Aiptek keeps the crap flowing with AHD 300 "1080p" camcorder

To be completely honest, we're not so sure there's any real difference between any of Aiptek's crapcorders. They all seem to boast some form of HD capturing abilities, utterly worthless digital zooms and expansion slots for your SDHC card of choice. Additionally, they all produce output that's marginally better than mediocre and cost next-to-nothing compared to "real" HD camcorders. Are we missing anything, or do you really want us to run down the official specs list of the £129.99 ($249) AHD 300?

Via The Gadgets Weblog]

[CAHLITO @ Aug 11th 2008 1:09PM]

Ordered

[tawak @ Aug 11th 2008 1:10PM]

with this camcorder you can see flowing crap in full hd 1080p... it could be a marketing slogan, you never know

[Michael @ Aug 11th 2008 1:40PM]

It's not even "full HD" full HD is 1920x1080; this records in 1440x1080.

[SuperDre @ Aug 12th 2008 10:30AM]

@micheal: so do most current so-called 'fullHD' camera's made by sony,canon and jvc..

[eugene @ Aug 11th 2008 1:20PM]

You're not missing anything, stop posting crap from apetek, or are you also going to cover the crap that comes out for the bargin bins at wal-mart now?

[r.crecco @ Aug 11th 2008 2:00PM]

Greetings:

Considering Aiptek's Camcorders sell for less than $300 and their HD video quality is excellent.
I don't understand why you use the word crap.

Some improvements in audio and other features could be improved.

Oh and when they begin selling in Canada that will be Sweet.

Regards Robert

[peestandingup @ Aug 11th 2008 1:23PM]

No, you're not missing anything.

Remember when digital cameras were getting big a few years ago & the quality cameras/lenses with decent megapixels were still pretty expensive, but then you'd see some no-name crap brand with the same (or higher) megapixel count for significantly cheaper sitting on the shelf right next to it? But when you got it home you saw that it was just a shit image that had been stretched out & the camera had no features? Aiptek is that brand now with camcorders.

[jaalin @ Aug 11th 2008 1:27PM]

the humor of this post escapes me

[Umut @ Aug 11th 2008 2:01PM]

Endaget writers started to use 'crap' word a lot and it is using its effect. When used sparingly it is funny but after a while it becomes stale and annoying.

Endaget are you listening? Regards.

[Tom W Browning @ Aug 11th 2008 1:32PM]

I agree. The going price for a Flip Ultra over here is in the region of £80 - £90 quid. This is HD for not much higher a price. Why all the hate?

[CaptSaltyJack @ Aug 11th 2008 1:33PM]

Off-topic, but.. regarding that "I hate my yellow teeth" sponsored link: Engadget, you guys should seriously take that shit down. It's a scam, and by putting up that ad, you are supporting Internet scammers.

http://www.teethwhiteningreviews.com/item.php?id=23
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=507564

Or just Google around, yourself.

[Ridgecity @ Aug 11th 2008 1:36PM]

You are the first pirate I've seen that wants to look good. Scurvy does give you bad teeth...

[LondonConsultant @ Aug 11th 2008 1:53PM]

He "Hates" his Wooden Leg

[Amerist @ Aug 11th 2008 2:02PM]

Arr I "Hate" Me Scurvy Teeth

[Matthew C @ Aug 11th 2008 1:41PM]

Aiptek = TECHnology made by APEs

they just cant spell

[Matthew C @ Aug 11th 2008 1:44PM]

I also agree. Sure, it won't compete with the $1000 and up name brands, but for this price!?

And I have seen some video samples. They actually look DECENT. Color is generally fine, and it really is true high def. again, no competition with the pros, but for the general consumer, this is a steal.

[LondonConsultant @ Aug 11th 2008 1:48PM]

As cheap as chips, but as tasty as turds. And as good for your videomaking as these are for your health: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

[Macdelaney @ Aug 11th 2008 1:53PM]

I totally agree, I'm not going to be making any documentaries with this thing, it's just so you can watch it and it looks nice, cant be compared to any high level (very high cost) hd cameras.

[Greg @ Aug 11th 2008 1:56PM]

Sounds like some people need to be reminded of the meaning of the "megapixel myth"
Full HD resolution doesn't guarantee good video.

[ericd.net @ Aug 11th 2008 2:00PM]

I have an older version of this camera... it's light and takes decent video. Not true HD is correct, but it's much better than my tape p.o.s. Sony camcorder I bought a few years ago.

[bandigolo @ Aug 11th 2008 2:00PM]

Will anyone share their experience with the SC-HMX20C with me? I found it for under $600 and can't shake the feeling that it's a must buy at that price.

Comments? Advice?

[L Victor Marks @ Aug 11th 2008 2:05PM]

I own two AIPTEK cameras.

I have the GO-HD 720p and the A-HD 720p model.
This new model uses the same case as the A-HD 720p model (good.)

The GO-HD model has the back joystick jut out too far from the case, where it broke when it was in my pocket. The A-HD model is a better design.

Warning: The cheapness is in only three places, but they matter.
(1) The lens isn't fantastic. It's ok, and it works well enough. The video is certainly better than the 800 dollar panasonic DV camera with the leica lens I bought four years ago. The colors aren't quite as good, but the lens is ok.

(2) the microphone is placed directly behind the motor that drives the autofocus and zoom. Any focusing or zooming leads to *grind* *grind* in the audio.

(3) neither of the AIPTEK cameras I have allow for audio input. I can't use an external mic to get around the bad placement and *grind*. I'm seriously considering taking mine apart and seeing if I can't find a place to hide an input jack and use external mics.

It really does take these high resolutions - it is 1280x720 in my case, and I'm sure it takes 1920x1080 in the one that was just released. They use an ambarella chipset to do the h.264 encoding. Works well.

[jwilliek @ Aug 11th 2008 4:02PM]

That's a good point to consider about the Microphone. I looked at Aiptek's page for the AHD 300, and in the specs at the bottom of the page, it lists AV in as "Yes." So it looks like they've potentially got a place for an external mic in this latest model.

[Nihility @ Aug 11th 2008 7:00PM]

Is the battery life bad or terrible?
How long can you get shooting at max res with a full charge?

[gerrrg @ Aug 11th 2008 2:16PM]

I own the A-HD+, and this thing has survived my dropping it from 4' onto concrete. I thought this thing was a goner for the price I paid, but it survived without any damage to the insides.

This thing doesn't have a lot of features, but neither do the Vado, Flip nor the Small Wonder, except that it's a lot cheaper and has a full 30 fps 1080p or 60 fps 720p video. It also has web-sized 352x240 for online videos.

There are separate buttons for taking video and taking photos, which are really convenient. It also has built-in flash and red-eye reduction.

You get what you pay for. You wouldn't expect the same quality of video as that of a 3-ccd full-feature Canon/Sony videocamera costing 8x more, would you?

But then again, this thing fits in the pocket of your shorts.

[Bob @ Aug 11th 2008 2:24PM]

Definitely NOT crap. I have the A-HD (720p version) and for the price, it cannot be beat ($170.00 US with included 8gb card for 4 hours of HD video). There are reported issues of getting the resulting HD video to work well with Windows but if you are a Mac user, the H.264 video is drag-and-drop ready for iMovie or FCP. If you are looking to make a full-length movie, go buy a RED. Obviously this camera is not meant for that but instead it is great for capturing moments with the kids or small video projects. Here are some samples of HD from the A-HD:

http://www.vimeo.com/shieldss/videos

[iofthestorm @ Aug 11th 2008 2:34PM]

Wouldn't it be better to get a regular non-HD camcorder for around this price, and probably have better image quality? I haven't actually seen the quality on these, but if it's bad then might as well get an SD camcorder and have your computer upconvert or something.

[tekdroid @ Aug 11th 2008 3:07PM]

they serve their role but if those prices are right, 40x zooms and regular MiniDV tape (and linear PCM audio capabilities) would suit a person like me far better for that outlay of money. I don't mind the extra bit of bulk with MiniDV; they are small enough as is to me.

Standard definition ftw, in this case (again, for my uses).

[Tombio @ Aug 11th 2008 3:10PM]

@Bob

Man, that ball park clip was of better quality than the stream we pay more than 50$ a month to Canal+ in order to even see baseball :D

[globalwidget @ Aug 11th 2008 4:17PM]

I've got a GO-HD I got for $125. I hot glued a wide angle lens adapter to the front and use it to take video when I go flying. Since it's small and lightweight I can suction cup-mount it to the ceiling of the plane and if it falls (which it always does due to all the vibration) and breaks I really don't worry 'cause it's so cheap. Sound is horrible too but I wouldn't be mounting a $1000 camcorder to a ceiling (or a helmet, or an RC car, or.... whatever.)

They may be 'crap' but crap has it's place.

I'd appreciate more Aiptek reviews personally. Crap or not.

[raul @ Aug 11th 2008 3:59PM]

I actually like my little Aiptek... the quality nowhere near that of more expensive HD cameras, but damnit, it fits in my pocket, takes a beating, and it's so cheap I don't mind taking it anywhere... strap

[Tam @ Aug 11th 2008 3:21PM]

I use an Aiptek Action HD in my race car and although it's far from perfect, I've been thrilled at the results I've gotten, especially for the price and compared to other in-car video solutions.

Sample video here: http://www.vimeo.com/1277273

Review here: http://www.justracing.com/review/80

I bought the product with a healthy dose of skepticism and highly tempered expectations, but was pleasantly surprised.

[silverbolt @ Aug 11th 2008 5:43PM]

That's some good stuff, thanks for the review.

[hgm @ Aug 11th 2008 3:34PM]

It is quite easy to dismiss a $250 HD camcorder. Just a few years ago videographers dismissed this crappy consumer format called MiniDV.

The camera is what it is, a cheap MPEG-4 camcorder that can shoot 720p at 60fps. It works best in well lit situations, there is a very active developer community (including mods for an external mike).

The digital zoom is a feature to ignore. I believe, like some of their other cameras, it lacks autofocus, which may be a blessing in disguise; I have to remind film students all the time to turn autofocus off, as it is a most excellent way to ruin that one beautiful moment. In this mode the camera becomes sort of a throwback, in a good way -- you have frame and position shots based on camera positioning, not by fiddling with a zoom control.

So, it is not necessarily crap. I could probably shoot a documentary with a couple. Anyone who knows how to shoot good video could do that though.

[bob sakamano @ Aug 11th 2008 3:35PM]

ill take aiptek for 200 trebek!

[Craptucky @ Aug 11th 2008 3:37PM]

I actually own an earlier version of this camera and think this is too rough to call it crap. This camera was CHEAP, I think I got it for about $150. While it may not compare to better more expensive versions, I have been happy with mine and it did not break the bank for a toy. The videos and pictures look good in decent lighting.

[Keith Ray @ Aug 11th 2008 4:42PM]

I own the Canon HV20, Canon HF100, and the Aiptek A+ HD, so I have a pretty valid perspective here. My Canons are excellent, the Aiptek cannot compete, however, I carry the Aiptek in my car and in my computer bag all the time. If I need to shoot good video in HD, I am ready. I have shot quite a bit with it, and the quality is good. When you compare the output to the $150 I paid for it, then the rating goes to Excellent. Even with a good SD card, I didn't break $200. If they were charging $300-$400 for it, yes I would call it crap, but for under $200- it is a no-brainer.

[Ewzzy @ Aug 12th 2008 9:12AM]

I don't understand the hate on Aiptek. I have one of their 720p cameras that I bought for $150 and I bought an sd model for my Mom for $100. They have both performed extremely well. I echo the comments that as a still camera Aiptek's video cameras make great cheap replacements for more expensive cameras.

[maryland157 @ Aug 11th 2008 7:22PM]

Aiptek's cameras are not crap, they are pretty good low end cameras for people with a budget.

[nameless serf @ Aug 11th 2008 7:44PM]

Engadet Reviews Mad Libs Template:

Company X released just released a [demeaning adjective] gadget. Even though I would never be caught dead using such a piece of [fecal noun], and it is nothing like the i-[latest Apple product], other [peons/morons/serfs] will benefit from my in-depth, superior review. If you [peons/morons/serfs] had any sense, you should buy Company Y's [complementary adjective] gadget for 4 times the price.

Hello writers for Engadget,
Tone down the elitism. There is a cost-benefit analysis that goes into every purchase. This product is a good value *for the cost*.

[Vince @ Aug 11th 2008 8:26PM]

well, those apes over there are certainly much smarter than you are, being able to make and market an HD camcorder themselves.

[Vince @ Aug 11th 2008 8:28PM]

my earlier comment's for Matthew C, by the way

[Mischa Lockton @ Aug 11th 2008 8:54PM]

I LOVE my Aiptek 1080p. Sure, it isn't going to perform like the latest Sony's and Panasonic's, but, seriously, what do you want for $199 and an extremely tiny form factor? I can have it on me all the time and take decent HD footage- with my 16gb card, 5+ hours worth.

By the way, plenty of "HD" camcorders costing way more also use 1440 instead of 1920. More do than don't at this point....

[Ben @ Aug 11th 2008 10:56PM]

Here this video was taken with this camera, but not in HD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLyZXy9Xp78

It's not me in the video.

(No, this isn't spam)

[Squee @ Aug 12th 2008 12:57AM]

technosexual glam-angst, hehe love it! but you are right I rarely read the reviews anymore, I use Engadget as a visual tool to see whats coming out.

[Thameth @ Aug 12th 2008 7:17PM]

Wow, I'm blown away at such a terrible and uninformed post by an Engadget blogger. I have a feeling this poster probably has NEVER even touched the Aiptek AHD+ mentioned, especially since its been available for a while now, so this isn't really news anyways.

I've had an AHD+ which shoots 720p 60fps for a few weeks now and I'm blown away by its quality in well lit situations. I can even compare it in most situations to my friends Canon HG10, especially when your just uploading it to Vimeo or worse.... YouTube.

The audio on my unit has been incredible too! Crystal clear and surprisingly good. Much better than the old 720p only AHD.

So Engadget, please actually use this product before you call it crap, its the best $150 I've ever spent on a camera. Much better than 2 other $300 MiniDV camcorders I own....

[Chris Taylor @ Aug 13th 2008 2:19AM]

I got a Jazz HDV178 for $99 bucks at walmart. 4mb 720p video.

I do not care how CRAPPY this video camera technically is or now inferior the video it records technocally is. I AM UTTERLY and COMPLETELY blown away by its quality!! Is it as good as my $700 Sanyo? NO

Is it DAMNED CLOSE? you bet!

Check out my site www.naramlive.com goto naramlive button goto THURSDAY and click the VIDEOS link up top.

the F20-4 and the Mohave Green links are the High Def videos from the Jazz camera. NOW these are converted to divx (I have not yet found software that will properly "cut" the odd h264 video is records without breaking the video (ie without transcoding) but only a tiny bit of the quality is loss (there is "blocking" that is not in the original but its minor)

I am BLOWN away by this quality. I will be buying more of these cameras and will be getting MUCH enjoyment from them.

$700 I can not afford to stick in the nose of a Rocket. $99 I can :-)