Hmmm, let's see. I have a brand new Panasonic PV-GS14 and a brand new JVC GRD33 miniDV camcorder. And neither of them get the low light results of my piece of crap old Sharp Viewcam analog camcorder that is 6 years old. What's up with that?

I'm thinking: newer smaller CCDs are less light efficient and new camcorders have smaller cheaper lenses which also capture and concentrate less light.

The trade off is usually smaller cam size, smaller tapes, and more pixels in the image for better resolution.

Interesting... And this, for a camcorder (GS14) that this very website calls the best sub-$600 camcorder out there? So basically this camera is useless since I mainly intended on using it indoors in low lighting. Please tell me I didn't just waste all that money.

Very few, if any, camcorders do well in low light. Even expensive professional machines use extra lights to get good results.

Look at the lens on the front of the gs14; it's pretty small and at f3.4 on maximum zoom you aren't getting very much light in. It also has a 1/6" CCD considerably smaller than older generation chips. So it's very possible for your old camcorder to preform better in low light.

The review here says it doesn't perform well in low light and that most camcorders in the gs14 category don't either.

Proving once again, newer isn't always better.

Don,

I recently read a thread where you and someone else kept going back and forth on the GS120 and HC85 cams, mainly regarding low light and video quality. This hit home when I read this as you had noted the larger the CCD the more light that is allowed to come in. The more CCD's the better the color. Somehow the GS120 does a fairly good job at both even with smaller CCD's. How is it that a camera such as the GS120 with 3 CCDS at 1/6 can perform that well in low light whereas another brand with 1/6 CCD's cannot? Just lens quality?

Also from reading that thread, it sounded like you had not yet decided on a DV cam to buy. Have you decided yet, or are you waiting until after the 05 models are released to the public? Please share your thoughts.

Thanks.

One reason is that the GS120 has a low pixel count on the same sized CCD, and thus larger pixels. Larger pixels gather more light. Most of the new cams jam a gazillion pixels on a CCD so that they can function as megapixel digital still cameras also. In the process, they give worse low light video, while still not taking good stills. But marketing depts feel consumers want something that will do double duty and most won't know that they're ending up with poor quality.

The GS200 has more pixels, higher resolution stills, and does worse in low light.

I believe having three CCDs also helps, although I can't give a scientific explanation as to why.

Well I have to disagree a bit with Retroeric:
I also have a GR-D32 (aka D33) which does just fine in low light(IMHO). I compared it to my (3X the cost) Canon UCS-1 Hi-8 and the JVC does just as well in low light, and much better in daylight. The only "difference" in low light is that the "artifacts" are different. Maybe some people prefer the analog artifacts to the digital ones. But for brightness, there's little difference and the JVC is MUCH smaller/lighter than the Canon (about 1/2 the size and weight).
Even the JVC charger, tapes, and batteries are smaller and lighter.
This size difference has made the JVC a camera that I have more likelihood of carrying. I usually left my heavy or bulky equipment behind (except on holidays) and missed many good "Kodak" moments.
It did take a few days to test all the combinations of settings on the JVC to find out which worked best in various situations. I have posted that info around this website in various forums.
Some things that make a camera better at low light: the maximum lens opening (some are f/1.8, 1.6, 1.2, etc: the smaller the number the more light gets in), the various 'gain-up' settings (on JVC it's AGC, Auto-A, and NightAlive that add more brightness), and the electronic circuitry (in JVC it's 3DNR that reduces graininess).

I have bought a Sony TRV5 (first miniDV model) some years ago and I was really very satisfied till it broke recently. I could film inhouse (acceptable low light, good wide angle), record some pop events with the good integrated microphone and in almost all situations I had rich vivid colours.

Can you expect the same from a sub $1000 camcorder ? I would say no, a comparable camcorder starts now at $ 1,400 (e.g. HC1000, GS400) but still there is a learning curve, because these new camcorders need more attention (i.e. manual control) to get (always) good results.

But if you still want to buy a superhysteric software/firmware monster for a bargain - feel free - you can expect in any case:
* A tunnel view (i.e. no wide angle)
* Weak Colours, weak low light and useless effects
* Internal microphones can't even record medium loud events

Don't fall into the price trap and especially not into the feature trap (it's almost unbelieveable what the whole industry including "independent" reviewers are trying to sell to you), if you would get the same quality as some years ago, you have to pay at least the same price now as before !

hber

MiniDV: TRV5E, HC85 (acceptable quality with some postprocessing)
Digital still: Nikon Coolpix 2000
35mm: Nikon F4, F65 (SLR)
Computer: P4-2,8 GHz; WinXP; 1 GB SDRAM; 3 x 160GB 7200RPM HD; DVD Writer; Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5, Ulead DVD,
Music: Korg Triton LE-Keyboard, Cubase SX 3.01, Halion 3

Hber, you make a good point. My Canon A-1 Hi8 camera cost $1600 in 1991. When you consider inflation that would be about $2200 today. Technology has gotten better and cheaper and I don't remember what was available back then, but there were no $300 camcorders.

Rich

__________________
FireWire Survey