Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
12/11/09
Useless information/rant follows if you're bored (all I have is free time at the moment):
My mom has one that is ready to snap photos just a few seconds after it's turned on, but requires nearly 15 seconds to take another. I borrowed that one because my wife's camera takes 10-15 seconds to power up, and also takes too long in between photos (I have gone through different modes and settings). Then, my camcorder takes decent photos as quickly as you can take them, but there is no flash and it's something I don't want to always carry with me.
I never realized how slow they were until I tried taking spur-of-the-moment pictures of my baby ("I formed babby").
I hate this need for splash screen startups, or automatic picture review after one is taken (I also don't like how people, especially my wife, feel they need to review every single photo immediately after. You were just there!), and know I don't need a 30 megapixel camera with three displays and YouTube, Facebook, or other built-in fad support.
12/11/09
I also don't know anything about cameras so I don't know if they specifically rate that or have categories for a digital camera that works as fast as one from 15 years ago that took pics as fast as you could wind the film.
Any information about it would be greatly appreciated!
12/11/09
[www.dpreview.com]
They often give list how long all those things take for a given camera. The forums are really helpful, too.
12/11/09
really good for snapshots and keeping in your pocket. i like it. i keep it in my car. has a good battery life. if i need it i got a usb car adapter so it will charge on the drive to the event. it holds up pretty good. takes good photos.
is that cheap enough.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/12/09
With all of the different models out there with bonus novelty features and smile recognition and volume knobs that go to 11, it can be confusing to find a decent, simple camera that does what it's supposed to well.
(tried to promote all replies in case this multi-reply doesn't work as I'd imagine it to. Hopefully others find this useful too!)
12/12/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
The Flip (and Kodak Z-series) cameras are the worst digirecorders one could buy. Want good portable P&S video? Get the Canon SX200 IS digicam that records at 720/30p. Not only you will get exposure compensation AND locking for $300, but you get enough color and other settings to even emulate the movie look! And all that at high h.264 bitrate: 24 mbps! Beats the completely automatic, highly compressed Flip/Kodaks any day.
As for the high-end camcorder, I don't agree with going with the Panasonic one. The best camcorder in that range is the Canon HF-S10/S100. It has more detail than the TM-300, and more manual controls and ports -- at the same price.
12/08/09
12/08/09
The focusing lens is what makes it totally outclass the flipcam-style recorders. It's also *tiny!*Bonus: Canon makes a really solid underwater case that'll let you shoot down to something like 150 feet with full controls available.
12/08/09
"TM300 has the edge in performance, clearly beating out the HF S100 in low light, noise, stabilization, and still performance; the Canon has only a slight edge in bright light color, video sharpness, and motion"
I'm not sure what port the Canon has that the Panasonic doesn't - is it an important one?
12/08/09
It's a very easy argument that currently Cannon makes some of the leading sensors on the market and another easy argument that everyone looking to do semi-pro filming (ie 1300$ and up) should stay far away from Panasonic. I say redo this article as a weeklong special with that level of research.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
It's since been replaced by the $5K AGX200, which shoots in HD, but a quick search on ebay shows that they are out there (don't be fooled by the "buy it now" listings - they're priced too high and there's a reason they're still listed).
12/08/09
It's been replaced by the HVX-200, the HPX-170, and the HMC-150 actually....actually in many ways the HMC-150 is the actual successor. There is no AGX200 to my knowledge. The HMC-150 at $3500 is a freaking amazing camera...same body, etc, as the much more expensive HPX-170 but it lacks P2 recording which for most people isn't a big deal, p2 actually being a detriment for independent filmmakers on a budget. HMC-150 also has the best implementation of AVCHD in any camera ever.
That said, I also highly recommend the Panasonic Lumix GH1.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/05/09
11/30/09
I still think this concept of everyone wanting to sit around watching TV with special glasses is ridiculous. I experienced a number of the 3D movies this summer in both formats and (for me) all of them were a more enjoyable experience without the glasses. I am not saying the extra dimension did not add an extra element, but they are uncomfortable to wear for an entire movie. The troublesome short versions of me ended up watching half the movie without the glasses because they were annoying for a couple of the movies. All of which is to say - I just have a tough time imagining an entire family sitting in front of a TV every night with 3D glasses on.
11/30/09
11/30/09
This is a dumb gimmick. Until someone does it correctly, and I have yet to see a company even come close, I won't be adopting this technology.
My eyes are fucked up enough.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
I'll tell a better quality, longer lasting TV over a 3D one any day.
11/30/09
11/30/09