On 30 Jan 2002 09:18:18 -0800, ephemer@hotmail.com (freesailor) wrote:

[...]
>- sound: well, nowadays every good camcorder has at least decent sound
>recording, I think ...

No - a problem with at least early one-chip Mini-DV
has been the pick-up of whine from the high-speed
motor. Most still pick up some whine, but not as
much as my TRV9, which can be heard clearly over
the loudest ambient sounds...;-)

>So I'm looking for a camcorder that primarily is small, lightweight
>and good enough in low-light.

Aren't we all...?! ;-)

>Well, I've already searched a lot on Internet (Usenet and the Web) and
>summing it up I've found that my "perfect" MiniDV camcorder could be
>the Sony DCR-PC115 (it's a PC120 without Bluetooth), just 580g, BUT
>... its minimal sensitivity is 7 lux (without Nightshot).
>Canon Optura 100MC (MVX1 here in Europe) is an alternative (a little
>bulkier, 660g), but it has 3 lux min just with Low-Light program (I've
>read a review saying it lowers a lot the recording quality).

It may switch the shutter speed to 1/4 second (also
available on the Sony...), but image quality is
reduced with no motion, and much reduced with
motion...

>Only if I accept a heavier and bulkier unit I could buy a Sony TRV-900
>(about 880g), which is certainly better in low light (4 lux) and
>probably better in general, having 3CCD.

Yes, not only for VERY noticeably better low-light
ability (see the "dim light" comparisons in: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm),
but the color is better, and most important for me,
the picture is FAR smoother with motion - the motion
artifacts of the sharpest one-chip camcorders are
truly annoying with many common subjects!

>So my questions are:
>*how much worse* is low-light recording with a Sony DCR-PC115 (or
>similar megapixel 1CCD camcorder) compared to my old very sensitive
>Hi8 Sony TRV-94?

Noticeably worse, though a while back I dragged out
my 1/2"-CCD Canon A-1 Digital for comparison, and
it wasn't very good, either, in low light... BTW,
the PC9 has slightly better low-light performance,
though in bright light it trades off sharpness
and color quality for reduced irritating motion
artifacting. Its picture is better than most
one-chip Hi-8, though, and it's tiny. If you
can manage the size/weight/price of the TRV900
(or better yet, the VX2000), these are VERY
noticeably better...

>It would good enough for me to have *roughly the same quality* in
>low-light (dull and grainy but still well readable images), just to be
>able to use it in the same light conditions where I couldn't take
>snapshots with 200 ASA.
>In fact, I'm asking DV for better quality than Hi8 in full light
>conditions only.
>In other words, I'm just trying to understand if I could be happy
>enough with MiniDV low-light performances or if I have to expect some
>real disappointments compared to my old Hi8 ...

Depends on whether or not you stop with one-chip, or
go for 3-chip...

>Anyone who switched from high-sensitive Hi8 to low-sensitive 1CCD
>MiniDV can tell me about his own experience?

See above. The difference is there, but not great, in
low light; both produce poor-quality images in very low light...

>Is Sony's Nightshot useful in recording vast interiors, like churches
>interiors or a castle's main hall?

It is more sensitive, and not bad looking when combined with B&W mode...

>Do it preserves at least some
>color, if there is a minimum light level?

No. You may see some "false" color variations
(browns added to the "toothpaste greens" or
other "unpretty" possibilities...;-).

>Anyone knows if Sony, Canon and other big players are to launch 3CCD
>camcorders about the same size and weight of DCR-PC115?

Don't we all wish - but NOTHING but rumor has appeared
about this...

>I know some of these are not new questions, but I haven't seen any
>real-life experience report about MiniDV low-light performance *from a
>previous Hi8 owner*.
>Or, at least, the (often very interesting) comparisons I've found are
>usually focused on relative performance of various MiniDV camcorders,
>not *comparing MiniDV and Hi8* low-light performance.

In hindsight, I preferred Sony's best efforts in Hi-8
to Canon's (I owned Canons, tried Sony's TR700 and
TR200 later, alas, and found what I was missing with
an L1, A1, and UCS5...;-). Best guess: with the PC115,
you will be disappointed in the low-light ability
(look at the site above, for workarounds near its
low light limit, though... [as the TRV30]); going with
the PC9 provides only slightly more low light reach;
the TRV900 will satisfy you more in most ways...