Sony intros 5MP NSC-GC1 handheld camcorder for the YouTube crowd

It's with mixed emotions that we announce the latest Sony camcorder, as even it has shamelessly hopped on the YouTube bandwagon and catered a product specifically to those looking to snag their own 15 minutes seconds of fame. 'Course, we can't help but love the five-megapixel sensor crammed into the five-ounce device -- which enables it to capture video in MPEG-4 at 15fps QVGA or 30fps VGA resolutions -- but Sony makes no secret that the standout feature on the Net-sharing CAM is its ability to pre-format footage and easily publish content to sites such as YouTube and Crackle. Additionally, the device sports a built-in flash, 4x digital zoom, a 2.4-inch color LCD, and a rechargeable Li-ion that only lasts about 90 minutes per charge. Thankfully, Sony doesn't plan on charging an awful lot for this shooter either, as interested buyers can snatch one up for just $200 this September.

[Via CNET]

[humpty @ Jul 17th 2007 6:11PM]

Completely pointless... all but the most basic cellphones have cameras nowadays... no need for a dedicated one unless it is VASTLY superior like a real camcorder.

[Ike @ Jul 17th 2007 6:11PM]

Err this isn't even worth 200$ My old Nokia 6280 can do this (640x480@30fps) Wtf?
I wouldn't mind an HDR-CX7 or SR7 for 200$ tought...:p

[Homeboy @ Jul 17th 2007 6:17PM]

This product is aimed a iPhone owner since the phone doesn't have video capturing capabilities.

[Ryhan @ Jul 17th 2007 6:24PM]

So is that new microwave of yours aimed at iPhone owners 'cause it dosne't have a built-in microwave? Jeesh, there are plenty of phoens without video-capturing abilities, and many without cameras.

Plus, the images on this will be a bit better than your sucky cell-phone camera, and come with more capabilities, all in a small package.

Plus, If they wanted to make competition to the iPhone, then they could.. hey wait; they already made the Erricson and Mylo, both which are cheaper then the iPhone! And iPhone users can go and get a cheap camera with video-capability for around USD 100 anyways...

[humpty @ Jul 17th 2007 6:25PM]

lol ... let me guess, you bought an iFone and cant return it

[StreetStealth @ Jul 17th 2007 6:37PM]

Youtube? Crackle?

I'm surprised this doesn't exclusively upload to Sony's own MyVideoConnect™ or some such nonsense.

[Fatima @ Jul 17th 2007 7:09PM]

Sony stopped using propitiatory stuff. My Vaio has CF slot.
The PS3 has a mutlicard reader.

[greatslack @ Jul 17th 2007 8:18PM]

Sony actually owns Crackle

[Maff @ Jul 17th 2007 6:42PM]

Enough with the iPhone comments, jesus wept! I think the camera will be a moderate success!

[js @ Jul 17th 2007 6:58PM]

.... only if the recording medium is not memory stick duo

[haefely @ Jul 17th 2007 7:00PM]

no optical zoom = no sale.

[Leoedin @ Jul 17th 2007 7:18PM]

Bad description: It's not 15FPS at QVGA OR 30FPS at VGA - that would mean the frame rate reduced with the resolution! Those are the two extremes of the camera's operation.

RTFA engadget!

[nothinggg @ Jul 17th 2007 9:09PM]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and RTFA-- "The Net-sharing CAM can shoot video ranging from QVGA (320x240) at 15 frames per second to VGA (640x480) at 30 frames per second."

Maybe that's just a description of the full range of the camera and not the two choices of shooting modes.

[nothinggg @ Jul 17th 2007 9:11PM]

Although "OR" does imply two choices...

[Leoedin @ Jul 18th 2007 4:40AM]

That is precisely what I said in my comment...

What's your point?

[ark_v2 @ Jul 17th 2007 7:36PM]

The design is sleek, but the functions...well, as someone said already, maybe for someone with an iPhone...

[Rob @ Jul 17th 2007 7:47PM]

This is completely useless. For $200, it's too much. You can buy a digital camera that would give you better video and audio quality with optical zoom, and other features for around the same price. Sure you'd have to go the extra step and convert it to mp4. But, that's a choice to make later on down the road. You'd still be left with a decent quality video.

Come on Sony, we don't really need this.

[BeforeISleep.net @ Jul 17th 2007 10:33PM]

Okay everyone, settle down. This product is not aimed at us. We know something about specs and are aware that better products are available for less money, if only one is willing to import, edit and compress -- which most of us are. This product is aimed at the teeny bopper girls and/or the grandparents who have neither the ability or the inclination to edit their movies. It will sell.

[philipbarrett @ Jul 17th 2007 10:38PM]

Yep, my "teeny bopper" daughter thought it was cool albeit not being lime green!

[Matt @ Jul 17th 2007 10:42PM]

Ha! You're right, if they made it available in colors, it would really sell!

[XSportSeeker @ Jul 17th 2007 10:48PM]

I might be wrong on this... but can't one buy a digital camera with better resolution, optical zoom, using cheaper media to do the same thing?

I'd only buy one of those cheap-ass digital camcorders made for YouTube if they were really cheap, and had some stuff most amateur digicams doesn't like support for external mic.

What's the point of making specific cams for YouTube if they all lack the same features normal digicams and webcams also do?

[scott @ Jul 18th 2007 2:29AM]

Size looks to be a key factor here, but yes you're right. Especially Casio cameras, I have had great experience with my Z600. Though my Casio is small, this cam looks to be pretty darn compact.

[eddie_nutritious @ Jul 17th 2007 11:54PM]

One major feature that was completely overlooked in the Engadget article was that the software to upload to YouTube, etc. is stored on the unit itself. That means that you can plug into any PC with a regular old USB to mini-USB cable and start the software from the virtual drive that is the NSCGC1. From there, choose the clips you want, add titles/descriptions, hit submit, and your video is online. From any PC in the world.

Pretty slick for the price.

[Reader @ Sep 28th 2007 1:49AM]

Yeesh. Youtube videos with even less editing and skill (I truly didn't know that was possible).

[Johan S @ Jul 18th 2007 3:49AM]

Why does Sony insist on insulting the consumer? Sony needs to quit coming out with hundreds of little half ass products. Any Apple employee can tell you what all of Apple's products are. Heck any geek can tell you. But Sony .. sony has so many products of varying usefulness. I don't think there is any person in the world who knows what all of Sony products are. THey really should start integrating features. Why aren't PS3's integrated into their HDTVs?

[Bee Hatch @ Jul 18th 2007 9:25PM]

Awesome, my mom will be able to upload herself onto the internet with this.

[Ant @ Jul 19th 2007 9:20AM]

So this is the new tool of the so-called 'Happy Slapper', much better quality beatings with this baby. They may even mug you first of your new Sony shooter and then film themselves kicking your head in, how fun. What the hell is it with YouTube, "look we can film ourselves and put it on the Internet" seriously people need to get a life.

But other than the YouTube crap it looks like a right turd.

[Trevor Nail @ Jul 25th 2007 11:33AM]

size is the major thing. u cant get a camcorder this small which is what the youtube market wants: Small

[wiedzmin @ Sep 22nd 2007 8:43PM]

Aiptek GO-HD is better (optical zoom, longer battery life) for the same price. Aiptek A-HD is even better (same crappy features, but more megapixels) for 25% less dough.

[Amit Batra @ Sep 27th 2007 12:04PM]

I bought one of these, please read my review on Amazon because it has a MAJOR PROBLEM. When you flip the screen 180 degrees to take a photo of yourself, it shows you inverted like a mirror image. And if you try to take a long photo of yourself (full-body shot vertically) then it shows you upside down. This has not been a problem in previous swivel Sony cameras like the DSC-M1 and M2. Also, the screen is fine if taking photos of other people - its just when you flip it 180 to take one of yourself this happens. I tried explaining this to Sony but nobody listens!! I have seen this now in 3 cameras that I exchanged at Circuit City as they agree they look defective.

[Kal-El @ Sep 27th 2007 9:29PM]

No OPTICAL ZOOM? C'mon Sony, don't be such a cheapass. I would gladly pay $50 more if the camera included at least 3x optical zoom, this would have been the perfect camera for me.