On 15 Apr 2003 21:52:29 -0700, ecmcdougall@iname.com (ECM) wrote:

>I've heard that the problem is, as David Ruether described, that newer

>CCD chips are smaller, thus less photons are captured.

>

>Also, the race for more and more pixels has made each photosensitive

>"dot" on the CCD much smaller and less sensitive to light per unit

>area - ie. a 1/4" CCD with 1.03M pixels is not nearly as sensitive as

>a 1/4" CCD with 280K pixels.

>

>My old Sony TRV52 - ca. 1996, analog Video8, about 280K pixels on a

>1/3" CCD if I remember right - can take full color video of a table

>full of people with the light from 1 birthday candle.... I tried this

>with a Canon ZR65 - the video I captured was completely black, with a

>fuzzy bright blob representing the candle. I promptly returned it; I

>still haven't found a new camcorder.

>

>I recently read at:

>http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/0-6342639-1304-20791504.html

>that the new Sony DCR-TRL22 has better than average low-light

>recording; you might check it out. The touchscreen for spot light

>metering sounds like a great idea - I could really use this feature!

>BTW: I haven't tried this camera yet - it sounds intriguing,

>though....

The TRV19 and 22 have the same CCD and lens (and probably

audio) as the TRV11/17/18-PC9 - in other words, this level

of performance has been around for quite a while. As others

go to higher pixel-counts and smaller CCDs, their low-light

ranges reduced, leaving the unremarkable bottom-end Sonys

relatively good (with their more sensitive "HAD" 1/4"

relatively-low pixel-count CCDs). They are also "pleasant"

cameras, with no outstanding bad characteristics (unlike

many others), making them good "snapshooters", though

their low-light range is not outstanding compared with good

3-chippers. (For a comparison with other CCD types in

different lighting conditions, see:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.)