With everything going on at this year's CES we didn't get a chance to do more than
take a few pictures of Sony's unfortunately named
Webbie HD (aka the MHS-CM1), a tiny little camcorder that shoots in high-def yet costs just $200. Michael at
Diffusion had the opportunity to review one and, while he liked everything on the camera's spec sheet, in practice found it to be a "low priced, low quality disposable HD camera." It shoots 720p and not-quite-1080p video (maxing out at 1440 x 1080) as well as 5 megapixel stills through a 5x optical zoom lens. Overall image quality was found to be poor, thanks in large part to exposure settings that could never settle on the right values themselves yet couldn't be manually tweaked. Given the price really there's not much reason to complain, as it seems perfectly serviceable for those who worry about cost more than image quality, but if you were hoping for a prosumer cam at a plaything price, keep searching.
posted January 23rd 2009 9:22AM
Yeah, i'm more interested in the SX series.
Many user reviews including this one to some extent seem to compare this to a $700 plus camcorder which is unfair.
What I want to know is how does the video quality compare to cameras such as the flip hd and the vado hd? Those are it's competitors.
Excellent point - because as it stands it seems the only diff is that those $700 ones have hard drives
Yes, I agree that this is not a fair comparison.
The more expensive ones may or may not have hard drives (some are strictly flash based), you also can expect them to have higher quality sensors which are really the main difference between a $200 HD camera and one that goes for $700-$1000. Also higher bitrates at which video is recorded, better low-light recording, better quality sound recording, different video modes, manual controls, at least double the optical zoom range, OIS, etc. The list goes on and on.
Basically, you get what you pay for. I get about the same quality HD video from my Panasonic FZ28 point and shoot digicam and although it shoots 720p video, the quality still leaves much to be desired compared to something like a Canon HF11 for instance. However the 18X optical zoom from my camera is awesome!
I think there are better choices out there in low price range.
Comparing this to an expensive HD camcorder is just like comparing a compact point and shoot digital camera to a Canon EOS. Yeah my HD camcorder was expensive and does an incredible amount more than this thing does, but it also cost over a grand.
There's a lot more than just a hard drive in difference. That's like saying the only difference between a tiny point and shoot and SLR is the type of media it uses or saying the only difference between a GeForce 8600 and a GTX 280 is size.
Exposure, in HD quality, makes a huuuuge difference to your overall picture quality. In short, bad exposure makes tons of grain and at 720p resolutions that's a lot of grain.
Agreed. I have one of these now, replacing a Christmas-gift MinoHD. Compared to the MinoHD, I find that:
a) This has a reasonably wide lens; the Mino's is so narrow that you can basically get one person a yard away in the video; with this, you can get about three - and thanks to the optical zoom, you can get one person in by zooming slightly.
b) The picture quality is significantly better and not as grainy, particularly in low light situations as is the case in most evening, indoor shots. The encoding of the video also seems to be more standard - with fewer conversions required, and no special software needed to sync the camera, unlike the MinoHD.
c) There it's a lot easier to hold and thus there is less jitter in my videos.
However, like all Sony products, you should know you're getting this at a premium: though it costs less on paper than the MinoHD, the cost of your MemoryStick will jack that cost right up. However, bang-for-the-buck, this wins hands down.
To Varun, thank you!! Finally someone who had used both this and a Flip comparing the two. That is just what I needed. I am looking for a small camera with stills where the vid qual is at least that of the Flip HD. Until your comment, no one has mentioned the two on quality in the same sentence (as surprising as that is since they are direct competitors). Thanks.
Well I question why the $700 ones need to cost $700. Seems to me they use to cost that when they had all the complicated motors and tape transport in them. Now they just needs to have a card slot and memory dump logic to write the information digitally with no moving parts. The cost of manufacturing the average camcorder now should be a lot less that it was, but this hasn't translated into savings on the consumer end.
I purchased one of these... and returned it 3 days later.
The image quality is barely passable, even for a "toy" camera, but what really made me return it was the S-L-O-W PROGRESSIVE shutter!
Have you ever seen the REALLY old movies (think 1920s/1930s) of race cars? The super slow shutter of those old-time film cameras made "fast moving" objects skewed. (Think italics.)
This camera has the same problem. Both for fast moving horizontal objects (skewing), but also for fast moving vertical objects (stretching or squashing).
Even using this camera for YouTube isn't recommended. I just picked up a not-much-more-expensive HDR-CX7 and am MUCH happier with it.
Regarding comparing it to a $700 camera - When you buy a camera with a Sony logo on it, it shouldn't constantly flux in and out of focus, click between iris settings, etc. $200 or not. That would be like saying that it's ok for a cheap mp3 player to have a slight buzzing sound in one ear. What would be the point?
Sony should be able to make a stable web-quality video camera for $200. Most of what's wrong with this camera could be fixed with different firmware. So I didn't compare it to a camcorder or whatever. I just held it to the standard of what I expect out of Sony. -Michael
Given the USD$200ish price (buy your own memory stick, too), I would say a fair comparison would also be comparing it to $200-250ish standard-definition MiniDV cams.
Personally, I'd not want to sell my MiniDV cam which is pretty full-featured (40x+ optical zooms, lossless 16bit/48KHz audio for starters), far more advanced exposure, fast focus, etc. Standard def, sure, but generally any MiniDV cam you get will offer an (arguably) better end-result than this, IMO. If it's the end-result that matters most to you, above a bit of extra convenience.
Despite the feeling that tape is 'over the hill' it still delivers and offers unbeatable bang-for-buck in cameras offering far more capabilities than this one where it matters, all at v.similar cost. White balance issues (very bad auto, no option for manual), focus (unreliable) and exposure issues like this Webbie are shocking compared to any MiniDV cam on the market now. It's quite clear that they cheaped-out on the cam in the name of size/ convenience.
TIMMAH! brings up an excellent point about cam costs in the age of solid-state. In particular, I think models like this one have huge profit margin for Sony, given what you (don't) get. In many ways I think some part of the market is going backwards for a bit of convenience, but really that's nothing new. Sony should rake those dollars in while the public is receptive to budget cams with a whole lotta solid-state HD hype.
"Speaking of the battery, Sony went the Apple route with this product and hard wired the battery internal with no way for the consumer to swap it out. It puts this camera in the category of more of a ‘disposable’ item."
-----------
I forgot to mention this. If there was ever any doubt if this is a disposable item, this is it. Enjoy several hundred charges, then toss it out 'cause it won't be holding a charge well.
I doubt the replacement labour and battery will be worth replacing the embedded battery with a fresh one. It also means not being able to carry a spare battery.
They all love to talk about environment, but most of these companies are paying lip-service. We are at the height of disposable electronics.
That thing looks less responsive than my wife!!
Can someone explain the weird resolution that this camera has? Why?
The resolution at 1440 x 1080 is the same used by all HDV camcorders - 1080i or 1080p video but with 'non-square' pixels - basically the 1440 is stretched to 1920 when viewing on an HDTV.
Non-square pixels are a recipe for disaster going forward as tech specs and standards change. In 5 years, or 10, the video you shoot on this may look perfectly awful (squashed) on whatever new device you're trying to play it on.
Bandwidth, getting a small chip to push full HD is still a challenge if cost is a factor.
I do notice that more recent versions of these kind of cheap HD recorders can actually do 60fps on 720p, and this does 30 it seems, and also they sometimes do full width but perhaps they are cheating.
She sure has some manhands.
What about the name "Michael Smith" makes you think the poster is a woman?
My bad, then I guess they're rather feminine looking man hands. besides, there are much better hd video cameras out there at the same price point.
What are the better choices at the same price point?
That is with still shots (3MP+) and preferably some level of optical zoom. I have a webbie on order, just hoping it is at least as good as the Flip HD/Vado HD, but with stills.
@ iamnotmad
I just got the Polaroid DVC-00725F HD Digital Camcorder, which appears to be at least as good as the webbie (better if you take in to consideration it doesn't use memory stick), for $135 shipped from Woot...
A Sony product not a bargain?! NO!
Man, I was really hoping this was going to fare a bit better. I wanted to get this for my dad for his birthday - what about in the $300 range? Any good recommendations for an HD camcorder?
You can try Flip Video MinoHD for $229, they say the video quality (720p) is not bad. I didn't try it myself though, so check reviews.
But my personal answer is: NO, there are no good HD cameras under $300. Consumer HD cameras that are worth mentioning start from $500 with Canon Vixia line.
Don't get the Mino HD. I had that and returned it for the Vado HD since it has the wide lens and bigger screen. The wide lens really helps since you don't have to step back to take videos, which was the case with the Mino HD.
i wanna kno how long can this thing last on batteries.. and thus how much video i can cram in the memory before i need to recharge/unload....
about 90 min officially. probably 1hr in real world terms
This sounds like the megapixel craze in digicams, now HD craze in camcorders despite poor tiny sensors. I'm happy enough for a progressive 480p video. If the end result of the videos are youtube or DVDs, IMO 480p is enough. I rather see features like interval recording or high speed fps recording, than a noisy HD video with poor quality.
As others have said, comparing the Webbie to $700+ camcorders (much less prosumer models...seriously guys?) is comparing apples and oranges.
Does the video quality compare to pricier cams with better sensors? Not really, but it's pretty decent for what it is. And besides, its so intuitive that my wife has ZERO problem picking it up and shooting some videos of our infant son. And honestly, a decent camcorder that gets USED is a lot better than a bells-and-whistles model that sits in its carry bag 90% of the time.
There's also the convenience factor of being able to film HD in MP4, instead of AVCHD.
A few samples (albeit hobbled by YouTube's capabilities...they look much better native):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oHffX6_-gtA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=490GFZnx3Gs
Just Some Thoughts on the Sony MHS-CM1 Webbie Video Camera...
1/2.5" 5MP CMOS sensor. Relatively large sensor size can make for better low light shooting if noise and pixel density are good. But ROLLING SHUTTER effect of skewed vertical lines during any medium - fast panning makes shots look too "jello-like" or wobble. General hand-held shooting also looks bothersome and wiggly, which is the whole point of this camera. If you look at the demo at the SonyStyle site of footage shot with this cam you will notice they minimized clips to just those that did not show this irritating effect. Clever editing always helps commercials with 1-2 second edited clips but will NOT HELP your wobbly home footage of unedited several minute long hand-held ready to be YouTubed seasick cinema. Try before you buy, watch unedited YouTube footage shot with this camera before you decide. The MHS-CM1s CMOS rolling shutter effect is no better and no worse than the competition's.
REMEMBER: This rolling shutter effect will only look worse when blown up on large screens so be sure to use a Tripod whenever possible.
Resolution is 1440 x 1080 same as HDV as mentioned in above comment. Encoding is in H.264 with MP4 wrapper, editing may be more difficult with lower end systems as H.264 requires a lot of power to decode. Yes, non square pixels must be "stretched" for playback but this practice is standard with DVD ( 720 x 480 ) and other formats i.e. HDV.
1440 x 1080 resolution is HIGHER than the Flip and Kodak "HD" entries at 1280 x 720P but the CM1's price is competitive and this resolution should be seen as a bar raiser in the market.
Frame Rate. 30fps or 30P for 1440 x 1080, 1280 x 720, and 640 x 480 resolutions. While some cameras offer 1280 x 720 @ 60fps or 60P, 30fps may seem a little lacking. In any case, 60P may help reduce the rolling shutter effect and be more compatible with the true ATSC HD broadcast standard of 1280 x 720 @ 60fps.
5x Optical Zoom. This advantage over the competition cannot be stressed enough. The other cams seem to only have digital zooms which is pretty much software interpolation of binned pixel areas in the chip instead of a REAL OPTICAL ZOOM LENS ELEMENT utilizing the ENTIRE area of the sensor.
Memory Stick Pro Duo. Most people will gripe at Sony's insistence on milking customers with its proprietary flash format, costing more (sometimes up to 50% or greater) for the the equivalent SD or SDHC card.
Built-In Battery. Not Removable or Replaceable? 90 Minutes ( real world 60 ) is ample time but what happens down the road when the Lithium Ion battery fails or develops a Memory Problem ( yes all batteries have memory problems ). Welcome to the Disposable HD video camera class. What happens if you want to shoot more than 60 minutes? Can't pop in a second set to extend recording time.
Auto Focus / AF ? This camera may have auto focus. Could not find it in the manual. You can watch some YouTube videos and see the lens "focusing" or hunting during some shots. If it does have AF, it is much better than the Fixed Focus lenses fitted on the competition. Camera has a macro mode for close ups. Someone do some research as AF would definitely be a HUGE ADVANTAGE over the competition.
Image Stabilization? Probably Not. Not mentioned in the Manual and if implemented would probably be electronic. Optical Image Stabilization bring up the cost too much for this class.
No Manual Exposure. Did not see any method to lock exposure. Some manual exposure settings would be a big help in preventing overexposure.
Component Output YPbPr. How much more would HDMI output have cost? Pennies more for cleaner digital output.
Quick Summary Below.
Pros:
1440 x 1080 pixels is higher resolution than the competition's 1280 x 720.
5x optical zoom is better than competing cams digital zooms.
Neutral:
CMOS rolling shutter effect. All the other disposable HD cams are using this technology save for the Panasonic and Kodak digital cameras which have 1280 x 720 movie modes and utilize CCD sensors which don't exhibit this effect.
Cons.
Memory Stick Pro Duo gauge-them-while-you-can flash.
Non-Removable battery.