It's a troubling trend that nearly all consumer/prosumer camcorders are ditching the EVF in favor of the LCD, which is useless outdoors. I really liked the Canons, given their feature set and quality, but the lack of EVF was killer (the only model with EVF was the HG21, and that was impossible to find), and so I got a Sony SR12 instead. Great features are useless if you can't see what you're filming, unless you're doing all your work indoors.
I am only part way through the article, but I have to say that comparing the Vado (about $100) with even the Canon DC210 (about $400) just doesn't wash. If you had at least mentioned the price disparity, it might have been acceptable, but the Vado isn't aimed at the same market. Plus, the VADO HD is available, yet the article says, "but we're still waiting for the HD version of the Vado."
For me, this weakens the journalism and therefore weakens the reviews in general. It makes me wonder, did you really do due diligence in the review. Maybe your article lead time is too long, but that's where an editor can add notes, like, The Vado HD was released just after this review was completed.
At first I thought this was an old article that had slipt through RSS a second time, but no it was recent.
The reason is because I would not know for any reason to still review the Panasonic HDC-SD1. It's multiple generations old and you might be hard pressed to even find it. The four generations younger HDC-SD9 would be a lot better candidate even if it is not the latest generation, but it is still a reference with regards to value for money.
I haven't red it entirely, buy giving a '+' for a microphone (7.Panasonic HDC-SD1) is (imho) a joke. You can give a minus for no-audio recording, but giving a plus for a microphone is just too much!
2) You give a minus to Sony HDR-UX3 for lacking Image Stabilisation, and how about Sony HDR-SR11E - does it have IS or doesn't? JVC GZ-HD40 for example got a minus for medicore IS ...