Panasonic's HDC-HS300 HD camcorder reviewed, thoroughly enjoyed

Panasonic's HDC-HS300 was unleashed amidst a flurry of other camcorders at CES this year, but according to Trusted Reviews, it won't be hiding under the shadows of everyone else for long. Rather than bogging you down with details, we'll just get right to the punch -- critics didn't hesitate to suggest that this "could well be the best [consumer] camcorder released all year." The most important aspect (yes, we're talking about image quality) was said to be "nothing short of stunning in virtually all conditions," and low light performance was deemed "particularly amazing." There were plenty of outputs, a swank touchscreen LCD and a very impressive cross-shaped array of microphones that could record 5.1 audio. Add all that up, and you've got a real winner; in fact, these guys suggested that even Canon's stellar line of VIXIA camcorders should watch closely, 'cause the HS300 is stepping all up in that rarefied air.

[Boards of Canada @ Feb 8th 2009 6:10AM]

Look very nice indeed! We need competition if we want Canon to kick up the spec a bit...

[Information Central @ Feb 9th 2009 4:10AM]

Too bad this "review" fails to mention one of the most important things about a camcorder: INTERLACED or PROGRESSIVE?

Nobody should be wasting money on interlaced crap.

[in5ane @ Feb 9th 2009 6:00AM]

@Information Central:

I've had the Panasonic SD9 for a year now, and will probably upgrade to this.

However, I've shot all my footage in 1080i (50fps) purely because that looks best for the sort of stuff you tend to film with a camcorder. And it looks great btw. There is a progressive mode on mine, the cinema style 24p, but that just can't keep up with camcorder-esque motion.

[David @ Feb 8th 2009 6:15AM]

mmmm...

[erwin @ Feb 8th 2009 6:30AM]

nice useless comment. keep up the good work

[LordPaul @ Feb 8th 2009 6:36AM]

Watch out, it's the bandwidth police!
You wasted 0.000000000000000001% of the internet

I wasted more though

[BarryBee @ Feb 8th 2009 6:44AM]

I think you're missing a few more zeros.

[BobTurbo @ Feb 8th 2009 6:51AM]

Let's waste this shit!

[Adam @ Feb 8th 2009 7:45PM]

Oh the ironey of these comments.

[chris @ Feb 8th 2009 10:13PM]

oh the irony of people who don't know how to spell "irony" who make fun of people who leave ironic comments.

[Bill G. @ Feb 11th 2009 5:57AM]

Oh the irony of people who don't capitalize the first letter of each sentence, criticizing the irony of people who don't know how to spell "irony," who make fun of people who leave ironic comments.

[Tom @ Feb 8th 2009 6:53AM]

Very nice, although at more than 2x the cost of the Canon Vixia HG10 (available for $499 - http://www.techdealdigger.com/deals/canon-vixia-hg10-499-at-bh-photo/5220), this is really for the serious enthusiast.

[kempcross @ Feb 8th 2009 1:18PM]

Almost THREE times as much at $1,399.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru @ Feb 8th 2009 7:47AM]

Unfortunately, no 24mbps recording mode, and the sensor is just 1/4.1 compared to Canon's equivalent new camera HF-S100 at 1/2.7. If Panasonic had these two features I would jump over their camp...

[xd @ Feb 8th 2009 8:21AM]

Niceeeeeeeeeeee

[Walt @ Feb 8th 2009 2:06PM]

You mean "sensors" with regard to the panny don't you? It has three 1/4.1" CMOS sensors comprend to the single 1/2.6" CMOS in the HF-S100.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru @ Feb 8th 2009 3:07PM]

>You mean "sensors" with regard to the panny don't you?

It does not matter that much for what I need a bigger sensor for. I prefer a bigger sensor in regards to shallower depth of field, and low light support. Having three of them is mostly useful for color representation -- and it just downsamples then down to 4:2:0 anyway. So yeah, I prefer one big sensor, than 3 small ones.

[xd @ Feb 8th 2009 8:25AM]

niceeeeeeeeeeeee

[sonny @ Feb 8th 2009 8:45AM]

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

[rcappo @ Feb 8th 2009 10:11AM]

I would like to see them add digital image stabilization when shooting video. This camera allows you to touch the LCD screen for the place you want it to focus on, but it would be cool if it could digitally move the image you are shooting to keep the subject in the same place as much as possible. Couple that with some of the anti-shake stuff that their digital cameras have and then you have a video camera that you can hold and won't get sick watching the video bounce all over the place when you watch it.

And this camera only has a 12x zoom? I wish it had a 48x-96x. Didn't they use to have 120x zoom video cameras?

And I think Apple should work with some Hollywood directors and TV producers on coming out with easy how-to videos for shooting good movies like they are doing with the Garage Band lessons. Weddings, kids sporting events, vacations, road trips, camping/hiking trip, how-to video, and basic lighting and framing tips.

[rcappo @ Feb 8th 2009 10:17AM]

And does this have the option for a wireless microphone? Is this an after market item usually?

What is the battery life on this camera?

[Michael Fan @ Feb 8th 2009 1:40PM]

12x optical zoom...there is a difference between digital "zoom"(like those 120x zoom you are talking about) and optical zoom.

[Gaze @ Feb 8th 2009 3:16PM]

There are camcorders with upwards of 30X optical zoom. But to accommodate that kind of a zoom range, you have to sacrifice on some of the other things such as sensor size and some other important aspects of the optics. This greatly compromises on the video quality. You can almost never have professional grade video quality in a camcorder with a zoom like 30X or 40X.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru @ Feb 8th 2009 3:04PM]

>And this camera only has a 12x zoom? I wish it had a 48x-96x. Didn't they use to have 120x zoom video cameras?

Not possible with bigger sensors. It would require the weight and the size of the camera to be huge.

[loosely_coupled @ Feb 8th 2009 7:31PM]

120X zoom?? Obviously you are the type of clueless consumer they love to sucker in with digital "zoom".. aka stretch the pixels..

[Musouka @ Feb 9th 2009 3:29AM]

There is no such thing as a free lunch, long zoom lenses sacrifices the image quality (vignetting and distortion). Digital zoom should always be turned off.

[MarkG @ Feb 8th 2009 10:33AM]

Can anyone explain to me what the point of having a 10.6 mega-pixel camcorder is, when HDTV (1920×1080) is just over 2 mega-pixels?

Even Quad-HDTV is only 8.3 mega-pixels, and that's not out for another six years!

[Joe @ Feb 8th 2009 11:12AM]

That 10.6 megapixels refers to the quality of still pictures this camera can take.

[Wolfticket @ Feb 8th 2009 2:31PM]

Any word on whether hi-res stills from video cameras suck/are passable?

[Taylor @ Feb 8th 2009 12:18PM]

You've got to be kidding me, 5.1 audio? yeah, that's really cool! What a joke. I rather have double the audio quality (in bit rate or a better mic) in true stereo than some over-hyped 5.1 recording mode.

[Patriks7 @ Feb 8th 2009 12:48PM]

I like.. how much?

[bobby klein @ Feb 8th 2009 2:27PM]

I want to win this one...pick me...pick me!

[Wolfticket @ Feb 8th 2009 2:29PM]

Needs more logos.
Just in case you forget (or anyone else in the vicinity wants to know) all the full specs/technology/exactly who made the lens of your camera.

[Swahilli Joe @ Feb 8th 2009 8:59PM]

Is that like "need more cowbell"?

[Wwhat @ Feb 8th 2009 9:13PM]

I can see you need that in the shop to sell it, but they should make them peel off so you can not have such a silly ad-campaign all over stuff you already bought I agree.

[uShak @ Feb 8th 2009 9:33PM]

When is this going to be on sale in USA stores?

[B.Poudel @ Feb 9th 2009 5:23AM]

umm...