AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys,


I recently purchased a Canon HG 10 and it performed really well in the day time but it was just horrible in night time scenes and now I am debating if I should return it or not. Maybe upgrading it to a newer model that records better in low light settings.


I am looking at the $600 range on a better performing Canon HD cam but clueless which one would be my best option???


Her are some of the models I look at.


HF200

HG20

HF10


Any feedback would greatly be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
I have the HG10. It does not do a great job of figuring the best settings under low light. For one, it does not always use F1.8.


You need to use the Exposure Trick ... makes a significant difference to the level of noise. Do a YouTube search for HG10 and low-light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cons /forum/post/16937072


Hey guys,


I recently purchased a Canon HG 10 and it performed really well in the day time but it was just horrible in night time scenes and now I am debating if I should return it or not. Maybe upgrading it to a newer model that records better in low light settings.


I am looking at the $600 range on a better performing Canon HD cam but clueless which one would be my best option???


Her are some of the models I look at.


HF200

HG20

HF10


Any feedback would greatly be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Unless you have a specific reason to be stuck on Canon, the Sony XR-500 (and upcoming CX-520) have better low-light performance along with other features that are of value to me such as great image stabilization, GPS-tagging and lower bitrate (smaller files at comparable quality). The Canons do have their own advantages, but you did mention low-light performance as very important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by umenon /forum/post/16937523


I have the HG10. It does not do a great job of figuring the best settings under low light. For one, it does not always use F1.8.


You need to use the Exposure Trick ... makes a significant difference to the level of noise. Do a YouTube search for HG10 and low-light.

Canon website says the HG10s low light performance can be improved by increasing the sensitivity of the HD CMOS sensor. This improves the fixed-pattern "noise" reduction technology, you can shoot clearer, sharper video at very low light levels. When taken with a 1/30 sec. slow shutter, subjects can be shot at light levels as low as just 3 lux.



Link: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HD...ow-light.shtml


I'm going to test it out tonight. It would be nice if it had it it had an automatic setting for low light.




Thanks.


Btw, How do you like your HG10 so far?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,194 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bernhtp /forum/post/16938268


Unless you have a specific reason to be stuck on Canon, the Sony XR-500 (and upcoming CX-520) have better low-light performance along with other features that are of value to me such as great image stabilization, GPS-tagging and lower bitrate (smaller files at comparable quality).

Choices are good, and you alone can determine what features matter to you. However, "lower bitrate" should not be considered an advantage for Sony over Canon. Two reasons:

1. Canon bitrate is selectable, and one of the settings matches Sony's max bitrate (17Mbps I think).

2. Canon's higher bitrate does improve the video quality, with the trade-off being larger filesize. You are not required to use 24Mbps, but it is available with Canon and not with Sony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
The point is that the new Sonys are able to achieve a comparable picture quality at a lower bitrate. A higher bitrate is only a possible advantage if it yields a better picture, and a certain disadvantage if it does not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,194 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bernhtp /forum/post/16941964


The point is that the new Sonys are able to achieve a comparable picture quality at a lower bitrate. A higher bitrate is only a possible advantage if it yields a better picture, and a certain disadvantage if it does not.

The Sony picture is not as good at 17Mbps as is the Canon picture at 24Mbps. The higher bitrate absolutely is a real advantage, because it does yield a better picture. Further, would have been no disadvantage if it had not produced that better image, since Canon also allows 17Mbps recording (and still produces a better image than Sony at that same bitrate).


This opinion of mine is necessarily subjective, based on my use of both the Sony HDR-XR 520 and Canon HF S100. Nevertheless, the idea that multiple options for bitrate is a benefit is hardly a difficult position to defend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
buy a high power infrared light, as one option. I have the hf 100 and if I remember right like the sony I have, there is a infrared light built in (maybe it is really the taping on lamp.) unfortunately it is only good for about 5-6 feet. I had turned off both lights to save battery life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
I've looked at both the S100 and XR500 in detail, and along with the reviews, the consensus appears that the S100 is a hair better in bright light and the XR500 is better (by more) in low light. They each have advantages, but for my use the XR500 has better PQ at 17mb/sec than the S100 does at 24, and that's even before its superior image stabilization, which has an important effect on much of my video. The S100 certainly has its advantages as well such as better/faster autofocus, more manual controls, smaller form factor, frame rate and p/i control, etc. It's up to personal use and preference how to weigh the various features, relative advantages, etc.


I guess your point is that the XR500 would have even better PQ were it to have a 24mbs option, especially when there's movement, and that is hard to argue with. But, given that its PQ is at least as good (on average) at 17 as the S100 in 24, I'll pocket the 41% bitrate difference in smaller filesize, editing/rendering performance, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,194 Posts
Good analysis for your purchase decision, bernhtp. I differs from my own, as I have used both the Canon and the Sony, and found that the Canon has a better image at the same bitrate, and a substantially better image at the Canon's higher bitrate. Sony wins in low-light and with OIS, but my shooting will typically be in good light with a tripod. Therefore, the Canon wins easily for me, while the Sony is your best option. Peace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Wow! Those turned out nice.


I also had great results with the HG10 day light performances. The video quality was top notch. I just could not adjust it to improve the quality in low light settings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
The current breed of HD camcorders sport a relatively inferior CMOS and will all exhibit the same weakness.


But the HD Camcorder world is going to see a significant shift in the next few months when prosumer DSLR cameras beef up their processing power and are able to encode [email protected] (or even 60p) MPEG4 streams. I predict that in a year's time ... there will be a DSLR-based unit available for $1000 or less.


When that happens I will get rid of the HG10 and jump ship.


Until then ... I see no point in spending any more than I did on a HD camcorder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cons /forum/post/16982825


Wow! Those turned out nice.


I also had great results with the HG10 day light performances. The video quality was top notch. I just could not adjust it to improve the quality in low light settings.

Have you tried cinemode 30p? That typically improves low-light a lot (but for daylight you may not like it).


See here HF100 comparison:
http://yhasuw.bay.livefilestore.com/...nemodeComp.jpg


Also see this 24p cinemode I posted while ago for HF100:


I believe the HF200 is not quite as good in low-light compared to the HF100 according to ccinfo. I believe you can already buy DSLR that encode MPEG4 but biggest problem I've seen with most is that the CMOS rolling shutter effect is very pronounced even if you just pan. Checkout dpreview.com for reviews and sample clips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc48 /forum/post/16983262


See here HF100 comparison:
http://yhasuw.bay.livefilestore.com/...nemodeComp.jpg


Also see this 24p cinemode I posted while ago for HF100:


I believe the HF200 is not quite as good in low-light compared to the HF100 according to ccinfo. I believe you can already buy DSLR that encode MPEG4 but biggest problem I've seen with most is that the CMOS rolling shutter effect is very pronounced even if you just pan. Checkout dpreview.com for reviews and sample clips.

Great info. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by inquisitive /forum/post/17017552


Any of you guys have a trick on the HF10 to get it to shoot better in low light? Thanks.

See http://lucienk.spaces.live.com/blog/...635!1108.entry


Then go down to 'Q: What are the best settings for low-light?'.


Summary: cinemode + 30p works pretty well. If motion isn't big issue you could go to 24p. If you want more contrast you could go with spotlight 30p but I'd rather add contrast in PP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc48 /forum/post/17019160


See http://lucienk.spaces.live.com/blog/...635!1108.entry


Then go down to 'Q: What are the best settings for low-light?'.


Summary: cinemode + 30p works pretty well. If motion isn't big issue you could go to 24p. If you want more contrast you could go with spotlight 30p but I'd rather add contrast in PP.

Thanks for the link!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top