MX300 & MX350 viewing angles
The MX300 is definitely wider than the MX350, however the MX300 has obvious E/W pincushion or barrel effect where as the MX350 doesn't.

Some MX horizontal playback lines
MX-300 - 500 lines
MX-350 - 500 lines
MX-8 - 530 Lines

MX iris bits
Typically iris technology used motor driven multiple blades, however advances in lens design "actuators" reduces this to two. Both systems work well.

Question
People keep saying the TRV900's optical image stabilizer is better than the MX300?
Answer
Wait for the MX350, 2 level user settings for normal or mega Optical Stabilizer.
Question
People say that the MX300 has a built-in ND filter?
Answer
True, ND Filter used internally to complement 2 blade iris configuration.

About the MX500
There is something different with the Wide Screen Mode from the MX300. The MX300 converted 720 x 576 to 720 x 432. Then x 1.33 zoom applied to vertical. MX500 starts with 934 x 768 then converted to 720 x 576 without zoom. Almost appears natural.! The MX350 was difficult to sell because it's design was a little too close to the MX8, wasn't mucho enough. Anyway the 500 is a better package, for example:

Auto Pop up Flash
Smoother MPG4 320 x 240
H Res more than 550 + Lines
3.0 Meg Stills, that's 2048 x 1496
Web Cam feature
Color Night view
Top Vertical load (cassette)
USB 2 compliant
Pseudo Wide Screen 16:9
CCD 886H 1/6" x 3
Gross Pixels = 800K x 3
Effective (camera) = 640K x 3
Effective (Card) = 700K x 3


-------------------------------------------------------------
I can feel my brain rubbing against my skull

The theoretical maximum horizontal resolution of the DV format itself is 530 lines, so the MX isn't likely to exceed that.

A question for you Frank. On Sony Mega-chip camcorders, switching into the still frames to Memory stick mode increases the wide-angle coverage and at the other end of the zoom reduces the telephoto available. It must do - if the image is spread over a bigger chip then the field of view is wider.

The MX300 - for all it's claims to be a 1.8 megapixel still camera doesn't do this and it's now known that the higher resolution is purely done with interpolation. But when you switch to shoot stills on the MX500, does the field of view get wider for any given focal length? In other words - do we have a genuine megapixel camcorder here? Anyone ?

tom.

Tom, why do you thinlk the max horizontal res is 530 and not 540

"H Res more than 550 + Lines"

Tom, that's what the cam captures, according to Panasonic. It is not the playback resolution. Pana claims, 540 playback lines for the MX500. The MX300 and 350 were tested to play back 500 lines.

Regarding your other question/s, don't know, I have to think about it. I never use the stills feature. I use film cameras for stills, and then scan what I need (in digital).

Okay, hehe, Andre De Clercq writes:

TV lines or TVL is a standarised definition of horizontal resolution performance for Television. TV = L/ph (lines of horizontal resolution on a horizontal length which is equal to the pixture height). If the height is 3/4 of the width and the width has 720 lines (pixels) in DV, the number of resolution lines on a horizontal length which equals the height, we get 540 TVL resolution for DV. The (theoretical) max number of pixels of the DV standard in horizontal direction (=max number of vertical lines) equals 720. In video, however, resolution is expressed in "lines per picture height (=l/ph) or TVL and this is 720 x 3/4 = 540. The 800 lines resolution is one of the irelevant specs belonging to the world of the many misleading information used in the semi pro and consumer world. Even if the cam itself had 10,000 lines of resolution it will end up by the 540 TVL limit at the DV output. The more initial resolution however the "cleaner" (aliasing) the 540 TVL can be reproduced, but the limit is still 540 TVL.

On the MX-8, the wide angle of stills is really wider than the wide angle of video. This is probably due to spreading the image wider to allow capturing to all the available pixels.

On the MX350, the wide angle of both video and still is about the same. That's because the still resolution comes from interpolation of the 3CCD images. Actually the stills sucks. Yucks, BS, crap.

On the MX500, I don't know about the wide angle, but I must say that the images are pretty decent and usable. Why? I guess that it is due to newwer technology in interpolation and the availability of more pixels. But for keen photographers, it still sucks.

Hahaha, who is more macho? The longer guy or the fatter guy! :)

I prefer the handling of the MX350, as my hands are small and the grip on the MX350 is easier on me. The MX300 is better balance, but you'll need bigger hands, as the zoom is way at the top. The MX500 looks like the MX350 chopped short, and the grip feels just like the MX350. The winning part is top load mechanism.