Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The SONY CX-220 is the low end camera in SONY's Camcorder line based on the Exmor R 8.9 Megapixel image capture element. From a practical perspective, low end can be measured in a number of ways. First, it's about half the price of the top of the line camera in the series, the CX-260. Second, it has no internal memory, which requires that you use an SD card to record your videos. Other cameras in the series include 8 and 16 Gigabytes of internal memory. The internal memory can occasionally useful, but SD cards are inexpensive and easy to carry along. Given that you'll need a 32GB card to do upwards of 2 hours of highest quality video, the lack of internal memory is no real handicap. Third, it it has a smaller external zoom (27x as opposed to the 30x in the CX-260). Again, there may be circumstances where the extra zoom matters, but you'll need a tripod to take advantage of it. Of slightly greater concern, in this regard, is the starting point for the zoom. While all of the cameras in Sony's Exmor R line are described as "wide angle", the CS-220's wide angle isn't quite as wide as other cameras in the series, which means you may have to position slightly further from the scene to capture everything you want to have in the frame. This is a practical issue for me as I most frequently use my video cameras to record Chorus concerts, which usually involve a wide frame. This shouldn't be an issue unless you are shooting in a small space (like a classroom) and want to capture the full width of the room. There are sometimes limits on how far you can back up the camera. It hasn't been an issue in auditoriums. Fourth, it comes with a weaker battery than other cameras in the series. The CX-260 comes with Sony's FV-50 battery, which I've found can easily handle two hours of continuous video, but the CX-220 comes with Sony's FV-30 battery, which is rated as having about half the power of the FV-50 and needs a stretch to do an hour and thirty minutes of continuous video. This is offset somewhat by the CX-220 relatively stingy power use. The CX-220 will run a good 20 minutes longer than the CX-260 on the FV-50 battery. For longer videos or videos that do a lot of zooming (something I do very little of in my concert videos), either camera will benefit from the more powerful FV-70 battery, which should be good for upwards of 4 hours of highest quality video. My CX-220 clocks in at nearly 5 hours with an FV-70 battery. Fifth, the CX-220 doesn't come with a Sony battery charger, but is instead documented as charging up using a USB cable. Several reviewers have complained about this, but I don't see an issue. From a practical perspective I nearly always have a USB charger with me, and it's nice not having to bring yet another charger along when traveling. If, moreover, you need a larger battery (like the FV-70, you'll probably find that the cost of the battery charger is small compared with the price of the battery and get them bundled (as I did). Finally, if your first camera is a higher end Sony Exmor R series camera like the CX-260, your existing Sony charger will charge up your CX-220 as well. Sixth, the CX-220 uses button controls rather than touch screen controls, as the CX-260 does. I find the touch screen controls easier to use than the CX-220's button controls, but your milage may vary. Bigger fingers, and those who obsess about finger oil on screens, will probably prefer the CX-220's button controls. Finally, there are more menu options, most of which you'll probably never use, and some flashy bells and whistles like an electronically controlled lens cover on the higher end R-Seres cameras. If you want super-slow motion or to have the camera protect the lens when the camera turns off, the CX-260 is probably the better camera for you. If they don't, you can get the same high quality video from either camera. Both cameras have the same imaging element and record the same highest quality video. If those differences make a difference to you one way or the other, you can probably stop here, but I've titled this review "excellent second camera" and you may be interested in knowing why. I obtained a SONY CX-260 camcorder six months ago with the specific intent of shooting concert videos. I've been shooting concert video on and off for most of 30 years now, but I was looking to step up a level to an HD prosumer camcorder that I could edit into high quality HD streaming video for distribution on Youtube. I already had a camera that could shoot 1080P video, but that could only record for about 30 minutes at a time. I also had a 720P camcorder and a somewhat better than 720P camcorder, so I was well positioned to shoot video with insets and closeups. What I needed was a second camera that chould shoot a continuous 1080P stream that I could use as a base for cuts and insets. After looking at a lot lot of prosumer camcorders and reviews, I concluded that the Sony CX-260 would best meet my needs based on its ability to record at better than 1080P (about four times better), its relatively high audio and video quality in low to moderate indoor light, its relatively long battery life, and its reasonable price (about $360). It has more than lived up to my expectations. For examples of video shot with this camera see the HD videos at [...] That said, I've wanted to do better. One of the key restrictions on my filming of these videos is that I'm singing in the choruses. I can't exit stage right and return to restart a camera during the concert. I pretty much have to set up the cameras and forget about them. The CX-260 has really helped with that insofar as it has enough pixels to do high quality digital zooms while I'm editiing. That allows me to focus in on a soloist or small ensemble without losing the HD resolution (something I do a lot of in the referenced Youtube videos). What I haven't always had is the routine ability to cut between different camera angles while retaining HD quality. I've been searching for a second HD camcorder for a couple of months now. The obvious answer was to get another CX-260, but I was looking to spend less than $200 and get something that could approach (not necessarily match, but approach) that quality. The CX-220 more than meets those criteria, if only because it is able to match the video quality of CX-260 video for less than $200, not quite half the price of the CX-260. Aside from the slightly smaller optical zoom it has the same imaging components and records at the same high resolution. When I load video from both cameras into editing software I simply cannot tell which camera I loaded the video from unless I clearly label it when I import it. I can do the same levels of digital zoom without apparent loss of quality, and I can cut from one camera to the other seamlessly, which not only helps to make the edited video more entertaining, but allows me to show elements (typically people) that are hidden from one angle using the other angle. If you are an amateur looking to shoot high quality home video, the CX-220 could be an excellent choice for you. If you are looking to create professional looking videos with excellent prosumer equipment, the CX-220 makes an excellent second camera.