Can someone who knows about cameras and camcorders explain this simple fact...

[nile455]

Why do still cameras get better video in low light than video cameras? I have a $129 Canon Powershot that performs far better in low light than my $549 Panasonic mini-DV camcorder, and it's a 3-CCD! This makes no sense. And before you say it's my settings, I've done side by sides with other brands too, and same result. The still camera just captures better video than a dedicated quality camcorder when it comes to low light.

 

[shrubber]

easy,
First they have a different aperature. Check the specs on the cameras, the lower the number, the more light is let in

second, lens diameter, the larger the lens, the more light.

also sensor size plays a role.

 

[nile455]

easy,


second, lens diameter, the larger the lens, the more light.

also sensor size plays a role.

But both are larger on the camcorder. The Canon Powershot has a tiny lens and sensor. It's basically a budget digital camera.

 

[shrubber]

well, it's because with the camcorder you are 'taking' so many frames per second , somewhere around 24 fps or so.
Regardless of the aperture of the lens, you can only let so much light in per frame.
Not so with a single shot still camera.
If you had a camcorder with a low aperture, say F1 and a big 'ol lense 37mm? you would be able to shoot in the near dark like the pros.

 

[ndelaware]

Cause it's a Canon.

 

[nile455]

well, it's because with the camcorder you are 'taking' so many frames per second , somewhere around 24 fps or so.
Regardless of the aperture of the lens, you can only let so much light in per frame.
Not so with a single shot still camera.

Let me clarify. I wasn't talking about taking stills, I was talking about taking actual video with the still camera. You know, "movie mode" on the digital camera. And in movie mode it takes 24 fps just like the camcorder.