Customer Reviews

Canon VIXIA HF M41 Full HD Camcorder with HD CMOS Pro and 32GB Internal Flash Memory

5 star:		(46)
4 star:		(35)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Well, I have had this camcorder now for a week and tested it in many lighting situations and locations and I must say I'm very impressed. Outside filming my niece and dogs in the yard the videos are crisp viewed on my 40" Sony HD LCD TV. I would give it a 5 out of 5. In my eyes, looks broadcast quality. Indoors with varying light was also impressive although I did notice a little graininess. I'd give low light a 4 star rating. Being as anal as I am, I did a little test. Take it for what it's worth.

Now I am the most anal person you will probably meet and maybe set my expectations too high at times, but I started flipping through some of the HD channels on t.v. to do a little comparison and noticed too a bit of graininess if I stood right up to the television. Now I know nobody watches t.v from three inches away, I just wanted to compare what was being broadcasted to what I was able to film with this camera. I must say, this camera's footage is nearly spot on in many instances (TNT in HD, FOX in HD, USA in HD) I'd like to believe I have a good signal from my cable provider into my television, so in overall video quality, I'd give this camera 5 stars.

So why not 5 stars overall for this camera? Well, maybe I'm used to my iphone's touchscreen too much, but the touchscreen on the viewfinder drives me nuts. I might be old school (34 years old), but I really prefer actual buttons to navigate menus and such. I used to own a Canon Vixia HF100 and really enjoyed the navigation stick and buttons. I would say I have average sized hands, and find it a bit hard to get the right menu selection with my finger at times.

Now I did go with the 16gb version and have no regrets though I can't ever see myself opting for using its internal storage. I like to be able to pop out my sd card and just watch my videos on my PS3 or computer for editing instantly. Don't like the hassle of transferring images via usb. Also, wanted a black body as opposed to the silver one. Yes, I'm that picky. LOL. I like the fact it has two sd card slots, so storage should never be an issue.

I also like that canon took a chance on just making it lower megapixel for ideal HD recording. Let's be honest, if you want to take pictures, use a real camera. I'd much rather have better video quality and sacrifice still photos. I know a lot of people complain about this, but it seems to make sense. You're getting "larger" pixels for higher quality low light recording. It's also nice that Canon included the HD CMOS Pro censor in this model. The same one found in the higher end G10, saving you quite a few bucks.

Overall, I'm very pleased with my purchase and feel Canon has put out a very competitive product with great results. I've already bought a lens hood and extended battery to compliment the camera. (Stock battery is too small and leaves a noticeable gap at the edge. A BP819 should fit the bill nicely. I hope this review was helpful. I know a lot of reviewers commented on its other features, so that is why I omitted some of the other points. Thanks for reading.

Well, stating that this is the best mid-range camcorder is quite a claim, but to be fair, it's not my assertion - that award was just bestowed on the M40 this week by CamcorderInfo.com ...and by mid-range, they mean video cameras priced between $500 and $1000. What makes this camera an even better deal is that you can get all three versions (M400, M40, and M41) for under $500.

Keep in mind that most reviewers of camcorders look at specs and then make a subjective judgment about the quality of the video. The CamcorderInfo.com folks (with whom I am not affiliated) do extensive lab-based testing to measure, for example, color accuracy, noise, and low-light performance in controlled and consistent conditions. The fact that they rate this camera so highly is high praise indeed. They also have a great 11 page review on the M40 if you are interested.

So why did they like this camera so much? Put simply, its sensor. This camera's sensor is larger and more optimized for HD video than the competition. Most of those other cameras use a quarter inch sensor, while this camera has one that is one-third of an inch size. When you calculate sensor area, that is a heck of a difference. Canon has also optimized the hardware and software to focus this sensor on HD resolution...so it does it well. Many other cameras not only have a smaller sensor, they integrate it so it can record HD *and* higher than HD resolution still pictures. Canon did not do so here. Yes, you can take still photos with the camera, but at full HD resolution only (1920×1080) - not larger. Canon appears to have decided to not sacrifice video quality to get a higher megapixel rating for still pictures. Hey, you are buying a *video* camera...right? :)

So what are they then doing with such a large sensor? Grabbing more light, suppressing visual noise, and getting better color accuracy. Even more impressive is that this camera has the exact same sensor as CamcorderInfo's "price be darned" consumer camcorder of the year - Canon Vixia HF G10 ($1499). Yes, buy an M400, M40, or M41 and you will get a sensor that is in the best consumer video camera of the year.

So what do you sacrifice? Primarily, 60p. This camera shoots at 60i...with modes for 30p and 24p. Some other mid-range cameras shoot at 60p. Does that make them better? Well, that depends on your usage. If filming indoors is important to you (e.g., birthday parties, school plays, indoor sports), then 60p of dark video isn't all that useful...and bright 60i video with accurate colors cannot be beat. Personally, I have filmed my daughter's gymnastics in a moderately dark gym and even with the fast movement, the video was jaw-dropping.

You also give up the aforementioned high-resolution still pictures, but frankly, I think that's a gimmick. The zoom is also limited to 10x...which is another concession Canon made to otherwise bring you a top notch video camera at this price. For me, 10x is overkill even from the cheap seats at my daughter's events, but your mileage my vary.

Frankly, I think that this camera is getting discounted because many consumers purchase either based on price alone or by looking at specs. Specs like 60p jump off the page. The fact that this camera's sensor is so superior to much of the competition is a far more subtle advantage...that perhaps may hurt the sales of this line. Well, hey, that's good news for you. When I first started looking at the M41, it was $799. I just picked it up for $499...and an M40 for $449. Awesome stuff. Get a camera that beats the rest of the mid-range and its price is below the mid-range. :)

...

So what's not to like?

1) The software. You get two packages - a video transfer utility and a video browser/editor that also includes a transfer capability. You can only choose to install one. I opted for the video browser/editor, which installed fine on Windows 7 Pro 64bit, but then would not work....and I am apparently not the lone ranger. Thus, I uninstalled and just installed the transfer utility...which just moves the files. It's also not very configurable. Of course, you can also just connect the camera to your PC and drag the files off yourself, but that's a bit more work...and the transfer utility does a good job of keeping track of what you have already copied off.

This software issue really disappointed me, but to be frank, the software included with most cameras is pretty bad. Sony sells a fantastic video editor - Sony Vegas (multiple editions), but does not bundle it with the Sony cameras that I considered. In fact, the software that they do bundle is apparently also not compatible with 64 bit OSes...so factor in that you will probably need to buy editing software if you want to play around with the video. Actually, the M400/40/41 line allows you to cut videos, introduce fades, and add titles in the camera, but I'd prefer to do it on my PC with more capable software. No worries, you have your choice of a wide range of very capable video editing packages for well under 100 beans...and most of them trump anything that would ever be bundled with a camera.

2) The battery...which is very small. In fact, it is significantly physically smaller than the recessed cavity into which it fits. I smell Canon's marketing and sales departments at work with this decision. Oh well, the included battery works well for my use (i.e., 60 to 90 mins of filming), but I could easily see how someone else may feel compelled to get a second larger capacity battery.

3) The lens...which maxes at 10x, but some folks claim suffers from vignetting at greater than 5x when the aperture is wide open. It's also not very wide. You can address some of these issues with an aftermarket wide angle lens (bulky) and by playing with F stops in manual mode when you are shooting against a monochromatic background, but Canon could have done better. That said, these issues don't really bother me and the camera's low-light capabilities are perfect for me...so I am in a forgiving mood. ;)

4) The LCD screen...which is resistive (not capacitive), so it takes either a firm push or you must use a fingernail. On the positive side, you can use it while wearing gloves. Also a plus - it's bright. Brighter than the LCD on the more expensive G10, albeit with fewer pixels.

5) The Menus...which are not very intuitive. I had to read the manual cover to cover to see what the camera could do...and now that I know, I'll plod through menus looking for what I need. Amazing, because the menus on my Canon 40D are awesome.

...

So, if I didn't scare you away...and low-light is a big deal to you...which model should you get?

That depends. If you have plenty of high-speed SD cards, the M400 may be the ticket. It has no internal memory. Instead, it has two SD card slots and supports relay recording between the cards. Actually, all three models have two such slots...and support relay recording. The M40 adds 16 GB of internal memory and the M41 ups that to 32 GB and gives you a viewfinder, which is nice for sunny days.

I originally bought the M40 since I didn't want to find myself in the stands and realize that I didn't have an SD card in the camera, but then returned it and picked up the M41 since my wife seemed to miss having a viewfinder. That said, I hear many folks who have the viewfinder still end up using the LCD most of the time. Whatever you choose, you essentially get the same camera otherwise...with the awesome sensor from the HF G10.

On the other hand, if you shoot almost exclusively fast moving action in decent lighting conditions, you may be better served by a camera that supports 60p and/or suffers less from vignetting...but check the CamcorderInfo web site to see how each camera does shooting video rather than relying on specs alone.

So why 5 stars with these warts? Because I just don't see any other option anywhere near this price that will give you such a fantastic low-light sensor and the resultant high-quality video. It's the current mid-range low-light king...and I feel that it's only fair to rate it based on the current competition in the price range. If low-light capabilities are not a priority for you, then I would drop the rating to 4 stars. If you were familiar with the term vignetting before this review and look for it in the corners of your pictures and videos, you probably would rate lower.

...

BTW, if you *do* decide to buy either an M400, M40, or M41, do yourself a favor and switch the camera off AUTO mode. AUTO mode is locked to 1440x1080 at 7 Mbps...and this baby can do 1920x1080 at all the way up to 24 Mbps...but not in AUTO mode. Many other useful menu items are hidden in AUTO mode...like the one that changes the powered IS from "push and hold" to "toggle on/off".

cheers,
Scuba

Don't listen to the negative comments. People always have something to complain about and their own preferences. However, this Camcorder has the lowest lux rating I've seen. I have the Canon HF M41. A viewfinder is a must have for me. I looked at more expensive camcorders. They all have their strong points, but for me, getting good footage in low light is the first priority. All those nice features the other brands have are great but not a must have. The low light of this camcorder is nothing short of Amazing. It has the same sensor as the XF105, a $4300 professional camcorder, . If someone tells you the difference is small and not a big deal, don't believe them. How many times have you been disappointed with low light grainy recordings ? I bought a $39 shoe mounted light and works beautifully. This is my 5th camcorder. My first was the original Hi8 from sony. That one and the 3 that followed gave me grainy low light video. We all hate grainy video. Now I don't have to deal with that anymore.

If you're on a budget and the viewfinder isn't a must have then consider the M400 or M41. The M400 has no built in memory. Personally, I would find myself ready to shoot and realize I have no SD card with me. Who took my SD card??? follow me...

One bonus to having the M4xx series over the G10 is the M4xx camcorders have a lower resolution LCD but it's brighter than the G10. I have no problem with viewing the LCD in direct sunlight. Go to the avsforum website. Camcorder section under "other interest". Look for the "Canon HF M4xx Owner's Thread" or the G10...Owner's Thread. good info and links to uploaded videos made with these camcorders.

Some of my video in low light situations actually looks brighter on screen then it did for real. and not grainy. I bought a $13 wide angle lens on amazon. It works well but don't zoom with it.

Another important issue for people new to SD cards and speed requirements, A class 4 card is fast enough. Many people confuse MB with Mb. 1MB = 8Mb. this camcorder records up to 24Mbps which equals only 3MBps. I've seen many posts with people using the wrong terms. B=byte / b=bit.

I spent too much time researching this camcorder. Hopefully, My comments will help.

Enjoy!!!

I have had the Canon HV20 HD camcorder and other MiniDV based camcorders before that. I wanted to finally make the jump to a non-tape based camcorder, and this new sensor with reported better low light capabilities seemed to fit. So I bought the Canon M41 (all three M4XXX models have this new sensor), and wow am I impressed with my first footage. I will post a more detailed review at some point, but I wanted anybody who is considering an upgrade from something like the HV20 to know that based on my personal experience and looking back at comparison footage that this M41 is definitely better. The colors are more accurate, and the overall video quality justs looks much nicer when comparing footage. And of course without even using any of the alternate frame rate options to improve the low light capability any further, the default out of the box low light performance on 60i was clearly much better than my HV20. And as expected I am already in love with the tapeless workflow. Due to the straight mapping of the sensor size to the HD video (which means no additional compression or processing needed to 1920X1080), it is not going to take high resolution still pictures (I use my DSLR for that and don't care). The touchscreen could be higher resolution, and the menu interface is a little awkward as some have mentioned. But video quality was my #1 priority with a new camcorder, and Canon sure seemed to get it right with my initial testing. So definitely buy this camcorder if video quality matters to you.

4/29/11 UPDATE: Well after using this camcorder on vacation for almost a full week I love it even more. The HD video at full 1080p is really incredible quality, with every video quality attribute superior to my old HV20 HD camcorder from what I can tell. And let me say that the low light performance really has to be seen to be believed for a consumer camcorder at this price point, as I have taken some video in some pretty challenging low light situations that looks just amazing with barely a hint of any noise and accurate colors being maintained. I am sure that there are other nice camcorders, but this meets and exceeds everything that I hoped for.

I bought the M41 as an upgrade to the lower end R10. Low light image quality is impressive, and overall image quality is excellent. However, I have experienced an image flaw called vignetting that is annoying. Vignetting is a darkening of the image corners or even a tunnel effect of image darkening. With some zoom lenses for SLR cameras, vignetting usually occurs at wide angle and wide apertures. With my M41, vignetting starts to become visible at about 50% tele and gets worse at max tele. Scenes with a nice blue sky create the most visible effect. It's not being caused by a filter, etc. Canon tech support didn't seem knowledgeable. Any one else experience vignetting with this camcorder? The touch screen is irritating and not very response except for "touch and track" and "touch for exposure". It's not nearly as responsive as a smartphone touch screen. Also, the included battery is a low powered version that leaves a hole in the back of the camera. Spend $70 for a full battery. Too much telephoto and not enough wide angle. More wide angle can be obtained with a heavy and bulky adapter. Full manual (you need it) is only on the CD. Canon- Charge $2.00 more and give me a printed pocket size manual... this is a $800 item after all. Sent the M41 to Canon for a check. They reported that all was normal and upgraded the firmware...hmmm! Shooting in the aperture mode at f 5.6 or f 8 (bright light) will reduce the vignetting. Overall, a mixed bag. This could have been a great camcorder... improve the usability of the touch screen, fix the vignetting issue, more wide angle even if telephoto is somewhat less, provide a full size battery and compact printed manual.

Greg

If you want high quality HD video in a variety of situations, and don't plan to use manual controls very often, this camcorder from Canon is a good choice. The SD-card based HF M400 is cheaper than its siblings due to the lack of internal memory, HD to SD conversion, and an EVF (it also is gray instead of the more pro-looking black).

The first thing you notice when you get the camcorder is that the battery only fills 1/2 the space in the camera. This can be annoying since your thumb goes into the cavity instead of resting next to the record button... but it also allows use of a larger battery. I ordered a Vivitar intelligent BP-819 that fills the spot nicely and lasts over 3 hours. What you may not notice is that the default video quality setting is the 7MB/s SP level. Change this immediately to at least the FXP (17MB/s) and preferably to the best MXP (24MB/s) mode (if you don't plan on making AVCHD discs).

PROS:
First and foremost, the HD video quality at FXP and MXP settings is very good and amazingly good in low light.
Instant Focus works very well, as does the Touch to Focus and Face Tracking.
The zoom button is well placed, variable-speed, and works very well (fast or slow).
The 3 types of image stabilization (Dynamic for use when walking, Powered for use at high zoom levels, and Standard for use when panning) work well for the intended purposes (but I think Canon does a poor job letting you know which setting should be used).
The camera is light (compared to tape-based camcorders) and well shaped, and the strap is good, making the camera easy to hold and use for long periods... sleep and quick-start based on closing and opening the LCD is also nice.
Pre-record is great for sports (set it and it will record 3 seconds prior to hitting the record button, so you never miss a shot)
It comes with an HDMI cable, A/V and USB cables, and a remote control.
The camcorder has good range of manual controls (although using them is another issue).
Relay recording allows seamless recording between memory cards (but is off by default and needs to be enabled).
Includes a MIC input for using external microphones.
Smart AUTO mode seems to work well, especially in detecting backlight and macro situations.

CONS:
The touchscreen is horribly unresponsive - it comes with a stylus and the only way I can use the menus is with the stylus... and even then it doesn't work very well - I'm spoiled by the iPhone, so using this is maddening.
The menu system accessed by the touchscreen to get to manual controls and other settings is confusing and inconsistent - usability is marginal.
The LCD is difficult to see in sunlight, even with the brightness setting on high (and draining the battery)... and fingerprint smudges don't help.
No EVF - but the M41 can solve this.
The automatic Wind Screen does not work well (in the future, I may try the Low Cut filter setting in the Audio Equalizer)
At the widest setting, the lens has a poor field of view - you might need to get a wide-angle adapter lens.
Touchscreen playback is a pain and the Canon PC software is not very good (fortunately I have a Mac and don't need to use Canon's software, but AVCHD files can be tough to use on any platform).
Deleting scenes (clips) is difficult/non-intuitive.
No 1080p mode (but I'm fine without having this).
Did I mention that the touchscreen is a PITA?

After a few weeks of use, I've noticed that the auto white balance is generally good, but that it will briefly need to readjust after "sleeping" the camera... resulting in some WB issues between clips. I have addressed this by using the longer-lasting BP-819 battery and not sleeping the camera as much. The only other annoyance is the difficulty using the LCD to frame recordings in sunlight (and the inability to turn off on-screen displays in Auto mode).

The Story Creator, Decoration, Cinema Filters and Video Snapshot are interesting additions for those who might use them, but most people probably won't (especially because you need to access them through the stupid touchscreen menus). Photos are limited to 2MP, but are fine for using to create DVD menus. You buy this camcorder for the video, not the photos.

Playback from the camera is poorly executed - the touchscreen controls are unresponsive and the remote only has a few of the controls. Fortunately, my Panasonic plasma has an SD card slot and makes playback much easier... this is another reason for choosing the M400 over the models with internal memory.

In the past, I needed to use manual controls to overcome shortcomings related to low-light, focus, etc. I made a conscious choice when I purchased the M400 to get a camcorder where I could use auto mode more often and would not NEED to use the manual controls.

In conclusion, the Canon Vixia HF M400 takes great HD video in a variety of situations in full auto mode, and features such as face tracking, touch focus and touch exposure make the need to access manual controls via the touchscreen menu less likely. The good automatic performance helps avoid the need to use the horrible touchscreen menus, and makes the M400 easier to live with. I give it 4.5-5 stars for video quality and Smart AUTO, but lower the rating to 4 stars because, sooner or later, you need to use the touchscreen menus.

I have used a lot of different cameras over the years, and just wanted to get a basic review of 24 hours of trying out this camera, and comparing it to some recent cameras I have used. The cameras I will compare to are the Panasonic SD600, TM700 (both of which are basically the same and will be referred to as Panasonic). Again this is a quick review, general scan of the manual, and usually I'm good to go, and yes there may be some finer points that are missed, or just poorly implemented out by Canon, that it takes more time to figure them out. This review is evolving as I have more time to check the two cams out.

First off, this camera performs nice in low light situations, I would give the camera 5 stars for this aspect. I just shot inside at a live performance, and yes their is much better detail in low light, but I must say the Panasonic on this shot had slightly better color performance to my eye. The Canon also looks much better then the Panasonic with any gain on. When using gain up in lower light, the Panasonic basically falls apart in anything usable as picture quality. This is in very low light, and if you manually use the camera and control the gain on the Panasonic, it can be avoided, but the Canon is better overall in low light.

Field of view, how wide the lens is. Panasonic, has a significantly wider image. This is a big deal, as you can fill the frame with much more subject matter, and closer up. Definite plus to Panasonic on this one. If you get the Canon, plan to add the cost of a wide angle for many shots. I believe it's 43mm for Canon, and 28mm for Panasonic. You may want to review the specs of each, to confirm these numbers.

Sunstars, the Canon has a 6 blade iris, the points of light have a six star pattern, the Panasonic has a 4 blade iris, and have 4 point star patterns. These cameras all use a small chip sensor to capture the image, and thus bright light sources, and every shinny thing (car lights, chrome, jewelry, you name it) is going to give little sparkles of light. I am beginning to think the Canon suppresses this slightly over the Panasonic. I am still out on preference to six or four point patterns, initially six points seem more distracting. They both suffer from this, I don't think either one has a preference in what I think of this. This aspect is one place a DSLR like a Canon T2i is much better, the larger chip does not show these annoying sunstars all over a bright sparkling image. This alone can make the picture very amateur looking.

Operation and control. Hands down, so far the Panasonic I prefer much more. The battery charges in a separate charger, then on board the camera, and charges faster from what I can tell. Touch screen control is more responsive on the Panasonic, and the menus are easier and much faster to work with. The Canon is awful for me to try and operate manually. Even with the SD600, which has the smallest screen of these cameras, my big fingers can control things with far less tapping, and the Panasonic's are much more responsive. The layout Panasonic uses is also makes much more sense to me for manual control. Focus, shutter speed, white balance, and iris, are the four controls I care about and are very easy to pull up in the bottom of the screen. On the Canon it's like target practice to hit the screen at the tiny point of control.
Another big thing here is Panasonic offers all manual control of shooting, shutter speed and iris, I can set it to what I want. As far as I can tell it's one or the other on the Canon, and then no info from the camera on what the shutter speed is doing if I select the F stop. The Canon will lock the exposure, but it does not tell me where everything is at, also no Zebra and luminance exposure info on the Canon.
I like the feel of the Panasonic better, it's slightly smaller and fits in my hand better.

Sharpness. The Panasonic is super sharp, maybe to the point of stair-casing issues, and perhaps should have sharpness dialed down. I need to play more with this issue. The Panasonic is sharp, and the Canon I now find sharp too, on later review, the Canon looks very good, and now maybe a little sharper. All of this is under review, and I will be changing the review as I discover differences. In many shots the Canon is starting to win the sharpness test, but it's all very subjective as to what is sharp.

Motion blur, trailing, and stabilization, haven't had enough time to fully test. The Panasonic and the Canon both suffer from vibration, thus image shake. When the Canon shakes, to me it looks worse, it looks like a wobble.

Color. The Canon has less of a greenish tone, the sky looks blue, and the color of my car was more accurate. However I have one shot, that the Canon is more washed out then the Panasonic. This probably relates to the fact that for me as stated, the Panasonic has better manual control operation then the Canon. The Canon has some guessing as to what the camera is actually doing, I have not found a way to manually set both Fstop and shutter speed both to manual at the same time. The display will show me Fstop, but so far I can not tell what the shutter is doing when I manually set the Fstop.

60p/30p. The Panasonic shoots 60p, that gives me a wide range of playback options, and it is progressive, the Canon is 30p in a 60i wrapper. The Panasonic, at this point has a difficult work flow. This alone could be a deal breaker for many people, as it requires a more extensive post production time investment. I also had to buy a third party software to work with it on my Mac, this may change soon with Final Cut 8 around the corner. For non professional use (which of course these cameras are for), the Canon might be easier, but comes at a price of some things the Panasonic does better.

Early and incomplete conclusion. The Canon has better low light performance, and somewhat better dynamic range, sharpness I am still testing. There are many things I like about the Panasonic, further testing shows a very good image now on the Canon. In some situations, this might be the reason to keep it. I will probably keep both, as each has distinctive functions and performance. I just wish the Canon had the function of the Panasonic wide lens, menus and form, I would easily then give it five stars.

*UPDATE*
Final thoughts. The Canon has nice color, and good sharpness. I have ended up going with a 2011 Sony HDR-CX560 over both the Canon and the Panasonic. The Sony image is great and it has 24p, and a 26.5mm wide angle built into it, this is MUCH wider then the Canon, without the need of carrying a wide angle lens. The Sony with a wide angle lens is even wider, more like an 18mm, also the Canon only offers fake progressive 30p in a 1080i wrapper, no true progressive frames. The Panasonic and the Sony also seem to render a better AVCHD codec implementation, the Canon looked the most bitty in the image. The Sony is smaller by a lot, and it is not nearly as prone to nasty star patterns from streetlights, and the sun. In a night comparison, to me, the Sony is far better at city night. The color is okay, but I plan to use the camera to record to an external HDMI recorder and record 8bit 4:2:2 Quicktime HQ files, this should have enough color info to time it better, and is more what my clients are looking for in a finished product. The 24p and 60p on the Sony are excellent. One drawback of the Sony is that the manual controls are not as good as the Panasonic, but about equal to the Canon, but again the final image is the most pleasing to my eye. Price wise, the Panasonic HDC-SD600 was under $500.00, the Canon is $700, and the Sony is $1,100.00. If price is an issue the Panasonic wins, Professionally I find the Sony even with it's manual limitations, the best choice for me. I will review the Sony more later.

Use your finger NAIL rather than finger tip. It will work great.

We are all "trained" on iPhones (and iPads) where the finger TIP is required. This camcorder screen is a different technology and the finger NAIL is much better.

Tech: iPads use "capacitive" detection (touch) where finger tips work better, and finger nails don't even work. This camcorder screen uses "resistive" detection (pressure) and a finger NAIL works much better and more accurate on a small screen. To get a finger tip to press enough to be detected takes too much pressure, appears unresponsive, and too imprecise--a pain.

I noticed so many reviews that had difficulty with the screen, I had to share. Good luck. (More later after I've done more testing).

I had a JVC digital tape camcorder that just wasn't cutting it anymore. Granted, it was about 5-6 years old, before a lot of this new technology was available at reasonable price points. I'll preface this review by stating that I am probably just a tad above the average beginner level in terms of camcorder use. The auto mode is great. Like most modern day cameras, there are settings that you can pick to adjust for exposure, aperture, and so forth (Beach, cloudy, bright, portrait, etc). The nice thing about auto mode is that it will automatically change between those settings while you are recording. For example, I started recording a person about 10 feet away from me, then switched to some fine print in a book a few feet in front of me. The M400 did a really nice job transitioning from portrait mode to fine mode in a single recording session. However, if you are more hands on and like to fine-tune the settings yourself, you can do that as well with manual mode.

Also, from an amateur's perspective, the "story" mode is nice. It has a lot of nice cues to help you create better videos. It provides options in terms of the type of event you are filming and what types of footage to record for that particular event (Kids/pets, travel, ceremony, etc). The cinema modes are fun, too. There are about 8 different types of cinema modes to add more character to your footage. That, coupled with the high definition settings, and Image Stabilization really can make your videos look very professional.

This just may have been user error, but if I had one criticism, it's the fact that they include two different software CDs (one is a video browser and the other one is a file transfer utility). It's certainly possible that they mentioned it somewhere in the documentation, but it took me a while to realize that you can install one or the other to your PC, but not both. Not really a big deal as I eventually figured it out. Again, maybe I'll chaulk that one up to user error :)

All in all, I am thoroughly enjoying this camcorder. It's perfect for my intended uses (filming kids, travel and ceremonies such as weddings and such).

My wife and I do wedding videos as a hobby (friends and family) Have been using 2 Canon HV30's that take spectacular HD video in good light. Unfortunately lighting at most wedding venues is less than optimal. Also wanted to get away from tapes mainly because of the 1 hour limitation. Been a couple occasions my timing was off and I missed an important event while changing tapes.

The Canon HF M400 is the first AVCHD camcorder Ive tested (in my price range) that records significantly better video indoors than my HV30's. The difference in graininess is quite striking. Unlike the HV30 you can adjust gain or turn it off completely. I was also delighted to discover my Canon WD-H43 wide angle lens (excellent lens) that I had purchased for the HV30 works perfectly with my new camcorder.

I don't particularly like the touch screen menu but that seems to be the current trend in consumer camcorders. The screen is not as clear and bright as the one on the HV30. I don't consider this a deal breaker. The next step up in Canons line the HF G20 that uses a better touch screen has a few other features (same sensor) cost twice as much. Besides I use a tripod setup with a 10" DVD player as a monitor most of the time anyway.

I think this camcorder is a real winner I'm going to buy a second one. Now I need to upgrade my computer. It worked fine with HDV format but unfortunately not nearly fast enough to edit AVCHD smoothly. Going to go with a Intel I-7 Sandy Bridge.

Update:
I started using the wireless remote control to access the menu instead of the touch screen. I found it much easier to navigate. Also the remote sensor is located on the frame of the LCD screen which makes it ideal to use with a tripod. One hand on tripod handle one hand pointing the remote at the LCD screen for zoom.