I can say in a nutshell: I'll keep him. It is worth it. Definitely.
I have now made some comparison shots. The result is clear.
1. The Verwacklungls protection has become considerably better. When shooting at medium and longer focal length is the difference more than clear. The recordings with the TM300 are massively muddy in motion and lose massively details, the HC-X929 is like moving a lot better, and distinguishes foreground and background much more detailed.
2. In low-light and telephoto shots of progress is particularly notable. In (bsd. Tele) pictures indoors, such as in a church, the difference is enormous. Schlicht: soggy vs. detailed, noisy vs. clear, with violent vs. without significant chromatic aberrations.
Sound: here the difference is 1: 1 not so very ears due. But since I now already receiving here with an external recorder and multiple microphones, and additional safe side with an external Micro on the camcorder (dried CV-03, on the second tripod s my review it.), And therefore nachvertone in the editing program - is me Sound recording with the internal mics not quite as important. Originally (in my first camcorder x years) the clay I was even decisive importance, and precisely why I had landed at Panasonic prosumer camcorders that took the sound important at that time (then S-VHS ;-)) seems to have remained unchanged so bad: the internal mics are still top at Panasonic. (!) Only those who hold the sound much more important than the image - which must just again at least as much money for the audio recorder (eg Roland R-26), the microphones (eg Behringer) spend, etc., as for the camcorder , But that really does not need any ...
PS for the sound is important: pay attention to micro-input and headphone output! (The HC-X929 has both)
Wide: for my "old" TM300 I had a wide-angle conversion lens. This will be only rarely necessary for the X929. The has a focal length equivalent to 29mm - that's providing much shorter than most camcorders, and usually ranges from. But he has a little less tele - I verschmerze personally like.
So: the image quality is the hammer. It satisfies my opinion even the highest demands, esp. Also in low-light conditions.
The sound quality is in the ear of the listener. Who needs absolute top quality, must work with external microphones and any external recording device. But that is true of all camcorders without exception.
To sum up: full recommendation!
I will keep the old way - it is always beneficial to take such events from two perspectives. This adds variety in video.
Vg
H.Hellwig
PS Anyone who thinks that a good photo cam bring the well - the comparisons. I have a brand new Nikon D7100 - which brings no where near the quality of the video X929. And the X929 - allegedly 20.4 megapixels - brings not nearly in practice, the photo quality of the D7100. Nothing helps mEnichts. Who needs top-quality photo, you need a D-SLR or at least a very good bridge. Who needs excellent videos, needs a videocam. Perhaps that will change 'times - but at the moment it is still so ...
