On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:23:28 -0800, "Eric Tetz"
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> Eric Tetz wrote:
>> >the living room at night with one or two indirect lights.
>> >Is this low light?
>> Yes, for most 1-CCD cameras and some 3-CCD cameras.
>Thanks. I keep seeing conflicting reports. I read yesterday that real
>degradation doesn't happen until you reach levels where *you* can't
>see anyway. Guess it happens much sooner than that, huh?
W - A - Y sooner! In the light levels you describe, most
cameras would be near maximum gain, with poor color and
"grainy" image...
>> >2) I've found exhaustive comparative analysis of 3 ccd cameras
>> >(bealecorner, etc) - is there anything like this for 1 ccd cameras?
>> >Just how crappy looking are they?
>>
>> How did you miss:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm,
>I've read everything on your site. The general message (to paraphrase
>your VX-700 comments): "if you can afford a 3-chip camera, they are
>better in almost every way". It seems the only (though not insignificant)
>advantage the 1-chippers have is form factor.
Yes.
I thought, though, that these articles (at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html) have answered
most of your questions...
>More to the point, you go into enough detail on the prosumer models
>that I feel I'm aware of all the major contenders, and what their
>relative strengths and weaknesses are. I feel could buy a 3ccd
>camcorder with pretty good confidence that I was picking the right
>one. The only thing I wasn't really sure on is what constitutes "low
>light" (which you clarified above).
>
>I haven't seen those kind of comparisons with the 1-ccd cameras.
>Nobody's comparing framegrabs, light sensitivity, etc. Whose the clear
>low-light winner? Who has the best color saturation or neutrality?
>Where's the sweetspot in these smaller cameras?
>Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
The Sony's generally appear to do the best in all of the
above, with two types: the lower pixel-count models
(slightly better low-light performance and less annoying
artifacting), and the megapixel models (slightly
better bright-light color and sharpness, but...).
>I'm not really surprised at the lack of info - the people best
>qualified to evaluate a camera are the least likely to be interested
>in the cheapy models - I was just hoping someone knew a resource I
>hadn't found (it's impossible *not* to find www.ferrario.com :-).
I avoided the 1-chippers for a while, but some are good
for some purposes (I like the TRV11/17/18-PC5/9 at the
low end, and the TRV30/50-PC115/120 at the high end of
the one-chippers, but any good 3-chipper will beat them (TRV900/950-VX1000/2000-AGEZ30U/50U-
GL2).
BTW, B&H is selling the 50U for $1200 new - but its
low-light range is VERY limited...
>> The 950 is more compact, with what appears to be a better picture in
>> good light than the 900, but its low-light range appears to be no
>> greater than many 1-CCD models...
>Does language like "what appears to be better" mean that the average
>viewer would not be able to distinguish? Something you only see with
>magnifying glass, or with years of experience?
Yes. The 3-chippers named above would look good to
most (and some people even like the poorer-performing
models...;-).
>Anyway, thanks for the response, and thanks for the time and effort
>you put into your online comparisons. It's obviously a pretty
>significant resource on the net - it seems like every road leads back
>to your site. ;)
Hmmmm....;-)
Thanks for the comments (but you didn't mention my
articles in your original post...;-)