Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Agreed, but it is nice to have a lens to do most of your heavy lifting...especially if you are on a tight budget.
AF100 + 14-140 low light equal or lesser than ex3 or hmc150 etc
- Thread starter wbrock001
- Start date
Thanks Barry. I'll look forward to that with great interest. I've been doing side by side comparisons of DSLRs (5D2 and 7D) with the HMC151 only today, so having the AF-100 to compare as well would be very useful.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not really. Because you can't compare one to the other to the other in different tests. The only way adding the AF100 into that mix could have any relevancy, is if they were all tested simultaneously under the same conditions.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Footage uploading now.
Barry_Green
Moderator
All right, here's the verbals... in a low-light situation (two overhead compact fluorescents) the HMC150 at full wide angle and fully-open iris, still needed 9dB of gain to get the exposure up to where the 70% zebras were just being triggered on the caucasian lady's skin in the CamBelles photo. The AF100, with the 14-140 at 14mm and wide-open at f/4, needed +18dB of gain to reach the same level.
At full (or nearly full) telephoto on the HMC150, with +12dB of gain, the lens would only open up to f/2.8, and I couldn't get the 70% zebras to trigger. With the AF100 and 14-140, under the same scenario (100% zoom, which provided comparable framing to the HMC150 at 42mm zoom), +18dB of gain at f/5.8, same situation -- couldn't get the 70% to trigger. The AF100's image is in fact slightly darker than the HMC150's. But, the results are what they are, and that's as bright as I could get it. You asked the question, so here's the footage to make your decision based off of.
The gain settings have to be taken in context with the iris of the lens. The HMC150 was f/1.6 and +9dB, the AF100 was f/4 and +18dB. The HMC150 was f/2.8 and +12dB, the AF100 was f/5.8 an d +18dB. If the lens were faster, obviously less gain would have been necessary, so the high gain levels are to compensate for the very slow maximum iris of the 14-140.
All settings were manual white balance, default scene file settings, 1080/24p mode, with the shutter set to "off" (so 1/50th).
Then, for grins, I put the 20mm f/1.7 lens on, and tried that -- and it only took +3dB of gain to get full exposure (as opposed to +9 on the HMC150, and +18 with the 14-140).
So is the AF100's cleaner CMOS sensor able to withstand an additional 9dB of gain? I guess that's the question you want answered, as that 9dB equals about 1.5 stops, and the lenses are about 2 stops different. 18dB of gain is a lot though; that's the same as ISO 3200.
I'll let you view the footage and come to your own conclusions. But yeah, with the Olympus f/2.0 zooms, I think the AF100 would easily smoke the HMC150/EX1 in low light. With the 14-140, it's not the same scenario.
At full (or nearly full) telephoto on the HMC150, with +12dB of gain, the lens would only open up to f/2.8, and I couldn't get the 70% zebras to trigger. With the AF100 and 14-140, under the same scenario (100% zoom, which provided comparable framing to the HMC150 at 42mm zoom), +18dB of gain at f/5.8, same situation -- couldn't get the 70% to trigger. The AF100's image is in fact slightly darker than the HMC150's. But, the results are what they are, and that's as bright as I could get it. You asked the question, so here's the footage to make your decision based off of.
The gain settings have to be taken in context with the iris of the lens. The HMC150 was f/1.6 and +9dB, the AF100 was f/4 and +18dB. The HMC150 was f/2.8 and +12dB, the AF100 was f/5.8 an d +18dB. If the lens were faster, obviously less gain would have been necessary, so the high gain levels are to compensate for the very slow maximum iris of the 14-140.
All settings were manual white balance, default scene file settings, 1080/24p mode, with the shutter set to "off" (so 1/50th).
Then, for grins, I put the 20mm f/1.7 lens on, and tried that -- and it only took +3dB of gain to get full exposure (as opposed to +9 on the HMC150, and +18 with the 14-140).
So is the AF100's cleaner CMOS sensor able to withstand an additional 9dB of gain? I guess that's the question you want answered, as that 9dB equals about 1.5 stops, and the lenses are about 2 stops different. 18dB of gain is a lot though; that's the same as ISO 3200.
I'll let you view the footage and come to your own conclusions. But yeah, with the Olympus f/2.0 zooms, I think the AF100 would easily smoke the HMC150/EX1 in low light. With the 14-140, it's not the same scenario.
Last edited:
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
Barry... Can't you adjust the sensitivity on the AF100 by ISO? dB is so lame and video-y? 
Barry_Green
Moderator
Still uploading.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Barry... Can't you adjust the sensitivity on the AF100 by ISO? dB is so lame and video-y?
Yes, you can -- when in "FILM CAM" mode. I just happened to be in VIDEO CAM mode when I did this test, and the results are basically the same (although there's more gradations in ISO; you can adjust the sensitivity in ISO by 1/3-stop increments, whereas in VIDEO CAM it's by 1/2-stop increments).
amosrafaeli
Active member
I always thought that in video each 3db is a stop, is it only 0.5 stop?
Justyn
Veteran
I bought the 14-140 to cover some interviews and run and gun type shooting, especially in interiors. I think the 1.7 is next on the list and Voigtlander from there and then it'll be a toss up.
I too think that a 1500-2500 dollar zoom that's maybe 8x with a constant 2.8 would be ideal... Especially if it's with free flowing F-stops and not increments..... Well one can dream.
I too think that a 1500-2500 dollar zoom that's maybe 8x with a constant 2.8 would be ideal... Especially if it's with free flowing F-stops and not increments..... Well one can dream.
This is true for 'absolute' relativity, but using the HMC as the 'base line' in both tests will at least give some 'indication' of relativity which is all I'm really after at this point. I'm looking for how the AF compares to the HMC not how it compares to the DSLRs. Hopefully that makes sense.
Brian@202020
Veteran
Well you would think It's should be possible if the Canon SLR's can do that well in low light. I understand this is a video camera and has a lot more bells and whistles, and these features cost money. You would think that a SLR sensor with the bells and whistles from a video camera should be in that price range. I mean it's twice the cost of a 5D and 3X the cost of a 7D.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Correct. 1/2-stop sensitivity = 3dB. 6dB for a full stop.
Barry_Green
Moderator
We all think that. But the reality is that a 5x zoom at a constant 2.8 costs $10,000 to $40,000. So, keep dreaming, we'd all love that lens. At least, until they delivered it -- then we'd start screaming about why is it only f2.8, why isn't it 2.0, etc...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Point being, did I have my HMC set up exactly the way you had yours? If not, then there is no conclusion that can be drawn, relative to your other test. See what I mean?
Anyway, if what you want to see is HMC vs. AF100, that's what the footage I shot will show. All I'm saying is that this would have no relevance to the other test, unless shot in identical conditions. If your HMC150 was shot at 0dB, and mine was 9dB, that right there invalidates any notion that you could compare either my AF100 or HMC150 footage against what you've already seen.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Do they? Most of the Canon DSLR performance is due to having a faster lens. Most folks I know say they wouldn't want to push the Canon any faster than 640 ISO -- which is only 1/3 stop faster than an HMC150 at 0dB.
And back to the original point -- wanting Red MX performance from a DSLR or AF100? That was indeed an outrageous expectation. The Red One's MX sensor upgrade alone costs more than an entire AF100 kit (including lens).
You can expect Red One sensitivity/grain from an AF100, but not Red MX.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Footage files:
(and yes, the disclaimer: this is the worst AF100 footage you will ever see in your lives, shot under the worst possible conditions, +18dB of gain/3200 ISO with a pig-slow lens)
HMC150, wide angle, +9dB, wide-open f/1.6: http://www.mediafire.com/?c6qk8v795ax1oqa
AF100, wide angle, +18dB, wide-open f/4.0: http://www.mediafire.com/?jl41s3x7yt2hbq6
HMC150, telephoto, +12dB, wide-open f/2.8: http://www.mediafire.com/?p959373ua15m5z8
AF100, telephoto, +18dB, wide-open f/5.8: http://www.mediafire.com/?v77nvo4h2qbhx4d
And, lastly, the AF100 more the way it was meant to be done: +3dB, with the 20mm f/1.7 lens. Which would have been 0dB with a 1.4 lens. http://www.mediafire.com/?602y1o9jeg4wh29
(and yes, the disclaimer: this is the worst AF100 footage you will ever see in your lives, shot under the worst possible conditions, +18dB of gain/3200 ISO with a pig-slow lens)
HMC150, wide angle, +9dB, wide-open f/1.6: http://www.mediafire.com/?c6qk8v795ax1oqa
AF100, wide angle, +18dB, wide-open f/4.0: http://www.mediafire.com/?jl41s3x7yt2hbq6
HMC150, telephoto, +12dB, wide-open f/2.8: http://www.mediafire.com/?p959373ua15m5z8
AF100, telephoto, +18dB, wide-open f/5.8: http://www.mediafire.com/?v77nvo4h2qbhx4d
And, lastly, the AF100 more the way it was meant to be done: +3dB, with the 20mm f/1.7 lens. Which would have been 0dB with a 1.4 lens. http://www.mediafire.com/?602y1o9jeg4wh29
bgundu
Veteran
Too funny! Small world. The first girl in that photo is my friend Natasha!
http://www.mumbaichopra.com/
http://www.mumbaichopra.com/