DVX200 vs GH5 in low light...

[Mike Harvey]

So, the nature of the work I do changing as much as it has in the last year or so (a lot less live events, much more interviews and b-roll to support those interviews), and the fact I now am not fully self employed, but have a job with a video company with freelance on the side... it occurred to me to maybe downscale from two cameras to one. And a GH5 with the Olympus 12-100 f/4 seems like it will do most of what I needed the DVX200 to do.

So the question is, how does the GH5 stack up against the DVX200 in lowlight at same f/stops and ISO's? Anyone know?

 

[Design Media Consultants]

I would guess that they are similar. Neither camera is a low light camera. In an interview settings, wouldn't you be lighting your subjects? Does low light matter that much? I think both cameras would function effectively.

What other uses do you have for the cameras? With the GH5 you would have the option of a faster lens. I am thinking of getting a GH5 or another similar camera for B roll, etc. But I know, while it is not the best for low light, it would function well. Both are great cameras and I think you should use other factors besides low light differences to make your choice.

 

[Jason R. Johnston]

Dan Chung has an article on Newsshooter where Nick Driftwood describes working with a beta GH5. See, GH4 and DVX200 have the same generation of sensor. Not the same sensor, but the same generation. That's why SF4 exists, to help match both cameras via GH4's Natural setting. GH5 is the next generation of camera. Of course it will be an improvement over the past generation, but that means it'll be an improvement over the DVX200 which, as we all know, is not a "low light" camera. But, neither is the GH5.

You need to light your image. The cameras want light. When people say "low light" they're actually saying "no light". They want to shoot a city street at night with just the street lamps and expect it to look like The Social Network. Yeah, but those scenes were lit with movie lights. Anyway...I don't have both a DVX200 and a GH5, but I can already tell you they're different. The GH5 seems to have much less noise at similar ISOs compared to GH4, but....ya need to light your shots and get no noise (read: acceptable noise) in-camera.

 

[davedv]

While I don't think the sensor used in the DVX200 was ever officially confirmed, it was mentioned that it was a newer sensor than the one used in the GH4. Based on the effective pixel count in the DVX200 specifications (15 MP for a 16:9 crop of a 4:3 Micro 4/3 sensor), it seems pretty likely that it is using a 20 Megapixel sensor, and there was a lot of speculation that it's the same sensor as used in the Panasonic GX8 and other Micro 4/3 cameras released about the same time.

The GH5 also has a 20 MP sensor, and it wouldn't surprise me if the GH5 sensor was very similar (if not the same) as the one in the DVX200. The reality is that there just aren't that many high end Micro 4/3 imaging sensors out there, which is why many of the high end cameras tend to use the same sensors. Sensor improvements tend to take a few years and it's not uncommon to see cameras of different generations use the same sensor. (For example, the GH3 and GH4 used a very similar sensor, as did the FS700 and FS7).

Having said that, I would expect the GH5 to be slightly better than the DVX200 in low light for two main reasons:

1) The GH5 uses the full sensor area (or more accurately a 16:9 portion of the full sensor area) in all of the video modes. In contrast, when shooting 4K or UHD on the DVX200, there is a crop of the sensor area. The amount of crop is modest when shooting UHDp30 (about 12.9 MP or 83% of the 15.49 MP effective 16:9 sensor area), but fairly significant when shooting UHDp60 (8.7 MP or 56% of the effective sensor area). All else being equal, a smaller sensor area usually means worse low light performance.

2) The GH5 has more advanced noise reduction algorithms than earlier generation cameras (in part made possible by more powerful video processing hardware).

Comparisons I have seen between the GH5 and GH4 (which had an older sensor and more significant 4K/UHD crop than the DVX200) suggest about 1/2 stop to 1 stop improvement in low light performance of the GH5 over the GH4. I don't think DxOMark has tested the GH5 yet, but they did test the OM-D EM-1 II (which has the same sensor) and measured it about 2/3 of a stop better than the GH4 in low light.

I would expect the GH5's improvement over the DVX200 to be a bit less than over the GH4 (so probably closer to 1/2 stop better, although might be a bit less or a bit more depending on which recording mode you are comparing it to on the DVX200).

But, as others have mentioned, the big advantage of the GH5 is that you can put a faster lens on it. So with an f/1.4 or f/2 prime lens (or a speed boosted zoom like one of the Sigma f/1.8 lenses), you can have a 1 to 3 stop improvement (depending on the lens, and where you are comparing it to in the DVX200 zoom range).

 

[Mike Harvey]

I would guess that they are similar. Neither camera is a low light camera. In an interview settings, wouldn't you be lighting your subjects? Does low light matter that much? I think both cameras would function effectively.

What other uses do you have for the cameras? With the GH5 you would have the option of a faster lens. I am thinking of getting a GH5 or another similar camera for B roll, etc. But I know, while it is not the best for low light, it would function well. Both are great cameras and I think you should use other factors besides low light differences to make your choice.

I shoot a lot of medical stuff, and surgeries... particularly robot assisted surgeries... tend to be extremely dim everywhere in the OR outside of immediately around the area of the incision. And since I'm shooting doctor profiles, I need to actually see the doctor Usually, they will leave the lights up a little bit for the half hour we're in the room, but the less of a distraction I can be, the better. The DVX200 works well enough in low light... and not having to constantly swap lenses during surgery like I did with my AF100 is a huge bonus. But the center crop function would negate a lot of that, particularly paired with the newer Olympus 12-100 f/4. If the GH5 is as good or better in low light... both in terms of sensitivity and in noise... I start to have a less compelling reason to keep running with both the DVX200 and GH4 I have as well (especially now that I'm less reliant on them for the whole of my livelihood).

 

[Mike Harvey]

You need to light your image. The cameras want light. When people say "low light" they're actually saying "no light". They want to shoot a city street at night with just the street lamps and expect it to look like The Social Network. Yeah, but those scenes were lit with movie lights. Anyway...I don't have both a DVX200 and a GH5, but I can already tell you they're different. The GH5 seems to have much less noise at similar ISOs compared to GH4, but....ya need to light your shots and get no noise (read: acceptable noise) in-camera.

Oh, I do... usually. But as I stated in the post immediately above, surgeries are dimly lit. And setting up lights in there is flat out deadly dangerous to do...

Wife-- Honey, how did you get fired? And where are your eyebrows?

Me-- Well, the surgeon accidentally looked into a light, got temporarily blinded, tripped over my light cord, and impaled the scalpel into the patient's heart. But as he was falling, he sliced open the oxygen line, and then pulled down some expensive gear starting a massive fire that burned down the hospital... and singed off my eyebrows...

 

[Jason R. Johnston]

Hey, man. If you're gonna go, go out with a bang.

Anyway, sounds like a couple GH5's and fast lenses are what you need for that work.

 

[Larry Chapman]

If low light capability is a primary concern, then the Sony A7 line seems an obvious choice. Their low light capability is incredible.

 

[Mike Harvey]

If low light capability is a primary concern, then the Sony A7 line seems an obvious choice. Their low light capability is incredible.

I was a second shooter for a wedding last week, and shot a dark wedding for the second time on an A7sII, and those things are amazing... but not so amazing that I want/need to deal with the headaches of shooting full frame, or on something a little less video friendly than the GH series. Like I said, the DVX200's abilities is good enough, so if the GH5 can match or beat it in terms of sensitivity and noise, I'd be happy.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't know how the sensors compare, but as was mentioned before, the big advantage is in the ability to put a very fast lens on. The DVX200 is generally f/3.5 to f/4, so going with something like an f/0.95 results in as much as 16x as much light hitting the sensor. Of course you're not going to find a zoom with that kind of iris, but for prime lenses it can be a big advantage when necessary.

 

[DLD]

While I don't think the sensor used in the DVX200 was ever officially confirmed, it was mentioned that it was a newer sensor than the one used in the GH4...

DVX200, GX8, GH5 and OMD EM1 MKII share the same Sony sensor.

But it doesn't mean that the sensor can't be tweaked by a manufacturer.

PS. There are basically two currently available MFT sensors - the one that's inside GH4 and the one inside GH5/ etc. Both are made by Sony, as were the older 16 MPX components inside GH3 and Olympus EM1.

 

[Mike Harvey]

I don't know how the sensors compare, but as was mentioned before, the big advantage is in the ability to put a very fast lens on. The DVX200 is generally f/3.5 to f/4, so going with something like an f/0.95 results in as much as 16x as much light hitting the sensor. Of course you're not going to find a zoom with that kind of iris, but for prime lenses it can be a big advantage when necessary.

Unfortunately, in those situations where low light becomes an issue, primes aren't really going to be an option ("Doctor, can you please stop the surgery while I swap lenses? Thanks, that would be great". ). BUT, using the EX tele conversion option (which I'm under the impression is x2.7 on the GH5), my 12-35mm X lens becomes a 32.4-94.5mm... which, at f/2.8, I'll call a win if the noise is even a little cleaner than the DVX.