Flip Video Ultra

if it is designed for YouTube why not have a Trusted Reviews YouTube channel and upload some test videos taken with it. The review would be far more accurate then. If it is designed for youtube then does a 6 for image quality mean it isn't good for youtube?

Image quality straight from the device is relatively good but once you put it up on youtube more lossy compression kicks in and quite often wracks the footage. It is the same for both the Flip and the Vado - I compared both (only it was Mino not Ultra) - and it prompted me to do a search for alternatives to Youtube that would better preserve video quality. And actually there are quite a few, see here: www.blogtechguy.com/video_ebook/video_comparison_matrix.html

@JAmes:
It is a nice review but it is not clear to me why the Flip scored 7 on features while the Vado scored only 6 when you say that the Flip has even less features from the Vado? You said: "You can play videos back and delete them. But that's it - even less than Creative's Vado"

Two months after I bought the Vado I can tell 80 Euros for the Vado were well spent, the cam is fun and it is also very sturdy (one of few objects my baby boy did not manage to break, not yet) Note: there was new firmware put up on creative.com site and that improved video quality on the Vado big time.

Vij, the Flip got more for features entirely because its software has much more abilities than the Vado's.

I agree the Vado is fun, and the firmware update was a big improvement too. It has been a problem reviewing these devices in a camcorder section which generally covers camcorder models from the big names. Neither the Vado nor the Flip can hold a candle to these for features or image quality. But they are a different market, and both tackle that market really quite well.