[jonnypb]

Looking to get a HD camcorder which will mainly be used for indoor/low light use. I currently have the Sony TRV-33 and low light performance isn't up to much IMO.

Looking to get a HDD recorder and do away with the MiniDV tapes and I've been looking at several models such as the Sony SR10 which looks nice and had a play with one in jessops and they said it's probably one of the best you can get for under £600 for low light work. I've read some reviews and users suggest otherwise and one of the weaknesses of the SR10 is low light performance

Any recommendations for a <£600 HDD with good low light/indoor performance

Thanks

[stu.artd]

I'll suggest the Canon HF100 or Sony CX11. Both should be about as good as it gets with current models.

I have a HF100 and use it indoors under normal lighting and results are pretty good, better than I thought they'd be. Focus is very good under indoor lighting as well, and that's one of the reasons I opted for the Canon.

[A n d r e w]

Don't hold your breath hoping for a viewfinder like your TRV-33 has, though!

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by stu.artd

I'll suggest the Canon HF100

cheers, i am considering the Canon HF100 but read a few reviews on various sites such as amazon etc from users saying it wasn't great using it indoors in lower light

[Mr Lazy]

Originally Posted by jonnypb

cheers, i am considering the Canon HF100 but read a few reviews on various sites such as amazon etc from users saying it wasn't great using it indoors in lower light

In my experience those people never state what camcorders they are comparing it with. Another model of a similar price, a professional model, broadcast TV, a film on DVD?

I have the HF100 too and I have no issues with it's low light performance. Sure, if it was very low light indoors it would be grainy - show me a camcorder that costs less than £1500 where that is not the case. I find that putting it in Cine mode gets rid of the majority of the grain and actually improves the colours. In fact I can think of a couple of occasions during later playback when I've been surprised how little grain there is considering how bad the light was at the time.

[senu]

Originally Posted by jonnypb

cheers, i am considering the Canon HF100 but read a few reviews on various sites such as amazon etc from users saying it wasn't great using it indoors in lower light

Low light performance is infact the holy grail of camcorders. Most domestic models struggle and comparisons are relative
I have 2 " semi pro" camcorders which do far better in lower light than any of the £1000 camcorders but even they do better with more light
Neither of them cost less than £2000

The Physics of a small sensor and not terribly fast lens ( intrinsic optics) mean that any low light abilities are then down to electronics which succeed to varying degrees by amplifying sensor light sensitivity ( gain) ( at the expense of increasing noise)
Essential the answer is better lighting. Even the Pros with camcorders costing multiples of a small family car still make optimum lighting a priority while shooting
2 X 60W bulbs ( usual domestic situation) simple wont do it . The human eye ( and brain) are far better at coping with lower light and compensate brilliantly. Camcorders do not

[Captain-K]

Cracking post Senu. I'm in the market for my first HD Camcorder, and I did a bit of research into complaints about low light performance. The percentage of posts on the Panasonic SD9, Canon HF100 and Sony TG3 threads complaining about low light performance is about the same. I had just about reached the conclusion that unless I'm paying shed-loads more than she-who-thinks-she-must-be-obeyed has given me authority for, its just something to live with. Nice to have it confirmed!

[dave_bass5]

I think i posted this in another thread but as it might be relevent here ill say it again.
At a wedding in a low lit barn a few months ago i stood next ot a guy who had a Sony TG3. We both shot the same scenes, me with my HF10 in Cinema mode and him, probably in auto as he had only just got it and didnt seem the type that would venture much out of auto.
There was quite a difference in picture quality to our eyes. My shots were slightly brighter (or less muddy) and also cleaner. Of course this was just playing back on the camera's LCD but the difference was there. And neither was what you would call clean but certainly my HF10 footage was the best i have seen from any of my older cams.

While Senu is spot on about none of these sub £1000 cams are great there is still a difference and if low light shooting is a priority it will pay to try a few out, especially the Canon's IME.
I can send anyone some of the footage i was talking about if you would like to see it.

[zeroice]

all camcorders suffer from "limitations" of physics...the smaller the sensor, the worse low light performance. There is a limit to what you can enhance/compensate electronically and out of the 3 big players (Canon, Sony, Panasonic), the Canon HD optics do the relatively better job in lowlight.