Camcorders: they're smaller and lighter, but they don't sacrifice performance.(Cover story)(Product/service evaluation)

NOTHING COMPARES with a camcorder for capturing high-quality video, our latest tests show--no cell phone, no compact camera, not even the first digital SLR with high-definition video recording (see Claim Check on page 41).

Almost all the high-def camcorders we tested did very well in normal light, while nearly all the standard-definition models were only fair or good, even when held to a lower standard for picture quality. In low light, both types were mostly middling.

As a group, today's camcorders are much smaller and lighter than those of a few years Camcorders ago. Two flash-memory models we tested weighed less than half a pound.

Small size has trade-offs, though. Fewer models have a viewfinder, so you have to compose on an LCD, which draws more power than a viewfinder. Lighter weight can encourage hand-shake, producing jumpy footage, although image stabilizers compensate fairly well. New features are showing up too, such as face detection similar to that found on digital cameras.

New entries with a simple interface and prices of $100 to $200, such as the Pure Digital Flip, are making a splash in the market. They're fine for less demanding recording, suitable for videos you'd post on YouTube, say. But our tests have shown that they don't match even low-rated full-sized models for video quality.

If you don't own an HDTV or plan to buy one, you can save big with a standard-definition camcorder. Also opt for standard ...