I bought this at a retailer, not Amazon. I study very good reviews about earlier designs, and was a bit hesitant to buy this camera since a handful of men and women stated the video quality was bad. I took the risk, but they had been appropriate. The video (and digital picture) good quality are unacceptable. Even in decent lighting, the images are really dark and grainy, as if they were taken by an previous webcam. Even at higher top quality, there was no improvement. Also, the autofocus was extremely poor and did not alter to fast-moving subjects. Never be fooled if you try it in a shop the LCD screen has wonderful resolution (better than an iPod) but when you see the video on a computer screen (even when not blown to complete dimension) or on a projection display, the video quality is so lousy. It seems common on a conventional Tv. And the zoom mic also does not capture sound effectively. I was going to use this for organization videography, but it would have been embarrassing to use this camcorder. I suspect equivalent camcorders (i.e. one/6 CCD) might have comparable inferior top quality. The size, zoom top quality, and touch screen might be good features, but my Canon A570 digital camera from four many years ago took far better video.

I purchased this with three simple needs, 1.I wanted some thing compact, two. I needed the capability to take photos. three. I wanted it to have a evening vision light. You would feel these three issues would be straightforward to find in numerous cameras at a decent price tag variety, but they had been not! So how did this fair up? This camera is one of the most compact, even smaller than I expected. 2. It is image taking ability I was least impressed with. It was quite grainy. three. The evening vision light was rather weak, but hey I expected that for this kind of a small camera. The battery existence with the standard battery was about avg. 4 hrs. As far as functioning the camera, it was Very easy, figured it out in five minutes w/o reading directions, needless to say, there are Extremely handful of menu screens, touch display is kinda nice, but would also liked to have the capability to tape w/the viewfinder closed. All in all, i’m quite joyful w/the buy, just never buy it if you want it to take excellent photos, i’ve had phones that took clearer pictures.

I bought this camera at a retailer, believing the SONY brand name and previous excellent reviews about related Sony camcorders. There are a number of flaws to this merchandise.
Cons
one.Image good quality is extremely poor, Indoor and outdoor images in very good light appear with a bluish tint all more than. If you put on a white /gray cloth it seems bluish on video. Like wise the sunlight coming within your home through window /blinds all seems light blue!! Even with very good lighting the good quality of pictures are really bad, lacks sharpness, This in comparison to my old Panasonic PV GS120 is not even close to true colour. If you view the images on a Television display it will certainly seem lacking the sharpness. If you are transferring the video to pc using the supplied computer software it seems extremely blurry and grainy.
2.There is no way you can charge the battery when camcorder is in use even if there is a spare battery since the battery charging is carried out hooking up the AC adapter to the camcorder! This looks genuinely stupid. Sony could have produced a battery slot on the AC adapter to do this.
three.There is no separate viewfinder. So if the LCD is broken- almost everything is gone.
4.Audio good quality does not appear to be that excellent but typical.
5.I can not uncover the resolution of the camera for nonetheless shots, practically nothing is mentioned in the manual either. You can not shoot a still picture whilst recording the video, you have to capture it from the video shots currently produced. Yea the resolution does not matter in that case.
six.Battery existence approximately much less than an hour
7.The LED for lighting would seem silly


Pros
1.Tiny dimension, you can carry in Pants pocket
two.Provision to use SDHC card as a substitute of the “Sony’s personal” memory stick duo only. I have not used one yet even though.
3.LCD is very clear and sharp (very good resolution), and it responds nicely to the touch.
4.Video transfer is quick and effortless as soon as the simple Sony software package is installed. I would use some other software package to edit it although.
5. 80 GB storage space is wonderful
six. The Sony software program has a calendar to see events on a chronological order, that looks fantastic if you are time conscious about the video
All round I am not satisfied with this camcorder. I will return it quickly.

I bought this camera as a replacement for a VHS-C camera that I by no means did manage to use simply because it was just too cumbersome. The HandyCam SR45 is surely modest — it fits in my purse! But it does have a couple of flaws I wish I had realized before getting.

First of all, it doesn’t have a wide-angle lens. That is an optional accessory. This limits my filmmaking skills more than I realized it would. Secondly, it dosn’t have a viewfinder. You are forced to use the viewscreen at all instances. In vibrant sun you can’t see the image on the viewscreen at all, so without the choice of switching to the viewfinder it’s hit and miss if you are filming what you assume you are filming.

And the last key challenge I have is that it records in MPEG2 format. This is the format (I guess) that you need to output straight to DVD. But for editing, this is not the finest format. To edit in Windows Movie Maker you have to convert the file types and the top quality tanks. I am looking at some MPEG2 editors appropriate now, but I hear that editing appropriate in MPEG2 format you lose some ability to make fine-tune edits.

On the plus side, I never ever have to purchase tapes for this thing, and with one thing like 6 hours of recording constructed in at the highest top quality I doubt I’ll even need to get memory cards for it. (Even on a excellent trip, over 6 hours of footage is too significantly! Edit oneself!!) No running out of room in the middle of some thing thrilling happening.

The lens cap is constructed in, which is also great, but I’m forgetting to close it all the time. And the 40x Optical Zoom is fantastic! It requires some fantastic up-close shots with no getting to get up-close. And transferring to JPEG for still shots is straightforward with the new software I’m trying, and the stills look fantastic.

And the nightshooting is really cool, too. I just don’t know if I’ll ever use it other than to torment my cat.

Overall it’s a great small camera, but there is space for improvement.

The last time I purchased a camcorder was in 1994, when my very first Daughter was born. It was an 8mm Panasonic. Since then I have purchased Point and Shoots and SRL Digitals that genuinely impressed me. I was so used to the top quality of my Canon Rebel, that I just assumed that a new cam corder would get me the very same quality or close to it!
I place down my 8.00 (got a deal) on a new Sony DCR-SR45. I like the Carl Ziess lenses and thought this has got to give me excellent quality! I also was impressed that it was all on a difficult drive..30gb drive is much more than enough for my desires.

. The HandyCam SR45 fit proper in my hand, it weighs much less then my Canon Rebel(with the 50mm lens) and is fairly straightforward to use. I adore the touch screen…but then it came time to check the camera out….
My very first check was in my House office…and it looked grainy. I checked the settings and it was set to “SP” so I set it to “HQ” and attempted again….Nevertheless grainy.
I decided that perhaps it is just too small light in my workplace, so I waited till the next day to try it outside. I did…it looked fine by means of the two.7 inch view screen, but porting it to my Laptop or computer, I just thought the good quality ought to be a lot much better…I imply…its 2008 and this did not appear to be a better quality than my old Panasonic Tape camcorder.
I was upset. I referred to as Sony and they had me do a reset and attempt again….Still looked about the same….The telephoto was impressive, but the typical video was not up to my standard. The photo stills are just a joke…dont feel this is going to replace your point and shoot on holiday…it is just not in a position to at ALL…pretend that function does not exist.
So I was all set to send this back to the seller..I had it bundled up and the RMA on the box.. But I decided to go shopping the moment once again and evaluate this model to other folks in the price tag range (I am not about to invest 00 for a camcorder that I use only on Holidays, trips and Graduations)..So I looked at the high quality of the video in the 0-0 value range and came to the realization that this Camcorder is genuinely on par with the others.
It was my own perception of what it ought to have been that was wrong.
So I went property and compared my two point and shoots that do Video Clips (Kodak and Nikon)and my old Camcorder and realized that this the quality of this camcorder is better!
I nevertheless give it a three star, because
1) Photo Still Images are just a joke!
two) The software program stinks.
three) I am becoming picky, But I would have liked it if the lens cover closes automatically when the camera is shut off. I forget and leave the lens open….its just asking for trouble!
4) Battery that comes with the camcorder lasts about 45 minutes.
I would suggest getting a 6.5 hour extra battery…use that as the primary and use the a single they gave you as a backup.

I bought this camera two weeks ago and I should say, it’s actually neat. The high quality of the camera whilst recording at very first was a small much less than I expected it to be, but that’s simply because I had the recording mode in LP (medium quality) so I place it at the highest (HQ) and every little thing looked fine.

Honestly, the greatest points about this camera is that it is extremely small, can match in the palm of your hand with ease.

The subsequent factor is the Night Vision mode, this is the very best, I was capable to record in Complete DARKNESS inside my residence (w/ all lights off) and I could nonetheless see points!

Final major noticeable point is the reality that you don’t have to keep changing discs each and every 30 minutes to record new video. You can record straight to the Tough Disk for up to 9 hours at the highest quality!

Listen, if you are seeking for a excellent quality, small compact video camera for beneath 0, get this. It’s a really great camera and a really very good deal. Thanks, Sony!

I write this critique due to the fact I wish it had been written during the time I was getting my camcorder. I will summarize this critique among the Sony HDR-SR11 vs. Panasonic HDC-HS9 as fundamentally a toss up, but the small points of Sony leaned me to the SR11.

Initial, let me say that I genuinely did not want to buy Sony HDR-SR11, granted a Bravia Television is my LCD of alternative, but I can not stand their proprietary memory. Given that this camcorder was not purchased for images this was not a big deal. Although I commend Panasonic for using SD that can be readily found. Sony is pricey (although some may well say justifiably so simply because of the quality) but competition is great for the shoppers as we advantage via new, high quality, and innovative functions.

A salesman from a certain store told me that Sony was excellent to get for camcorders, and I’d add Nikon or Canon are a way to go for digital cameras, anyway I digress.

Acquiring to see it for myself, initially I purchased the Panasonic HDC-HS9 and soon after a tough selection I had to switch for the little items primarily from software program which I’ll get to later, but initial let me give a side by side comparison between the two right after testing out each product for a couple hours about the characteristics that matter to me at least. I will refer to the products as HS9 and SR11 for the remainder of the assessment.

Look: I’d have to give it to the HS9 for getting noticeably smaller. But the SR11 is not massive (particularly not 90′s camcorder massive), as I have a man sized hand, but the HS9 wins the compact comparison in this case. Whilst we’re on the physical look of it, I was disappointed in the HS9 placement of the external adapter. The battery ought to be physically removed each and every time you want to connect the adapter as the cable connector is behind the battery. For that reason you can not charge the battery simply by pluging in the charging cable as you can on a lot of goods that you can usually do this and as you can for the SR11. And the HS9 forces you to use the external cable when transferring a video, even though this might make sense, but when you have a brief clip and just took the battery off the charger, it’s annoying to get rid of the battery and locate the external adapter each and every time to do so. Poor placement of the external adapter on the HS9 in contrast to the nicely placed (as is with most camcorders, at least with a preceding Canon ZR200 that I own) with the HS9. If size is an concern for you, the HS9 might be your selection.

Video Top quality: My opinion of the top quality among the HS9 and SR11 was comparable. Amongst the two it’s a toss up in the course of daylight conditions as both are superb, and the SR11 is gorgeous as your eye sees it, it seems on the screen, extremely good. The HS9 records in a 1080p vs. a 1080i format, that may give the albeit slight edge in terms of theoretically video high quality to the HS9. Though the application provided with the HS9 to play back these high top quality videos ruins the superb video recording. I hate to say my eye didn’t discover the difference amongst 1080p and 1080i even though my correction lens aren’t the best, mileage of your eyes matter maybe.

In low light situations, the HS9 seems to record slightly brighter images which are decent, the SR11 are a bit darker, although search incredibly realistic. A genuine toss up, and really based on individual preference and would have to say they’re evenly matched for you to make a decision.

In very low light conditions I observed the HS9 surprisingly grainy. It appears to brighten up a extremely dark image therefore resulting in grain. I have not recorded the SR11 in low light circumstances other than discovering a youtube video of a low light problem video and it seemed to preserve it’s realistic tone but remained dark. The HS9 seems to be on the appropriate track to attempt to brighten up items, as the SR11 does not, but at this point I would have to say the HS9 was unsatisfiability grainy.

Both were grainy in bedroom light condition when displaying straight from the camera to the Tv (not recording, just displaying via the cables) although the SR11 may well have had a slight lead when panning or moving the zoom in and out a bit more responsive, although hardly noticeable.

Formats: The HS9 takes the lead in this regard as it has a 24 cinema mode, that records frames at 24 frames like some movies. Otherwise the HS9 records in 60 frames per second. However, the Pinnacle trial version could not handle the 60 fps mode and only the 24 cinema mode (even though it stated it was 30 fps). Though the HS9 software could take care of its personal 60 fps video fine, far more later on software program. The SR11 records it’s videos in 30 fps

Night vision between the two the HS9 makes use of a blue illumination for night vision and the SR11 makes use of the frequently known green illumination as frequently observed on Television. I like the green greater, but the blue was a nice change and this did not have an effect on my choice either way, although it was great to have on each…

Study more

I have bought both camcorders (I admit via BestBuy because returns are a breeze) to compare high quality for about a week, and I must say Sony wins hands down. I was truly hoping the Canon will be the winner considering that I personal the Canon 40D dSLR and wanted to remain within brand, but I’ve produced my choice and purchased the SR11 from Amazon. For the record, I was utilizing iMac three.06GHz intel proc with iMovie/QuickTimePro – none of the cameras offer any software for the Mac, but that did not seem a dilemma:

Sony won me more than in the following areas:

1. Autofocus: Sony seemed a lot more responsive. I have a 2yr old, which can’t appear to keep place for a lot more than a second and the Sony seemed to receive greater focus on him. Canon sometimes took more than 2seconds to receive focus outdoors at about 5x zoom.

two. white balance: For some cause the Canon did not search all-natural to me. The colours had been off, with my son’s pale skin seeking greenish indoors at low light.

3. LCD + viewfinder. The Canon does not have a viewfinder, which I suppose contributes to its light weight. I observed the LCD to be more than enough in overcast climate, but Sony’s three.2″ screen is a pleasure to perform with. It is bigger(2.7″ v.s 3.2″) and significantly smoother LCD. The display is basically gorgeous. Videos show remarkable on it and shooting is very pleasant. I found the touch display to occasionally will need a second push, but fingerprints have been in no way a issue – I got the same amount on the Canon too. The Canon has the joystick/func button which I identified was a bit clumsy to use.

4. compression &amp low light overall performance. Given that I was shooting largely indoors, I found Sony to work slightly far better in low light, focusing a bit more quickly and creating much less noise. I was comparing Sony’s 60i v.s. Canon’s 30p mode. Canon in 60i indoors at low light looked too alien green for my liking. Sony created a bit much less artifacts too.

5. Storage: 60G v.s. 32G of space. Both are extendible through memory card, sony needs the card if you want to shoot nonetheless photos whilst filming.

6. Develop quality. This was a large a single. I’d like my camera for which I paid a very good chunk of money to appear great and feel good. It is very sad to see Canon make these inexpensive feeling and seeking cameras, when their SLRs are built like tanks. Sony was impecable with each detail very properly believed by means of.

7 Sound quality. This was also quite noticeable. Sony’s sound was a lot clearer indoors. It also provides a zoom function on the mic, so that when you use the optical zoom, the mic will also “zoom-in” on the conversation.

eight. Cost. As it stands, HF11 is 150 bucks far more and I can’t justify it.

9. Each camcorders can be hooked with cables straight, but only the Sony contains a cradle, and it is much less difficult to work with – just drop it in and pick it up when done. On the other hand, with the Canon I had to plug two cables each time I wanted to connect it to my Mac – 1 for energy and one particular USB (you can’t connect to Computer with no the camcorder getting powered by the adaptor).

ten. Button operation. Canon has a undesirable design flaw in their fast commence function. You see, if you quit filming, and just close the LCD, the cam goes into standby mode. Nonetheless, by pressing the start button, you can start filming once more with out opening the LCD. On the Sony, the start button is embeded in the middle of the on/off/mode ring. The Canon’s button is a big blob sticking out the back. It is really effortless to accidentally start off filming. It was fairly anoying to uncover that my battery has runout in the vehicle due to the fact I’ve depressed the button. On the bright side I now have 30min of footage of my jacket’s pocket.
11. greater stills. Canon’s 3.2Mpixel shots can’t compare to Sony’s ten.2MP. Also, Sony’s flash is effectively centered over the lens. Canon’s is offset and the light looks off in pictures.

12. Far better OIS (Optical Image Stabilization). I observed that Sony performs far better even though walking.


Now some individuals retain whining about 30p/24p and so on. I am no pro, and to me 24p looked a bit blocky, and 30p supplying quite equivalent top quality to Sony’s 60i mode. I discovered the 60i mode to search quite movie-like too (It kept reminding me of an episode of “The Office” for some reason.)

To maintain issues fair, the Canon’s Pros had been:
1. Lighter weight and far more centered zoom lever position. Sony’s HDD,3.2″ display and viewfinder seem to add a bit of weight and the lever seems to go too far back.
2. flash-based recording medium really should maintain points far more durable, even though I’m not sure flash can sustain as several writes as a normal HDD.

I like this camera. I like the size and the characteristic set, but to my eye, the AVCHD video high quality isn’t fairly there. It’s excellent, but there is still some “star-stepping” visible about light and dark points, specifically in lower light. I’m comparing this to HDV video shot with my HDR-HC1 and I prefer the much less compressed HDV video. That getting said, I don’t miss the video capture method I had to go by way of with HDV to get it onto the laptop or computer for editing, so I will maintain this camera. FYI, for these of you searching for application that works with AVCHD, I’ve had great achievement with Sony Vegas Platinum. Whatever you do, do not purchase Adobe Premier Elements – it doesn’t support AVCHD and is very, quite buggy.

Pro:
– Easy to load video to Pc
– Very good kind aspect not as little as the Canon HF10, but little
– Nice large screen
– Viewfinder for those bright sunny days (HF10 does not have a viewfinder)
– In a position to hold lots of video

Cons:
– Some compression artifacts visible in video
– Some skipping in video in the course of fast movements/ quickly pans
– Slow focus lock in indoor lighting conditions