That's it, i give up! For gods sake help me please!!

[Postmaster]

The best thing You can do with 600 bucks is rent a FS100 and some good glass for the job.

Frank

[brunerww]

The best thing You can do with 600 bucks is rent a FS100 and some good glass for the job.

Frank

Pretty sure it's a birthday trip and not a job, Frank

...I'm heading over to Iceland for 2 weeks in November for my 30th...

And it was 600 quid, not 600 bucks

...I know Im asking a lot especially for under 600 quid...

Cheers,

Bill

[Postmaster]

And it was 600 quid, not 600 bucks

l

So there is even more room to play with

[Prendi]

£600 isn't a lot I have to say, you might have to exceed that a little. However, it sounds like you haven't shot much before? If that's case, I really don't see that you'll be more comfortable with one more than the other. If you're really learning from scratch, then I'd say jump in with a dslr and get used to lenses. Fixed lenses are becoming a thing of the past. Currently the GH2 gives the best bang for your buck. But it really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Can you find an example of some images that you're looking to achieve? Because if you're trying to get shallow depth of field, then a camcorder with a fixed lens won't do it. If you're trying to get some beautiful timelapses of the northern lights, then maybe you need something that's performing better in the stills area, like the Canon's.

Last year I got stuck without a camera and just had a GH2 and some Canon FD lenses (cheap as chips). The project came out pretty good considering the set up. The FD lenses are all different and therefore give their own funky looks. If you do get the GH2, forget hacking it for the first project. The hack really only effects the colour grading.

Hope this helps a little

[LanceOregon]

I had pretty much settled on a Panasonic v700 until I went into the store today and was told that the performance of the g3 and especially the gh2 dslrs would hugely out perform the dedicated consumer camcorders. I have since done some research that suggests that this is true but that filming on a dslr has downsides and be very tricky. So I really just don't know what to do!

It sounds like a salesman was trying to upgrade you to a more expensive option.

To summarise my needs I reaquire a device that is:
-reasonably easy to use (although I dont mind spending some serious time with the camera to know how to get the best out of it)
-films beautiful crisp hd footage in low light conditions, I may be filming from in or on vehicles, filming waterfalls from a distance, fast moving objects, close up volcanic activity etc both during daylight hours and when the sun is on its way up or down
-something that performs at least respecably should I be in lava caves or should I want to capture some northern lights footage at night time.

All of your requirements point to getting a camcorder, and not a DSLR.

The advice you got from BrunerWW is pretty much spot on. I would also recommend that you consider the HC X800 camcorder. It can record in 1080/50p, making it much better for recording sports. It's image stabilization is far superior, which would make recording from an auto come out much better as well. And its zoom lens would do much better in recording distant objects as well. And you will find it most definitely easier to use and get up to speed with quickly. So for your needs, a camcorder is really the appropriate solution.

I would also agree with BrunerWW that the HC X800 would be a great choice for you. I would strongly recommend that you consider it as being the best solution that would be close to your financial budget.

[LanceOregon]

Here is the HC X800 for 552 in the UK:

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/1175...inition-c.html