have you used the camcorder canon with low light ( 1,2 lux capable ) is the quality acceptable ( how is in comparison to Sony )
1830262
The quality is EXCELLENT, with one qualification: you CANNOT do high-speed panning, in low-light, AND expect this level of camera to track it. WAY too blurry. That said, for "normal" low-light shots, it is WONDERFUL. And yes I own 2, and yes I have done this.
1830263
What qualifies as low light? I would be taking video of horses practicing dressage and jumping. Much of the practice is done at night in a lit arena after the riders get out of work. We would be using the video for critique and improvement so I don't need to be able to produce a move but we do need to be able to see enough detail to know if the technique and form are correct. Thus blurry won't do.
1830264
I've used the G20 paired with a Light Panels mini and the quality is actually very good. My clients are very happy with it. Never used a Sony.
1830265
A lot of blue noise at 1,2 lux. Compared to Sony z1u (a very old model) there is no comparison, the z1u can't even go anywhere near that low light. Seriously, this is better in every way than a camera 10 years ago that costed $5000 except it doesn't have buttons for every single thing ever or a hot shoe but you can add an extension bar for that and you don't need all the buttons.
1830266
I use this camcorder in the field hunting deer has very good low light resolution I would buy this camcorder
653985
This camera takes good pictures in low light. for a point and shoot it is wonderful. If your Light is really low, I recommend a more expensive camera. The Canon Rebel series is a better camera, the draw backs more expensive, larger, heaver, more equiptment to carry, bigger camera bag and far more complicated. payoff, top of the line pics.The sx260 HD is light, easy to use, stores in you pocket and is ready right away. Its low light respones is good and it has a 20x optical zoom. Quite an amazing camera.
715533
I had one and I can say the picture quality is terrible. Every pic I took for 2 years was blurry and grey. I bought it brand new and regretted it. I replaced it with a Panasonic Lumix which is fantastic.
829679
Hi Rosie, This camera has a good low light capability. However, it still depends on the lens you are using. We recommend using lenses with large aperture opening. -Anthony
2008090
I'm not a professional photographer and haven't read any reviews about quality of viewfinder or LCD. I have had no problems with either in using my Sony. A friend who is a pro recommended it to me and I'm perfectly happy with the pics I've taken. shannon s, TX
1919427
Video quality from the camera is great. Just make sure you're using the STM lenses otherwise you will get the motor noise when it's focusing. Also, autofocusing with video is a little slow to lock-on compared to most camcorders today.
261672
I took several pictures with both and the Sony seems to have more reddish tints in the pictures. I even used the P mode and used the natural setting. It did not help when in the landscape, etc modes. That is the only complaint I have so far. Neither the Canon or the Sony had real good picture quality, I did not think. Maybe I should try something else all together. I liked the idea of having a larger zoom on a point and shoot but maybe it takes away from teh quality??
872700
Fair!... I have used this camera at an ISO setting of 4000 in candle light and it worked very well. The Lens was a 70-200 f2.8. I was over 100' from a wedding couple lighting candles and could not use a flash. I nailed it! The Canon 1D does better and I say that because I've used both but when the settings of a900 or a850 are correct, you can have jaw dropping clarity... Hope this was helpful
1608676
thank u for this info, but i have a question which compact camera will be good quality especially in the low light conditions?maybe the sony H20, the fuji F70, panasonic fz38, canon sx20
680312
Hi there! It works just fine. If you want optimal low light performance, there are many Sony camera models to choose from that features amazing low light capabilities. -Anthony
684990
I think the low light ability is fairly good. Once the light level drops below a certain level, the camera automatically switches to B/W.
1609357
I have not taken to much video with this camera, mainly because I would rather have a real video camera, but for a digital camera it's not that bad. I have taken one video indoors, and footage itself didnt seem to dark. There was very little light in the room, but the camera was very good with adjusting to that. But it likes to go through baterries like it's cool when you do take video.
2034335
Yes, this camera performs well in low light settings.. You just need to familiarize yourself with the different settings (fyi - there is a setting for "low light"). I agree with Paul's response -- it does a pretty decent job even with the flash turned off.
957979
Thank you for your comment. I found it very helpful. I naturally prefer Canon but really want the wide-angle offered in this Sony camcorder. Canon missed the boat on wide angle in my view.
755317
The Sony does very well including situations with mixed light sources such as daylight and house lamps. It also works surprisingly well in low light situations, however the longer exposure times required can lead to blurred images because of the longer shutter time. I often have better results using available light than I do using the flash which is not powerful enough to reach too far. This is not to suggest that the Canon wouldn't work as well or better.
1690184
I had this camera for almost a year. I was happy with he shots but the low light quality is terrible. I had a lens with capability of f1.8. In low light the pictures still turned out bad if the iso was above 400. I sold this camera and bought a canon 40D. But if you still haven't decided (which you probably already have since this was from May) I would recommend Nikon's update camera, the d3100.
985092
Hey how is the noise level in low light for video and pictures? Also can you tell me if there's a shutter lag?