| Uber Poster
Posts: 2,399 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Real First Name: Raymond Camera: Nikon Can Others Edit My Photos: Yes iTrader Rating: 9 LIKES Received: 34 LIKES Given: 53 |
11-07-2011, 09:23 PM
Well Dave, after going through both of them and checking them out ... the only major difference is the lens distance from 10x - 18x and the fact the 300 has 3 x 1/3 inch CMOS sensors.
That's really about it.
For what you and Jessica shoot, I would think either would work great.
The benefit of the 3K more is a bit more zoom range (walk the tripod in more) or the sensors. I think there is a bit of color depth difference between the cameras, the 300 distinguishing the contrast difference of darks to highlights a bit better, but not enough for you guys and many others to be bothered about.
I vote for the 100 for you, save you money and can do about 90-95% of what the 300 can do.
You still get the variable frame rate, full HD capability, new sensor (50mb of info is massive), a good lens, plenty of output (component, composite and HDMI along with ProExport port BNC) and what seems to be a very good low light camera.
Seeing some of the examples and reviews online, the 100 is no slouch in the darkness side. Both the 300 and 100 were evenly comparable in lowlight. Something I know you guys shoot in almost 75% of the time on your gigs.
Good luck on decision Dave, and congrats on moving on up in the video department.
-Ray- |
| | |