handycam new HD low light king? Exmor-R sensor at DVinfo.net

Erik Phairas · January 17th, 2009, 11:14 PM

Saw this in popular science claims 2x the sensitivity over the the older Cmos.. (found in the Sr11?) I know my Sr11 does very nice even next to my EX3 so if it is twice over that (sr11) that would really be something.

Hands on: Sony HDR XR520 Handycam | News | TechRadar UK

Exmor ‘R’ debuts in Handycams | Photoclub Alpha

Maybe the EX5 would use these only in the 1/2" flavor?

Kevin Shaw · January 18th, 2009, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Phairas

Saw this in popular science claims 2x the sensitivity over the the older Cmos..

A 2X improvement in sensitivity would be nice, but until we see some actual images and comparisons to other HD cameras that doesn't mean much. From what I've seen and read, previous single-chip consumer HD cameras have been poor in dim light, so it would take a big improvement just to make them palatable. Now give us three of these sensors and we might have something to talk about.

Erik Phairas · January 18th, 2009, 03:40 AM

It does show sample pics in the magazine but who knows what it will really look like? Like I said my little SR11 does pretty good for costing 8 times less than my EX3. 2 times over that and I would think it would maybe slightly edge out the EX. Although the EX would always be sharper in low light. That's always been the biggest difference between the two. The EX stays HD while the SR looks less and less HD as the low goes away.

Imagine an EX with these, an Ex cam with 2 times the sensitivity? Now you are talking near as good as the human eye at low light.

Dave Blackhurst · January 19th, 2009, 02:14 AM

The 'R'everse sensor was supposed to be a significant improvement, simply because the pixels wouldn't be obscured by the associated electronics.

It will be interesting to see how much "real world" improvement there is. Same for the Canon HF-S with it's new sensor/electronics.

While the small cameras get slammed for "low light", I think a lot of it arises from how good they look in GOOD light - and performance considering the price point is not really that bad once you learn what they can and can't do, and if you add a bit of on camera light, they hold up fairly well. The SR11 really isn't that bad - Erik makes valid observations. Since I don't have 8x the budget, I'll be satisfied with a pocket camera that does "pretty well". IF the new "R" sensor performs that much better in real world use, it might be worth the upgrade, but I'd be surprised if it's really THAT significant - guess it's time to wait fo the "hands on" reports...

Erik Phairas · January 20th, 2009, 08:45 PM

sr12 vs xr520

HDR-SR12 vs. HDR-XR520V Exmor-R Sensor on Vimeo

Not the 2x improve they claim by this crappy video... but you can see the difference... I think we need a better example.

Bill Koehler · January 20th, 2009, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Phairas

sr12 vs xr520
I think we need a better example.

I agree. One big improvement would be to label explicitly which video segments are which camera and were the settings for the two cameras the same. I hate guessing games.

Dave Blackhurst · January 22nd, 2009, 01:43 AM

Pretty hard to tell ANYTHING from that video... let alone which cam was which...

The highlights were pretty blown out on what I presume was the "R" sensor, and the zoom range or framing was different... nothing useful really. If better low light means blown highs, not sure that's a good trade.

There was an interesting display of the improved OIS though, THAT might be worth the upgrade if it really works.

Duane Prince · January 25th, 2009, 09:15 AM

I'm guessing the opposite, the one that's not as blown out, is handling the light better & you can see detail in the ferry & the bridge, also less noise. But ,like was said, a better example would be nice...

January 17th, 2009, 11:14 PM	#1
Erik Phairas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 628	handycam new HD low light king? Exmor-R sensor Saw this in popular science claims 2x the sensitivity over the the older Cmos.. (found in the Sr11?) I know my Sr11 does very nice even next to my EX3 so if it is twice over that (sr11) that would really be something. Hands on: Sony HDR XR520 Handycam \| News \| TechRadar UK Exmor ‘R’ debuts in Handycams \| Photoclub Alpha Maybe the EX5 would use these only in the 1/2" flavor? __________________ EX3, Q6600 Quad core PC - Vista 64, Vegas 8.1 64bit, SR11 b-cam

January 18th, 2009, 03:40 AM	#3
Erik Phairas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 628	It does show sample pics in the magazine but who knows what it will really look like? Like I said my little SR11 does pretty good for costing 8 times less than my EX3. 2 times over that and I would think it would maybe slightly edge out the EX. Although the EX would always be sharper in low light. That's always been the biggest difference between the two. The EX stays HD while the SR looks less and less HD as the low goes away. Imagine an EX with these, an Ex cam with 2 times the sensitivity? Now you are talking near as good as the human eye at low light. __________________ EX3, Q6600 Quad core PC - Vista 64, Vegas 8.1 64bit, SR11 b-cam

January 20th, 2009, 08:45 PM	#5
Erik Phairas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 628	sr12 vs xr520 HDR-SR12 vs. HDR-XR520V Exmor-R Sensor on Vimeo Not the 2x improve they claim by this crappy video... but you can see the difference... I think we need a better example. __________________ EX3, Q6600 Quad core PC - Vista 64, Vegas 8.1 64bit, SR11 b-cam

January 25th, 2009, 09:15 AM	#8
Duane Prince Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: central AZ. Posts: 36	opposite... I'm guessing the opposite, the one that's not as blown out, is handling the light better & you can see detail in the ferry & the bridge, also less noise. But ,like was said, a better example would be nice... __________________ tumbleweed

January 19th, 2009, 02:14 AM	#4
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	The 'R'everse sensor was supposed to be a significant improvement, simply because the pixels wouldn't be obscured by the associated electronics. It will be interesting to see how much "real world" improvement there is. Same for the Canon HF-S with it's new sensor/electronics. While the small cameras get slammed for "low light", I think a lot of it arises from how good they look in GOOD light - and performance considering the price point is not really that bad once you learn what they can and can't do, and if you add a bit of on camera light, they hold up fairly well. The SR11 really isn't that bad - Erik makes valid observations. Since I don't have 8x the budget, I'll be satisfied with a pocket camera that does "pretty well". IF the new "R" sensor performs that much better in real world use, it might be worth the upgrade, but I'd be surprised if it's really THAT significant - guess it's time to wait fo the "hands on" reports...

January 22nd, 2009, 01:43 AM	#7
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Pretty hard to tell ANYTHING from that video... let alone which cam was which... The highlights were pretty blown out on what I presume was the "R" sensor, and the zoom range or framing was different... nothing useful really. If better low light means blown highs, not sure that's a good trade. There was an interesting display of the improved OIS though, THAT might be worth the upgrade if it really works.