GH3 GH3 in Low shooting

D

deckitout

Member
Having now completed my first serious shoot for my step daughter 21st party using the GH3 I was somewhat disappointed with the low light performance of the GH3

I would point out that I am totally new to video so I am going through a learning curve at present and this was my first experience at this sort of event

I was shooting at a fairly dark Venue (Pub with dance floor disco etc) and of course everything looked fine on the LCD (first mistake) I was getting exposures at F2.8 of 3200 to 6400 most of the time.
The results have turned out rather noisy although no noise reduction has been used yet.

I did switch to the Panasonic 20 mm 1.7 at one point which obviously helped more but overall I was expecting slightly less noisy footage.

I would be interested in any experiences tips from other users

Thanks Phil
 
I limit any low light shooting on my GH3 cameras to ISO 1600 as a maximum. To me, anything higher than that is unacceptably grainy.

The trick is, as you said, to use faster lenses. A Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 + adapter will cost around $100 on eBay, and the difference in low light between that and an f/2.8 lens is incredible. Even more so if you get your hands on one of the f/0.95 lenses available for Micro 4/3 (Voigtlander, SLR Magic). Once you start using fast primes for event videography, you'll never want to go back to slower zooms.

About the only zoom lens I'd recommend for low light is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967344-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html

Anything slower than that and you'll have noise issues in low light. Glass is everything.

Cheers!
 
Well the noise of the GH3 on iso 1600 doesnt really look that bad as canon noise. But you can always denoise the image in post. It does soften the image, but I don't mind as the panasonic gh3 are a tad too sharp for me. (offcourse allways go to your fastest lenses, saving up for them now)

Cheers
 
Jaime Valles said:
I limit any low light shooting on my GH3 cameras to ISO 1600 as a maximum. To me, anything higher than that is unacceptably grainy.

The trick is, as you said, to use faster lenses. A Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 + adapter will cost around $100 on eBay, and the difference in low light between that and an f/2.8 lens is incredible. Even more so if you get your hands on one of the f/0.95 lenses available for Micro 4/3 (Voigtlander, SLR Magic). Once you start using fast primes for event videography, you'll never want to go back to slower zooms.

About the only zoom lens I'd recommend for low light is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967344-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html

Anything slower than that and you'll have noise issues in low light. Glass is everything.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Thanks Jamie
I am would be looking for 35mm equivalent of of around 24 to 35 mm, the Sigma 18/35 is appealing in particular if it was used in conduction with a speed booster
 
Polaroid22 said:
Well the noise of the GH3 on iso 1600 doesnt really look that bad as canon noise. But you can always denoise the image in post. It does soften the image, but I don't mind as the panasonic gh3 are a tad too sharp for me. (offcourse allways go to your fastest lenses, saving up for them now)

Cheers
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have the 20/1.7 I guess keeping with M4/3 the only other option is the Panny 25/1.4 the other alternatives are adapters and manual primes

Phil
 
No you are forgetting about the Nokton Voightlanders and the SLR magic's that dont need any adapters. And those are great!
 
Another thing to check is your monitor settings, the settings on the monitor itself. Even the very slightest amount of oversharpening will take minor color artifacts and "create noise" where there really is little or even none. Most monitors come out of the box with sharpening, contrast, and brightness set way too high.

There is a very fine "balance" point between having enough sharpness and not accentuating what can look like noise. I'm a sharpness nut, always have been, that's why I switched to GH2s in the first place and now GH3s. But I routinely shoot at ISO 3200 and 6400 even with "fast" glass in low light situations. What noise I get at 6400 looks more like minor film grain than anything else.

Check monitor settings.
 
Thanks Bruce, as this was my first serious shoot I do not have any real reference to go by so I am not sure if my analysis is justified or not. Do you use any noise reduction software, I am using FCPX

Phil
 
deckitout said:
Thanks Jamie
I am would be looking for 35mm equivalent of of around 24 to 35 mm, the Sigma 18/35 is appealing in particular if it was used in conduction with a speed booster
Click to expand...
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 plus Speedbooster sounds like a great idea. I also recommend the SLR Magic 25mm f/0.95, as it's sharper than the Voigtlander (I owned both, and after doing my own tests I sold the Voigtlander and kept the SLR Magic). That lens can see in the dark.
 
Based on your aside that "of course everything looked fine on the LCD" leads me to this comment. I find it best to always shoot in full manual mode, with the manual preview always on. This way, what you see in the EVF is an accurate reflection of your exposure. If you shoot in any other mode than manual, the EVF and LCD will look like the exposure is fine (even when it is not) or will not give you an idea of the noise level. I've made it a point to be always shooting in Manual, so that I don't get fooled by the EVF or LCD. If you shoot in manual and you're getting under exposed or very noisy shots...you'll know it as you shoot. I'm no pro, just a hobbyist, so YMMV, but, I've found I don't get fooled when shooting full manual exposure.
 
dissapointed in low light compared to? I think you should clarrify that first =) for me i set iso limit to 1600, noise just gets bad after that. F2 is the lowest I'll go but i try to stick to f2.8 to try and keep things in focus. If i can't see anything then, that means I need light. I hate using on cam lights because it looks cam corder but hey its alot cheaper than a lens.
 
Thanks Jamie

I am looking looking for 35 mm FF I tend to prefer slightly wider than 50mm, there are some good options coming up though
 
GH1_newguy said:
Based on your aside that "of course everything looked fine on the LCD" leads me to this comment. I find it best to always shoot in full manual mode, with the manual preview always on. This way, what you see in the EVF is an accurate reflection of your exposure. If you shoot in any other mode than manual, the EVF and LCD will look like the exposure is fine (even when it is not) or will not give you an idea of the noise level. I've made it a point to be always shooting in Manual, so that I don't get fooled by the EVF or LCD. If you shoot in manual and you're getting under exposed or very noisy shots...you'll know it as you shoot. I'm no pro, just a hobbyist, so YMMV, but, I've found I don't get fooled when shooting full manual exposure.
Click to expand...

Thanks some good advice there.

Phil
 
MR Fanny said:
dissapointed in low light compared to? I think you should clarrify that first =) for me i set iso limit to 1600, noise just gets bad after that. F2 is the lowest I'll go but i try to stick to f2.8 to try and keep things in focus. If i can't see anything then, that means I need light. I hate using on cam lights because it looks cam corder but hey its alot cheaper than a lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply
I don't really have any reference to compare as I have only just started playing with Video. This was my first shoot so it was always going to be a learning curve for me. The problematic footage was the dark dance floor shots. It appears ISO 1600 seems to be a threshold for people, if thats the case I will need faster glass or more light for this type of shot.
 
I have a general rule; if you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be filming (without lighting aids, i.e. LED panels) in that location to begin with. Given my line of work (nightclubs, concerts, live-events), I deal with low-light situations most of the time. However, I detest LED panels and so forth. You can invest in faster glass; but a word of warning - only do so if you have steady hands and are good at pulling focus.
 
deckitout said:
Thanks Jamie

I am looking looking for 35 mm FF I tend to prefer slightly wider than 50mm, there are some good options coming up though
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Then you're going to want something like the Voigtlander 17mm f/0.95 and SLR Magic 12mm f/1.6. The Voigtlander on a GH3 should give you the same field of view as a 35mm lens on a full frame camera, with the super low light performance you may need.

And I also agree with others here saying that if it's still too dark at ISO 1600 then you need to add more light somehow, either with external lights or with a faster lens.

Best of luck!
 
He's also got two other choices to consider. The Olympus 17mm f1.8 looked to be a real good night - low light - performer in Robin Wong's tests. When Robin was working as a civil engineer for a geophysical firm in Kuala Lumpur, Olympus Malaysia used to loan him just about to be released gear for testing. They knew he'd "wring it out" from a photographers viewpoint and post accurate reviews on his blog. They finally "nabbed" him for their marketing team and he is employed by Olympus Malaysia now, but these first two reviews were done before that.

Street shooting: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review-street.html

Initial night testing: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review.html

Reconsidering the 17mm f1.8: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/11/reconsidering-mzuiko-17mm-f18.html

Looking over these reviews again, I think this will be my next lens purchase. I like what I see in both daylight and low light images.

His second choice to consider (if he doesn't already have one) might be the Lumix 20mm f1.7, while not a 35mm equiv as a 40mm equiv it might be close enough. I have this lens and even though I also have the Pan/Leica 25mm f1.4 I still use the 20 quite a bit. Like the Oly 17mm it is small enough to be fairly inconspicuous and doesn't draw a lot of attention to itself or the photographer. Some complain about the autofocus on the 20 being slow but I don't find this to be a problem.
 
Last edited:
GH1_newguy said:
Based on your aside that "of course everything looked fine on the LCD" leads me to this comment. I find it best to always shoot in full manual mode, with the manual preview always on. This way, what you see in the EVF is an accurate reflection of your exposure.
Click to expand...

The setting he is referencing is CONSTANT PREVUE set to ON, with this in Motion Picture (movie camera icon on the mode dial) if EXPOSURE MODE is set to "M" (for manual exposure) or for stills the dial on top is set to "M", any exposure changes you make will be reflected on the LCD or in the EVF viewfinder.
 
Bruce Foreman said:
He's also got two other choices to consider. The Olympus 17mm f1.8 looked to be a real good night - low light - performer in Robin Wong's tests. When Robin was working as a civil engineer for a geophysical firm in Kuala Lumpur, Olympus Malaysia used to loan him just about to be released gear for testing. They knew he'd "wring it out" from a photographers viewpoint and post accurate reviews on his blog. They finally "nabbed" him for their marketing team and he is employed by Olympus Malaysia now, but these first two reviews were done before that.

Street shooting: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review-street.html

Initial night testing: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review.html

Reconsidering the 17mm f1.8: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/11/reconsidering-mzuiko-17mm-f18.html

Looking over these reviews again, I think this will be my next lens purchase. I like what I see in both daylight and low light images.

His second choice to consider (if he doesn't already have one) might be the Lumix 20mm f1.7, while not a 35mm equiv as a 40mm equiv it might be close enough. I have this lens and even though I also have the Pan/Leica 25mm f1.4 I still use the 20 quite a bit. Like the Oly 17mm it is small enough to be fairly inconspicuous and doesn't draw a lot of attention to itself or the photographer. Some complain about the autofocus on the 20 being slow but I don't find this to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bruce
I have the 20/1.7 which I am happy with but it tends to be a little long for me, I am swaying towards the 12 to 14 focal length, I would like to get a couple of extra stops over the 12/35 2.8 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top