How does the 200A low light sensitivity compare to the 100b

G

GreekStudios

Active member
I'm looking to purchase either two of these or 2 170's this fall. Since I shoot weddings here and there I was wondering what their low light capability is compared to the 100b where I find my self having to drop shutter to 1/24 and add 6 db gain sometimes to get a viewable picture.
 
In the same boat with the same exact question. Love to push the DVX and it does so well, just wondering if the 150/170 will be able to handle the same low light circumstances.
 
Barry Green can give you the more definitive word on this, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. I believe the 200A is about a half-stop slower than the 100B (iso 500 for the 200A vs 640 for the 100B). The 200A has far less noise than the 200 though, but I'm not sure how that adds up vs the 100B. I believe it might be about the same overall, at least at 24p.

I don't think you'll get better low light performance than a 100B from a 200A/170 though. Just much higher resolution. If you're struggling with a 100B in low light, you may not be thrilled with any of the "affordable" HD cams.

The Sony EX-1 might be a good choice otherwise except that weddings are among the worst places for a rolling shutter camera due to still camera flashes etc.
 
Stick with SD as long as you can in the wedding video world....

HD just isnt there yet in the Low light department...
 
I agree. We are still holding on to our DVXs. At least the new line is a step up in light performance, this gives us hope for the next round of cameras. Honestly there are many guys shooting in HD and I can not imagine the light they are throwing to make it work during receptions.......talk about intrusive.
 
I wouldn't expect cams to catch up or surpass the DV cams in terms of low-light stuff. That's kind of like the garbage in/garbage out thing. If you shoot low-light with film you'll get muddy grainy stuff... in the HD world, it's more noticable and less passable than the world of DV. You need light to get something to look good.. instead of just a passable image.

I do think though that the 170, like the 200a is considerably better than the original 200. We were able to pull crowd shots at a concert that would not have been possible with the standard 200, but wanting to pull a good image by candle light is quite a longshot at this stage
 
The 170/200A are about 1/4 stop slower than the DVX in progressive mode. But if you're shooting 60i, the DVX is over a stop faster.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Barry Green can give you the more definitive word on this, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. I believe the 200A is about a half-stop slower than the 100B (iso 500 for the 200A vs 640 for the 100B). The 200A has far less noise than the 200 though, but I'm not sure how that adds up vs the 100B. I believe it might be about the same overall, at least at 24p.

I don't think you'll get better low light performance than a 100B from a 200A/170 though. Just much higher resolution. If you're struggling with a 100B in low light, you may not be thrilled with any of the "affordable" HD cams.

The Sony EX-1 might be a good choice otherwise except that weddings are among the worst places for a rolling shutter camera due to still camera flashes etc.
Click to expand...


i think those ISO are way to generous. I rate my HVX around 200, it's very slow, and it get's noisy quick.
 
HVX in HD NORM is 320, in Cine-D it's 250. But that also depends on what f-stop you're at, because the most-open f-stops don't react the way you'd expect. Basically, using "ISO" with a video camera is a folly and an exercise in frustration.

But as far as RELATIVE sensitivity goes, that's one we can quantify, and in progressive the 100B is about 1/4 stop more sensitive than the 200A. In interlaced 60i it's more than 1.25 stops more sensitive.
 
Gain always increases whatever noise there is, along with the signal. It's a simple, linear "rising tide raises all ships" paradigm.

I've never compared a 100 and 200 side by side so I can't speak from experience there, but I can say that the 200a has considerably less noise at +6 db than the 200 does at 0. Even at +9 it might be better. That's a *huge* difference.

On the 200, the gain switch was a no-no. Not so on the 200a, so maybe there's a clue for you in that...
 
I actually just got home from shooting a wedding. It was a horrible shoot because the power went out to the whole building and I had to shoot in just candle light with the HVX200a. I actually got some useable footage grainy as hell but still useable.
 
HVX 200A is the 1st revision of the HVX 200 camera.
The 100B is the 2nd revision of the DVX 100 camera.

The 170 is a new HD camera that will arrive in September that has a host of new features when compared to the hvx. It will be called the HPX 170.
 
Barry_Green said:
HVX in HD NORM is 320, in Cine-D it's 250. But that also depends on what f-stop you're at, because the most-open f-stops don't react the way you'd expect. Basically, using "ISO" with a video camera is a folly and an exercise in frustration.

But as far as RELATIVE sensitivity goes, that's one we can quantify, and in progressive the 100B is about 1/4 stop more sensitive than the 200A. In interlaced 60i it's more than 1.25 stops more sensitive.
Click to expand...


A 1/4 stop gain in progressive mode, wow. That's a lot worse than I was hoping for.
 
i shoot weddings with a dvx100b and hvx200a. no iso ratings and whatnot for you, but i will say i've been very happy. i set my hvx to barry's lolite settings, and do my best to match the dvx. i've been extremely happy, love p2, and loooooove my hvx.

my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top