JVC GZ-X900

Low Light Sensitivity (0.0)

While the JVC GZ-X900 was a solid performer in bright light, the camcorder ran into extreme difficulties with our low light testing. For starters, the camcorder had one of the worst low light sensitivities we've ever recorded. The X900 needed a whopping 56 lux of light to reach 50 IRE on our waveform monitor. When you consider that an average HD camcorder needs roughly 15-16 lux to reach the same levels, the 50 lux performance by the X900 is downright abysmal. This is also far worse than the JVC GZ-HD320 did in our sensitivity test, as it only needed 27 lux of light to peak at 50 IRE—which is still a very bad score. (More on how we test low light sensitivity.)

Required Illumination *

* the lower the lux required, the better the performance

We can't say enough about how bad the GZ-X900's sensitivity results are. The camcorder needed about 6 times the amount of light required for the Sanyo VPC-HD2000 and Panasonic HDC-HS3000 to reach the same levels on our waveform monitor. It is also the worst low light sensitivity we have seen amongst the camcorders we have tested this year. We tested the X900's low light sensitivity with its auto slow shutter feature disengaged, which is the way we do all our regular camcorder testing. Setting the gain control to auto allows the camcorder to engage its slow shutter, which enables a 1/30 of a seconds shutter speed. Using the slow shutter will definitely result in improved low light performance, but it also gives your footage a choppy, blurred look—due to the slow shutter speed.

We expected the GZ-X900 to have much better low light performance because of its large CMOS sensor. It appears, however, that the camcorder is stuffed with so many pixels that there is actually less area for sensor to absorb light. The gross pixel count is roughly 10.29-megapixels, which means even the larger 1/2.33-inch sensor is densely populated with pixels. So, in effect, by boosting the pixel count sky high, JVC has made the X900 an exceptionally poor low light camcorder. In return, the GZ-X900 offers an incredibly sharp image in bright light. The camcorder's lens, which opens at a maximum aperture of f/3.4, is likely another contributor to the GZ-X900's poor low light performance.

Of course, having a bad low light sensitivity wasn't the GZ-X900's only problem in low light. Its failure to produce a solid image when the lights are dim carried over into our low light colour and noise testing. Check out the next two sections of this review for the detailed results.

Low Light Colour (4.13)

Since the GZ-X900 produced such a dark image in our low light testing, it should be no surprise that its colours weren't all that accurate. The camcorder managed a colour error of 7.28, which is roughly twice what the camcorder measured in our bright light colour testing. The saturation level also dropped down to 46.79%. Take a look at the sample images below to see just how much darker the X900 is compared to the competition. (More on how we test low light colour.)

Auto Low Light Colour Performance
Colour Test Chart (above), Colour Error Map (right)
The JVC GZ-X900 produced a colour error of 7.28 and a saturation level of 46.79% in our low light colour testing. (The map on the right is a diagram of the colour error. The length and direction of each line indicates how the camcorder processed each particular colour.)

The GZ-X900's image in our low light testing was dark, noisy, and murky. The image also had a slight green tint to it. The colour error map above shows how the camcorder wasn't able to produce any colours accurately. Each colour in the spectrum was off by a significant margin. The comparison images below give you a better idea how the GZ-X900 stacks up against the competition.

Low Light Comparison at 60 lux
JVC GZ-X900	Sanyo VPC-HD2000
Panasonic HDC-HS300	JVC GZ-HD320

The GZ-X900 is definitely darker than the rest of the camcorders shown above. It is harder to make out details in its image and the colours are quite faded. The GZ-HD320 also shows some fade in its colours, although the image is definitely not as dark as the X900. The Sanyo HD2000 has the deepest, most vivid colours in low light, while the Panasonic HDC-HS300 also has a solid all-around image.

Low Light Colour Score Comparison

Low Light Noise (1.57)

The JVC GZ-X900 averaged 2.1975% noise in our low light testing, which is another terrible performance. The camcorder had more than twice the amount of noise than the GZ-HD320 and the rest of the camcorders we used as comparisons throughout this review. This is a very high amount of noise and you can definitely notice it in the X900's footage. In low light, the image is still quite sharp, but the whole frame is covered with a heavy layer of noise. (More on how we test low light noise.)

Noise at 60 lux Auto
JVC GZ-X900 100% Crop	Sanyo VPC-HD2000 100% Crop	Panasonic HDC-HS300 100% Crop	JVC GZ-HD320 100% Crop

The thing that is really worrisome about the GZ-X900 is the fact that the noise is prominent even when shooting under 60 lux of light. 60 lux isn't bright, but it is roughly equivalent to a poorly-lit indoor setting or outdoors during dusk. All camcorders show increased noise levels in low light, but most don't start showing intense amounts of noise until the lights are very dim (under 20 lux or so). No camcorder, especially a high-end model like the GZ-X900, should have noise levels of close more than 2% when shooting under 60 lux of light.

Low Light Noise Score Comparisons

This terrible noise performance, combined with an abysmal sensitivity score and poor colour accuracy make the GZ-X900 one of the worst low light performers we've tested in a while. The camcorder does capture a great image in bright light (with excellent sharpness to boot), but its low light capability is not worthy of any praise. We simply cannot recommend this camcorder for anyone who plans on shooting in low light situations of any kind.