On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:54:35 -0400, "Mike Kujbida" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3d5e6c4f.16740535@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:13:56 -0400, "Mike Kujbida"
>> wrote:
>> >"Eric" wrote in message
>> >news:ajbc12$k19$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>> >> I'm trying to decide wich camera to buy. I was looking at 3 cameras:
>> >> 1) Sony DSR-PD150 with Lux of 2.
>> >> 2) Canon GL2 with Lux of 6.
>> >> 3) Sony DSR-PDX10P with Lux of 7. This camera is just about to be
>> >released.
>> >> It is the pro version of TRV950 and similar in most specs. The brochure
>> >> available from http://www.sony.ca/dvcam/DSRPDX10.pdf
>> >>
>> >> So do you think the best choice out of the above cameras would be Sony
>> >PD150
>> >> with Lux of 2.
>> >> Thaks in advance,
>> >> Eric.

>> >Cameras used to be rated in terms of foot candles which, in my opinion,
>is a
>> >much more accurate method. There are (approximately) 10 lux to one foot
>> >candle. As you can see, there really isn't a lot of difference between
>the
>> >cameras you've listed. What it should always come down to is features.
>Do
>> >a serious comparison of all three and determine which one best meets your
>> >present and future needs.
>> >
>> >Mike Kujbida

>> I can tell you there is a heck of a lot you cannot shoot
>> with a 7-lux camera, or even a 5-lux camera, that is easy
>> with a 2-lux camera (all Sony, rated by Sony...). The
>> VX2000/PD150 is pretty unique among "handycam"-style
>> cameras for its ability to produce a high-quality image
>> in very low light levels - the others are marginal even
>> in interiors that do not look too bad, and limit severely
>> what you can shoot successfully without lights... BTW,
>> I shot a wedding this week with six cameras, with lux
>> ratings that included all of the above. The 7-lux
>> camera didn't make it in the church (the 5 was marginal);
>> in the reception, only the 2-lux camera could be used...
>>
>> David Ruether

>And therein lies the problem with prosumer/consumer cameras. There is no
>definitive test that manufacturers use to arrive at the claimed lux level.
>You have no way of knowing the light level used to arrive at their claims.
>Nor do you have any idea as to the video signal level at that point. Kind
>of reminds me of the way audio amps used to be advertised: "200 watts of
>power" but, in the fine print, it would say something like instantaneous
>peak power - normal is 5 watts. If Sony, Canon, JVC, etc. put some truth in
>their advertising, consumers would be very disappointed in the real specs.
>At least with broadcast cameras, they reference their specs to the amount of
>light necessary to properly illuminate (whites at 100 IRE) a gray scale chip
>chart and also quote the f-stop used.
>
>Mike Kujbida

I agree, but within the Sony line, the relative lux ratings
do appear to correlate with experience with the cameras
for relative low-light range (all that were used in the
wedding, with the different ratings, were Sony). The
original poster included one that was not a Sony, but
comparisons of it with Sony cameras have shown its lux
rating to be about right, relatively (if not
absolutely...;-).