still very much experimenting, but am very impressed so far, except of course for the 30 fps, (we use PAL 25fps here) which means everything I have shot so far has a regular jump in it. I'm still looking at ways around it.

I am also still to find the time to read the manual properly in terms of just how "manual" you can go in video mode, but it appears that the amazing optical stabiliser still works in video mode.
I went outside last night and snapped a shot of the moon, hand-held, at 1/15 sec at 560mm (35mm equivalent) and it was clear as a bell, craters and all!
Anyway, hope to post some things soon, feel free to ask questions in the meantime.

You say it costs a lot for a compact camera, but it is incredible value for a full-res HD video camera! Let's see if I can get it to work in final cut pro without the hiccups.

Thanks, Chris. Good to hear it shot nice footage in your initial tests. On paper, it is cheap for its specs but I suspect there could be too many compromises at least in the handling/control department to allow even skilled users to shoot good video.

However, if there are no major image quality issues, a little stuttering due to the nature of 25 fps progressive aside, I would probably give it a try and find ways to get around the handling limitations the same way many members in this forum do with their Canon 5D Mk2.

Wacharapong

On another site I got a message from someone in Europe who first bought the SX1 IS. He claimed it was "unusable" indoors under ordinary light. I've only seen one Vimeo posting and it was dark.

He took it back and bought the Casio EX-F1. It does work well in ordinary (200W) room light.

The Canon has three BIG advantages: the OIS lens, 28mm wide, and the flip-out LCD. But, it has no mic jack.

How well does it work in a Tungsten lit room?

I stopped by a local dealer here the other day and saw a few trial clips and stills from the SX1 IS and have to agree with the poster above that the camera is unusable indoor under normal, moderate lighting. The video was very noisy showing big blobs of chroma and luma noises even in the highlight areas. The contrast and saturation were also poor. I bet Canon will never give any sensitivity stats on this cam because they will either be a lie or a very bad number! Not sure if the stabilizer is adequate at the tele positions as all the video was shot at the relatively wide positions.

Worse, the CAs in the high contrast scenes of both the video and stills were absolutely horrible at BOTH ends of the 20x zoom range with those present in the stills were particularly more obvious when viewed on a 20" LCD monitor at about 1650x1238 or less than actual size.

Can't comment on how the camera will do under bright, outdoor daylight. I suspect the noise issue would probably go away but the CAs could be worse.

Wacharapong

Thank you so much! I think this may explain why Canon withheld it from the huge USA market with its many review sources.

I was at CES yesterday and Canon had nothing to say about the SX1 IS.

Look at these reviews
PC World - Canon PowerShot SX1 IS - Reviews - Hardware - Digital Cameras - Advanced Compact Digital Cameras (http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/digital_cameras/canon/powershot_sx1_is/269743)
>>>
Canon's PowerShot SX1 IS is one of the best non-SLR units on the market. It is almost flawless in every regard, packs in every conceivable feature and even offers something new: 1080p video recording. If you are after an advanced camera, you need not look anywhere else.
>>>

Canon PowerShot SX1 IS Review - Digital Cameras (http://www.cnet.com.au/digitalcameras/cameras/0,239036184,339292119,00.htm)

>>>
The SX1 IS is really the ultimate bridge between a digital still and digital video camera. If you can bear to part with the cash, you won't be disappointed with the superb HD-video and image quality.
>>>

Hmm. Unless Canon paid them to say this, it seems to be good. I wish someone could compare the Ex-F1 and SX1-IS side by side now..

I just noticed that in an early post on this thread, I said something about the SX1 using only a 17 Mbps HD video encoding rate. That was clearly wrong, as it is about 2.5 times higher than that.

I've seen quite a few examples from it on Vimeo. As usual, the majority of them were haphazardly shot and tell you little about the camera's HD video potential. But, there are a few that look very good. I don't see this camera as being as bad in indoor light as some people have suggested. The slow lens, which would handicap both video and stills of fast-moving subjects, is its main drawback, in my thinking. It also tends to overexposure video on auto and the high bit-rate and editing difficulties with the format are deal-busters for me also. Maybe this is the Beta model and the one they'll release later in North America, will have all these problems resolved (wishful thinking).

I just noticed that in an early post on this thread, I said something about the SX1 using only a 17 Mbps HD video encoding rate. That was clearly wrong, as it is about 2.5 times higher than that.


Yes, but it's a complete different codec.

Also -- cnet and PCworld are not exactly experts at reviewing anything. I would give anything either says seriously. Wait for a review by Steves or other professionally run sites.

canon just announced the sx1 for the US market , if that makes any difference to the price of rice .

Canon PowerShot SX1 IS review: High ISO Noise results, SX1 IS vs SX10 IS, SX1 IS vs 450D / XSi | Cameralabs (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX1_IS/noise.shtml)
Compares with the XSi.
Even more important to have a full frame sensor like the 5D Mark II.

The 1080p30 can be edited natively by iMovie 09. The video looks VERY good.

PowerShot SX1 IS Digital Camera (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=18301)

Looking on Vimeo not seeing a lot of noise in the night shots (though not sure what rez it was shot at) and the fast-action 1080p (pan of a train going by) looks ok. No shutter roll. The sky is blownout though.

Can someone who owns this camera comment on the level of manual control while shooting video?

Can you set exposure and aperture manually while shooting video?

Contrary to what others were saying, this camera looks like it has a deep DOF, which makes sense given the sensor is 1/2.3".

Cute, but when shooting video you have NO control -- other than WB -- over image.

I could find no AR/AF lock button, and Canon rep claimed there isn't one. Which means exposure fluctuations. I think I remember AF can be switched to MF. I came to PMA think this was an interesting choice, but the video was way over saturated. I'd seen this on a sample of its video. And, very high contrast. I assume it can al be adjusted, but I'm surprised the default is so poor.

The frame-rate is 30.0fps not 29.97fps.

DP Review has posted their hands-on evaluation:

Canon PowerShot SX 1 IS Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx1is/)

They cover the HD movie mode here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx1is/page10.asp

Cute, but when shooting video you have NO control -- other than WB -- over image.

I could find no AR/AF lock button, and Canon rep claimed there isn't one. Which means exposure fluctuations. I think I remember AF can be switched to MF. I came to PMA think this was an interesting choice, but the video was way over saturated. I'd seen this on a sample of its video. And, very high contrast. I assume it can al be adjusted, but I'm surprised the default is so poor.

The frame-rate is 30.0fps not 29.97fps.

You can lock and adjust the exposure during video shooting.

Here's a link to a short SX1 HD video I edited into Xvid at 11 Mbps and posted on Vimeo. There's several other SX1 videos I've posted there, including some in the full, original 42.5 Mbps CoDec. I'm generally pleased with its video. It requires constant exposure adjustments and is definitely not a point-and-shoot. Its mikes pick up good audio and only a small amount of wind noise. It outperforms the Sony HX1 by a big margin, in every way except low-light video, where the HX1 comes close to the Sony VX2100, in getting usable footage at sunset. Well, actually, the HX1 is a lot simpler and easier to operate.
Running Water with SX1 on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/5164847)

After two weeks of testing, I returned my SX1. I also returned my Sony HX1, after a similar testing period. I finally realized, that my Sony HC9 HDV camcorder shoots better looking video and still photos, than either of them. The HC9 is also a lot easier to use and it is much more predictable and dependable, in response to the settings you make. The pixels of the HC9 are about twice the size as those on either of those two cameras and it has only a small and occasional amount of rolling-shutter artifacts with video.

These two HD-shooting photo cameras are probably the most versatile in their video functions, among all the others that do this. It seems that if digital cameras are going to be used for serious HD video, that many improvements need to be made in them and more manual controls added. The problem of having too many pixels on small image sensors, adds to the deficiencies of the video feature on this class of ultrazoom cameras.

I also like the HC9 camcorder's ability to change the shutter speed, which is essential for proper capture of the wings of flying birds (1/60th sec.) and other subjects that rapidly move back and forth. The slower shutter reproduces the wings in a similar way your eyes would see them, nicely blurred. A fast shutter causes strobing, as they appear to be in several positions at once.

Cute, but when shooting video you have NO control -- other than WB -- over image.

I could find no AR/AF lock button, and Canon rep claimed there isn't one. Which means exposure fluctuations. I think I remember AF can be switched to MF. I came to PMA think this was an interesting choice, but the video was way over saturated. I'd seen this on a sample of its video. And, very high contrast. I assume it can al be adjusted, but I'm surprised the default is so poor.

The frame-rate is 30.0fps not 29.97fps.

I downloaded some footage from this camera and noticed the things you mentioned in this post as well. Fortunately I found that converting the clips to a more editable .avi format with Cineform Neo Scene corrected both the frame rate (slowing it down ever so slightly to 29.97) and the gama (converting it from cRGB to sRGB). The converted footage has the right frame rate and gamma curve for editing into a regular HDV or HD project and actually looks very good.

Anyway, I found a good deal on a refurbished SX-1 ($399 if you do a Google products search) and just ordered one yesterday. I will be using it mainly as a second and B-Roll camera. The rolling shutter looks similar to my Sony HVR-Z7 which is also a CMOS camera and which I find is fine in actual practice. The idea for me is that instead of carrying around my Z7 and a still camera, my still camera will double as a second video camera. I will post here how it works out.