Unfortunatly, I haven't used any of the products in question yet.

My advice would be to check out online reviews of each one. Then, armed with this information, ask the dealer if you can try it out in shop. Check out the features for yourself. Any dealer worth his salt will let you "roadtest" the kit, considering the cost.

www.xinfinitymedia.com

Well then, for anyone who HAS used or had experience with one or more of these cameras.

Another question:

How would you guys rank them in terms of low light performance- best to worst.
I'm mainly concerned about this as I will be shooting mainly indoors, where lighting may be poor/unpredictable.

"Video's a poor excuse, I know. But it helps me remember... and I need to remember... Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it, like my heart's going to cave in. "

I've used all but the FX1. Each one is fine. That doesn't help, does it?

I don't like the Canon. Other than the smaller GL2, I don't like any of their miniDV cameras so my opinion is biased. The Panasonic is a terrific camera. In my opinion, based on my needs, an interchangeable lens is very important in a camera in that price range so the Canon is a better choice. Then there's the JVC HD100U: a great camera without a fixed lens. Out of all of them, the one you don't mention is the one I recommend.

But then, I have never used any of them with poor/unpredictable lighting. Frankly DV looks like video without good lighting no matter how expensive the camera or all the additions like "frame mode" and 24p. If you don't light well, the image isn't going to look good.

Not much help, I know, but cameras are like most other products for cars to beer to soda to dish soap: Canon owners love Canon, Sony owners love Sony, Panasonic owners love Panasonic and JVC owners love JVC. I have used and owned JVC professional miniDV cameras since 1999. They meet my needs better than the others.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Personally, I'd go with the Canon XL2. While the XL2 has the 2nd best pixel count (550,000), it's interchangeable lens and XLR inputs, make up for a few things. Plus it shoots in real 24P, which makes it a true high def camera. It costs a little more than the rest, but in my opinion, it's worth it.

Here's my opinion on the other cameras:

Sony FX1 -- this would be my third choice. The FX1 is a consumer version of the Z1P, so one of it's drawbacks is that it doesn't have XLR inputs, which is something you should think about. At 1,070,000 effective pixels, it has the highest pixel count, but personally I don't like the FX1 as it doesn't shoot in real high def, only interlace.

The Panasonic DVX100 -- this would be my 2nd choice. This camera is pretty even neck and neck with the XL2 in terms of features, it also has XLR inputs, but it has a lower pixel count (470,000 effective pixels), fixed lens and inability to shoot in true widescreen make it my second choice.

Sony VX2100 -- my last choice. This camera has the lowest pixel count (400,000 effective pixels), doesn't have true widescreen and has no XLR inputs.

quote:

---

personally I don't like the FX1 as it doesn't shoot in real high def, only interlace.

---

1440x1080 interlaced is about as 'high def' as you can get.

Personally I'd go for either the FX1 or DVX100.