a6000/a5100 terrible in low/moderate light

[JoeThePro]

I feel like no one ever mentions how horribly the intense noise reduction on the a6000/a5100 affects the video quality. This and the compression just kill detail in moderate to low light, even at low iso. Try to lift the shadows and you get blotchy mush. You get these little blocks and artifacts on low contrast or smooth surfaces, and there is absolutely no grain or fine noise anywhere, ever. Just soft mushy crawly s*%t. Am I the only one that has noticed this? I feel like I have to use neat video on almost all my darker shots because of this (if Im not just uploading to youtube which will smear all of that away anyway), and add a grain over it. SO freaking disappointing, Ive posted about this a couple times on their facebook page and got the canned social media response. I doubt we'll ever see a firmware update to allow us to disable noise reduction.

 

[ectobuilder]

I feel like no one ever mentions how horribly the intense noise reduction on the a6000/a5100 affects the video quality. This and the compression just kill detail in moderate to low light, even at low iso. Try to lift the shadows and you get blotchy mush. You get these little blocks and artifacts on low contrast or smooth surfaces, and there is absolutely no grain or fine noise anywhere, ever. Just soft mushy crawly s*%t. Am I the only one that has noticed this? I feel like I have to use neat video on almost all my darker shots because of this (if Im not just uploading to youtube which will smear all of that away anyway), and add a grain over it. SO freaking disappointing, Ive posted about this a couple times on their facebook page and got the canned social media response. I doubt we'll ever see a firmware update to allow us to disable noise reduction.

Just like how nobody mentions the horrible ISO performance of the A7RII in 1080p mode? I am noticing a trend too!

 

[Chris Joy]

Just like how nobody mentions the horrible ISO performance of the A7RII in 1080p mode? I am noticing a trend too!

Is it really that big of a deal? You can downsample 4k - which looks great. The only time I'm not shooting 4k is with higher framerates. I did a quick comparison between internal 1080p and 4k to 1080p. But I'm pretty happy with the A7RII's perfromance. YMMV.

 

[JoeThePro]

Is it really that big of a deal? You can downsample 4k - which looks great. The only time I'm not shooting 4k is with higher framerates. I did a quick comparison between internal 1080p and 4k to 1080p. But I'm pretty happy with the A7RII's perfromance. YMMV.

To me, yes. Id much rather see grainy noise like I do on my GH3 than the blocky mush I see on my a6000. We should have the ability to turn NR off (or at least down). It also adds so much crawlyness to higher iso footage. A single frame may look OK, but when you play a clip you get this crawly bubbly look at higher ISOs that is hard to remove in post. My GH3 at least has a fine grain pattern that Neat Video can lock onto and smooth out better. Maybe Ill post a comparison here sometime this weekend when I get a chance...

 

[IronFilm]

Nah, I rate A5100/A6000 as fantastic at low light (ignoring the A7s...) and I'd put them up at (or narrowly above) Canon 5D mk3 level

 

[Samuel H]

For me, they are good up to ISO 1600, which is not bad at all. Yes, they get less and less detail because of NR as you crank up the ISO, but so does basically every camera (the exception are the ones that shoot RAW, but then it's me cranking up the NR in post).

 

[JoeThePro]

Nah, I rate A5100/A6000 as fantastic at low light (ignoring the A7s...) and I'd put them up at (or narrowly above) Canon 5D mk3 level

I disagree here. The a6k has horrible crawlies all over the place at 6400 and the 5dIII is still pretty calm, but getting soft, at 6400.

For me, they are good up to ISO 1600, which is not bad at all. Yes, they get less and less detail because of NR as you crank up the ISO, but so does basically every camera (the exception are the ones that shoot RAW, but then it's me cranking up the NR in post).

That is exactly my point. Id rather have noisy/grainy footage that I could choose to use NR on in in post if I wanted to. That way I would get a clean and high quality noise reduction. Its just the unnatural blotchy compression artifacts from the aggresive in cam NR that kill me. They just sit in one area of the frame for multiple frames at a time and absolutely kill the apparent quality of the image. These are already very noticeable at iso 1600.

 

[LeoGrey]

I disagree here. The a6k has horrible crawlies all over the place at 6400 and the 5dIII is still pretty calm, but getting soft, at 6400.


That is exactly my point. Id rather have noisy/grainy footage that I could choose to use NR on in in post if I wanted to. That way I would get a clean and high quality noise reduction. Its just the unnatural blotchy compression artifacts from the aggresive in cam NR that kill me. They just sit in one area of the frame for multiple frames at a time and absolutely kill the apparent quality of the image. These are already very noticeable at iso 1600.

Sounds like you need an external recorder then(do the a6k have uncompressed out?). The internal codecs/data rates have never been able to handle noise well, even in professional cameras that cost much much more.

 

[JoeThePro]

Sounds like you need an external recorder then(do the a6k have uncompressed out?). The internal codecs/data rates have never been able to handle noise well, even in professional cameras that cost much much more.

Yes this is an option for sure. The a6k has uncompressed 8bit 4:2:2 out. Just didnt want to have to put that much money into it. But the internal codecs in the Panasonic cameras has done just fine at 50mbps with great detail retention. Its the noise reduction thats killing it, because the image is so smoothed that the compression had a field day with it.

 

[aram]

I actually rented an external recorder for the sole purpose of seeing how much of an improvement it was over the internal 50mbs Xacv-s and it was almost none when the image is underexposed. I tried different ISO values and it made no appreciable difference, not even when I put the footage on Resolve and played around.
Although the signal that goes to the HDMI is 8bit 422, the noise reduction has already been applied and caused quite visible crawlies. I cannot talk about the difference it makes if the footage is properly exposed, because I did not try that.

 

[JoeThePro]

I actually rented an external recorder for the sole purpose of seeing how much of an improvement it was over the internal 50mbs Xacv-s and it was almost none when the image is underexposed. I tried different ISO values and it made no appreciable difference, not even when I put the footage on Resolve and played around.
Although the signal that goes to the HDMI is 8bit 422, the noise reduction has already been applied and caused quite visible crawlies. I cannot talk about the difference it makes if the footage is properly exposed, because I did not try that.

Good to know, thank you. I expected that to be the case... Im sure you get a bit less blockiness when lifting shadows from the better external compression, and some sharper colors from the 4:2:2, so I guess if you already have a recorder its worth using. Probably not worth spending the money for the sole purpose of using it with the a6k though.