GH2 TUTORIAL How to match C300 / FS100 low light image quality at iso 6400 and 12800 on vimeo

vimeo.com/34890589

both are great little recorders : )

Dr100 has been good to us — vimeo.com/33393452 — everything recorded with the uni mics.

The FS is definitely a SOLID middle ground. I'd love to see a shootout between it an the C300 in 6 or more different environments..

For web distribution it seems to be more then sufficient : )

Why exactly is it reassuring that the GH2 has a weakness? Who does that benefit?

Relax friend! :)

His point is if the GH2 hacked beat all cameras here if would mean anyone who has invested in much more expensive cameras can still sleep at night!

Agreed. The GH2 is great if you shoot around it's strengths. For a film like "Go" that's all shot at night, it would be less desirable to work with.

The FS100 seems to be a pretty well rounded price/performance cam. ND's would have been great though.

All good points, but that being said, Smooth (-2,-1,0,-2) is the flat profile whereas the modified Nostalgia (which many GH2 shooters dig, just not me) is a heavily treated 5Dmkii-like image out of camera. Still solid, just not flat!

really? Not a hope in hell am afraid! Lets be realistic hete...It's awful in low light! Sorry to be blunt but it is! I would love it to be better. It just fails in that test! Great in other parts!

Just a challenge for you: do a noise reduction in GH2 12800 and compare it to fs100 and c300. you will be surprised how close it will be. for the low budget people GH2 is the camera.

Yes it is, but you can't compare it to the pro-cams in low light. I'm a really loving GH2-owner myself but know the limits.

For me ,is more important resolution than low light,professional use lighting for film movies,GH2 700$ camera outperform in resolution Pro cameras 5000$ plus cameras ,Sony cameras not good for the price

Being a GH2 owner I do know that very low light is a problem when color banding at hi ISOs starts to show up. However with a fast prime and moderate light it does extremely well. It is no C300, F3 or FS100 but it is still miles ahead of what we had to work in Low Light 4 years ago.

This was a reply to someone that just deleted their post, i thought I would leave it because it makes a little sense!

I am most interested in documentary shooting and I don't always have the pleasure of lighting in non-set situations so low light is very important for me. The GH2 is a good camera but I am just highlighting the fact that the FS100 and F3 really do shine in low light.

A camera is just a tool and there is no camera that does EVERYTHING well. At the end of the day its what camera that suits you best, and if you find the GH2 the best then stick with it :-)

Pro filmmaker use light,way a 700$ camera is more sharper that overpriced FS100? Lock at the resolution test

totally agree with you Danny. I saw that comment on my email and went "really?". People seem to forget the benefit of low light shooting especially when it comes down to my genre of choice. docs!

Gary sorry to be blunt but you are not looking at things clearly or making any sense! sorry!

This is why i was in two minds about doing these tests and people latch on to certain things and say quite silly stuff. "pro filmmaker use light". Yes lighting is key AS I said in this video but there are times, especially in docs when you need the ability to use what is there. Gary, did you know on shameless they shot with the Alexa which has amazing low light (not a $700 camera by that way), used all available and filled in the holes where they needed them and they are professional filmmakers.

I myself am a progressional filmmaker and that comment offends me! Sorry!

It's clear you love your GH2 otherwise all your videos would not be called GH2 but that doesn't make it the best camera in the world! It does some things great, others not so great.A pro filmmaker would know that. Right tool for the right job! :)

Philip ,before i wanna buy FS100, if i buy a camera is not batter in resolution than my gh2,is no point to spend 5 times more,also i own 5d to and was better than gh2 in low light, not in resolution, Sony camera are overpriced
Philip,you are very professional ,i reply to some one in the forum.

Gary if you want resolution buy a Scarlet, you get plenty of pixels per pound (£) - be sure to get plenty of lighting though :-)

There is so much more to a camera than resolution. You shouldn't be comparing gh2 with the fs100. Chalk an cheese!

It's also not overpriced. It's an amazing low light s35 proper video camera for 5k!!

Danny ,i will wait for new canon cameras,i not see FS100 mush more resolution than GH2. cost 4 times more.
no thanks

I think the low light test is absolutely spot on. The GH2 does not hold onto the lows that well, and a 18MP 19x13mm sensor is not going to compare to the native 2MP sensor in the FS100 for low light. What the GH2 can do is maintain a nice low light image on the mids and highlights with plenty of detail and a fine noise grain even at 12,800 if you crush away the blacks and shadows. It is poor at dimly illuminated skin tones like you see in the test and the encoder isn't optimised for lows. The picture profiles don't go as flat as the 5D Mk II or FS100, or NEX 5N even, but Smooth dialled down is slightly flatter than Nostalgia.

Philip says: “A proper camera for a proper work” it’s the rule. But there is other rule: Get the camera you can afford, and do the best you can with it.
I’m sure that most of Gh2 defenders would be happy with a C300 for Charismas. But, most of us have not the money for it. You have money for a $700 camera? Get it and enjoy it. You have a pro work that pays for an FS100 and made you happy, then get it and show off in front of a C300. You or your company have the resources and the need of a more robust camera; don’t think again, the C300 is perfect for almost everything. Do you need super sharp images, slow motion for your commercials, and 4K for a movie? Yes the Red Scarlet and the Epic are wonderful cameras. Peace.

Well Said Mario.

The Camera is only a tool to express your creativity. i have seen poor jobs shot on an epic and good jobs shot on a T2i. Express your self with the camera you can afford and shoot to avoid its flaws.

Sorry! That's wrong. The GH2 and the AF100 have the same sensor. It's a 2.0 crop. Both are Micro-Four-Thirds-Cameras.

No. Both of them are Micro 4/3s cameras, yes, but by that logic a 5D and 7D should have same size as they're both EF-cameras.

The AF100 has a sensor about 17.8mm wide, while the GH1 and GH2 has a sensor roughly 18.9mm wide.

What causes the confusion is that GH2's sensor is a native 16x9 sensor, so it's crops the sides when shooting 1.5:1 aspect ratio stills, but uses the full sensor for video, while the 5D crops the top and bottom for video to get a 16x9 aspect ratio. As such the GH2 has a 2 times crop factor IN STILLS mode, but a 1.86 in video. Head hurting yet?

Okay! It seems that I don't know nothing about the theory. ;-) Thanks for the info. :-)

So... Why do they have to go so much back to get the same framing if the difference is supposedly very small??

Very small I would say is an exaggeration. It's still a 15-20% difference between a Super35/APS-C sensor (which again varies in size, Super 35 being slightly larger than APS-C), but that is still a noticeable difference.

The sensor size isn't what makes a video amazing. you need talent for that. we keep focusing on the minor things.

you are stating the obvious though. This is not a talent shootout but a camera shootout so obviously camera sensors are going to be discussed :)

I never said that. This has nothing to do with that. All I wanted to do was to just add a correction that the GH2 has a larger than 2 times crop sensor. It has nothing to do with that or what makes a video good. Don't mix creativity in this. I have a GH2 and switched from a 7D. The reason was that if one is to use a camera as a tool for creativity, it shouldn't limit you. The 7D was limiting me. I had to constantly reject wardrobe suggestions, locations and occasionally whole scenes because of the limitations (especially moiré and aliasing). On a professional set, that's not nice (I'm a working cinematographer/camera assistant) and hate doing it. With the GH2 I suddenly didn't have any of those limitations, but I could do what I wanted to do from the start. But one of the best films I shot was on 7D, because of acting, story, location, lighting and so on. The camera was just a part of it, but a nice tool always helps!

Did sensor size have anything to do with that? Not at all. All my post was about was that the GH2 has a larger sensor than most think (1.83 crop vs a commonly stated 2 crop as most people think). It was a technical correction. People are so obsessed with technology that yes, some forget creativity, but technological facts are a different thing. Creativity is something that is abstract, that comes out of ideas, collaboration and is subjective, as it comes from people. A fact is the opposite. It's something that's very concrete: It's a defined, objective statement. All I did was stating fact in regards to this very factual video.

I know this was a long rant, but Squareball, you went very off-topic here and I just wanted to prove that while I see your intentions, it had nothing to do with what I said. Save it for a discussion about something else, but not when discussing facts.

Thanks for the explaination. :-)

I appreciate and know very well what neat video can do and it's great (although PAINFULLY slow to render) but it's not a good idea to sell this coupled with a hacked GH2 as a C300 beater or FS100. It's not. No matter how good neat video is if the GH2 is underexposed it falls apart...

Of course GH2 + noise reduction is not the same quality of c300 and fs100 in low light, but it is a great approach and a great alternative to low budget people. 700 to 5000 usd or 700 to 20000 usd are a BIG difference that lots of people cannot afford. Take the camera you can get and do your best, because what really matters is the "writen and directed by"...

You are saying points I already make clear...also PLEASE let the 20k USD for the C300 go. It's been said ad nauseum it is not the street price.

The C300 and F3 are cameras for serious productions. Different market. The FS100 is a bargain of a camera. It performed brilliantly.

Please read my comments Gary I have said this already... understand resolution is not the most important thing. It is important but not the only consideration. I am sure if I had used an external recorded all the camcorders would have done much better...and if you start comparing camcorders to GH2 then you don't understand they are for different applications.

The GH2 with the hack is great! But it is not a camcorder replacement...

Nop, is not replacement for a camera ,like you say ,the right camera ,for the right job.
i thing GH2 will improve more by Vitaly whit the new firmware :-)

C'mon guys (gary and Apefos). Stop taking this personally. I like the GH-2 also but...it wasn't meant to be a professioanl tool. None of these cameras are the be all end all of cameras. They all have their issues.

@ Ian-T
100% agree. Why are people taking this personally?
I love the Gh2 and the GH1 before it, but lets not get crazy here.

All the cameras look good, I could make something good with any of them. There are a lot of things way more important then the camera you are using.

Exactly!

Reign in your fanboyism folks these are all great cameras!
We only dreamed of having such performance only a few years ago.

You can always spot the fanboys from the level headed men.
Happy to see the "underdog" 5n doing well in the lowlight test also ;-)

Btw looks like Bloom is going all grizzly adams ;-)

I agree (with tht FS100 point),

The money for a FS100 and C300 I could buy a very nice CAR!!! Those cameras are not for me. I would love to shoot with them, but my way to go is to "extract milk from the rocks" as I always did. Nothing personal in my posts, just showing the low budget way of life.

You don't need a car if you buy a GH2! A bike will do!

LOL, not a bike either, but a good option. Today I am on bus and/or foot. KKKKKKK. But great sense of humor.

Look, I have a Gh2, and it's great for certain shots. But when you get into a real production, a proper video camera wins hands down. Things like waveforms, ND, proper sound and xlr, are a must. The Gh2, no matter how you hack it is at best a B or C cam. Now if the C300 were $9000 US, this whole discussion would be quite different. Also, once you've loaded up the Gh2 with proper video capabilities like monitoring, sound, maybe a cage, it's not really a $700 camera anymore.
If money is no issue, the C300 is the camera.

GH2 + Juicelink Mixer + Azden ws-pro Wireless VHF Lavalier + Some Vintage Still Lenses + lens adapters + Ebay Variable ND + Some step rings + A cheap condenser shotgun + An average tripod + Ingus slider + A Z96 led light just to fill the shadows + some spare batteries + a case... = indie filmmaker kit = How much? (forgot to list the bike!!!)

Philip says: “A proper camera for a proper work” it’s the rule. But there is other rule: Get the camera you can afford, and do the best you can with it.
I’m sure that most of Gh2 defenders would be happy with a C300 for Charismas. But, most of us have not the money for it. You have money for a $700 camera? Get it and enjoy it. You have a pro work that pays for an FS100 and made you happy, then get it and show off in front of a C300. You or your company have the resources and the need of a more robust camera; don’t think again, the C300 is perfect for almost everything. Do you need super sharp images, slow motion for your commercials, and 4K for a movie? Yes the Red Scarlet and the Epic are wonderful cameras. Peace.

We have seen many many low light tests. Mine was an extreme one and as mentioned in the video a test of how these cameras deal with severe underexposure and how some of them can actually cope with this zero light situation...an Extreme test, as I said!

Philip, just a little mistake, you mantein the 24Db GC for the fs100 where must to be 30Db, but is nothing; in the other hand I must say after donwload the video and check it step by step that the 30Db in the FS100 is much more lighted than the 20000ISO on the C300; numbers from the Histogram (luminance): FS100 30Db: Averadge: 124,18, standart desviation: 44,06; C300 20000ISO: Average: 99,42, standart desviation: 35,46. FS100 24Db: Average: 99,12, standart desviation 36,47... so with that numbers the most closer grading for the FS100 will be at 24Db to be closer to the C300, because at 30Db the FS100 is more noisy and hard to grade; and in the other hand the codec from the C300 is better and easier to work with it; any way both cameras is like working with night vision cameras in full HD color (no green color), is amazing how technology take us to this wonderfull place. Thanks again

agreed. it's not worth the grief. just enjoy it as a bit of fun as that is all what is was conceived as!

When I shot it yes it was. When I finished edit for part one it was just past if you enjoyed this then it still is!

Thanks again for extending christmas into the second week of the new year!

Thanks so much for the comment Stephen. I really appreciate it!