Video compression method:
M31: AVCHD only, but various compression levels - all are MTS files. Widescreen only - but can be cropped for 4:3 if required. Various compression settings - highest quality is 24 mbps.
HC9: standard definition DV (4:3 or 16:9) or HDV (by definition, 16:9); 25 mbps data stream.
My opinion: Advantage HC9
Lens filter diameter:
M31: 37mm
HC9: 37mm
Tie.
Imaging chip:
M31: 1/4" CMOS
HC9: 1/2.9" CMOS
Advantage: HC9 (bigger is better).
"Lowlight/No light" video recording:
M31: Rated to 0.4 lux, but shutter speed is 1/2 second. Video quality with any movement will record ghosting. Better to turn on lights. Suggested minimum @ 100 lux.
HC9: Rated to 0 visible light when built-in infrared emitter used. Minimum illumination @ 5 lux - shutter at 1/30 second.
Advantage: Tough one - but the Infrared emitter can be useful... Advantage: HC9.
Viewfinder:
M31: none - LCD panel only.
HC9: Viewfinder and LCD panel
Advantage: HC9.
Audio-in connection:
M31: 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo input
HC9: 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo input
Tie.
Manual audio control:
M31: Yes
HC9: Yes
Tie.
Video storage:
M31: Flash memory.
HC9: MiniDV tape.
My opinion: Advantage HC9. The inexpensive digital tape is the archive. I expect a public access station would want/need to archive the video. The extra step of burning optical disc video copies (not recommended) or setting up a RAID1 multi-hard drive array would be needed for the M31. Flash memory is not an appropriate archive media - and even if you want to do that, would be expensive.
Headphone jack
M31: Yes, uses AV-out audio.
HC9: Yes, dedicated port.
Advantage: HC9
LANC port:
M31: Yes; requires "remote control adapter" in proprietary accessory shoe.
HC9: Yes; dedicated port; proprietary accessory shoe is available to use for something else.
Advantage: HC9 (That the M31 can have a wired remote is good, but is a two piece process; the adapter is another $120 and uses the proprietary shoe - and that could be a bummer if you want to use the show for something important.)
HC9 has been around a few years. It was actually discontinued for a bit, but Canon kept their HV40 around and Sony brought the HC9 back. Since you were looking at the HC9, what about the HV40?
If you go with miniDV tape, the editing computer must have a firewire port to import the video.
If you go with AVCHD/MTS files, the computer needs to be very robust (more horsepower needed for processing as compared to DV/HDV). Transcoding is an extra step - MPEG Streamclip from www.squared5.com works well. There are many other transcoders.
Whether the M31's low price is worth the extra steps (time) required for post production processing is up to you. Personally, I'd go with the C9... but I am a miniDV tape fan. I've been using a HDR-HC1 and HDR-FX1 for years. I got a Canon HF-S100 last year to check out AVCHD - I gave it to my son.
Hi ? I?m a newbie to this forum; this is my first post. I have recently become a ?producer? for a public -access cable station in Athens, Ohio. I have to buy a camcorder to record my biweekly program.
For processing and editing (on Premiere Elements
, I need to have a standard definition AVI (720 by 480 pixels) format. I have had two camcorders highly recommended and I wonder of any of you can enlighten me about the differences.
The first is a Canon M31 ($500) which outputs data in an AVCHD format on a memory card. This would have to be converted somehow into the standard AVI format.
The other is a Sony HC9 ($1100) which uses MiniDV cassettes but has the option of outputting the data in the format I need.
What are the main differences between these two camcorders? If they give roughly the same results, why would the Sony cost more than twice as much as the Canon?
Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated.
Paul

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic