I shoot 4, hour-and-a-half First Communion sessions in a poorly lit church. I use 3 cameras, a Canon GL-1, a Canon Optura Xi, and a Panasonic PV GS150. The GL-1 produces good usable footage. The Optura struggles with the low light. I'd like to replace it with something that will give me decently sharp clean footage. The end results are delivered on DVD's. I could replace the Optura with a used GL-1 for about $800, but clearly SD is a dying format. Seems the money would be better spent on an HD camera. From what I've read low light performance is not the forte of HD cameras, but the HDR SR11/12 sounds like it might be capable. Anybody have an idea how the SR11/12 would compare with a GL-1 in low light?? It couldn't be worse than the Optura, but is it any better?

Not sure about it's low light performance against the Optura. But it looks good to me. Played with it quite a bit today and it's performance in low light is about the same as my HD100.

Opps, I played with the SR12 today, not the SR11. It's probably about the same performance though. I like that face detection feature quite a bit. 1920x1080i looks stunning.

I don't have the Canons to compare to, but I do have the SR11. Running it wide it does fairly well in low light, but zooming in it gets pretty skittery on focus if the light is past a certain point. I'd say the light has to be pretty low to hit that issue, and I'm pretty sure that it's a function of all the digital processing this cam does to keep the footage clean under most conditions.

IOW, really difficult conditions look like they overtax the processing and some things suffer a bit - it's a "know the limits of your cam" situation, and the cam is fine under conditions I'd generally consider difficult and excellent in good conditions. Average indoor daylight and you're fine, outdoor video is incredible. Indoors at night with fair lighting seems to be pretty good, all things considered.

I've got the 10w/20w Sony light with a diffuser, and if the lights get too low, it makes up the difference. I've also tried using it as fill light for the still side of this cam, and am getting excellent results.

It's hard to say without knowing how bad the lighting really is in a given situation whether a camera will cut it or not, but the SR11/12 seems like it's pretty good, my CX7 somehow digs a little deeper, but with noise. For anything that gets too bad, I can whip out that light and be set at a moment's notice (or turn it on if I anticipated needing it).

can this do the slow motion 240fps same as the sr12? I read an announcement that said the sr12 was the only camera capable, but I thought the only difference was the harddrive, also can you record the 1920x1080 or does it record 1440x1080 like the older models, that was not clear in the announcements or reviews I saw either.

The only difference between the SR11 and SR12 is the size of the hard drive. SR11 is 60G and the SR12 is 120G. I just felt $200 for 60 was a little high so went for the SR11.

Ron Evans

have you tried the slow motion ? I am curious how good it is and if its worth it as a selling point over other options with 24p and if its noticeably different than slowing down 60i in post?

Also are there other frame options? or is it only 240fps or back to 60?

have you tried the slow motion ? I am curious how good it is and if its worth it as a selling point over other options with 24p and if its noticeably different than slowing down 60i in post?

Also are there other frame options? or is it only 240fps or back to 60?

Stephen, I've got the SR12 and the slo mo, even though super smooth, is very soft and looks nothing like HD. I don't see this as a selling point for the SR11 or SR12. I think the regular 60i picture of the SR11/SR12 is its greatest selling point. I think it's the best around.