Check my review on OSNews in about 2-3 hours from now. I will have an as-shot clip there that will have audio. The camera has stereo mics btw.

Regarding low light, it's not too bad, although there is some noise, obviously. I am more concerned with the lack of exposure control when on video mode (its picture mode has exposure control)...

BTW, there is cheaper than that. The other Kodak camera I linked for you the other day is $50 cheaper, and it records 720p too (although at 10mbps, not at 13mbps).

Is that the EASYSHARE Z1275? On amazon.de it is priced at 168 euro, which is a real bargain. What is the catch with the Z1275?

Well, it's cheaper, but it doesn't have image stabilization (IS), and it only offers the "medium" quality 720p. The V2153 allows to turn on/off IS, it has a high res screen, more picture options, and records in 720p HQ quality. The difference between the two models on geeks.com is $40, and for that difference, I would go with the V1253.

Of course, if you are thinking of getting any of the two, remember that editing can only be done on Vegas with proxy files, otherwise it's unbearably slow.

Thanks. Yes, just click to the review link and download a part of the raw footage there.

I don't quite agree. The problem was that there was no exposure control so most scenes came out overexposed. Also, the footage on vimeo is color graded, and depending on the filter used, it can make things better or worse. Download the unretouched clip on the link above.

After downloading the original clip, all I have to say is...
As much as I hate to go all Simon (American Idol) on you, your camera isn't worth the bang for the bucks when it comes to video recording. There is quite a high level of noise, over-exposure, and choppy motion when panning. However, if you truly wants to go HD recording, I recommend getting a camcorder for that purpose, leave the photo to the camera. Sorry if I made you feel bad, it was not my intention. You might want to look into Prosumer products for both camera and camcorder. Based on experiences, I learned not to mixed the two in a single device.

I have over 15 cameras here including HD cameras. I am a reviewer, I get free stuff, and I get lots.

BTW, you downloaded the wrong clip. The file on Vimeo is color graded, not straight out of the camera. The sample file on OSNews, linked above, is "as is" and so base your critic on that file.

The camera is over-exposing in some instances as I also said, but it has no choppy motion when panning. The choppy motion on panning is Sony Vegas' fault, when it's resampling to re-render. As for noise, this comes because of the Kodak compression. It exists on all their models, on all their pictures and videos. It is mentioned on my review linked above.

At that price, for those who want a single device for video/pictures, this is an ok camera. If you only want HD video on the cheap, get an Aiptek HD for $30 more. But the pictures out of the Aiptek suck, and the device is bigger. So, each to each own. For 2007, the camera is priced correctly, based on that feature-set and performance. There is no other HD device that will offer good pictures too at that price. And not everyone can buy an HV20 at $800 or even a Sanyo Xacti at $400. Better and worse products exist, but they are only worse if they are worth less than they cost. This Kodak camera is priced correctly, and this is why it got 7.5/10 on my review. You get what you pay for.

Yes, I did visit OSNews for the clip. HV20 is less than $800 for the camcorder alone, I recently bought my HG10 for $899 CAD. The Kodak's still image quality isn't bad but it isn't the best either, it will provide descent print outs. However, the video lacks quality, but hey you can't get much from a device with such a small CCD sensor. I'd rate it differently, Still Image at 7.8 and for the Video 6.0 will be my highest. As for your Sony Vegas issue, you might want to switch over to Adobe Premier/After Effect for video purposes.

I prefer Vegas for video. I don't like the interface of Adobe's video products.

It is not the Kodak files that kill Vegas, it's the fact that Vegas is not optimized for .mov and .mp4 container editing. It only supports properly mpg, m2t and avi. Be careful, I am not talking about supporting video formats, I am talking about video containers, it's a different thing.

24p is not smooth. Use the default 60i.

24p does give you some of the film look, but it's not "smooth". It only has 24 frames per second, not 60. By definition it is not "smooth". It's just different.

you realize that we are off topic here, right? And that you don't click on the "reply" button to reply to my post but instead you are using the white input box below which does not link your reply to my post.

Yes, you can convert 60i to 24p, but it won't look the same because of different shutter speeds used by the camera. Yes, you can combine 60i and 24p in the same timeline, but again, it's a bad idea.

sorry :) now i see.. well yeah I get your point..it does not have the same look (even tho you can tweak the colors but still).. then if you want a slow motion.. u can`t use the 24p for that.. you need to use the 60i

so you would only use 60i for a movie? or all 24p ? either or? but never both?

and something else.. sorry.. with these bothering questions.. but i was wondering if you would know..
i use adobe cs3 and on the time line when i try to do a slow motion (i`m using the remapping tool) slow down the movie to 60 , 50 , 40% (speed) i get a ghosting effect or.. is not smooth enough as i`ve seen other movies (in slow motion).. do you have an idea why?

As I said, this is off topic, because this Kodak camera can't do 24p. You are aggravating me. If you want such a discussion I would be very glad to have it with you, but message me, do not reply here off topic.

For the last time here, you can use 60i in a 24p timeline if you want it for slow or fast motion. But not for normal stuff. If you want to shoot a *real movie*, go 24p exclusively, and remove pulldown before you start editing. To not get ghosting effect you must disable resample. I don't know if Adobe's tools can do that, Vegas can.

The video was 720p, progressive. As for the exposure compensation missing, well, if you had read my review before buying you wouldn't spend money on it if that bothers you, cause you would know about it. ;)