This camera has very poor video quality in "regular" (ie. in a person's home) indoor lighting. I have had this camera for 2 years and have taken video in different houses, churches, and attractions and they all look dark and GRAINY (even with the low-light setting on). It may be OK in an arena type setting with a higher level of lighting than a home but I do 90% of my filming indoors (birthdays, holidays, etc).

The camera is very small which is great and makes it easy to carry without feeling like a "tourist". The construction feels solid. It has analog and firewire inputs/outputs which are useful.

The only other complaints are that the microphone is on top and I think it would pick up the sound of what I'm taping (rather than me talking) if it was placed on the front of the camera. The other complaint is that the battery life is only about 45 minutes but for the small size I guess you have to have trade-offs.

In summary, if you are mostly filming outdoors and can carry an extra battery = get this camera. If you are mostly filming indoors - STAY AWAY FROM THIS CAMERA!!!

The first thing I asked myself before my purchase was "How will I want to use the camera?" My main use will be for travel photography and for family video. Size and weight is an important consideration. As a woman, I have smaller hands and the Canon fits very nicely in one hand with easy access to most of the features. I think with more use I will find I can maneuver even more easily through the various buttons and on screen menus.

When traveling, it is most important to have a camera that can easily be concealed and this little gem fits nicely into a pocket that is easily guarded. It is far too easy for a strap or bag to bag to be cut. Also, filming is very unobtrusive and with the 10X optical zoom I can stay far enough from a subject to film comfortably.

The camera does have some drawbacks, but they were not of primary importance to me. Low light photography left something to be desired and the 640 x 480 stills were not of the same quality as the stills with my standard digital camera. Since I do have that camera, and can use it for much higher resolutions as well, the two cameras should compliment each other nicely.

I have only just tried some of the additional features, but all seemed to work well and I may, perhaps oneday want to combine a photo with a frame or blue screen. For me, these were just nice little extras I probably can live without.

When I bought my camera I was able to compare video screen images with other similar cameras and found the in store images to be excellent in comparison with comparable JVC and Sony cameras in the same price range.

I purchased a 2nd small battery rather than the larger one since I wanted to keep the size and weight low. I also purchased an extended warranty which included a yearly cleaning of the camera. That alone, I believe, made it a good value. Having had experiences with video cameras costing more than their value for repairs, this seemed quite expedient.

So far I have found this to be a very enjoyable camera to use and I think I shall have many great years of pleasure from it.

I bought a Canon Elura 20MC this weekend.

My recent interest in DV camcorders sprang to life when I started working with Apple's Final Cut Pro. It's such a beautifully engineered piece of software, with incredible capabilities. With these kinds of tools available, the idea of making movies becomes much more attractive. (I think no one is truly interested in seeing even ten minutes of anyone's vacation, kids, what-have-you, if it's just the raw video.) With these tools at my disposal, I became very interested in getting a camcorder again.

I'd been hemming and hawing for a couple weeks, lusting over the Canon XL-1, the GL-1, other 3-chip cameras around 2 grand. I usually veer towards professional grade products and as I mention below, I'm glad I'm not lugging an XL-1 around now.

My only problem with them is the "look" of video. I started shopping for a video camera, but what I really wanted was one that pretended to be a movie camera. I wanted non-interlaced frames. If you know what that means, then you know what I mean. I have read great things on the web about the Canon XL-1/GL-1's abilities to create a single, non-interlaced frame and smartly duplicate it into both fields. Apparently, the elura does a similar trick, but I'm not sure how. The X(G)L-1 cameras have three chips, and they use the green channel to construct the other lines and copy the frame into the other field: it ends up looking like a single frame. The Elura only has one chip, so I don't know how they do it, but there's some stuff around the web about how the Elura is lumped into the same category as the other two (much more expensive) cameras when it comes to this feature. One thing though is certain about the progressive scan/frame mode/digital motor drive etc.. No matter what you call it, or which camera does it, the duration of the shutter can be no less than 1/60th of a second, so you end up with footage that looks like film running at 30 frames per second, but with a very high, crisp shutter speed. Everything tends to looks a little bit like the battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan, especially if it moves fast. Anyways, I'd still rather have than not have it, and the footage looks remarkably "filmy" and gritty compared to the other, standard video look. In general I like it, though it's harsher than I'd hoped for. So that's a nice feature of the Elura. From what I've read on the web about Sony's progressive scanning, it's 15 frames per second intended for pulling sharp still frames, and many people have found it very disappointing. It's amazing how "Progressive Scan" is such a touted feature for camcorders, but everybody seems to have a different idea of what it's for and how to implement it.

Another claimed feature of the Elura is an "RGB Primary color Filter" I'm not sure exactly what this means. I know it's an excellent idea to split light into three primary components and have a separate CCD chip for each color: Professional cameras and a few prosumer cameras have three chips, and the image quality (especially the color fideity) is superb because of it. What's this filter then? Is it thousands of RGB spots all lined up exactly coincident with CCD pixels? Is is some kind of special dichroic prism? I don't know. I wish it was something that gave 3 chip cameras a run for their money. I wish Canon would elaborate. The color on my new camera is very nice, but I have a sneaking suspicion it doesn't hold a candle to a 3-chip camera.

When you shop for camera, you have all these ideas about what important, but when you actually take one home, all that goes out the window, and a bunch of other, totally different priorities come into focus. Yes, the whole progressive scan thing is still important to me, and I've been using it all the time, but the best thing about this camera is the size. It's tiny. you can fit it into you pants pocket. You can turn off the beeps and lights so no one knows you're taping, and because of that, coupled with the small size, you're there with it, taping away. The Canon GL-1 or Sony TVR900 seem massive compared to it. Which would you take: decent footage from a single chip, tiny camera, or nothing at all from a machine you're too afraid to pull out bacause it's too obtrusive? It's incredible how compact this camera is.

I have to admit, the Elura is very cool-looking. It has a feeling a quality in the metallic, silver finish and a pleasing weight. It has a nice array of manual overrides that work wonderfully: the focus/exposure locks are placed smartly where you can switch them intuitively while taping. That's fast become one of my favorite things about the Elura. It has an attention to detail in the engineering and miniaturization that make the Sonys look prehistoric: the size and thoughtful placement of buttons, the size of the LCD screen, the implementation of features and the menu system design are all very well done. Nothing is wasted, which is a good idea in such a small device. The supplied battery is a bit anemic, so a spare, larger battery would be a recommended accessory. Another neat thing it comes with is a little docking unit that screws into the base of the camera. It has Mic inputs, headphone outputs and S-video outputs. The lens is fine, and I've just been shutting off the digital zoom feature. Going into the digital portion of the zoom results in abysmal image quality. I think the Optura has higher density CCD, so the digital zoom there might be something worth using, but on the Elura, it's truly a waste of time. The memory card feature is something I'll never use either: at 640 X 480, the still images are something I'd rather not have it at all, so I might as well have just bought the Elura 10: which appears to be less expensive and identical in all respects except the card feature.

All in all, highly recommended.

I originally did extensive research on the "vertical palm size" mini-DV camcorders and narrowed my decision down to the Sony DCR-PC9, the Canon Elura 20MC and the JVC GR-DVM75. Let me tell you that this was an extremely difficult evaluation because all three cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and there was no clear choice. To make a long story short, I ended up purchasing all 3 camcorders and performed side by side comparisons which was the only effective way to full assess the cameras.

Although you can make arguments that one camera had slightly sharper images or another one handled colors well, all three cameras produced crisp, accurate colored images in outdoor sunlight settings. Cannon claims about 400 lines of resolution, Sony states up to 500 and JVC claims 520 lines. Unless you are viewing on a high definition TV or computer monitors, you could not distinguish between the resolutions and even then, the differences are subtle. Under outdoor overcast conditions, the colors for all 3 cameras were on the dull side but the video still was of decent quality. All three camcorders did not perform well under low light conditions. The low light video taping was indoors at night with single or double lamp lighting with light bulbs between 60 and 100 watts. The Cannon Elura produced the poorest quality video (even with the low light setting) - very dark and grainy. The Sony and JVC with standard auto-shutter settings produced about the same level of video quality which was less grainy but still on the dark side. The lower shutter speed settings on the JVC and Sony improves the image but the video becomes very choppy. As stated in other reviews, the Sony Night Shot (IR based) feature is impressive and works relatively well under "no light" conditions but creates the greenish monotone image. FYI, I find the Lux rating of each camera to be somewhat meaningless since there is no standard for this specification.

Sound quality is good on all 3 cameras but I do agree with the other reviewers who have commented on the problems associated with having the microphone located on the top of the camera. All the camcorders pick up some motor noise but the noise seemed to be more prevalent on the Canon. I also thought the sound was a little muffled on the Canon when compared to the other two camcorders. The Canon and JVC have wind screen options but I found them to be of limited value.

Not surprisingly, the digital stills from all 3 cameras were extremely poor. Even with the XGA resolution and built-in flash, the JVC stills were only marginally better than that of the other cameras. The best field stills (captured from video) came from the Canon and then the JVC. If you want to produce "print quality" digital stills, my recommendation is to purchase a separate dedicated digital camera instead of spending extra money on a higher CCD count.

You can read about specific features and functions in other reviews for the 3 camcorders but here is a summary of my side by side comparison:

For the Canon Elura 20MC
Pros: Quality Video, Progressive Scan, extended Recording Modes, good ergonomics and design, well constructed, the smallest of the 3 camcorders, manual exposure and shutter speed settings
Cons: Poor low light quality, short battery life, too small for large hands, microphone picks up the most motor noise of the 3 cameras, poor stills, no software, requires an attachment for external microphone and head phone, no USB support, the least features/functions of the 3 cameras

For the Sony DCR-PC9
Pros: Quality Video, NightShot, the most features/functions of the 3 cameras, battery life was about 30% better than the other camcorders, lens ring for manual focus, 30 mm lens - a little easier to find filters and attachments
Cons: Construction feels cheap, Poor Ergonomics, poor stills, cumbersome menu system, uses Sony's proprietary memory stick, limited remote controller functions

For the JVC GR-DVM75
Pros: Quality Video, High Band Processor emulates progressive scan, Built In Flash, well designed remote controller, good number of features/settings
Cons: Construction feels cheap, Poor stills, short battery life, poor viewfinder resolution, requires a docking station for USB connection,

Here are a couple of general observations for purchasing a camcorder. Most sales people only know the specs of each camera but have limited (if any) "actual use" experience outside the store. The image quality on the LCD screen is not a good indicator of the actual quality of the recorded video - you really need to view the video image on a TV screen. Finally, you cannot fully assess the quality of a camcorder within the confines of a store.

Because I enjoy the special functions and am planning to do quite a bit of indoor video taping I decided to keep the Sony. I really hated to give up the Canon progressive scan. I originally thought I would keep the Canon but the poor quality video in low light eventually prompted me to evaluate the Sony. Based on other reviews, I also had some concerns with the quality of the JVC hardware but the construction seemed to be on par with that of the Sony camcorder. The bottom line is that each camcorder is an excellent product and the best camera for you is dependent on your needs. If you are on a budget, the JVC offers the best overall value, performance, and features for your money. If you are primarily video taping under good lighting conditions and want to capture stills from video, then I would recommend the Cannon. The Elura was also the most compact, most comfortable and best designed. If you need a camera with many digital effects, options and special functions and are video taping in lower light/night conditions then I would purchase the Sony. Good luck!

I wanted a small camcorder that does a lot. My thinking was that the smaller it is, the more likely I would take it places. I looked at similar Sonys and JVCs, but the Canon proved the best for me. I've always had Canon SLR cameras, so I expected high quality in a camcorder. This one seemed to fit in my hand the best. The Sony was too hard to hold without hitting buttons or covering the lens. The JVC just didn't impress me as far as lens quality and overall features.

I've played with the Canon for a week now, and can honestly say I have not a single complaint. I've transferred video to my computer, edited it and added text, graphics, etc., then transferred it back to the camera, then transferred it again to a VHS tape. Even after all that the resolution was great! The camcorder's sound is awesome, and it even has a built-in speaker so you can listen as well as watch what you've recorded right from the camera.

Definitely get a stronger battery because the standard battery drains quickly (okay, there's my one complaint).

There are lots of digital effects to add to your movies. The Sony has none!

Hope you find this helpful...