Low light while desired is a factor of sensor and lens. You need the best in both which increases the costs. The Canon strikes a balance of cost and performance.
It's the same question about autos. You want 100 MPG, and seating for 15.
My wife and I are charged with getting a birthday gift for our 13 year old of a camcorder. Our budget is $180 - $250?because, by my reckoning?it can be. But while the range of choices in this price range is plain?
a) either the Canon ZR 850 or one of the newer 900s
b) either the Sony DCR HC 52 or one of the other newer or older ones
c) or the Panosonic PV GS 320 (because it, like the Canon, makes a couple of the CNET lists)
I am trying to understand why this isn?t a no brainer for the Sony, which used to frequently be recommended (and I?ve only used these personally), but now gets on no recommended lists at all.
Reading with some effort through camcorder forums, there is agreement that finding a camcorder that works well in low light can be both highly desired, and also, a challenge. Still?the Canon appears on everyone?s recommended lists, and yet, it?s described as being challenged by low light conditions.
But?the Sony?s continued use of infrared technology seems to deal with this very nicely, making the need for even an extra light unnecessary, and making viewing the captured images in low to no lighting a possible and even interesting process. I?m even told the newer models have modified the off coloration that has been associated with this process, to make the results even better. And yet?this is no ones first or even second choice on recommended lists.
I see I can get the Sony 52, and it will still do this (provide infrared technology). It even seems to come with stabilization functionality that is not present in the Canon.
Can anyone share with me why the Sony isn?t widely valued for its unique ability to work well in low light conditions? Why would someone choose the Canon (or Panasonic) over it, given the importance to most casual users of this desirable functionality?