Best low light Prosumer camera?

Our budget is $3,000 main uses would be b-rated horror films and since most shots will be shot a low-light, we need ideas on a good camera. Also what spec am I to look for?

We were looking at the Sony V1U because it wasn't all much more expensive then the older non HD models, but I have read that the V1U is really bad with low light. So I guess HD is out of the question. Also 24p is a must and a form of widescreen would be nice. Is the Panasonic DVX100b gonna be our best bet?

Thanks!

The Panasonic DVX100B is an excellent camera, I'd totally recommend it, but I've noticed it's not so impressive in low light situations when in 24p. If low light performance is of top priority, I'd recommend the Sony DCR-VX2100 (which is about $2,200) or the Sony DSR-PD170 (about $2,500). Between the two, they are very similar (almost exactly the same camera), except the PD170 has professional XLR audio inputs, while the VX2100 only has a consumer quality 1/8" ministereo input. They have identical picture quality and both are low light wonders. However, apart from low light, I usually wouldn't recommend them because they're not HD, and they do NOT have 24p, which is a real nice feature for filmmakers such as yourself.

So, I think the best option would be to get a better camera, not taking low light performance into consideration. Low light is nice for those on the go, but it's better for filmmakers to do their own lighting--it looks a lot nicer- less noise and less grain. However, if you want a dark look in your films, that's ok too. Just don't use as much light. And many people will tell you that you need a $2,000 high-wattage light kit, but you don't. You know Robert Rodriguez, the director? Well, on his first big feature film El Mariachi, which he made with a budget of $7,000, he used 2 worklamps, the kind you get at Home Depot or something. Each with a 200W I believe.

So if you're not going to be strict to your budget, here are some great prosumer cameras:
1) Sony PMW-EX1
2) Panasonic HVX200A
3) JVC GY-HD110U

or if you want to stick to your budget, you could get a better camera. It's called the RED Scarlet. It comes out in early 2009, and it'll go for about $3,000. What makes it so good is its resolution. It has slightly better resolution than Sony's premiere camera, the F23, and guess how much that costs? However, the Scarlet, being so professional, will be very complicated to use and edit. It's an entirely different codec. It'll require a pretty snazzy computer along with a nice editor (Final Cut Studio is recommended, but Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere Pro should work). It shoots video that could easily be blown up to movie theater size. But if you don't plan on making a feature film to be released in theaters, it may be best to stick to something simpler.
other Good cameras under $3,000:
1) Panasonic DVX100B
2) Canon XL2
3) Sony PD170

Though the XL2 has interchangeable lenses, I like the DVX much better. The XL2 also has 24p. The PD170, as mentioned earlier, does not.

So, in conclusion, I think you'd be better off by choosing the best camera available even if its not the best in low light. Like HD cameras, for example, they are not as good as standard def cameras in low light, but overall are much better. I think you'd be better off lighting it yourself, for better picture quality. You could just use 2 60W lamps or something. Try it :)

(btw) if you are looking for a good low light camera, look at its minimum illumination. It's measured in LUX, so the lower the lux, the better the sensitivity to low light. However, this measurement isn't set in stone, so its really hard to compare the low light capabilities from camera to camera. In other words, it's not that good an indication whether one camera is particularly better than the other.

Well, I hope that helps. And if you still want a good low light camera, you can't go wrong with the VX2100 or PD170. They're really nice cameras--they are missing some cool features though. Anyways best of luck

As I recommended in your other question, you should get the HV20/HV30, but not only for the large sensor. The HV20/HV30 are capable of shooting 24p with a shutter speed of 1/24 so even in low light you can get a very decent picture while preserving resolution. The V1U has 1/4" chips so it doesn't even compare to the HV20's 1/2.7" chips. Since larger chips equals more surface area which equals more sensitivity, a larger chip almost always means better low-light. Also, when you down-rez the HV20's 1080i footage to SD, it looks even better. But the thing to remember is low light doesn't always mean low light. Just because the scene you are shooting is supposed to be very dark doesn't mean you shouldn't use any lights at all. If you can get the correct contrast between shadows and highlights, all you have to do is underexpose and it will still look like a very dark scene, but with less grain. I bought a set of 500w worklights from Lowe's for $20, and while they're certainly not perfect for every situation, it shows that lights can be had for cheap. If you go to your local photography store and ask for 250 or even 200w photoflood bulbs, they cost around $5 and can screw into regular light sockets. Or perhaps you could mount a light on a boom pole and make it portable. Also, another good idea would be to take the money you save with the HV20 and get a 35mm adapter and lenses, and/or better sound equipment. I got my HV20 and I spent almost the same amount for sound as I did for my camera after getting a Rode NTG-2, XLR adapter, headphones, and 10 miles of XLR cable. If you are interested, I'm selling painter's pole adapters which screw on to your average $14 pole from the hardware store and converts it into a boom pole and it works as a pistol grip by itself as well:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...

Hope this helps!