PDA

View Full Version : FS100 with F1.4 or F1.8 lens vs Hacked GH2 with F0.95 or F1.2 lesn in low light?



skital
08-30-2011, 07:01 AM
I have been pretty blown away by the Sony Nex-FS100 low light footage I've seen even with the kit lens, but I saw some F1.4 night footage and was very impressed by how great the low light was. However, the camera for the body alone is very expensive and about 7-8x the price of a GH2 body. So, I'm just wondering. How close in low light (as low as a single candle or two)quality could the Gh2 hacked compare using an F1.2 lens or F0.95 lens. Will it be vastly superior? I can pair the the GH2 hacked with a 12.5-75mm F1.2 lens and an F0.95 lens for under $1,800, so I'm curious if the Gh2 will be comparable with either of the lenses in very low light vs the Nex-FS100 with an F1.8 or F1.4 lens?

Thanks guys!

nyvz
08-30-2011, 08:53 AM
No competition. Plus the 12.5mm-75mm f1.2 TV lens and most f0.95 lenses are pretty terrible wide open. Video I've seen from that lens has unacceptable halation and CA in my opinion. That is often the case with cheap fast lenses, the last 1/2 to 1 full stop is really just vignetting and halation, the image looks brighter because it spreads more of the light around, and it's only brighter in the middle, so its sort of a gimmick and looks terrible. FS100 is easily about 3-4stops more sensitive than a GH2, the extent to which the FS100 seems to be better at maintaining low noise and high latitude at higher gain settings is pretty immense. I own both the FS100 and GH2, and the GH2 is a great second camera for the FS100 in plenty of light since it has tons of resolution, good features, and a great price, but in for low light shooting, there isn't really any other camera worth looking at besides the FS100 as long as its $5k price tag is in your budget. To me $5k seems like a steal considering pretty much every aspect of its performance.

eheath
08-30-2011, 10:23 AM
Can't beat/match the fs100, its next level low light with little noise.

jetswing
08-30-2011, 10:30 AM
Even the full frame 5D can't match FS in terms of low light performance.

dustylense
08-30-2011, 11:17 AM
So buying a camera based only on Lowlight? LOL!

eheath
08-30-2011, 11:44 AM
So buying a camera based only on Lowlight? LOL!

It was one of the couple reasons why i bought an fs100 over an af100...

nyvz
08-30-2011, 12:41 PM
So buying a camera based only on Lowlight? LOL!

For some it could be the deciding factor, and for many it makes a huge difference. Remember each additional stop of useable gain can mean half the lighting requirement.

That said, there are a ton of other reasons one might choose the FS100 over any of it's competitors.

vs GH2: low light, latitude, monitoring, sound, 1080p overcrank, battery life, 4:2:2/4:4:4 output
vs AF100: low light, latitude, gamma curves, aliasing, battery life
vs 7D/5D: low light, latitude, sound, aliasing, battery life, resolution, 1080p overcrank, monitoring, 4:2:2/4:4:4 output
vs F3: price, size, battery life, low light gain, 1080p overcrank
vs RED: price, size, battery life, recording times, workflow

I weighed these many times and am consistently happy with my FS100 over the alternatives, especially after shooting with it a lot more.

FelixGER
08-30-2011, 12:50 PM
The GH2 is no competition. I had the GH2, currently have the 60D and the FS100. The GH2s noise @ ISO 160 is already worse than 0 DB on the FS100. While you can use +6 DB (ISo 1250/GH2) on the FS100 without denoising, ISo 1250 on the GH2 is really noisy, color noisy! For the price, the GH2 is great, really great. It resolves visibly more lines than the FS100! But noisewise, no chance!

skital
08-30-2011, 01:39 PM
So buying a camera based only on Lowlight? LOL!

LOL. No. I am taking everything into consideration, but I do plan on doing horror films and such which may take place in locations difficult to late effectively and much lighting may not be available, so it would be nice to have amazing low light capability. I've already weighed the other pros and cons. The FS100 seems to be mostly pros except the price. Low light capability also means I can shoot higher F-stops when needed without needing a ton of more lights. I think a low light killer is simply more versatile. I saw a guy filming out side at F1.4 with the FS100 at midnight with very little lighting and it was brighter than his eyes could see and still looked good.

I'm also considering a Scarlet, but the sensor size and wondering how good low light will be compared to my T2i has me wondering. I heard it should be better, but we'll see. I'd like to spring for an Epic-S, but the price will probably be a bit out of my league.

LiamR
08-30-2011, 09:38 PM
Was that my video you watched by any chance??

I have the FS100 Results from 16000 ISO and GH2 from 3200 up on vimeo and the difference is HUGE. I would definitely recommend getting a FS100, the low-light performance was a massive deciding factor for me, if you shoot in dark situations you will learn to appreciate this camera. I have also shot in very bright situations outside at f1.4 and it dealt with it incredibly well being such a sensitive camera, I will post up some of my results in the future.

Also the GH2 compresses the crap out of the footage, I have shot extensively with the GH2 (and I do realise you could use an External Recorder) but when I first started shooting with the FS100, the first thing I noticed was how different the quality of the footage was, shooting the exact same scene. I recently tried shooting a scene with both of them and mix the footage together, it didn't work out as well as what I had of hoped...

Good luck with the choice!!

dustylense
08-31-2011, 12:02 AM
For some it could be the deciding factor, and for many it makes a huge difference. Remember each additional stop of useable gain can mean half the lighting requirement.

That said, there are a ton of other reasons one might choose the FS100 over any of it's competitors.

vs GH2: low light, latitude, monitoring, sound, 1080p overcrank, battery life, 4:2:2/4:4:4 output
vs AF100: low light, latitude, gamma curves, aliasing, battery life
vs 7D/5D: low light, latitude, sound, aliasing, battery life, resolution, 1080p overcrank, monitoring, 4:2:2/4:4:4 output
vs F3: price, size, battery life, low light gain, 1080p overcrank
vs RED: price, size, battery life, recording times, workflow

I weighed these many times and am consistently happy with my FS100 over the alternatives, especially after shooting with it a lot more.

You're kidding right? Af100 alias's more than the FS100? You might wanna watch this...http://vimeo.com/28383331

skital
08-31-2011, 05:38 AM
Was that my video you watched by any chance??

I have the FS100 Results from 16000 ISO and GH2 from 3200 up on vimeo and the difference is HUGE. I would definitely recommend getting a FS100, the low-light performance was a massive deciding factor for me, if you shoot in dark situations you will learn to appreciate this camera. I have also shot in very bright situations outside at f1.4 and it dealt with it incredibly well being such a sensitive camera, I will post up some of my results in the future.

Also the GH2 compresses the crap out of the footage, I have shot extensively with the GH2 (and I do realise you could use an External Recorder) but when I first started shooting with the FS100, the first thing I noticed was how different the quality of the footage was, shooting the exact same scene. I recently tried shooting a scene with both of them and mix the footage together, it didn't work out as well as what I had of hoped...

Good luck with the choice!!

I'm not sure if it was you. What's your YouTube username? I saw a daylight at F1.4 and a midnight or so shot outside at F1.4. Loved the low light ability. I wish it were cheaper though. I'm going to wait a bit and save up. That way I can see what Canon comes up with, maybe the 5D Mark III or see how much the EpicS will be or the Scarlet.

Heck, I might just stick with my T2i til next summer, buy a nice light kit, some good lenses and work with what I have. lol.

LiamR
08-31-2011, 06:52 AM
My stuff is on vimeo, so it wasn't me, but I have done some stuff with it in low-light and in bright light.

That was my test at 32DB with only a Laptop light on facing the other way.


http://vimeo.com/27765628

This is a test done in the bright day-light with no ND filter.


http://vimeo.com/27756821

robfilms
10-31-2011, 01:49 PM
Was that my video you watched by any chance??

I have the FS100 Results from 16000 ISO and GH2 from 3200 up on vimeo and the difference is HUGE. I would definitely recommend getting a FS100, the low-light performance was a massive deciding factor for me, if you shoot in dark situations you will learn to appreciate this camera. I have also shot in very bright situations outside at f1.4 and it dealt with it incredibly well being such a sensitive camera, I will post up some of my results in the future.

Also the GH2 compresses the crap out of the footage, I have shot extensively with the GH2 (and I do realise you could use an External Recorder) but when I first started shooting with the FS100, the first thing I noticed was how different the quality of the footage was, shooting the exact same scene. I recently tried shooting a scene with both of them and mix the footage together, it didn't work out as well as what I had of hoped...

Good luck with the choice!!

care to share why the fs100 and the gh2 footage did not mix well?

thanks in advance.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions