Best low-light performance?

[lemon]

does anyone have any links or info regarding objective tests of various camcorder's low-light performance? for example, the new canon vs sony (hfs10 vs 520) - which one has better low-light performance?

 

[liquidvisions]

The Lux ratings are listed in the camera reviews on camcorderinfo.com

 

[ronscuba]

Be careful with lux ratings. The different manufacturers don't use a universal measuring scale. 5 lux on a Canon is not the same as 5 lux on a Sony.

They are getting sneaky too. The case used to be that within a manufacturers line you could compare lux between camcorders. For example a Sony cam with 4 lux was better than a different Sony cam with 5 lux. The mfr's now sometimes list lux ratings when the cam is in it's special "low light" mode. Problem is low light mode often is not good for moving footage and can add grain/noise to the picture.

Camcorderinfo is a great site and they do a very good job comparing camcorders to one another. Lot's of good info to read there.

I would wait to see some UW footage before deciding between the Canon and Sony. Water has a unique affect on color that is difficult to duplicate in topside testing.

 

[lemon]

I think this is probably the most important performance factor in deciding on an underwater camera for me. I enjoy filming larger pelagics. Since these animals often won't be within 10 feet of my camera, I don't really see the use of lights. As a result almost all of my shooting is low-light shooting. It seems that a lot of these HD cameras really aren't that great shooting in low-light environments. I think this has to be highlighted in selecting a camera for shooters like myself!

 

[mobula]

I read several tests about the cams. I would buy the Sony. Although it is in German you can look here:

HD Camcorder Test und Vergleich von Sony PMW-EX3 (PMWEX3),Sony PMW-EX1 (PMW-EX1E/ PMWEX1) und Canon XH G1s beste Werte hervorgehoben

Simply mark the cams with "STRG" + left mouse button you want to compare (e. g. Canon HF S10, Sony HDR-XR520v and Panasonic HDC-SD300) and click on "anzeigen". Tests results and images will appear below. Click on the lowlight images and they become bigger. The SD300 has the best test, the Sony is named as the lowlight champion.

 

[TheBigPhillyFish]

There is some test footage out there comparing the Canon HF-S10 and the Sony XR-520V. In fact I have access to a test footage with both camera's on a rig side by side in California water. And amazingly the Canon dominated the Sony, in fact the Sony appeared to have some serious over exposure issues. Let me talk to the guy who has the test footage, to make sure I can pass the link on to you. Its one of the housing manufacturers, and he has it password protected. So I am not to sure if he really wants me just giving it out. And by the way, I would be slightly biased as I own the HF-S10, but all I can say is I tested both and just feel the S10 is the best bang for the buck, right now in the consumer market.

Will get back to you on the test footage.

Ed

 

[lemon]

Hey Uli,

Thanks for the excellent link. There is actually an option to browse the site and use the comparisons in english too.

This page compares the Sony 520, Canon HFS10, Sony HC9:
HD camcorder tests and comparison of Sony HDR-XR520V (HDR-XR520VE),Canon HF S10 (Legria HF S10/ VIXIA HF S10) and Sony HDR-HC9 (HDR-HC9E)

The Sony 520 seems to have really nice low-light! Surprisingly, I think it even compares well to the Canon XH-A1. This is really making me consider the Sony.

BigPhillyFish: would love to see whatever you have on the Canon vs Sony as well.

 

[lemon]

As an aside, folks might be interested in this site:

http://joesimonproductions.com/shootout/lowlightbig.mov

This guy posted a really outstanding side by side comparison of some 3 chip cameras relative low-light performance. Would be nice to see more of these! In this clip, the Canon XH-A1 really seems to outperform the HVX200.

As I said before, unless you're filming macro under lights or filming in the tropics at less than 20 feet fsw, i really think low-light performance has to be your first consideration performance-wise for underwater videography.

 

[ronscuba]

...

As I said before, unless you're filming macro under lights or filming in the tropics at less than 20 feet fsw, i really think low-light performance has to be your first consideration performance-wise for underwater videography.

Low light performance plus easy access to manual white balance would be my top 2.
The MWB is where it gets tricky since you are bringing the housing into the equation.

Then again, there are some that go without MWB and are happy with the results color correcting in the editing.

 

[lemon]

Low light performance plus easy access to manual white balance would be my top 2.
The MWB is where it gets tricky since you are bringing the housing into the equation.

Then again, there are some that go without MWB and are happy with the results color correcting in the editing.

personally, i have had the hardest time with MWB. I shoot an HC9 and I can't get it to MWB below 20-30 feet. most of the stuff i want to video is well below that depth so i'm not sure how helpful the MWB is. I try doing MWB at shallow depth as I descend with the hopes that it will help. but i think the colors shift pretty dramatically below this depth so i don't think it helps as much as i'd like.

my hope - and maybe someone can help me out here - is that a camera with better low-light performance will be able to MWB in lower light conditions at deeper depths, giving me better white balance at the depths that i like to shoot.

does anyone know if my difficulties are common or am i missing something?