Canon HF20/HF200 really that bad?

lapino · 10-05-2009, 8:18 PM

After spending several hours browsing the web so I can make up my mind to either get the (discounted) Canon HF10 (about €620) or the Canon HF200 (new model, same price), I'm really at a loss.

As far as I can read from the reviews, the HF200 is definitely a better camera when it comes to layout, menu, features etc, but the smaller sensor has a very annoying side effect, which is supposedly "bad low light performance".

Now, when I spend this much money, I rather go for the 'best' option (read: newest model), but I want this to be an informed decision. So my main struggle is: what is "bad low light performance"? Does this mean I'm unable to get decent video when I film inside our house with the lights on? Or does this mean the video is pretty bad when filming in almost dark situations (like on street in the dark, or inside house with only candelight).

I'm very new to HD filming, so I really can't compare. I do like the HF200 design though and almost all reviews say it's definitely a better camera compared to the HF10/HF100, except for the bad low light performance.

So I need your advice. Thx in advance!

dave_bass5 · 11-05-2009, 1:43 PM

You could just get brighter light bulbs

As mentioned in the HF10/100 thread there is a noise reduction plug in you can get that cleans up low light footage really well.
I know that doesn't help make the decision but it might mean the low light performance isn't a deal breaker.
Low light normally means indoors with a couple of light bulbs or outdoors at night/dusk.
Have a look on vimeo.com as there are 100's of sample clips from the Canons (including a few from me).

For what its worth HF10/100 owners seem to like the camera, and especially its low light performance compared to other cams in the same price range.
Its a proven camera so you wont go wrong with that one.

lapino · 11-05-2009, 6:38 PM

There seems to be very little info on the HF20/HF200 on the net, especially low light samples etc. To be honest, I see little difference between the HF10 en HF20 when comparing the (very few) samples I've found. But maybe these online video services aren't exactly the best to compare video quality (due to compression etc)

dave_bass5 · 12-05-2009, 8:15 AM

yes, once you start reducing the size its very hard to tell how noisy the footage is.
I assume you have seen these.
Search videos for 'hf200' on Vimeo

what about ordering it from Amazon. Then you have 30 days to send it back if you dont like it.

lapino · 12-05-2009, 1:19 PM

I can't order and send it back to Amazon, I live in Belgium remember. Once you buy here, it's final, no returning stuff.

richardstringer · 12-05-2009, 8:17 PM

You should try the Canon HG20 because its an awesome camera and around the £600 mark. Plus its been reviewed as being excellent in low light. Read the review :

Canon HG20 Review - Camcorder Reviews - TrustedReviews

lapino · 12-05-2009, 8:35 PM

Same sensor as the HF10, so I can go for the HF10 then (which is the same price as the HF200). Still not decided though, especially since there are so little "low light" opinions on the HF200 on the net.

*A n d r e w* · 12-05-2009, 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapino

As far as I can read from the reviews, the HF200 is definitely a better camera when it comes to layout, menu, features etc, but the smaller sensor has a very annoying side effect, which is supposedly "bad low light performance".

All you need in order to make your decision is right here in your first post. Which is more important? Layout and menu, or image quality? Are you going to be thinking about layout when you're watching your videos? I doubt it.

lapino · 13-05-2009, 5:56 AM

Well, there's also the fact that the HF200 gets praise for having "the sharpest video ever in a consumer camcorder, close to pro models". That's something quite interesting, as is the higer bitrate. It's just very unclear to me how the HF200 performs in "normal" low light conditions (for me, low light equals filming indoors with decent lights on, not in almost dark)

rogs · 13-05-2009, 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapino

That's something quite interesting, as is the higer bitrate.

If you're intending to edit your footage, and try and keep the best quality from the higher bitrate of the Canon, make sure you have appropriate editing software.

Some of the technical details are outlined here, if you're interested:

Editor that can import and export High Profile AVCHD - AVS Forum

*A n d r e w* · 13-05-2009, 9:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapino

(for me, low light equals filming indoors with decent lights on, not in almost dark)

Shooting indoors with artificial light qualifies as "low light" - so I believe the remarks in the camcorderinfo.com review would apply in that kind of situation. If you're planning on doing a lot of shooting indoors with artificial lights, then it's likely that "sharpest video ever" remark will not apply. But, without seeing a side-by-side test of the HF100 and HF200 in identical situations, there's no way to give you any more precise advice. I'd go with what the chaps at CCI have written, and draw the conclusion that the HF100 is going to beat the HF200 indoors. Outdoors in bright sunlight is another matter, of course.

lapino · 13-05-2009, 11:32 AM

I don't know exactly how I can make up my mind since there's no way of knowing how much I'll be filming indoors and outdoors. I think it'll be about 50/50. Of course, I will do some filming indoors when there's a birthday party, a communion, maybe a restaurant visit, but I will also use this thing quite a bit outside (in garden, mostly for my daugher, travel etc). There might be a new baby coming too, but that's another hard decision to make

Anyway, it's just hard for me to exactly figure out what is meant with "bad low light performance". Compared to the HF10? I can imagine. But I've been using a Sony DV-camcorder for years (HCR40 if I'm correct) and the noise there never really bothered me, but it might also be that noise is a more apparent issue with HD material.

SnowJim · 13-05-2009, 11:42 AM

Hey!

I bought the Sony TG3 and I most say that I am not impressed with the qulity of the picture, especialy not indoors.

Canon HF100 simes bether but I do not know if it is visible bether? If not then you could not expect much from any HD camcorder when using in low light indoor scenes.

My thought is to never light up, becourse this takes away the feeling of the enviroment and also it makes it more obious that you are filming whitch tend to make all vary stiff (often).

A Grate thing about TG3 is of couse the size which will probably mean more film. It apears that you will have to choose more okay/bad film or less Okay/Good film.

Sorry that I can´t help you much, I am more or less in the same boat.

lapino · 13-05-2009, 3:17 PM

This review Canon Vixia HF20 review - infoSync Reviews says the HF20 is great with low light... Big difference with the Camcorderinfo review. Now what???

SnowJim · 13-05-2009, 5:30 PM

Hey!

If this samples is really coming from film samples made from HF20 then I think that the Sony TG3 is not far behind at all.

Even if the camcorder gets god grade I can´t really see the sharpness that I look for in e HD camera. Probably I am expexting it to deliver sharp images like all the blue-ray movies do.

dave_bass5 · 13-05-2009, 8:27 PM

I posted last year that i was at a wedding in Aug and was standing next to a guy who had a TG3. It was a dimly lit barn and we both shot the same footage. Afterwards we compared footage and even n the Small LCD screens we both could see my HF10 was better.It was cleaner, sharper and brighter.

You wont get BD quality with a consumer camcorder and even if you had a pro camcorder you need to have good lighting, not just a few houshold bulbs.

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

I posted last year that i was at a wedding in Aug and was standing next to a guy who had a TG3. It was a dimly lit barn and we both shot the same footage. Afterwards we compared footage and even n the Small LCD screens we both could see my HF10 was better.It was cleaner, sharper and brighter.

You wont get BD quality with a consumer camcorder and even if you had a pro camcorder you need to have good lighting, not just a few houshold bulbs.

Thanks! I will do some more testing with the TG3, I do think that there is not much diffrences to the HF100 in daylight(according to the samples I have looked at) but I most decide if I need bether lowlight qulity before portability. I hard decision never the less.

dave_bass5 · 14-05-2009, 8:01 AM

Again, from what ive seen both are good in good light. I find the HF10 can overexpose sometimes but that can be corrected by using the manual exposure.
The good thing about the HF10/100 is that it has cinema mode and that gives it the edge over the TG3 in low light.
Ive shot some nice footage in low light and while its been noisy its cleaned up well.
This was shot with my HF10 at one of our gigs but the guy using it hit the Easy button and so its very noisy. At this size though its not too bad.
Mustang Sally on Vimeo

I did consider selling my HF10 and getting a TG3 at one point as i really like the size of it but i feel that although im not using it much (even less now i have my TZ7) its nice to keep it for birthday parties, functions etc.

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 8:39 AM

Thanks!

Yes that qulity you show in that video simes okay, but how is it if you run the raw sample in full screen? This is often the case when watching it on the 50" TV.

Its hard to make the same test with the TG3 be course I do not really know how much light the scene had. In your sample it simes to be vary little but the camera did not have any problem to get focus.

I have notice that the TG3 often loses focus when making a fast move to an area where there is ambiat light.

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 8:40 AM

Is it possible to remove noise in after production software? And if, which software are to prefer?

dave_bass5 · 14-05-2009, 8:59 AM

You can download a 720P version from vimeo if you wanted to see what its like on a big screen but its not pretty

. Also as the original was 1080i its been reduced for Vimeo. But remember, this was in full auto. And yes, it was pretty dark on stage. we dont have any real spot lights although the venue had a few.I can send you the original file if you would like to see it. I also have some footage shot in cinema mode. Not a gig but just general low light stuff i shot over in florida.

I have recently discovered a plug in for Vegas (although you can get versions for other programs) called Neat Video (done by the neat image people) and its pretty amazing. Ive only got the demo at the moment but will buy it before the end of the month. Its around £80 so not cheap but as im now shooting a lot more with my TZ7 it will be worth it to me. Saying that, at the Vimeo sizes its not really worth it but for full screen play back (and TV) its going to be very useful.

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 9:04 AM

Thanks!

Yes I would gladly take the samples you got.

I could also makes some saples from my TG3 and make it available for you but its hard to know really how much light there is in a scene with out some kind of lux intrument. But I will make som saples in diffrent lightnings and then we can compare.

This could be grate.

dave_bass5 · 14-05-2009, 9:22 AM

Ok. Ill try and sort something out tonight for you.

In the mean time ive just posted this in the TZ7 thread.
Im very impressed with this TZ7 footage. Nothing special but you can tell just how dark the room is. Just the one light in the corner.
My HF10 can of course do better.

YouTube - jamie dancing

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 9:40 AM

Thats really nice, but TZ7 is no camcorder but a digital camera right?

dave_bass5 · 14-05-2009, 9:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnowJim

Thats really nice, but TZ7 is no camcorder but a digital camera right?

Yes, its just a P&S. I was just impressed how clean this came out.

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 7:03 PM

I have a sample here now but its 288 MB, and can´t find any place to upload? Any idé

dave_bass5 · 14-05-2009, 7:13 PM

You can upload it here.
This is my Yousendit drop box so only i will get it. It will take a while to upload.

https://dropbox.yousendit.com/transf...89646&secure=1

lapino · 14-05-2009, 7:30 PM

Or you can put it on megaupload or similar sites, then everyone can download it who you send the link to.

SnowJim · 14-05-2009, 7:33 PM

Yes megaupload was my first chouise but the free account only gave me 200 MB. Do you know of any other place?

dave_bass5 · 14-05-2009, 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnowJim

I have a sample here now but its 288 MB, and can´t find any place to upload? Any idé

Just got your file.
I must say i think its quite noisy compared to my HF10. It also looks interlaced on my PC. This is strange as my HF10 files play fine and i have go tde interlacing tunred on in MPC.

Im just uploading some footage that i shot in a barn. This was the footage i think i mentioned that both me and a TG3 owner shot but mine was much cleaner and sharper.

Hope this helps. I have plenty more if needed.