OT: Trying to pick an HD camera

tcbetka wrote on 9/26/2008, 1:35 PM

I would like to ask for some opinions here... I apologize in advance for the long post, but I think it will help explain our needs for a camera.

My wife & I have a 14 year old daughter who absolutely LOVES volleyball, and is quite good at. And my wife loves it as well, and is the typical "soccer mom" for our daughter. They go to extra practices at the Y, go to pick-up games at school 2-3 times per week at the school over the summer...well anyway, you get the picture. And myself, I am a computer nut and love to mess with audio recording (SONAR and Pro Tools) and also recently purchased the Vegas Pro suite, and built a quad-core PC running XP, especially suited for processing audio & video.

So the natural course for us was to purchase a video camera. As a physician, I typically research different options before making a purchase such as a camcorder. So we ended up with a Sony DCR-SR45 with a 30gb hard drive, and it's certainly OK...but nothing to write home about. I read the reviews about how its picture quality is not the best, but we liked the camera and after looking at them in the store and recording with them (and watching the recording on the small monitor), it didn't look terrible to us, so we bought it. But the only one they had left was an open box, so they gave us a discount--after we checked it out thoroughly in the store. Everything seemed to work fine. But when we started using it, the factory-supplied battery...it doesn't hold a charge. Also the camera doesn't link up with XP all that well, even with the latest Sony XP driver. We also bought a wide-angle lens and a 30-to-34mm adapter.

Well, after using this camera several times and being underwhelmed with the picture quality, and the gyrations we go through to get the camera to sync with my PC and XP, I think it's time to make a change. We can still take the thing back, as we haven't had it for 30 days. And the fact that it was an open-box unit makes me think that someone else had the same problem maybe? There was no explanation from the salesman, other than "well, if we have it in the cabinet for sale, then someone has checked it out." And indeed--the camera works fine. It's only when you try to sync it up with XP that there's an issue.

So finally... I need some opinions on an HD camera. I really like the looks of the Sony HDR-SR11, and the benefits of buying one would be that we can use the same extra battery and wide-angle lens from the unit we have now. But the other camera that I have been looking at is the JVC Everio GZ-HD7. Some of the reviews have been luke-warm, but it seems as those were from people that maybe thought it was a "point & shoot" kind of a rig. But both my wife & I are the type of people to read the manual and learn the device, and how to obtain the best results...learning as we go.

So can I get some opinions of these two cameras? I think for us that the Sony might be the best choice--as we can use the other accessories that we've already purchased. And I think that the price is a few hundred dollars less than the Everio's will be. But I like some of the results I have seen online with the Everio, so it's worth at least considering. We have decided that having an eye-piece is important to us, but frankly I know there are features of each that we might not be considering--simply because we aren't familiar with their function or purpose. But you have to start somewhere, and that's why I thought I should ask here.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post and render your opinion.

TB

Back to post

Comments

Terje wrote on 9/27/2008, 2:58 AM

t must be HDD. It's simply too much of a pain to have to play back the video at real-time in order to edit it.

If this is too much pain for you, honestly, I'd recommend you forget about this project. Seriously. Capture is the least "painful" part of the editing process, and you only do it once.

For SD camcorders all HDD camcorders have lower, some times significantly lower, quality than tape-based camcorders. If you want to shoot SD at high quality you should get a three CCD tape-based camcorder from for example Panasonic (if you want the best price).

For HD at the consumer level I would strongly recommend HDV, and HDV for the most part means tape. I don't know why that is, it seems all of the camcorder guys decided that HDV was for tape and AVCHD was for disk and card.

Again, think about what really matters to you in the process. If plugging in the camcorder and letting the computer do it's work while you have dinner is too painful, by all means go HDD. You should realize that given the choices camcorder makers have made, your choice of HDD, if it involves AVC for editing, will bring you significantly more pain than having to wait until after dinner with editing the movie will.

dibbkd wrote on 9/27/2008, 4:01 AM

I recently bought the Sony HDR-CX12. Picture quality is great, easy of use if fantastic. Editing raw AVCHD (.mt2s) files are a little quirky, but there are work arounds that are fine if you want this kind of camera.

If you want to see the picture quality from it, I have some videos on Vimeo that show it:

http://www.vimeo.com/user397627

Note that three of my videos are non high-def, they were shot with my previous camera, but I'm sure you will be able to tell which ones they were.

And the HDR-CX12 records to memory card. I chose that because I didn't want tape and didn't trust the HDD.

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 5:02 AM

Well, I can tell I am dealing with a bunch of old-school videographers here...lots of folks are still married to tape! But that's perfectly fine with me, as there may be very good reasons for that. And I'd love to hear those reasons.

But I have transferred to tape many, many times--this is not my first rodeo. I appreciate the comments regarding how simple I sound, but trust me; I have spends hours and hours and hours and hours and hours...in front of a PC watching tape burn to disk, while I kill time doing something else. You can only have dinner for so long before you start to get obese. To me, transferring directly from HDD to the PC is a much better way to utilize my time--and lets me start editing video much sooner. However if there are potential issues to consider, then by all means I want to consider them.

Now the HDV vs. AVCHD debate is interesting to me, as I had no idea how troublesome editing AVC video can be in Sony. So this may be an issue for me, because I do want to edit video with Vegas...which is why I bought Vegas Pro... and why I am on this forum! I realize that the thread has grown quite long by now and many may not have read all the previous posts, and I greatly appreciate all answers, I really do. But I have tried to explain my needs and aspirations, so please do not feel that I am a weekend hobbyist in this regard. I may only do this for a hobby, but the point is to get VERY good at that hobby. Now back to AVCHD...

According to the Vegas Pro webpage, SCS implies that you can "...edit and process DV, AVCHD, HDV, SD/HD-SDI, and all XDCAM™ formats in real time..." but I now get the impression that AVCHD compression isn't as easy for Vegas to handle. Is this the case?

If it is the case and I choose to go HD, then it seems that HDV would be my best choice for a format--and that may in fact mean going with tape, as several of the HDV cameras recommended use that medium. However if it is NOT the case, then I really do like the Sony HDR-SR11/12 camcorders. I realize that they are HDD, and many folks here apparently favor tape over HDD; possibly because tape gives a better quality. I forgot who mentioned it, but maybe someone could elaborate on how this is so--how tape gives a better end-result than HDD does. I have not heard this before, so please forgive me for asking as I am only trying to learn. The tape vs. card link given above really doesn't talk about that much at all--it's a link to an older thread where folks are stating their personal preferences regarding media choice.

Thanks again for the replies.

TB

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 5:38 AM

For ndar...

What do you use Vegas to do when you process the footage from your SR11? And how badly does the quality suffer through the Vegas rendering process?

I have a Quad core 32-bit machine with a Q9450 2.66GHz CPU, overclocked to 3.2GHz, with 4GB DDR2 ram. I am not sure how much faster my machine would run if it was 64-bit, but the motherboard and RAM I purchased is suitable for 64-bit OS. I just simply didn't go that route, mainly because there aren't many audio plug-ins available yet, and there are some driver issues with the audio applications I use. But thus far it seems to perform very well, but it does take over 30 minutes to render most projects I do, which are 2.5-3.5gb in size. I have yet to download the sample project to render as a benchmark for my system--that's a project I'd like to get to this weekend.

Thanks for the post.

TB

Hulk wrote on 9/27/2008, 8:15 AM

Vegas Pro handles the files from my Canon HF100 no problem. Editing for most operations is responsive and previews are pretty good as well. Editing is by no means a hassle. And the convenience of the SHDC cards is really nice. After shooting I just pop in the card and I'd ready to go. Sometimes I even edit straight from the card if it's just a short bit of video I need. This has been my experience.

I have a Core 2 Duo operating at 3.2GHz.

- Mark

jfpearson wrote on 9/27/2008, 9:04 AM

Ditto Hulk's comments. I have a Canon HF11 and am running an Intel Quad using Vista 64 with 4 gigs RAM. Preview isn't entirely smooth, but quite acceptable for me without using intermediates. One nice thing about the HF11 that I now appreciate is being able to copy scenes from the main memory of the camera to a mem card in the SDHC slot of this camera, in order to back up files from the main memory from time to time or to quickly check the files on the PC, without having to hook up the camera to the PC and read them from the main memory. I still haven't decided if I like the output using the 24p or Cine mode features.

The main problem I have with the AVCHD files (apart from no smart rendering in Vegas 8c or 8.1) is seemingly not being able to render from the timeline using the supplied Sony or Main Concept encoder to the same HF11 native AVCHD 24 Mbps bit rate at 1920x1080 . Seems to be limited to 16 Mbps max; any change I make in custom Sony encoder settings do not take, and default back to 16 mbps. Am I missing something here, anyone?

Dan Sherman wrote on 9/27/2008, 9:18 AM

TB
Why does it have to be HD?

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 9:58 AM

Why not HD? Isn't it the wave of the future?

I guess, in looking at all the available options in the range I want to spend (ideally less than $1200-1500) I don't see a lot of choice that I like that *aren't* HD cameras. I have noted however that, especially in Canon's line, many of the cameras are HD/SD capable. This is pretty interesting, as it would allow the easy editing of SD footage without the potential for AVCHD issues (for example), but then also allow a person to move into HD when any software issues are resolved.

That being said, I have been reviewing the forum archives and it's really quite interesting--it seems as though the subject/content of threads from back in May & June indicate folks were having some difficulties editing footage from AVCHD format...with comments like "AVCHD has no business in consumer-level video" and "I HATE AVCHD!!!" But more recent threads seem to indicate fewer such issues. I can only presume that this is because Sony has addressed any issues with software updates; v8a, 8b, 8c...? Makes sense anyway.

I really like the looks and features of the Sony HDR-SR11 camcorder. It's easily in my price range, and it would allow me to use the extra battery pack I purchased for the camcorder we will return. But I have really been looking hard at the reviews and features of the Canon camcorders mentioned in several previous posts in this thread. In fact as far as I can tell, I think the Canon cameras almost exceed the capabilities of the Sony I was looking at. But the more I learn, the more there is to learn. That's good though, and I certainly the reason I started the thread.

But let me now throw the question back to Peabody...why SD?

Thanks.

TB

kairosmatt wrote on 9/27/2008, 10:29 AM

For what its worth, on my system I have way more problems with HDV than AVCHD.

Also, I kinda hate tapes........but I know alot of people out there love them for convenient back up and storage.

kairosmatt

InterceptPoint wrote on 9/27/2008, 10:32 AM

I will vouch for Laurence's VRD-MC5 recommendation. I bought one based on his input and couldn't be happier. I use mine to back up the files from my CX-7 to standard DVDs which play back beautifully on my PS3.

And, just slightly off topic - but since Laurence brought up the subject of UpShift - I'm wondering if anyone would like to answer the following question:

Which is the better solution for editing AVCHD: Gearshift or Upshift?

I've been using Gearshfit and it works for me. But maybe Upshift would make for better workflow. Hoping somebody has tried both and can weigh in with an opinion.

teaktart wrote on 9/27/2008, 12:42 PM

Tapes are cheap, reliable, and the way to go if you are a traveler who doesn't want to have to bring along a laptop to offload your footage so you can keep shooting. (If your hard drive or memory stick gets full how would you keep recording?)

Size does matter...if you have a smaller camera you can take it more places with less hassle, and the Canon HV30 is top rated for these reasons. It shoots gorgous footage is small and sophisticated with lots of manual controls and will fit in a fanny pack.

Forget about the extra battery you bought, its minor in comparison to chosing a good camera for your purposes. I usually have 3-4 back up batteries for each cam so I can go a long time between charging, especially if travelling.

You've read enough about the problems folks have working with AVCHD footage...lousy preview frame rate is not fun to work with.

Capturing from a tape is pretty mindless as mentioned. Just go do something else while its capturing; and you can also print back to tape for both an archive of your edited video and if you want to connect directly to an HDTV you can see your HD footage in all its glory today while waiting for Blu-Ray burners/players to drop in price hopefully around Christmas shopping season...

Get Douglas Spotted Eagles book "The Full HD" if you want more info on HD cams and workflow.

Eileen

Dan Sherman wrote on 9/27/2008, 12:53 PM

I know there are a lot of people who are very much into HD on this forum.
I'm still making a good living in SD, shooting with my trusty DVX100a.
Though I'll have to make the change in the future I think its still a bit too early.
I don't have clients demanding HD, and until there are a lot more BlueRay players out there there won't be a great demand.
For my money I think a used Panasonic DVX100a or 100b would be a better choice for shooting fast action sports like volleyball.
That sort of camera will give you a lot more flexibility than a consumer level HD camera, and a great image, though not HD.
And you'll have none of the editing hassles HD editors are faced with.

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 2:27 PM

Wow Peabody...that's a mammoth of a camera! My wife would freak if I handed her that thing to go record with... But I bet it does give a great picture indeed. What kind of pricetag do you think a used one would sport? I see that they are around $2K or so new, as far as I can tell.

And for Teaktart--I hear you about AVCHD. The more I read, the more I wonder if that's a can of worms I really want to open! The other thing I was thinking (and I wonder what Peabody thinks of this as well) is that maybe a person could just buy a camcorder that does HD & SD as well, and just record in SD right now--until they figure out the whole AVCHD dilemma. Of course there is the HDV (and tape) issue, but I am really having trouble warming up to the idea of going back to tapes. Like it or not, it's old technology and it's slow to transfer. Of course there's always the option to maybe dual-record to tape and a card, and then transfer high-speed to the PC that way--but I am not sure that I have seen any miniDV cameras that offer a card as a feature too.

Oh, tapes really aren't that cheap by the way... Sorry, but I do not consider it inexpensive to spend $7-10 to record something and preserve it, when a $0.50 DVD will do just the same quite nicely. Of course you can transfer from tape and re-use it and I realize this--but then you really cannot use the "you'll always have a cheap back-up" argument any longer.

TB

dibbkd wrote on 9/27/2008, 4:20 PM

My Sony HDR-CX12 high-def camera can also record in SD. I tried it a few times to see how it was, and I'm sticking with HD.

The HD it records is MPG2 format, a little more friendlier to edit, but not that much really.

I'm on Vegas 7 Pro now, I'm thinking that Vegas 9 Pro will (should, hopefully) handle AVCHD much better, and I figure in 6 months or so I'll have a faster PC too.

Also, pretty much every consumer level HD camera that uses HDD or memory sticks uses the AVCHD format. So my thinking is that since everyone will be using it, the software makers will make it a format you can actually edit.

I could be wrong, but I'm happy with my HDR-CX12.

stopint wrote on 9/27/2008, 4:36 PM

the sony fx7 is going to be released soon at a lower price...you can shoot hd and downconvert to sd and always have a hd master...or you can also shoot in sd with the fx7...i would think the fx7 shoots sd just as good as a vx1000/2000...maybe not as nice as the vx2100...

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 4:55 PM

Oh look...Soniccameras.com has the VX2100 for only $999! Ya...like they'd actually send you the camera for that. And good luck getting a refund on your CC!

LOL.

TB

Serena wrote on 9/27/2008, 5:01 PM

TB, let's go back to your audio expertise. Many people think digital is digital is digital, so one one CD player is as good as any other, one sound card is the equal of any other, paying extra is a waste of money. That isn't so. Video is no different. HD is HD is HD is no more true and to a large extent you get what you pay for. Cameras vary in image processing algorithms, quality of sensors, number of sensors, type of sensors, quality of lenses, recording medium, facilities, and so on. You seem to say that HDV means tape, which isn't correct. HDV employs an MPEG-2 codec (25Mb/s), whereas AVCHD is MPEG-4 which requires more processing power. AVCHD cameras that record at 24Mb/s can, in theory, deliver better quality than HDV. "The implementation of H.264/AVC codec varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. In particular, Canon camcorders use High-Profile@Level-4.1, achieving 24 Mbit/s data rate. Known implementations of AVCHD in Sony camcorders are restricted to Main-Profile@Level-4.0, at a maximum data rate of 17 Mbit/s. Consequently, a video recorded on one vendor's camcorder may not necessary be playable on another vendor's hardware. Same is true in regards to editing systems. Some editing tools may accept video from one brand but not from another. As time goes by and the standard matures, the compatibility improves." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHDWIKI[/link]
There are many of us here using tapeless workflows, but not with $1000 cameras. The difficulty in advising you is that your stated requirement (shooting volley ball with a fixed camera) is rather simple and one might be tempted to suggest a surveillance camera for cheapness. Buying only the capacity you think is adequate for your needs because you are unfamiliar with a field is a sure way to rapid dissatisfaction, just as people buying cheap HiFi systems soon find them less than stellar (unless they're deaf).
If you want the real HD (1920x1080P), which is recorded at a minimum of 35Mb/s, you won't get it at your nominated price level.

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 6:01 PM

Well Serena, I guess I understand what you are saying about differences between the different versions of AVC codecs (from different manufacturers). I am not quite sure yet how that helps me, not having tried to edit AVCHD footage from any manufacturer's cameras. But one would think that, at least in theory anyway, Sony's AVC specifications should be more "compatible" (for lack of a better word) with Sony's software...no?

Maybe this is an oversimplistic view of the problem, but in spending about 8 hours today researching the forum archives, and multitudes of HD camcorders (AVCHD and HDV), there seem to be quite a few people reporting success editing AVCHD footage from Sony HDR-SR11/HDR-SR12 cameras with Sony Vegas Pro. So take it for what it's worth. Now there were several people complaining of difficulties editing AVCHD footage, but didn't give their camera types--and I didn't check their profiles. So my observation may not be entirely accurate. But nonetheless, there were several folks with SR11/SR12 Sony cameras having success editing in Vegas.

Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia page on AVCHD--I had actually read that page earlier today. I never thought I could pack so much information into my brain in an 8-hour period; at least about video cameras.

I will say in closing that while we are only recording volleyball at this time, I tried to indicate that this is only the tip of the iceberg--and that I would like to get into some other projects in the future. So I suppose it would be nice to get a camcorder that I could grow into a bit. That being said, the DCR-SR45 unit we have is inexpensive enough to keep as a second unit while I continue to learn about what the "most desired features" are in an HD camera. But having said that, I'd say that from what I have seen today, I really like the SR11 Sony.

But I appreciate your post, and didn't mean to imply otherwise in my previous response.

TB

Bluespoet wrote on 9/27/2008, 6:59 PM

I am going to join the chorus recommending the Canon HV30.
Without going into the many technical reasons that you will have a simpler time capturing video and editing it by doing so. I do think that things will be better for the tapeless camcorders by next year and if this was a year from now, I likely would recommend tapeless in the future. There is another advantage in that the tape is a good storage back up in case you ever need to capture again (such as a failed hard drive).
I would shoot the Canon HV30 at 60i setting which is likely the default setting on the camcorder and visit www.hv20.com if you have issues with the camcorder or if you simple wish to use it better.
If you can budget for a tripod and Wide angle adapter so much the better.
Do pick up some basic video camcorder operation videos, because people make the same mistake over and over, overuse of zoom, shakey hand held camera shots, centering the subject in the center instead of using the rule of thirds. All these things easily learned, but will help make better video in all circumstances.
Good luck with your choice, chosing the Canon HV30 is an exceptionally good choice.

Serena wrote on 9/27/2008, 7:48 PM

TB, indeed my presumption was that you wanted to do rather more than shoot volley ball, which is the reason I tried to emphasise end requirements over particular cameras or systems. I will say that the Canon HV30 is well regarded by professionals as a B camera, which supports the recommendations of other posters; it does have limitations in manual control. As I read your original post I suspect you will be getting into video reasonably seriously (as a hobby) as you have done in audio. Obviously you can upgrade your camera as your needs develop, but I have never regretted purchasing more capability than I thought necessary (at the time) but have regretted underestimating my needs. I've taken no interest in AVCHD (so thanks for getting me to look up the spec) and find it interesting to see the difference between Sony and Canon implementations -- looks like a real winner for Canon. But then I do place emphasis on image quality (as also in audio).
Lastly, consumer cameras are generally intended for automatic control and provide very limited facilities for manual over-ride. In your research through various forums you'll have noted that manual control and professional quality go hand in hand. You'll also have noted that in the transition to HD that people were surprised by the new need to focus accurately, and that not all (if any) auto-focus systems do the job reliably. There is a lot more involved than just the ease of editing, and even there the codec is important. Don't dismiss the difference between Sony 17 Mb/s and Canon's 24Mb/s.
Anyway, have fun in the acquisition and in using it.

tcbetka wrote on 9/27/2008, 9:27 PM

Actually, I have changed my impression of Canon's line today. Before today I didn't think much of them, simply because I never really spent the time checking them out. But today I have done pretty much nothing besides checking out video cams--and camcorderinfo.com is a great place...

Surprisingly though, the Sony SR12 didn't do half bad in their reviews--but it's pretty hard to argue with the fact that the top 6 camcorders on their "top camcorder" list are Canon. And of course the HV-30 is rated number 1. I am also looking hard at their HG-20 camcorder, although I sure wish they hadn't left out the viewfinder that the HG-10 has: I even like the HG-10 too, and it's rated ~11 points above the Sony SR12. Of course it's AVCHD, so there's that issue. But the HG-10 is using CCDs vs, the CMOS of the HG-20. Boy...lots to consider.

So at the end of the day it seems to be coming down to a Canon HG-20 vs. the Sony SR11 cameras. I know many will roll their eyes at me, but my reasoning for AVCHD is that editing HAS to get better--there has simply been too much invested into the technology for it to be abandoned (ie; short-lived). So if nothing else, I record to standard definition format--or AVCHD and downcode to standard to edit in Vegas. I have also read about some folks transcoding AVCHD to make it easier to edit footage, but I have not actually read about it myself, so that's one of the projects for tomorrow.

But tonight my eyes are buggy from reading about all this stuff, so it's time to hang it up. Thanks again for the posts...

TB

teaktart wrote on 9/27/2008, 10:58 PM

TB:

Check out this product from VASST that works with AVCHD files

http://www.vasst.com/product.aspx?id=bf3e2d5a-7c2e-4969-a8dd-7cee2cefba30

Then be sure to let us all know if you had 'camera' dreams and which one appeared....!

Eileen

tcbetka wrote on 9/28/2008, 6:54 AM

Ah...that's the ticket! I presume that it works well, otherwise you folks wouldn't be showing the link. It seems that $50 is a small price to pay for some sanity!

Boy, I can't tell you guys how much your information has helped me--I have gotten a crash "intro to HD cameras and codecs 101" course in the last 24 hours. I really appreciate all the information. But I have decided to go with an AVCHD camera, for a couple reasons. First I think that it *is* the wave of the future, at least that's the way it seems from looking at the major manufacturers' websites; there just seems to have been too much money invested in the technology to abandon it anytime soon. Thus I feel that the capability of NLEs to edit the MPEG-4 footage will only get better--it simply has to. If the camcorder manufacturers are sticking to that format, then the software companies are going to have to get their applications to work more effectively...or risk losing customers!

The second reason is that I want a camera that is tapeless. No disrespect to anyone using miniDV tapes, but they simply take too long to transfer to the PC IMO. For example, some of these volleyball tournaments might last 8-10 hours, and involve a team playing over half of that (if they do well and enter the 'medal round'). I simply do not want to spend 4-6 hours capturing video when I could spend an hour transferring it all to the PC via USB and organizing it according to the specific participants involved. Call me crazy, or whatever...but I feel tapeless media is again the wave of the future, and with memory sticks for backup the concerns of potential HDD instability will be minimized.

But again--you folks have really gotten me thinking about Canon's line of camcorders...they look fantastic. I could certainly use our wide-angle lens on their products, and then just sell the extra Sony battery pack on ebay. Nothing lost, really. So today I will spend time really digging into the Canon reviews on the camcorderinfo.com site, to look at the HG-10/20/21 units.

So thanks again everyone...great stuff by all!

TB

EDIT: Oh, I will indeed advise as to the final choice of camcorder, once it's been made.

farss wrote on 9/28/2008, 7:21 AM

If AVCHD succeeds or fails in the marketplace it'll have nothing to do with the ease of editing it as 98% of the target market don't edit what they shoot or do minimal editing. Sony makes a DVD burner for their AVCHD palmcorders. Drop dead simple to use. Pull memory stick from camera, plug into burner, drop blank DVD into burner and burn clips to DVD.
Take DVD out and play in PS3 / BD player. That's all Joe Average wants and it's about the first thing since we went all digital that replaces what consummers had with VHS-C camcorders.

The other thing I'd add is don't put too much faith in the typical reviews you read. They're mostly written by people who are good at writing, they pretty much don't tell you anything you can't workout from the manufacturers specs and a brief hands on with the camera yourself. Some reviewers are far from exactly independant / unbiased either.

Bob.