The HC3 and HC5 are EIS (electronic). The HC7 is optical.

The HC7 stabilization is superior to the HC3 - hadn't noticed it initially when comparing to my HC1, but with all three side by side (1 and 7 are OIS, 3 is EIS), the 3 was twitchy by comparison when handheld - enough to convince me the 7 was the best choice, and to retire the 3 - the 1 still held up decent in comparison.

The 3 is great for small size, but the 7 is a far superior camera on almost every possible comparison, and just as compact! Kevin, if you can upgrade, do it, you'll be glad you did.

HC1 is EIS. HC3 is EIS.
(Mikko's right, I'd mis-recalled the HC1)

I didn't mean optical is always better than electronic only that the Canon HV20 stabilizer is better than Sony HC3s, but I've never tried SKY DIVING with them! :)

HC1 has electronic stabilization, not optical. If you disable stabilization and enable full scan, you will see the whole image before the digital stabilization. A1U is also EIS. Cnet and camcorderinfo are dead wrong.

I have seen DSE's post of the footage. You don't want to try sky diving with it! :)

I have a HC-7 and use it on a helmet cam for mountain biking. It still needs lots of post work.

Probably the first thing you'll find with shooting HD is that it's more sensitive to movement... and the small cameras are tough to stabilize handheld. ANY internal image stabilization can only do so much, and the rest is up to the operator/platform. Controlled camera moves are critical (not talking about the extreme sports stuff so much - that you take what you can get I'd guess). Slow pans, keep the camera level, and don't bounce it around a whole bunch. Personally I ended up with a bracket system that the cam mounts to that I feel gives pretty decent control without a full stabilization rig...

The HC3 EIS isn't as proficient as the HC7 OIS in similar movement, nor is it as good as the older HC1 - I got decent results with it though. The OIS of the HV20 does OK, but handles movement differently, and IMO (also noted by others) not as well as the Sony 1 and 7.

Anyone care to answer. I need a new camera soon.

M

Hi Mike,

All camera manufacturers license their various technologies to one another. For example, LANC is a Sony protocol which is licensed to Canon for their higher-end three-chip camcorders.

Same with OIS. A Sony camcorder equipped with OIS is using a Canon technology. There are different types of OIS, such as Vari-Angle Prism vs. Lens Shift, but you're not going to see a noticeable difference between Canon and Sony OIS on these similarly priced camcorders because those systems all use pretty much the same design from the same core technology.

There is also a type of Sony Super SteadyShot which is EIS, but just as lossless as optical (contrary to popular belief, there is no longer such a big distinction in quality between EIS and OIS anymore -- electrical has improved dramatically and in some cases is just as good if not better than OIS).

The complaints I've been reading about OIS can be easily dismissed as improper handling and operation, i.e., human error. Somebody had mentioned "shooting while walking" and I got a pretty good laugh out of that one. All image stabilization systems require that operator to work with the camera. The camera must be held as steadily as possible to begin with. Only then is EIS or OIS at all effective.

True story: at DV Expo East 2004, I was asked to help out in the booth with the XL2 rollout. I watched as this one guy strolled up to the counter, put the camera on his shoulder, aimed at the lights in the ceiling and started fire hosing the camera, you know, really waving it around, making wild figure eight patterns, etc. Says out loud, "hmm, image stabilization doesn't seem to work very well." Honest to God, true story.

Hi Chris, and thanks,

Pretty much what I thought, a lot of hubub over nothing. OK, some systems may not be as good as others, but any of the Canon optical systems have always looked good to me. I also find no loss of resolution when using OIS as has been stated previously. Sony licensed from Canon should be the same.

The systems have come a long way. I can remember my JVC hunting all over for movement when on a tripod with stabilization on. It was always a rule not to have it on when mounted on a tripod. With the Canon OIS, I have noticed no hunting at all, not that I would recommend it being used on a tripod. I also like the OIS on the HV20, but it can't overcome my unsteady 60 year old hands at full zoom with such a small light camera. I can prove it from my Bruce Willis concert footage recently. Great blues concert!

I still believe that optical is better than digital, electronic, or whatever you choose to call it. I think optical is more intuitive, or knows when to work because of movement, rather than always searching whether there is movement or not. Just my opinion.

Thanks for your input Chris. You are still the man! And, I totally believe your story about DV Expo East 2004. I read and see way too much that affirms. And, I can't wait till Sony's patent on LANC runs out, because I miss it on my HV20.

Thanks, your thorn---Mike

Douglas, thanks:
So your opinion:
I'm shooting just mostly handheld, some tripod, footage of people talking and moving a bit. Would you stick with the HC3? or get rid of it and get one with Optical.

LIke I've said, is seems the steady shot ( which is digtial on hcd) I currently have seems quite jerky.

If you advise to get new camera, would you go HC7 or HV20? have you done test on this ( but remember, I'm not doing sports) still gotta tell you just shooting people talking and moving around, HC3 quite jerky, you don't agree?

Also, what about sound between these two cameras -- for just hearing what subject is saying. I got the sony because the Canon put the HV10 mic at back of Camera. the HV20 is moved up bit, but still not as front as the Sonys

PS
Dave, curious what also is better about the 7 than the 3, and could you speak to the 7 vs the Canon HV 20?

bracket system...for handheld anything that helps for that?

Chris; what is this new EIS you are talking about, surely is not what's on the hdr-hc3. if it's so good, why did sony finally go to ois for the 7?

I can't intelligently comment on the HV20. I have an older HV10. It's useless for the aerial and moto-based work we seem to be doing a lot of lately. With stabilization off, it still is jerky and it's obvious that stabilization isn't really "off."
The HC series Sonys....I have several of them. I can't use the HC7 in the air very well for similar reasons to the Canon. The HC5 is great in air and on ATV, or mounted on the gas tank of a MotoX bike.
No, I don't find the HC3 to be jerky, but perhaps that's just my style of camera movement. I don't flip the camera all over. No matter what cam I'm shooting with, big or small, the goal is to be a human camera mount, smooth and steady. IS is only there to fix my human flaws, not make great video out of jerky junk.

Doug, we are having big communication issues. You keep mentioning ariel photography, and I need help and guidance, and opinions for just shooting people who are standing in front on the camera, and maybe moving a little bit back and forth. I can't fly and airplane, but you could shoot some friends causally and then, please, report back.

Hi Kevin -

What Spot is getting at is that different IS approaches handle movement differently, but NONE will make up for bad camera work. I shot quite a lot of stuff of my kids (and boy oh boy do they move around...) with the HC3 - I was very happy with the video from that camera - I did use it with brackets (check my old posts for a picture, or if it's gone, I can post again). It's not easy to stabilize these smaller cameras just because of the low mass and small size - they tend move with you... so you have to stabilize the platform somehow. And to top it off, HDV really brings out motion issues.

The 7 has better resolution, it's better in low light, and has mic and headphone jacks the 3 lacked. I felt when I did some side by side testing that the OIS of the HC7 did better than the EIS of the 3 for just general shooting, and for taking out minor suff when mounted on a small steadicam type rig. Might not be better for extreme sports type stuff - I'd guess that those would be two entirely different optimization algorithms...

Dave