I am a newbi to video and looking for a cam that has these priorities:

1. excellent low light performance
2. digital recording (hard drive / memory card)
3. excellent optics
4. image quality
5. small body
6. Image stabilizer???
7. HD



99. bells and whistles

I tried finding my way trough several rating sites, but I am in over my head. So all advices is very much appreciated.

I don't actually own these cameras, but, based on my own research the newer sony models are better than competitors for low light filming. The newer models are sr11/sr12/cx12. I believe they're all basically the same except the first 2 have hard drives(60GB and 120GB respectively) and one uses a sony memory stick for storage.

The sony's are more expensive than others, but they're better.

Not to rain on your parade and quest, but to me low-light performance isn't really that big of a deal, just get an on camera light and you never have to worry about it!

That's what I did and I carry it around with me where ever I go.

Troy

How big is the light? Can you show us a pic with it attached?

I have this same question. And "get a camera light" is neither feasible for my application, nor the answer to the OP's question. Thanks for playing, though.

For my application, I play in various bands and I would like to be able to setup a camera to record when we play out places. So, I suppose it might be (for the sake of discussion) 20 - 30 feet from the stage. And the lighting will be whatever it is. I can't shine a big light on the stage just for my camera. And, of course, typical bar stages are not going to be very well lit.

So, the best low-light performance is important, and, I think, the Sonys' performance using their IR illuminator is not helpful. Their info says it gives them 0 lux performance at 10 feet. But, I question whether the IR illuminator will help from 20 or 30 feet, so the question becomes how well do the Sony's work in low light from 20 or 30 feet (i.e. presumably, without using the IR illuminator)? And how does that compare to the comparable Canon or Panasonic?

Thanks.

And how does that compare to the comparable Canon or Panasonic?

I personally find that Canon, with its 30p and 24p modes, has an edge over the Sony in low light performance.

nor the answer to the OP's question. Thanks for playing, though.

It was an option that was offered to the OP not to you. How would you know it's not the answer to the OPs original question anyway? Do you know what his intentions are and what options are feasible or not? I guess you read minds and know this information? Geez, THANK YOU FOR PLAYING! I'm sure the guy can provide his own feedback on what options presented are viable for his usage or not.

The fact is, a lot of people don't realize this as an option which is the reason I posted it in the first place.

If you are serious about what you're doing for your band I would look into upscaling to a prosumer model or hiring out a friend or company that can provide better video service for you. The majority of consumer camcorders won't/don't offer the best low light performance, although it is improving.

Truthfully because of the subjectivity in judging quality and performance, it's probably better for you to test models on your own and draw your own conclusions. That's what I do.

Troy

Troy, show us a pic of your camera with the light attached. I'd like to see how big it is.

the new Toshiba h10 is supposed to offer better low light performance.


sadly there are NO REVIEWS of this unit to date (and it looks like Europe will get them before we will).

I use the Canon Hf100 for recording bands in a small poorly lit club. Best settings I've found are 24p and cinema mode. The camera's not noise free and I have to play with the levels and color saturation in post, but I've been pretty happy with this purchase. One other problem you could run into is mic distortion. My primary reason for choosing the Canon was the on screen level control. I tried the Sony's and couldn't get rid of the mic distortion (at band levels) even using the low settings. I have videos posted at Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/clife95 and Vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/user688501 . On YouTube I've left up my earliest videos. You can see the progression from noisy video + distorted audio, etc. to what I consider acceptable as I tried diff. settings each week.

Troy, show us a pic of your camera with the light attached. I'd like to see how big it is

Will do.

The light I have is the Sony 20 watt HVL-20DW2 (also use an older model HVL-HFL1), both have universal cold shoe adapters that I can use on any cam I have.

It's pretty big, but it's bright and I don't have to worry about low light issues. :D Some of the newer model lights are sleeker and have a lower profile.

Troy

Yea, I'm interested in this too. An attached light isn't an option in a small club.

I agree we may have to spend some more money.

I'm tackling this same problem. My two-year old has a light sensitivity issue, so more lights (on the camera or elsewhere) are not an option. We keep the house very dark -- often just one 60 watt bulb for the entire first floor. I don't want to miss those precious moments, though, so I need a solid low light performer. I've got it narrowed to three contenders:

Canon Vixia HF11
Samsung SC-HMX20
Sony HDR-CX12

The Sony is lagging behind and is almost off my list. It does not offer 30 or 24 frame rate options, which I understand can be a huge help in low light. And I read that its sensor's (1/3.3 inch CMOS) pixel size and density also hinders light gathering. Also I'm not interested in being hostage to Sony's proprietary memory and editing software.

The other two are a closer call, though I'm leaning a bit towards the Canon right now. I'm tempted by the Sammy's larger sensor (1/1.8 inch CMOS), but it is also packed pretty dense which may offset its size advantage in low light. Also, one review I read said the Samsung's autofocus is pretty poor in low light. The Canon seems like a safe pick, without any of the obvious negatives I've mentioned for the others. But, I do wonder how good it can be in low light with a 1/3.2 inch sensor.

Any and all thoughts, opinions, guidance on which to go with would be appreciated! I'd be especially interested in hearing from folks who own these models and have used them in low light. Thanks!

Maxion

I am a newbi to video and looking for a cam that has these priorities:

1. excellent low light performance
2. digital recording (hard drive / memory card)
3. excellent optics
4. image quality
5. small body
6. Image stabilizer???
7. HD



99. bells and whistles

I tried finding my way trough several rating sites, but I am in over my head. So all advices is very much appreciated.

I was kind of in the same boat, my first minidv SD camcorder was a Canon which i quickly traded for a Sony TRV-33, a good Low light performer at teh time. That said, i was still never satisfied with the Low Light performance.
With my sour experience with canon, i started shopping around for the Sony SR11, until I ran into several information resources claiming Low Light focus hunting. That turned me on to the canon HF100, HF11, HG20/21 series and soon I realized that Canon was, as good if not better than the Sony and without the focus hunting issue.
I received my HG20 last week and i can tell you with full confidence, that even without an on-board light, the Low light quality is stellar. At 100 Lux its down right brilliant and at 60 lux or lower the colors are still vibrant, edges arent soft and contrast is good. I have played the videos on my 42" Plasma and 106" Projector screen and both looked amazing.
The daylight outdoor videos are just as good as Discovery HD, I know its a stretch but I have played back to back videos and HD and other than composition, which theor cameramen have and I dont, the videos are very comparable.
Good luck, and you dont have to spend $1000 to get GREAT Low Light performance, I paid $547 Shipped for my Canon

The Nikon D90 is supposed to have excellent low light ability due to it's large sensor. It's an SLR, but shoots HD video, including 24p.

You can get the camera body in the $850 range.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.html

The Sony SR11 does very well in low light when the scene selection is set to twilight.:)

I have a D70 and went and picked up a D90 from Costco because it shot HD video............I took it back because the video was terrible. No comparison to the newer dedicated HD camcorders.

I have a D70 and went and picked up a D90 from Costco because it shot HD video............I took it back because the video was terrible. No comparison to the newer dedicated HD camcorders.

Yours is the kind of input I was hoping for. I have a D50 and Love it. Over the years I have collected a few lenses and I was starting to wonder if I pull the trigger and get the D90 and return my Canon HG20 (just contemplating).
I now know that D90 can only do around 5 minutes of High Def video before it may start to heat up.
The golden rule, that nothing "affordable" can do both high quality stills and video is probably still true. I do think soon, we will have either a camcorder that takes SLR like pictures or an SLR that takes amazing high def video.
Being an SLR person, I would prefer an SLR that can shoot High def video and can function like a normal camcorder. The ability to use any lens in my arsenal to shoot video would be great.

Yes, it does shoot video, but the reviews I've read say it is pretty poor at it. Future generations might improve substantially.

I'm planning to get the D90 anyway, for good low light indoor stills, but also to pick up one of the camcorders I mentioned for video. Still -- which camcorder???

Yes, it does shoot video, but the reviews I've read say it is pretty poor at it. Future generations might improve substantially.

I'm planning to get the D90 anyway, for good low light indoor stills, but also to pick up one of the camcorders I mentioned for video. Still -- which camcorder???

You do not need the D90 for Low light indoor still. The same quality stills can be had with the D40, D50, D60 or the D80. Its the "glass" that matters. Although the high ISO capability is great to have, a $300 Nikon 50mm f1.4 would givce you as good results on a D40/D50.
Remember the rule with SLR(D-SLR) is, 25% of Budget for BODY, 75% budget for Lens.
My 50mm f1.4 makes amazing shots on my 3 year old D50.
Stay away from "zoom" lenses if you can, even the ones with VR, get the Nikon 70-210 F2.8 and you will take professional quality outdoor shots

Thanks Kam -- I love your advice; it could save me a bundle. But it seems contrary to what I am hearing from various other sources. Does the sensor really matter that much less than the lens?

Maxion

Thanks Kam -- I love your advice; it could save me a bundle. But it seems contrary to what I am hearing from various other sources. Does the sensor really matter that much less than the lens?

Maxion

The D90 IS capable of very high ISO which in theory should give you amazing non-flash still. There are two problems with that assumption, one that the camera would have to be on a tripod IF you are using a KIT/zoom lense and 2ndly the cheapo kit/zoom lens that you will get with the D90 will not be capable of non-flash Low light still (not good ones anyways).
On the flip side if you were to combine the D90 with the 50mm f1.4, you could take hand held professional quality stills and portraits.
So think about the situations you will be in, if your goal is to take non-flash, Low light Stills, then you need good glass, D90 would be great if you have the money.