Hacked GH1 (GH13) vs 5D Mark II in Low Light

i liked what svart had to say on page 2, its the down side of making things to easy, we stop understanding them and let the computer give us the answer.

iam still trying to understand all the correct terminology and what each term actually refers to, i tend to find myself just judging everything by eye on the LCD/EVF and not paying to much attn. to the numbers, its something i am working on balancing out tho.

COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT :smile: GREAT FILM! SKYNET ANYONE?

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
Last edited:
One thing that makes it easy is a separate, handheld, light meter. Use it, love it, trust it.

The light meters in these cameras are tricky and can fool you in a lot of situations. I've also found the LCD to be much brighter than what the camera is capturing too.

I've seen a lot of videos with the GH1 that are just dark looking, possibly underexposed. I think it's because the light meter on these tends to favor the center of the picture and/or bright point light sources no matter what setting you use for the light meter sampling. Works great for keeping those lights from blowing out but it tricks you into thinking the picture as a whole is bright enough.
 
biginvegas said:
Shooting what in low light? For available light (night int/ext car/street light etc) I would defy anyone to tell me a 5D could outperform a hacked GH1 and the soon to be released Voigtlander 0.95. I mean it's gotta work right?
Click to expand...
NO more like if you stick the same 50mm 1.4 on a Canon 5DM2 and the GH1(3), you will get way more light with the 5DM2 and have more capabilities after 800 iso. As soon as my 5DM2 comes I will test my GH1(3)'s against it.
 
editman said:
Just look at the sensor size. 5D2 has more than twice the surface compared to 4/3. Higher bitrate does not mean lower noise and the bigger the sensor is, the more light is coming in and you don't have to turn up gain as much.
Click to expand...

4 times the surface ! (2 times as big= 4x the surface - basic maths)
 
leckel1996 said:
http://vimeo.com/30410456 here is some delicious gh1 footage at 3200iso. Not bad I'd say, was shot in very very little light.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the point of footage like this. I mean, it's completely static. What the heck does that tell us? We're not doing still photography here, we're into motion pictures. Move the camera around a bit, and then we'll see how it handles light movement, how responsive the sensor is and so on. Sorry, but this kind of footage is as close to useless as it gets.
 
OldCorpse said:
I really don't understand the point of footage like this. I mean, it's completely static. What the heck does that tell us? We're not doing still photography here, we're into motion pictures. Move the camera around a bit, and then we'll see how it handles light movement, how responsive the sensor is and so on. Sorry, but this kind of footage is as close to useless as it gets.
Click to expand...
yeah, I agree it is pretty useless. Saw this thread and decided to put a 3200 iso video up within a few minutes just to see what I could come up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top