Hello -

While I am far from expert, I've tried quite a few of these types of cameras, so some thoughts for you off the top of my head:

- It would seem that a full DSLR would be out of the question due to the skiing/boat thing. If not, I have a Canon t2i that is my first DSLR and the picture taking is great, but you have to be patient with it for the movies due to autofocus not being the same as with vidcams/point and shoots.
- I have had great fun with my Panasonic DMC-ZS3. The video is 720p, but results are quite good for such a small camera, and the pictures are quite good too. Video files quite editable on a semi-powerful PC with Vegas. This type of camera will be much smaller than the two you mentioned, and I think the tradeoff in size is well, well worth it. My camera is a generation or so behind, so that category has real nice entries from Sony and Samsung as well that might be worth a look.

For camera reviews, I've found dpreview to be great. And if you go to Vimeo you can search just about any camera name and find a lot of video samples to check out.

Those are a number of cameras which I didn't know about. Will research them now.

Thanks!

If you want to shoot true HD (1920x1080) I'd get a Panasonic GH1. It creates AVCHD output with the .mts file extension that can be input to Vegas directly.

The difference between 720 (DVD quality) and 1080 is almost as noticeable as the difference between HD and regular TV.

Keep in mind that the AVCHD format was developed by Sony & Panasonic - it's essentially the same as Blu-Ray format. So if you want real HD always check for AVCHD output.

The GH1 is by all indications a very good camera. Lots of nice samples of it out on Vimeo and elsewhere.

Couple quick things though...
DVD is 720x480, or "standard definition"... to put it in hi-def parlance, it is "480i"

720p is 1280x720 and it is high def... "full high def" in marketing speak is 1920x1080

AVCHD is indeed used on BluRay, but nothing says that other formats used on other cameras are not "real HD"... HD is defined by the number of pixels, not by the file format. Vegas will allow you to convert lots of formats to BluRay if that is your ultimate goal.

More important to quality than pixel count are things that Eugenia points out, like bit rate, etc. There are many cameras that are "Full HD" where the quality of image is lower due to optics, bit rate, etc. than what is possible with 720p cameras or even "standard def" cameras.

As many will tell you, the big drawback to AVCHD is that it can be tough to edit given that it takes a highly powered PC to edit. 1080p AVCHD can be tough to edit even on a very powerful PC.

Cost is an issue, it's for amateur work, and the use on ski slopes and boats - DSLR is a wrong choice.

If you are looking for HIGH END point and shoot with 40% use a regular camera (i.e. not video) then stay away from Canon. While video of Canon P&S is very good (as Eugenia said) their photos are not anywhere near high end. The only exception may be S95 for $400, but their video is only 720p 24fps video.

The same class as S95 are Panasonic LX3 (720p, 24fps, $367 on Amazon) and Panasonic LX5 (720p, 30fps, $500).

Here is one more camera for you to look at: Samsung TL350, 1080p, 30fps. This camera got exceptionally good reviews. It has all possible manual controls you can think of. In terms of image quality some say it beats even LX3. And just like what happened with LX3, the price of TL350 is going up: at first it was at $260, then $300, and now almost everybody sells it for $350 and even $400 (I guess you might still be able to find $300 price).

The Canon 7d is what many, many indie/low budget/not budget filmmakers are using. The results are amazing.

The other suggestions here are worth checking out. I'd think that the lower end of the range (the Samsung) have fewer features than the higher priced models.

>While video of Canon P&S is very good, their photos are not anywhere near high end.

I find pic quality to be acceptable on Canons. I guess it depends if the user wants mostly good video, or mostly good stills.

>Samsung TL350, 1080p, 30fps.

If this camera has no exposure compensation and locking control, then no one should buy it for video. Any filmmaker respecting him/herself, must have some kind of control over their video. And from what I know, Samsungs don't offer much.

>The Canon 7d is what many, many indie/low budget/not budget filmmakers are using.

There is no reason for the 7D. In terms of video, the half-the-price T2i/550D has exactly the same results. People use mostly the 7D though because it came out first in the market, and people rushed into it. But in terms of video, offers nothing more.

> I find pic quality to be acceptable on Canons.

Many people do not. Too many.

> >Samsung TL350, 1080p, 30fps.

> If this camera has no exposure compensation and locking control, then no one should buy it for video.

Agree, for video (and for video ONLY) you better off with $160 red-colored SD780.

But for someone who shoots amatuer videos on ski slopes, and who concerned about the quality of photos (to be as close as possible to DSLR) and the price (ideally to be in $300 range), and who prefers 1080p over 720p - Samsung wins hands down.

Apparently the exposure compensation and locking control are much less important for most consumers, otherwise the price of Samsung TL350 would have gone down like the price of any Canon camera..

> ...and who concerned about the quality of photos... [...] Apparently the exposure
>compensation and locking control are much less important for most consumer.

Here's the thing though. How are these people are using their pictures? Because I've seen prints from a 2 MP camera from 2001 to still print good pictures. And if they don't print, and only FlickR them, then a resized version of the pictures is what will be mostly viewed -- and when resized you can't tell apart most of the quality differences between different cameras.

However, when you shoot a bad video, you WILL be seeing the problems much easier on your screen/TV, because the resolution of the video will be the resolution of your screen. Running it at 1:1 size will reveal artifacts, while most people will never view a 12 MP picture at 1:1 size. Not often at least.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in most cases, people are gunning for the wrong thing. Any pic over 5 MP is good enough. Even iPhone pics are good enough, and FlickR samples has proved that. But if your 720p video is not good, it will show a lot more than a pic will.

Then again, it depends if you want to shoot random travel/family stuff, or you want to do some art. If you want to do random stuff, an iPhone 4 is more than enough for both pic/video (in case you want to upgrade your phone too, that is -- or get a cheap Kodak cam). If you want to do art though, get an SD780 IS (as it's the cheapest of the cams that's acceptable for art).

> Here's the thing though. How are these people are using their pictures? Because I've seen prints from a 2 MP camera from 2001 to still print good pictures. And if they don't print, and only FlickR them, then a resized version of the pictures is what will be mostly viewed -- and when resized you can't tell apart most of the quality differences between different cameras.

This is like questioning where "these people" who buy the most advanced HD camera would use their footage? The answer is "obvious": on YouTube in the lowest resolution of course! Where else??

> Basically, what I'm saying is that in most cases, people are gunning for the wrong thing.

A VERY interesting generalization. Indeed.

> Any pic over 5 MP is good enough. Even iPhone pics are good enough, and FlickR samples has proved that.

If someone is looking for DSLR level of quality of photos, or something close to it, it makes little sense to assume he/she is after something that is "good enough", or something to be resized and uploaded to FlickR.

> Then again, it depends if you want to shoot random travel/family stuff, or you want to do some art. If you want to do random stuff, an iPhone 4 is more than enough for both pic/video (in case you want to upgrade your phone too, that is -- or get a cheap Kodak cam). If you want to do art though, get an SD780 IS (as it's the cheapest of the cams that's acceptable for art).

Wow! iPhone 4 is your recommendation for an amateur who is not after art, but after so-called "travel/family random stuff" at DSLR-level of quality. Or a cheap Kodak...

I was not talking about dSLRs in that post, because the first poster said he would prefer to not spend more than $300, which is not enough for a dSLR+lenses that also does video. Even at $600 is tight for such a dSLR. The money is simply not enough! Therefore, my replies switched gears from dSLRs to digicams.

>The answer is "obvious": on YouTube in the lowest resolution of course! Where else??

Vimeo. The reason I don't use Youtube for my main videos (I only use it for tests and proofs of concept samples), is because Vimeo offers the ORIGINAL file for downloading. When I upload my videos to Vimeo, I export in very high bitrate, so people who download them can re-use them and remix them, as within the spirit of Creative Commons (all my non-professional music-video work is licensed under Creative Commons). Or, watch them in good quality on their PC/TVs (I make sure my videos are XBoX360/PS3 compatible).

>Wow! iPhone 4 is your recommendation for an amateur who is not after art, but after so-called "travel/family random stuff" at DSLR-level of quality. Or a cheap Kodak...

Again, I was not talking about dSLRs, because as I explained above, the guy doesn't seem to have the money for it. But yes, I stand by my opinions. If you know how to shoot PROPERLY, even an iPhone is good enough. It's the filmmaker who creates the magic, not the machine. That's the reason why the Canon 7D and even the T2i is beating the heck out of RED now in terms of music video production. The RED has had a few movies shot with it, but its main forte was music videos. Since Canon offered 24p in the 7D last year, and later in the 5D/T2i, the vast majority of filmmakers are using these cams now. Even if these cams have 1/5 the RED resolution (Canon dSLR footage is not even real 1080p, it's about 960p before up-resized internally), and with high compression compared to the R3D format. And yet, Canon beats the pants out of RED in number of pro usages. Why? Because "they're good enough for the price". They are not the best by a long shot, and they know it. But they're good enough.

This "good enough" is what drives ALL the consumer economy today. Operating systems, smart phones, even TVs and microwaves are sold with bugs in them. Both hardware and software bugs. And yet, they sell like hotcakes. Why? Because they're "good enough for the price".

This was shot with an iPhone 4 btw: http://vimeo.com/12985622 Great proof how the magic is in the filmmaker and the editing, not in the camera. This is why I bought the SD780 IS this week. A $159 HD digicam. Because it offers the basic controls needed (color control, exposure compensation, exposure locking, high bitrate) to offer good-enough results. One of the reasons I bought it was so I could prove exactly that: To create magic, you don't need lots of money. You just need inspiration and ideas. That's my philosophy.

You want more examples? Look at Fade, a photographer who's using her 3.0 MP HV20 camcorder, because she can't afford a separate digicam too. http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2009/07/25/meet-fade-the-best-hv20-photographer/ Just 3.0 MP, and look what she has created! A window into her soul.

So, I'm sorry, but I have to laugh under my fem-mustachio when people are buying super-expensive cameras to shoot their cats and dogs, when a $160 cam will do beautifully what they need to do. This is consumerism at its worse. We just want better, want bigger, want faster. Instead, we should hold on our horses and just find the product that matches our budget, putting into account the videos we would be shooting with it, and it really doesn't hold us back from what we need to do. So unless the first poster wants to take pictures into very dark places, or needs big zoom range, the SD780 IS is a great buy.

Soon, I'm shooting an official music video for a band, with my Canon SX200 IS ($300). Please note that I have a 5D Mark II (which I bought second hand, at much lower than its $3000 retail price -- otherwise I wouldn't have bought it). And yet, the SX200 IS will do just fine. Best tool for the job (especially since we will be shooting in a crowded place).