Hi all,

I'll be working with a non-profit shooting speakers. The problem is that due to the nature of the events we won't be able to use lighting equipment, and will be limited to the lighting at the venue. Some venues have better lighting than others.

I'm looking for recommendations on the best camcorder, or DSLR with no video time limit, to purchase for the sake of shooting these events.

I'd like to be able to shoot continuously for 3-4 hours. Some events will be for 5 or more hours per day, but there will be breaks every 2-3 hours, so we could change SD cards etc. And line level audio in would be a big plus.

In the past I've dealt with too much noise due to low light circumstances like this and I'm tired of it, therefore I want the best camera for these situations.

I'd say the max budget is $2000 because we "want to do it right the first time", but the head of the organization would like to spend as little money as possible on this and my sense is that he'd prefer it to be under $1000 although I think the $500 number he threw out is way too low. Buying used will probably be the way to go.

Let me know what you think. I'm out of touch with the current market for video cameras. Thanks!

DSLRs are great in low light but are limited to 12 minutes of recording time.

For $1k - $2k, I'd recommend you rent. Or you could buy something REALLY expensive and sell it after the shoot, expecting less than a $2k loss on the deal. Who knows. If you buy used low and sell high, you might make money. :)

Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to ask about lowest light video cams - aside from DSLRs. There are 2/3" broadcast cams that are great, but outside your budget - unless you rent or sell through.

Thanks for the reply. How about the GH2? From what I understand that has no time limits. Using an AC adapter is not a problem.

DMC-GH2 | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global (http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh2/movie.html)

It has a mini jack input for audio. Is this mic or line level? "Remote / External Microphone Input φ2.5 mm, stereo mini jack"

Edit: looks like mic level in only, but I could use a pad or sync in post.

Any thoughts on if that would be the best for my situation?

Take a look at the Canon XA10, but you'll have to research if it can address your low light needs.

Might also try hinting to the head of the organization that investing in and making the effort to use a good lighting kit or working closely with the different venues would be much more effective at getting good video.

If you want to go under US$1,000 you're looking at something like the Canon Vixia M41, M40, M400 with maybe a Beachtek adapter or Zoom H1/H4n for audio, but it increases the chances of some piece of it going wrong. Once again you'll have to research to see if those camcorders will address your low light situations.

A good HD low-light performer under $1000 or even $2000 video camera probably doesn't exist. Of the camcorders in that range, there's no doubt a low light "leader" (e.g. the Panasonic TM-700) but that's relative and you seem to be looking for something that's absolute.

Renting is a good suggestion but I rented an EX1r for a day and it cost $450 so.....

What have you been shooting with that is unacceptable?

Is there a requirement to shoot HD?

DSLRs won't have line level audio input. You'll have to add a field mixer or a passive device such as a Beachtek.

The Canon DSLRs have the 12 minute limit (in HD) but the Panasonic and Sony's don't. Some overheat. Read up.

A used PD170 or XL1s or perhaps XL2 gives you some of the best low light cameras within a mile of your budget and they also have line level input. They will shoot 16x9 but they are SD camcorders.

When you look at DSLRs, remember to add the cost of a fast lens that delivers the low light performance you require as well as the additional audio equipment.

In the end, you may get more mileage out of your money to spend it on a couple light stands, Lowel Pro and/or Lowel Omni lights.

David,

I don't know what you have already, or what you've tried to remedy the low light situation, or even what you mean by "low light." However, spending money is always my last approach for solving a problem

My Canon XH-A1 isn't the greatest in low light, but most of the time, if I open the iris and drop the shutter speed to 1/30, I get good results for most indoor shoots using ambient light. Also moving the camera closer helps. Zooming causes you to lose an f-stop or two.

So, the first thing I do is move camera closer, second open the iris, third drop the shutter speed. And there are several presets I have to chose from as well.

Now if you do decide to spend money, I have a friend who recently bought a GH-2, and he loves it. But they are in short supply.

Hope this helps.

This is the camcorder for you.
Sony Product Detail Page HXRNX5U (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-nxcam/product-HXRNX5U/)
and after you finish the job, sell it.

stelios

Thanks for the replies.

I'll be working for this organization in a technical capacity as the videographer and general go to tech person.

Unfortunately we won't be able to use lighting equipment because of personal sensitivities between some of the speakers, the head of the organization, and possibly some of the audience members on how it will affect the environment. It's just something I'll have to deal with.

The camera we're going to temporarily borrow from a friend is a VX2000. I haven't used this camera yet and will be testing it next week, but the owner thinks it will perform well in the types of lighting situations we'll encounter.

Like I mentioned some venues will have better lighting than others. I won't know until I experience some of these situations firsthand, but I want to be prepared with the right equipment going in. The main venue we'll be using should be fairly good as far as house lighting goes.

I think the audio end will be ok. I'm mainly concerned with purchasing the right camera for the non-profit because the organizer wants the non-profit to own the equipment.

I'm getting the sense that the GH2 may be good for this situation if it offers good low light performance and costs around $1000. As time goes on we should be able to upgrade the lens if necessary.

I'm going to post in the GH2 section to see what those users think, but if you have any other thoughts let me know. Thanks!

Maybe you can sneak into the venue beforehand and upgrade the existing lights with higher wattage bulbs. :)

David -

How bad IS the lighting?? You'd have to go used ("last years models" now), but if you use the "low lux" mode, the Sony "500" series cameras are pretty good - XR500/CX500 or the 520 versions (no audio in on the Cx models in this model year), or the XR/CX550. They will shoot it VERY bad lighting with passable results. The "AX"2000 would probably be similar in performance when adjusted to 1/30 on the shutter.

I can't speak to the new model year CX560/CX700, but they should be close to the performance of the 500 series - I've seen some samples indicating they aren't "quite" as good in really bad light...

The XA10 mentioned might be worth looking at, but blows your budget... even a USED CX500 mentioned above will run more than $500 by the time you add long life battery and memory cards (I've got a couple I'm thinking about selling, so I've been pricing...).

Depending on what equipment is already on hand, I would suggest that investing in a couple of the inexpensive Chinese LED lights with dimmers might actually be the better investment, along with a couple cheap stands to put them on. They aren't GREAT, but SOME proper "pseudo 3 point" lighting could work wonders with the end results?

Low light is a very "relative" thing, and most cameras degrade more than a little as the light gets hard to come by, even an SLR is not an ideal solution unless you have a fast prime and can deal with the clip limits. The Sonys I mentioned are about as gentle with the image quality as you'll find, IMO, when the lights get low.

Hi Dave,

We'll be doing a test with the VX2000 next week. However, the test will be at the main venue with decent lighting, so I won't know how the other venues will perform till the day of that specific event.

As far as the Sonys go I have an HDR-SR12. Do you think the Sonys you mentioned have significantly better low light performance than the SR12? I'm not happy with the SR12's low light performance. I've had to use a noise reduction plugin in the NLE to get rid of the noise, which introduces its own issues.

Like I mentioned before due to people's sensibilities I'll just have to work with the room lighting. It's annoying but "what ya gonna do?" Clients are clients.

If you're just shooting SD, you could scarcely do better than a VX2000, frankly. They're great in low light.

Similar Sony "pro" models (PD150 and PD170) with XLR input will still run around $1000 used and deliver similar performance. Used to own a PD150, and for simple SD delivery, it more than beat my Z1U or HVX200.

I also have a GH2 that I've used for speaker presentations, but these have all been under 2 hours - AC adapters actually ARE a problem currently, as nobody anywhere seems to have the necessary DCC8 AC-DC converter cube in stock. You'll also want a faster lens than the kit lens - popular options are Nikon-mount zooms in the ~15-50 range at f2.8. The kit 14-140 is a good lens, but only puts it on par with my Z1U, light-wise.

Thanks for the reply. I think sticking with the VX2000 is good for now. I'm thinking about recommending the xa10 due to it's low light performance YouTube - Canon XA10 Test - Boston - Afternoon to Night Timelapse Low Light (http://youtu.be/TVf_Q8W3sy8) but I think the organizer may have a cow about the $2000 price tag.

One problem I see with the VX2000 is having to change the tapes mid-way, but that's just something they'll have to deal with unless they want to shell out the cash for their own camera.

The GH2 seems to be out due to difficulties with zooming. If anyone thinks there's anything better than the xa10 for this application let me know, thanks!

Edit: Btw, I think SD is ok although we will be uploading clips to youtube and making digital downloads of the events.

If you really want to avoid tape-changing, all the Sony SD-DV cams can be used with the MRC1K CF-card recorder. Throw in a ~32-64GB card and shoot for hours.

You could consider a used XR520v. With its 240 GB internal HDD, you'd get 60 hours of continuous recording time in its best SD mode, and much better native widescreen and low-light performance than a VX2000 for under $1000. You could get about 15 Hours in HQ SD on a CX560v.

The VX2000 was legendary. The XR520V is better. That is, if you don't mind plugging it in and using all that electricity and destroying all that rainforest, because even with the biggest battery going for five hours is a little risky.

The MRC idea is great but requires additional investment in the unit plus cards. Even 64 GB cards (expensive) won't get you to 5 hours (or just barely, depending on the cards).

The current crop of Sonys are MUCH better than the SR12 in low-light performance.

Someone just recommended the TM900. I think I might recommend that because it seems to perform well without noise in low light. Some artifacts in this video, but it may come from the youtube transcoding, and anyway I don't think we'd be talking about lighting levels THAT low. YouTube - Panasonic TM900 Extreme Low Light Test (1080p50) (http://youtu.be/5DJO1Q0RVBw)

I'd prefer HD for the YouTube clips and digital downloads although we'll probably be making DVDs too.

Didn't I recommend that in post #5 only the less expensive TM-700?

But the TM900 has better low light performance, is that correct?

David -

The Exmor R sensor introduced in the "500" series is DEFINITELY better than the SR11/12, which I sold immediately when I tested an XR500... The CX550V is about the best of the lot, having the most tweaking of the sensor block as it was released "last" in the series, but none of the 500 series are "bad". There is a new CX560, but it uses a new sensor, and samples I've seen seem to indicate it lost a little in low light performance, although I can't say for sure without "hands on'.

The 700 and 900 series Panasonics look quite good as well, but footage I've seen seems to show less than graceful degrading in low light - seem to macroblock a bit in the samples I've seen (I think what you called "artifacts"?), although the 900 is pretty darn good, and the price is nice! IMO, the Sony is more "graceful" with less noise and image degradation, but you'll spend more, and it may not be worth it.

The XA10 looks like a real winner, having reduced the pixel count to gain sensitivity, but you're talking quite a bit more $$. I think there's a "consumer" version of that camera though, can't remember the model # though, and it'd probably be more in the right price range?

For about $40 you could pick up a 120 LED on camera light with dimmer... on low, it'd be enough to "kick" most cameras into a usable range, and is not hard on the eyes of the talent. Sometimes there's no substitute for being able to add a little light in the right spot...

Hey Dave,

I found this video of the CX550V in low light: YouTube - HDR-CX550V Low- Light (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ojEX3h8hCs)

Here's another one: YouTube - HDR-CX550 : low light test HD on i-auto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRdCOYUcrQ)

It seems pretty noisy to me although maybe the TM900 would have similar results in this situation.

I'm leaning towards the TM900 because of the price, and also this video seems to have very little noise although there are some blocks. YouTube - Panasonic TM900 Extreme Low Light Test (1080p50) (http://youtu.be/5DJO1Q0RVBw)

Those blocks could come from the camera, but they also might come from the youtube transcoding.

If I had to choose between noise and blocking, I think I'd go with blocking, but it would depend on "how much" of course. It seems like the TM900 produces less noise and the blocking isn't as annoying.

Any thoughts?

Well, there were some really odd encoding aritifacts in that first vid, not to mention some "interesting" camera work that makes me a little suspicious of operator vs. camera... the second states it was not in low lux, which significantly boosts the low light capabilities, with little or no additional noise.

There's one other "issue", and that is that as you zoom, there is "lens ramping", and you lose a stop or two of light sensitivity - so you have to watch for that in any samples. I noticed that BOTH samples you listed "crossed that line" where the camera would have to gain up to compensate for reduced iris on zoom. I should think with interviews you wouldn't be zooming in that much, so shouldn't be a factor? BUT, it's something to be aware of when viewing amateur evaluations (and even professional ones!) of a camera.

That said, I prefer the "noise" signature of the Sony over having macroblocks (prefer a "smoother" image would be how I'd describe it), but in all honesty, the 900 series (IIRC there are THREE very similar models, with different prefixes, TM, HS and SR?, depending on recording media options) Panasonics are nothing to complain about - if I were not invested in any accessories, ANY of the three "big names" offer cameras with good performance for your needs, IMO, so it comes down to features, price, and whatever personal preferences you might have.

You're on the right general track, price out accessories and all that you'd need for the long shoots, then go from there. While I may lean towards Sony (got lots of "accessories" I don't have to re-buy if I go with a Sony camera), I can't say I've seen any "deal killer" issues with the other brands, and I've owned Panasonics before and loved them... and a couple Canon HV series too, but they didn't mix well with my other cameras, not an issue with one camera shoots!

But the TM900 has better low light performance, is that correct?

Is that based on a review or comparison of any kind or just marketing material? This is a review of the Panasonic TM-700, Sony CX500 and some others:
Panasonic HDC-TM700 Camcorder Review - Flash Memory - CamcorderInfo.com (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-HDC-TM700-Camcorder-Review-37681.htm)

Unless there's an apples to apples side by side test of the TM-700 and TM-900 showing low light performance, I tend to think it's marketing hype based on maybe a mode change. What good is a low light mode if say the frame rate causes weird motion artifacts for the type of video you shoot? I'm unaware of an engineering change to the sensor system improve the lowlight. Not sayin there isn't any, just that I'm unaware.

I would expect the VX2000, PD170, VX2100, PD150, XL1s will outperform these cameras in lowlight.If I have some time, I'll try out the TM-700 vs XL1s.

Thanks for the replies guys,

Yeah, the SR12 gets much darker on the tail end of the zoom in, so I always avoid that. Is there a good video you know of demonstrating the low light performance of the newer Sonys?

And Les, I appreciate those suggestions. It looks like those are all more expensive than the TM900 though. Also, we'll have to use DV to begin with, but I want to avoid it later because the longest tape is 83 minutes correct? That means that we'll miss some of the material to reload the tape once.

Personally I think that dark video taken with the TM900 looks very good, and I don't think our shots will be anywhere near that dark. This is another TM900 video. I think the transcoder Vimeo uses is better than YouTube's in some ways. A Short Trip to NYC using the Panasonic TM900 on Vimeo

There is some noise in that video during the scene with the train starting around 1:23, but I don't think it's too bad. Interesting that the YouTube video seemed darker with no noise.

Value wise the TM900 seems very good so far.

Edit: After watching those 2 videos of the TM900 on YouTube and Vimeo again I'm wondering how much of these artifacts are due to the transcoding. The YouTube video shows some blocks but not much noise, the Vimeo video is the other way around. So would this mean that's due to the transcoding and not necessarily the camera?

The XA10 looks like a real winner, ... there's a "consumer" version of that camera though ... The consumer version of the XA10 is the Canon HF G10; it has the same HD CMOS imaging chip and same lens. Further down the line is the Canon HF M41, M40 and M400, same imaging chip as the XA10, but with a different lens.

One problem I see with the VX2000 is having to change the tapes mid-way, but that's just something they'll have to deal with unless they want to shell out the cash for their own camera.



Edit: Btw, I think SD is ok although we will be uploading clips to youtube and making digital downloads of the events.

To get away from tape change, you could always capture to a laptop. Even Windows Movie Maker and I-Movie (I believe) can capture Mini-DV through firewire.