At that pricepoint it's pretty difficult to find any HD video camera that will match the low light performance of the VX2100. The HXR-NX5 is about the closest comparable camera but you're looking at around 4K. The NX5 also has the Sony G Series lens which gives you a 20x zoom that you'll probably need for sports.

The quite small HXR NX30 is quite a pleasant camera with plenty of pro features and within your price range but I would not say it is comprable to the VX2100 in low light. It does have an amazing gyro stabilised lens though but only 10x. Might be too short for sports.

Bob.

You may want to look at the JVC GY-HM150U at $2000. I own one (as well as its shoulder mount big brother the GY-HM750). It is a 3-CCD based sensor system which gives superior color and does not suffer the shutter roll effect characteristic of many CMOS cameras that becomes evident when shooting fast-moving subjects such as at sports events. The one caveat I have is that CCD sensors are not as sensitive as CMOS sensors in low light conditions and may not suit your specific needs. However, I have used this camera to shoot on-stage performances and have always found the lighting to be more than ample.

On a personal note, I have always been in favor of three-sensor cameras as opposed to a single sensor. I have worked with various de-Bayering algorithms in my machine vision research and, despite higher-order mathematical interpolation, they do not produce as true an image. However, most people cannot tell the difference by merely looking. Also, if an individual pixel fails in a sensor with a Bayer pattern, it is far more noticeable. A dead pixel in a dedicated color channel can be easily and quite accurately inferred by interpolation.

Peter

Thanks, guys. Good stuff, as always.

I may see if I can "bump" my budget up to maybe $3,000. (I'm confident the wife doesn't read this forum, so mum's the word.)

How do I retrieve a private e-mail, catalogue and cost ? ….Quickly someone!!

IMHO, the Panasonic GH3 is the best video camera, even if it is a still camera.

From my limited experience, if you are on the go a DSLR is very clumsy to use as a handheld video camera. Most of the time a tripod is impracticable for me.

Well my video camera is back from it's third repair attempt for the same lens problem. I started using my DSLR for video when I began having problems with my main camera. The thing is, I have fallen in love with the look of DSLR footage, but yes, it is akward. That is where the GH3 (and GH2s) comes in. It gives you the look of a DSLR with a much friendlier work flow. I hate doing run and gun stuff with a DSLR. The GH3 should be just fine at that.

If you can stand to wait, I have a feeling you'll be seeing much better options mid to late next year into 2014.

My sense is that, in the near future, we're going to see larger chips (like the RX100's 1" chip) paired with excellent lenses paired with processors that do much better at bayer interpolation. I think 2012 has been kind of holding pattern for manufacturers trying to get the last gasp out of the older tech. Same goes for DSLR video--I bet in a year or so we see cameras doing much better jobs with aliasing.

If you can't wait, the new sony consumer camcorders are okay, the XA10 is okay, and you should probably consider the 3-chip Panasonics also: TM700/900.

"The thing is, I have fallen in love with the look of DSLR footage, but yes, it is akward."

I would have said "impossible" for what the OP wants to shoot.
For sports and stage with one camera a fast 20:1 zoom is very desirable and a shallow DOF works very much against you.

Bob.

I'm considering a pair of these: http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2012/11/22/review-panasonic-ag-ac90-camcorder.html
Waiting for a few more reviews before jumping. ;-)

I wouldn't. Looks like the same chipset and prism as Panny's old GS400 MiniDV , which was a truly great camera, apart from the poor low light performance and non-critical focus, which is what you'd expect from 1/4.7" sensors. Those are a total deal breaker.

There's quite a lot of talk that Panasonic have improved these small chips to give decent low light performance. "Backside illumination" is the term used. I'll still wait for some real world reviews though. ;-)

Some real world reviews are emerging now.



Low light performance actually looks remarkably grain free!

"Low light performance actually looks remarkably grain free!"

And resolution free as well. Watching it in 720p all the low light footage looks soft.
Don't get me wrong, not bad for the money and not much different to similar offerings from Sony that probably use the same Sony sensor.

Compared to the venerable VX2100 that the OP has, doesn't hold a candle to it unless you're still happy with SD but that's not what the OP is after.

Bob.

I think "resolution free" is a bit harsh Bob. What camera gives as good an image in lowlight as it does in good light? Never had one in my price range that's for sure. At the price point, they are considerably cheaper than my old VX2100, PD150, and PD170 were. As good as they were in lowlight, I certainly wouldn't say the images looked as crisp as those taken in good light - and by the looks of it, the AC90 produces much less gain. Definitely WAY better than my current XH-A1 cams. I think we all have a tendency to look back at favourite cameras with a touch of the rose tinted specs. Picture performance wise, even consumer cams today from about £400 up, blow those old cams out of the water.

I wote for the Canon HFG-10 too.

I have had one, and I loved it.

Ulf

"I think "resolution free" is a bit harsh Bob."
Perhaps n some regards but it is certainly being sacrificed.

" What camera gives as good an image in lowlight as it does in good light?"
None or is it most?
It's such an undefined comparison. Certainly though almost all cameras would give some loss of resolution simply because in low light the iris is wide open and only the most expensive optics don't suffer when the iris is wide open. I now add 6dB of gain when shooting with my EX1 so I can avoid having the iris wide open to give a better image. Interestingly in full auto the camera does the same.

However in the case of the images from the Pansonic something else is going on and the likely culprit is noise reduction. That's a fair enough thing for the camera to do as noise doesn't compress well at all.


" At the price point, they are considerably cheaper than my old VX2100, PD150, and PD170 were. As good as they were in lowlight, I certainly wouldn't say the images looked as crisp as those taken in good light - and by the looks of it, the AC90 produces much less gain. Definitely WAY better than my current XH-A1 cams. I think we all have a tendency to look back at favourite cameras with a touch of the rose tinted specs. Picture performance wise, even consumer cams today from about £400 up, blow those old cams out of the water."

I think we've still got a PD170 gathering dust somewhere. If so I might dust it off and try a side by side comparison. I certaily agree that we see the past through rose coloured glasses. To keep such a comparison real though is a bit of a challenge. Obviously viewing angle and display device will be signficant factors..

On the other hand I have noticed that the best images from the very best of the old DigiBeta SD cameras can look better upscaled on a HDTV than the ones from a cheap HD camera. Here I'm comparing a camera / lens that cost $100K in its day against a $2,000 HD camera.

Bob.