>
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:ZV_yf.5596$_S7.1208@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Swingman" <visaccoNoSpamPlease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:84Yyf.516$tb3.7@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
>> I'm looking at a Panasonic 3ccd camcorder (PV-GS65).  I'm particularly
>> interested in how it performs in low light.  One of the applications
>> would
>> be filming ballroom dances where the lighting is subdued and I wouldn't
>> be
>> able to introduce additional light.  I've heard that the 3ccd technology
>> improves low light performance over the 1ccd camcorders.  I'd appreciate
>> what you have to say about this.  TIA
>
> All things being equal, 3CCD camcorders will do better in low light than
> 1-CCD machines.  However, sensor size will have a much bigger effect.  The
> PV-GS65 uses 1/6" sensors, which is very small.  As a result, it's
> low-light
> performance will not be particular good.  For comparison, Sony's VX2100
> uses
> 1/3" in sensors, double the size of the Panasonic.  I have a VX2000, the
> predecessor to the VX2100, and virtually identical in terms of
> performance.
> I routinely shoot in very low light situations and get stunning results.
> There's a review of the PV-GS65 at Robin Liss' website:
>
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-PV-GS65-Camcorder-Review.htm
>
> Bear in mind that the website tends to be rather "consumery" and
> subjective,
> at least with respect to consumer machines.  However, the review includes
> color charts shot at various lux levels for the Panasonic, and the
> performance doesn't remotely approach that of the VX2000/2100.  Whether it
> will do for you is something only you could decide, but I find its
> low-light
> performance unacceptable.  For what it's worth, I bought my VX2000 because
> I
> couldn't find anything less expensive that had adequate low-light
> performance.

"swingman" <visa***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pO8zf.573$tb3.158@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZV_yf.5596$_S7.1208@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Swingman" <visaccoNoSpamPlease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:84Yyf.516$tb3.7@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> >> I'm looking at a Panasonic 3ccd camcorder (PV-GS65).  I'm particularly
> >> interested in how it performs in low light.  One of the applications
> >> would
> >> be filming ballroom dances where the lighting is subdued and I wouldn't
> >> be
> >> able to introduce additional light.  I've heard that the 3ccd
technology
> >> improves low light performance over the 1ccd camcorders.  I'd
appreciate
> >> what you have to say about this.  TIA
> >
> > All things being equal, 3CCD camcorders will do better in low light than
> > 1-CCD machines.  However, sensor size will have a much bigger effect.
The
> > PV-GS65 uses 1/6" sensors, which is very small.  As a result, it's
> > low-light
> > performance will not be particular good.  For comparison, Sony's VX2100
> > uses
> > 1/3" in sensors, double the size of the Panasonic.  I have a VX2000, the
> > predecessor to the VX2100, and virtually identical in terms of
> > performance.
> > I routinely shoot in very low light situations and get stunning results.
> > There's a review of the PV-GS65 at Robin Liss' website:
> >
> >

> >
> > Bear in mind that the website tends to be rather "consumery" and
> > subjective,
> > at least with respect to consumer machines.  However, the review
includes
> > color charts shot at various lux levels for the Panasonic, and the
> > performance doesn't remotely approach that of the VX2000/2100.  Whether
it
> > will do for you is something only you could decide, but I find its
> > low-light
> > performance unacceptable.  For what it's worth, I bought my VX2000
because
> > I
> > couldn't find anything less expensive that had adequate low-light
> > performance.
>
> Thanks for the reply.  A quick check on Amazon.com reveals that the VX2100
> is significantly more expensive then the GS65 <g>.  I wonder if there is
> anything in the "under one thousand" price range that would be much better
> than the GS65?

>
>

"Swingman" <visaccoNoSpamPlease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lqizf.1523$tb3.504@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> > As I indicated, I'm not aware of any camcorder under $1000 with good
> > low-light performance.  You might want to look at Sony's high-end 1
> > chippers.  Sony uses HAD ccds, which improves low light sensitivity.
> > However, the VX2100/2000 are the least expensive miniDV camcorders that
> > I've
> > seen that have what I consider acceptable low-light performance.  I've
to
> > a
> > couple of clips on the main page of my not-quite-opened-yet website that
> > were shot at night with the VX2000 -- they may give you an idea of what
to
> > expect: www.travelersvideo.com
>
> Thanks for the additional info and the link.  I will check it out.

>
>