DCR-IP220 - Good ergonomics, but unproven tape format

I wound up buying the new DCR-IP220 just before leaving for a vacation that included a few days visiting historical sites in the gloomy midwestern U.S. (Missouri and Illinois), and a week on sunny Grand Cayman in the Caribbean.

Overall, I'm pleased with the camcorder, but bear in mind that I'm moving up from an 11-year-old (albeit top-of-the-line in it's day) TR81 camcorder, so I can't compare my results with current MiniDV.

I found the ergonomics of the IP220 easy to get used to and comfortable to use. Out of habit, I tend to use the viewfinder rather than the screen for most recording (this may change over time). I enjoyed being able to take stills as well as video (though quite a few times I got mixed up and pressed the wrong button). This wasn't because the buttons are close or easily confused - I'm just not used to having two "record" buttons on a camcorder.

I found the camera easy to carry, though I kind of wish it had a neck strap. I think the size is about right - not too small to handle, but still very easy to carry.

One complaint/frustration was that its lense doesn't seem to be as wide-angle as I'm used to - trying to tape inside buildings, etc. I found myself constantly backing into corners and still cutting people off at the waist, etc. - I may have to look into getting a wide-angle lense for this. Of course, I was trying to tape inside 150 year old houses with small rooms, so that didn't help.

As for video and still quality, all I can say is that they look fine to me - I watched for pixelization or other artifacts reported as being problems with MicroMV, but haven't noticed any even in dark areas. I will say that experimenting with the night shot and super night shot, I don't see much use for them - I could hardly distinguish what I recorded in these modes.

I was impressed by the ability of the still camera and flash to take decent photos of buildings from around 50 feet away in near total darkness. I didn't expect the flash to work at such a distance, but the photos came out quite well.

One reason I selected this camera was that I thought it was better designend for use in underwater housings than the PC120BT I was also considering - primarily because the screen is on the back rather than flipping out to the side (which requires a much larger housing, or not using the screen). I didn't get a chance to try the camera in an underwater housing on this trip, but I still think the design will lend itself to this application.

I look forward to reading more detailed technical evaluations of the IP220 and the MicroMV format. I'm still not sure I made the correct decision in going with it rather than the PC120. Ergonomically I prefer the IP220, but I have lingering questions about whether I sacrificed video quality by going with this model. But that's based on others's comments on previous MicroMV camcorders - not on any problems I've seen with my own camera or video.

I haven't yet loaded video or stills onto my PC for editing, so I can't comment on that.

Doug