I know the same thing applies to camcorders as to most other things in life - you get what you pay for - but I'm curious as to how far up the price ranges things actually change in video quality rather than additional features. I want a pretty basic camera for taping holiday trips etc; probably mostly outdoors but likely with some evening and indoor shots. From reading reviews it appears that most cameras under £600 will be fairly lousy at low light levels. But will there really be a massive difference between ultra cheap, cheap and midrange (ie are they such that only a video geek would notice) - or to get good results, would I have to go way over budget which is overkill for what I need. At the v cheap end, I'm looking at a Sony HC22 (£265) and at the merely cheap end, the HC42 (£400) The reviews I've read make them sound equally bad at low light but don't really cover the steadycam aspects etc. The HC42 has a lower optical zoom which, in store, seemed to make the camera picture seem steadier - though obviously, you don't get a true idea of distance in a shop! Anyone tried either of those more fully? The Canons seem tough to judge since the UK model names are totally different from the US ones where most of the review sites are based. Anyone else been through the basic camcorder purchase decision lately and willing to share their thought process?