Hi all, I've dipped my toe into digital video before (a few years ago), but I've got a new baby (the first) on the way and we have decided to get a camcorder to record the moments for ourselves, and also for sending to my wife's family (they're in Australia, we're in the UK). I had a mini-DV camcorder a few years ago (a Panasonic) but I didn't use it very much and the tape mechanism packed up surprisingly quickly (I guess due to no use, rather than misuse). However, that has kind of put me off a tape- or disc-based camcorder; and as HDDs have moving parts I was keen to get a flash-based camcorder. I have trawled the very helpful reviews at www.camcorderinfo.com and have settled on a Canon FS100, for various reasons: a) it appears (from reading the forums here) that it is nicely Mac-friendly; b) it is relatively affordable; c) it seems to be easy to use; d) it had a good review from the aforementioned site. I was also considering the Canon HF100 at the same time, and I would like to be able to get the HD version, except that a) I don't think it will be used very much, so I find it very difficult to justify the £500 price tag when the FS100 is less that £250; b) I don't have an HD TV (or intend to in the next year or so), and have no means of displaying the content except on computer; c) as the only method of sharing the footage is on DVD or small files via the net, it seemed unusual to buy an HD camcorder and then downsample the result, when I could take it at SD for less than half the price; d) while I'd like to play with the camera and create all sorts of films and video projects which really stretch an HD camera I know, realistically, that it's not going to happen - again, it seems unusual to spend the money and not use it. So my questions are these: I've seen on these forums that the FS100 uses MPEG2 compression and that "is not good for editing". Please can someone explain what that means? I've also read that some people reckon the FS100 has "less than mediocre" performance, and yet the review mentioned above gave it a "par or above average" rating with its competitors. Should I be worried about this? I am interested in the best image quality I can get but, as I mentioned before about previous experience with a tape-based camcorder, I'm not keen on the MiniDV route. Can somebody explain the difference in image quality (or perhaps show the comparison between a tape and MPEG2 compression in real-world situations)? Am I making the best decision? I have spoken to a knowledgeable friend and he reckons that there's not much point in going the HD route unless you have all the HD equipment to go with it - is this correct? I have a first-gen PowerMac G5 (1.8Ghz single processor - 1.5Gb RAM) and a 2.16Ghz Core2Duo MacBook Pro (2Gb RAM); iMovie 7.1.4 (and an old version of Final Cut Express (version 2); latest version of Leopard on both. I realise that going the HD route will mean I will have to edit on the MacBook Pro (which is not a problem). I'm reading all sorts of advice and I want to make sure I'm making an informed decision, for the right reasons. Please can anybody help? Thanking you in advance.