Help me decide please

commalot

commalot

Well-known member
HF-S100 vs. HF200. If all we were talking about is image quality and nothing else I can't tell a difference between the 2 cameras on Vimeo. But I haven't seen them on a Blu-Ray disc. On paper the HF-S100 should be better somewhat.
 
I've been going through the same decision. Have you checked out the reviews on Camcorderinfo.com?

Camcorderinfo found the low light performance on the HF-S100 to be much better than the HF200. The color on the HF-S100 was slightly better.

However, the resolution on the HF200 was much better. In fact, the resolution on the HF200 at 800 line widths per picture height (lw/ph) horizontal and 900 lw/ph vertical blew away pretty much every other consumer grade camcorder.

Personally, if I go with the HF200, I can add some light to a scene to fix the lowlight problem and I can easily fix colors in post. Whereas, if I went with an HF-S100, there's NO way to "add resolution"... So it seems like the HF200 would be the better choice.
 
Last edited:
Schmoe said:
I've been going through the same decision. Have you checked out the reviews on Camcorderinfo.com?

Camcorderinfo found the low light performance on the HF-S100 to be much better than the HF200. The color on the HF-S100 was slightly better.

However, the resolution on the HF200 was much better. In fact, the resolution on the HF200 at 800 line widths per picture height (lw/ph) horizontal and 900 lw/ph vertical blew away pretty much every other consumer grade camcorder.

Personally, if I go with the HF200, I can add some light to a scene to fix the lowlight problem and I can easily fix colors in post. Whereas, if I went with an HF-S100, there's NO way to "add resolution"... So it seems like the HF200 would be the better choice.
Click to expand...

Weird. Regarding resolution. In the reviews I've read they say they are both very good but the HF-S100 has a bit more because of how it utilizes the larger sensor. The S100 has better manual control with the programmable wheel in front and has a focus assist function with zebra, peak and B&W Peak. I heard the HF200 is a bit better in low light but there's hardly any consumer HD camcorder that does well in low light. Apparently, you can increase low light performance by shooting in 24P. Anyway, you're the first person I've heard to put the HF200 over the HF-S100. Check this video out at about 2:15 into it.
http://www.vimeo.com/4381893
 
commalot said:
Weird. Regarding resolution. In the reviews I've read they say they are both very good but the HF-S100 has a bit more because of how it utilizes the larger sensor.
Click to expand...
But did those other reviews test the resolution with an actual video resolution chart or did they just do a "from looking at the video" guess-test? I wouldn't trust people's opinions on the resolution of each. I'd trust tests done with a resolution chart.

commalot said:
The S100 has better manual control with the programmable wheel in front and has a focus assist function with zebra, peak and B&W Peak.
Click to expand...
I believe the HF200 has a focus assist as well. However, you are correct, the HF-S100 is the only one with zebra,peak, and b&w peak. All of these are VERY useful features to have, especially the Zebra.

commalot said:
Anyway, you're the first person I've heard to put the HF200 over the HF-S100. Check this video out at about 2:15 into it.
http://www.vimeo.com/4381893
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not putting the HF200 over the HF-s100. It all depends on how you're gonna use the camera. If you're gonna shoot in low light situations without adding additional light, the HF-S100 is better. For example, shooting "baby's first steps", etc would be better on the HF-S100. However for shooting shorts, the HF200 seems better since it has better resolution and the problems with color and light can be easily solved.

As for the low light, I think pretty much everyone on this board is looking to shoot video at 0db gain. At 0db, video on both cameras is gonna be dark in lowlight and require some external illumination.

I would never make a decision based on Vimeo videos. You never know if the uploader managed to get correct pulldown removal. Plus they then recompress the video, then upload to Vimeo where it is recompressed again. The raw HF200 files filmed in bright light look just amazing.

I just can't imagine paying $300 more for a camera with lower video resolution...
 
Now you got me undecided again. I'll do some more research. BTW, right now it's more that $400 more.
 
God you're right! The shots have amazing clarity and color. I'll bet it looks fantastic on a HDTV on Blu-Ray. Thanks for sharing. I had already decided to go for the HF-S100. I'm more excited about it now.
 
looking for info about resolution...

looking for info about resolution...

Schmoe, I'm looking for info about the higher lines / height for the HF200. I'm not finding it anywhere. I'm just looking at the actual "technical details" posted on Canon's site, and also at Amazon.com.

Thanks for any info you can point me to. I'm currently doing the HF200 vs. HFS100 debate in my head and it's hard to justify the extra $300 for better low-light performance, and 'theoretically' better picture (?).

I'm also wondering what difference the higher megapixel / bigger CMOS will make, since both cameras record at the same resolution, through the same processing engine (DVIII.) Just a less-grainy picture I presume? I can't find any proof that the image quality is higher in real world use with the HFS100.

Glad to have found this forum,

Jeff - clinging to that extra $300, but willing to spend it for a noticibly better picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top