Why is this camera so much cheaper then the 310 HD
1272949
I guess it is just a sale. I started my shopping process at Best Buy and noticed that the other cameras with the wifi feature were 160+ and I didn't really need that (I can deal with putting the little card in my laptop). I was all set to buy another camera but they couldn't find it in the store and getting one from a store that had several in stock was a major ordeal that was going to take an hour. I gave up and left. If they don't want to sell me a camera, too bad for them. I looked on Amazon and saw this and saw the great price (only $15 more than the more basic one I was going to buy) and snapped it up. I also got the leather case as an add on. It protects the camera well.
1272950
I guess it is just a sale. I started my shopping process at Best Buy and noticed that the other cameras with the wifi feature were 160+ and I didn't really need that (I can deal with putting the little card in my laptop). I was all set to buy another camera but they couldn't find it in the store and getting one from a store that had several in stock was a major ordeal that was going to take an hour. I gave up and left. If they don't want to sell me a camera, too bad for them. I looked on Amazon and saw this and saw the great price (only $15 more than the more basic one I was going to buy) and snapped it up. I also got the leather case as an add on. It protects the camera well. I guess it is just a sale. I started my shopping process at Best Buy and noticed that the other cameras with the wifi feature were 160+ and I didn't really need that (I can deal with putting the little card in my laptop). I was all set to buy another camera but they couldn't find it in the store and getting one from a store that had several in stock was a major ordeal that was going to take an hour. I gave up and left. If they don't want to sell me a camera, too bad for them. I looked on Amazon and saw this and saw the great price (only $15 more than the more basic one I was going to buy)... » Read More I guess it is just a sale. I started my shopping process at Best Buy and noticed that the other cameras with the wifi feature were 160+ and I didn't really need that (I can deal with putting the little card in my laptop). I was all set to buy another camera but they couldn't find it in the store and getting one from a store that had several in stock was a major ordeal that was going to take an hour. I gave up and left. If they don't want to sell me a camera, too bad for them. I looked on Amazon and saw this and saw the great price (only $15 more than the more basic one I was going to buy) and snapped it up. I also got the leather case as an add on. It protects the camera well. « Show Less
903011
As of today, it actually costs a dollar less than $600 ;-) The bad reviews should maybe be reviewed too: Choppy videos are a consequence of HD shooting, not of the HF200, the software is poor but maybe that's because there is no need for any of it, hard disk or tape-based camcorders are totally obsolete nowadays, and too noisy anyway. The smaller sensor size compared to the much more expensive HF100 may or may not impact low light shooting (an objective comparison would be welcome), but there are also negative reviews about the HF100 low light quality. It might be a trade-off for the better optical and digital zoom. As for the review about non true progressive format, unless I misunderstand (I am no expert), this 60i format is just the internal format of the recording, and does not affect the capture or playback, which is 30p or 24p, depending on your set up. AVCHD seems to be supported throughout the whole editing/playback channel now, so the support issues encountered by the early AVCHD adopters are hopefully obsolete. We should look at the good points too, such as the movie mode (24p fps and movie color tone) which is rarely seen on consumer products at that price.
1470204
Probably because at the time it came onto the market it was priced competitively as other Manufacturers were also putting out updated systems of their cameras. I am happy about it's price as I consider having gotten 'a pearl for the price of silver'.
2075390
@ Ronnie Dale Frost: What do I think? I've already pre-ordered one! Yes, $5,200 is a bit steep, but I will sell my current D3 body (mint condition, should fetch $3,200 - $3,700) and use those proceeds to offset the purchase price. I want and need the extra 1-2 stops this new extended ISO range will provide. Regarding the 720P-only video, while the omission of 1080P seems both inexplicable and ridiculously short-sighted (given what is readily available elsewhere, and for far less money), it's not a dealbreaker for me--and that comment is all the more interesting when you factor in that I am an independent filmmaker. Nope, for filmmaking, I want a REAL video camera/camcorder, designed for filmmaking from top to bottom. The Canon 5D Mark II, for example--and despite that whole very impressive Laforet short--is NOT a camera I would even consider using for indie filmmaking.
1998389
Jim, just a suggestion, a 3100 is definitely not the right upgrade path. the D80 has way more manual controls than either a 3000 or 5000 series camera. Of the newer cameras the 7000 is the only one with more manual controls than a D80. I would suggest your daughter takes some classes and learns more about her camera. A D90 also has better controls than a D80, I have one and love it, but it is being phased out at this point and replaced with the D7000
393230
One big difference is the D3000 doesn't shoot video. Is it worth paying $150 more to be able to shoot video? Only you can answer that. Also, look at the megapixels. The D3000 is 10.2 megapixels, whereas the D3100 is 14.2. Do you plan to print posters from your shots? If all you're ever going to need is 4x6s and maybe the occasional 8.5x11 then you'll never miss the extra pixels. In fact, unless you tell it to shoot smaller pictures, you'll actually eat up space on your memory card faster with the D3100. If you aren't advanced enough to know about the other differences between the two, I'd save money and go with the D3000. If you really want to be able to shoot video with your camera, then the D3100 is a no-brainer.
2219407
The more expensive one is from Amazon and the cheaper one is from another vendor selling through amazon. The cheaper one also comes with a flex strap for attaching the camera to certain things. They are both the same it just looks like the amazon price went back up after blackfriday and this other vendor kept it the same.
1531926
I received mine over the weekend from Amazon, but have done similar research as you did for over a week. I've noticed the same thing as you do on the price increase. IMO I chaulk it up to supply and demand. I shopped around and found the prices to be generally very close amongst online stores, and no more $435's available except at one reputable NY store selling it at $439 just the other day, and is back-ordered. The thing is that with Amazon there aren't even other vendors selling this camera at any price, so it's completely up to Amazon to charge what it thinks is appropriate. Even the used prices (which are mostly by Amazon in this case) have risen by a large margin. However, the camera is fantastic! So it's still a value proposition in my case. Since I sold my M43 gear, this $500 price tag is downright low. Look at it another way, there are no M43 or DSLRs (bodies only) that shoot at 5.5 FPS with autofocus or 12 without that come in at less than a grand. The lens range and aperture are in the same situation, there is nothing in the inter-changeable lens world that come close without costing multiples of this FZ150. Seriously, an Olympus 28-200'ish mm equivalent M43 lens runs at $450; a Nikon 18-200 VR for APS-C sensor is at approx $900; a Nikon 28-300 VR for full frame is about $1k (while non of these open to f 2.8). True, those cameras have larger sensors and the lenses are quality stuff and can do different things (we're not totally comparing apples to apples here), but if this camera is right for you for what you do as it does in my case for what I intend it to do, which is for travel (light) and take photos of my son at baseball games, the price is a steal. Frankly this camera out guns my DSLR by a large margin and does 1080P video with fast accurate auto focus at 60p :) I cannot do manual video focus of sports - at any price! On the other hand, other options may be to wait and see, or buy used. I checked out eBay, no luck there (but Amazon pricing staff already know that).
45606
the 200 has a way better cmos ccd, therefore way better video. go compare them at the store. the 2 lcds next to each other are like night and day.
1700502
I have a good copy of the Canon 330 and wrote a good review of it - and I still like it. - BUT - I bought it on sale on Amazon. Gradually the price has crepted up to almost double what I paid. At the current price point, I might try the Canon 340, the Casio ZR700, or the Panasonic ZS25 or ZS20. I think this camera is now on premium pricing. I would not pay more than $200 or, preferably $175 for it - especially with its continuing battery issues. You can do better.
2090474
I purchased both these cameras at the same time, the sony at my local best buy and a panasonic on amazon. They are pretty close to the same, the sony has a little more true color indoors but the panasonic has more vibrant colors outdoor. The sony looks a little more washed out outside. I was impressed with both cameras low light recording. The image stabilizer worked a little better on the sony I thought, the problem I have with the panasonic is that it almost tries to overcorrect the shake. It seemed any time I used the touch screen while recording (ie...zooming) I notice a slight jump in the picture. I think with a little practice I can eliminate this by how hard I tap the screen, but it's touchy. I didn't seem to have that problem with the sony. The panasonic gets a little warm in your hand, but considering I use it in a hockey arena it doubles as a hand warmer! The panasonic comes with a video light and a hotshoe and u have more manual settings. The software that comes with both is crap, plan on buying third party editing software no matter wich way u go. Is the difference worth the $70 more I paid for the sony? probably not, I can buy an extra battery and SD card for the pan. If you could find them for about the same price though, I would go for the sony.
1635760
It seems illogical I know, but I have seen this in camera pricing here many times before: when a new model comes out, the older model often INCREASES in price even if the new model is improved. My guess is that there's some policy of increasing price when existing stock run low, which will naturally occur when an old model is discontinued. Doesn't make a lot of sense in a case like this but I can't think of any other reason for it. As for which you should buy, the newer S8200 has a wider zoom ratio than the S8100 (25-300mm equiv. instead of 30-300mm), which may or may not be good news. The wider angle at the short end is certainly useful, but stretching the zoom ratio of a particular lens design sometimes results in some deterioration of performance. Not having the S8200 I don't know if that's true in this case. I have the S8100 and it is super sharp over the entire zoom range -- I think a bit sharper than my S9100, which has a 25-450mm (equiv.) lens. Also, the S8200 has a 16-megapixel sensor as opposed to the 12-megapixel sensor of the S8100 and S9100. That will be seen as an "improvement" by people who attach great importance to megapixel count; personally I do not see it that way and am really annoyed by this silly megapixel race, which I thought was over with. (Nikon and Canon have both LOWERED the megapixel count of some of their high-end compact cameras, with resulting improvement in picture quality.) I dislike the trend to pixel cramming in sensors really too small to make proper use of such megapixel count. In DSLRs it's different -- their much larger sensors can really use all those pixels -- but these tiny-sensor cameras cannot. It's mostly if not entirely marketing -- camera makers know most consumers will think the more megapixels the better the sharpness, so this supposed "improvement" will sell more cameras. So personally I prefer the older S8100, but again, that is not based on any personal experience with the newer model.
31109
At this point, I'd say the 30D really doesn't have a lot of discernable advantages over the prosumer XTI model, besides availability. Historically, the higher end cameras have had sturdier chassis (which I would assume is still the case) as well as more configurable features and functions. Oh and resolution. Duh. Now that the XTI has been significantly improved, it seems only logical that the 30D is next in line for upgrades, probably before the actual release of the XTI. Or maybe the 30D will be killed entirely. I'm waiting for the XTI.
1375923
Good eye, sir. I do see where you are correct on Canon's website. I missed that detail in the comparison. Normally I'd say I wouldn't notice the difference in quality, but given I'll be putting this on my 56 inch HDTV, I bet it will be noticeable. The HF100 does feel cheaper. The extra bulk from the HDD makes the unit more managable. That plus the menu makes it less appealing.I would say the extra $65-70 is justifiable given the 60gb of included space, especially considering if you can get your hands on a 32gb SD card you'll be paying well over $100. Maybe in a year it will be <$100, but by then these camcorders will be cheaper anyway. I've made up my mind on the HG20! Good eye, sir. I do see where you are correct on Canon's website. I missed that detail in the comparison. Normally I'd say I wouldn't notice the difference in quality, but given I'll be putting this on my 56 inch HDTV, I bet it will be noticeable. The HF100 does feel cheaper. The extra bulk from the HDD makes the unit more managable. That plus the menu makes it less appealing.I would say the extra $65-70 is justifiable given the 60gb of included space, especially considering if you can get your hands on a 32gb SD card you'll be paying well over $100. Maybe in a year... » Read More Good eye, sir. I do see where you are correct on Canon's website. I missed that detail in the comparison. Normally I'd say I wouldn't notice the difference in quality, but given I'll be putting this on my 56 inch HDTV, I bet it will be noticeable. The HF100 does feel cheaper. The extra bulk from the HDD makes the unit more managable. That plus the menu makes it less appealing.I would say the extra $65-70 is justifiable given the 60gb of included space, especially considering if you can get your hands on a 32gb SD card you'll be paying well over $100. Maybe in a year it will be <$100, but by then these camcorders will be cheaper anyway. I've made up my mind on the HG20! « Show Less
725248
Funny, I was just looking at the two cameras myself and ended up purchasing the SD880IS. The SD880IS is slimmer (0.9 vs. 1.1) and has a bigger LCD screen (3.0 vs. 2.5). Granted, the SD880IS gives up a little in terms of optical zoom (4.0 vs 5.0) but that's the price you pay for having a slim compact camera. I wanted something above the run of the mill 3x optical zoom cameras out there and the 4x SD880IS fits the bill, even if I had to pay $50 extra over the price of the SD890IS. And FYI, the SD880IS is a newer camera, hence the "better" DIGIC 4 Image Processor over the SD890IS's DIGIC III Image Processor.
57481
It was quite expensive. Anyone looking at it was probably also looking at the LX3 which has become the reference camera. Now, it can be had for $200 and is a good deal. Same sensor as FX35.
2212641
Ended up buying canon T1i instead of T3... will be in my hands next week. Bought it from Walmart for 629. Amazon price was 709 for the same camera. Letting you guys know if anyone is interested in buying Canon T1i. it is a 15MP camera with 720p video at 30fps and 1080p with 20fps. I really don't care for video part but it was really good deal compared to what best buy or amazon was asking for same camera.