exactly my point. note "better". It allows them to change the lux ratings so that on paper it all looks good

Justin

An extra record button on the left side of the LCD panel (open position). Isn't that cool?

wonder if sony will make a Qualia version of a DV or camcorder hmmmm now that would be sweet, out of everyones price range but nice to drool over

Surround sound aside (which it would be for my sister, since she's a Mac user like me), how's the on board sound on Sonys? I love the gs100k's sound capability. It really takes you a step beyond that kind of hollow, talking through paper cups sound you often hear on older vhs stuff, for example. In the several family jam sessions I've shot now, the sound has been the best thing (well, for the camera work, look who's been operating the camera) - even when the session is not miked. Think Sony's new baby could do that?

I agree about Pana's built-in mics on their 3-CCD cams. My MX300 has great audio---and now even better with my Apex 191, thanks to Bryan Beasleigh's advice. (My JVC's buzz like little bumble bees.)

1/4.7 vs 1/6 ccd
 

The larger ccd has 66% more area, since it's the ratio of the ccd's areas ( .212^2 / .166^2 ) that we want to figure.

Which makes me ask: Don't the mfrs read these boards? 1/3 or 1/2 an inch is hardly a massive chip, even with allowance for the larger components around them. Having ONE model in a consumer line with such a chip should pull in sales for whoever makes it. It seems marketing at cam mfrs is more concerned about cannibalizing a very small % of their pro sales rather than pulling in many more buyers from other brands. Much like how GM was years ago. Even enabling the unused IR capability and converting it to B&W is worth something.
This is frustrating. I simply want to record video in ordinary, not staged settings - exactly the purpose of consumer video. Analog cameras of 10 years ago could do this. In my industry, a business will jump to fill a gap in the market. Here it looks like they see a need... and walk away. What's up?
/end rant


<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : 1/4.7" = .212"
1/6" = .166"

I don't see a big difference in size.
-->>>

Not big but considerable. 28% percent more.

At least a step in the right direction, instead of going down to 1/8".


Carlos

This is why I'm hanging on to my 1/3" and 1/4" CCD'd cams, and no one's going to talk me out of it. :-))

.33" verses .25" verses .212" verses .166" - and the more pixels there are's the smaller they are's. :-))

>Is that a DV cam or a MPEG2 cam? If it's a MPEG2 cam it won't kill anything.

Wouldn't MPEG2 at 25 MBits a second beat DV at the same data
rate, both with the same frame size?

We all know about MPEG2's higher compression and lower playback resolution. :-))

gs400 is dv video camcorder from I read what George said in post.

Yes, according to those specs, but Pana e-mailed saying there's most likely going to be surprises.

So Pana indicated surprises after you told them about the specs posted on Guy's site?

No, before. I posted this on another thread. Wait, how did you know I e-mailed Pana about those specs? Never mind, I know. :-))

I assumed you did. It's what I would do just to let them know they are behind the curve - or provoke them to get some info out, if they have it.

You are correct, and I recieved a reply from them today. Good guess, Patricia.