Hello,

Like many people who have spent hours reading spec sheets on various cams, I have come to a point where I am "stuck" on which of two cams to purchase. I have read all the threads here on this forum regarding these models (few) and have searched the web too (hours)...and still I am not sure which will be the best purchase choice.

Here is what I want:

1. Small size to put in my coat pocket (carry anywhere form factor) so it can "always be with me." I looked at various models including the lower priced Zmodels and the Optura 20 (did not like the size and form factor). I do not want a "bigger" cam as it would be left behind more often. Small is better.

2. Ability to shoot indoors (visiting museums, and "interviews" with a person in their office or home environment). So that means decent "low" light (not necessarily night time outside shooting). Most of the use would be indoors rather than outdoors. I will not be shooting kids sports etc... I need good audio and video for "people" interviews (mostly headshot distance) under ambient and tungsten (house lights). Having an external lapel mic capability would be best.

When searching the web I found these differences:

Optura 200mc:

Older model, slightly heavier (3 oz more), (.5 lux) low light sensitive, 690k pixels and OPTICAL IS. About $85 dollars difference more than the Optura 300.

Optura 300:

Newer model, has Digic processor, has new RGB filter, has 2mp still shot capability, bigger CCD (1.34 vs 1.45), less sensitive CCD (1.7 lux versus .5 lux the 200mc has), 2mp still photos versus 1.3mp), has DIGITAL Image Stabilization instead of Optical IS (200mc).

What confuses me at this point is whether it is smarter to get the latest model (300) or pay $85 more and get an older model (200mc) that has Optical Image Stabilization and (.5lux) sensitive CCD. Is the Optical better in this case or was it dropped because the newer 300 has superior digital IS? My reading seems to indicate that the higher end Canon videocams use Optical IS and that is suppose to be superior to digital or electronic IS. Opinions? Even the Canon brochure for the 200mc states that the Optical IS is superior to competitors' EIS or DIS. Of course things change, technology improves etc...

Also, the 300 Canon brochure promotes the RGB filter and Digic processors as providing better image quality and skin tones etc...

I suppose I am asking you folks (who may have followed the developments of these models over time) which is better if the price is about the same.

If the older model (200mc) is better for ambient light video because it has a more sensitive .5 lux CCD and Optical IS....or is it better to go with the "latest model" and its bigger CCD even if it does use EIS and has a 1.7lux CCD?????

Or does the 200mc have a "track record" of some problems I have not identified yet? (e.g. poor performance in some way??)

Are things improving from 200mc to 300 or was it simply a lower priced new model that left off the expensive Optical IS??? Original retail prices have the 200mc at about $200 or so more than the retail price of the 300 (if that matters).

Your opinions would be appreciated.

Which would you buy if the price is about the same (within $90 differnce)???



Thanks in advance.

nt

I just bought my 300 after hours of agonizing research. I love everything about it so far. I don't know how to compare it to the 200 but you shouldn't go wrong on the 300.

larry

WisdomSeeker,

I own the Optura Xi which is comparable to the Optura 300 (minus optical stabilization). I am very please with the video that it produces. As I never looked at the Optura 200mc, however based on the specs the picture quality on the Optura 300 seems like it would be better than the Optura 200mc in good light. The lower lux rating on the Optura 200mc would point to it having better low light capabilities however the CCD is smaler. Usually the larger CCD the better low light capability. The Optura 300 will have the better 16x9 mode as it uses the entire CCD.

I did a brief search on the camera and here are some comments from owners:

Optura 200mc:

"So far I'm loving it, but the motor noise is a bit of a bother."

"In fact the first 200MC I got had a bad pixel on the LCD and was a bit nosier then the others."

"One thing I noted was that the 200MC seemed to have the worse placement for the microphone; it was on top and further back. But if it had been further up your fingers likely would have brushed it while adjusting the manual focus ring."

"Regardless, I felt the Sony TRV38 and Optura 200MC performed similarly in my brief low light (under the counter) test."



Opturra 300:

"Reviews I read before buying my 300 were pretty much split on the digital vs optical issue. Some said there was a difference, others said no, not with modern digital stabilization systems that have come a long way since they were introduced. I find my 300's image stabilization works well."

"I'm extremely pleased with the 300. I was a bit worried about low light performance (almost every consumer camcorder review I've read, except for Sony's, complain about low light performance), but the competition and home footage looked great. Playback of 16:9 video on my widescreen 57" Hitachi looks fantastic."

Based on those comments the Optura 200mc's low light quality is good. However the Optura 300's is not bad. Also the mic on the Optura 200mc seems to pick up more motor noise. As mentioned in the one review the digital stabilization on the 300 is good.


So here is how I would look at the 2 camcorders:

Optura 200mc:
Possible better low light quality
Possible better stabilization

Optura 300:
Better picture quality in good light.
Better audio quality
Better 16x9 mode


Hope this helps,

Jeff

Hi,

I am still looking.

Thanks to those who have taken the time to offer comments and quotes an opinions.

Good light to you.