GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[Thomas Smet]

Auto-translated from the Japanese -

https://translate.google.com/transl....jp/camera_news/article/etc/2021/0614_01.html

This is precisely why I'm hesitant to move to the S series cameras and the L mount lenses. Also why I'm hesitant to move to the even more obscure formats like Fuji. Fuji makes great cameras and lenses but I can't imagine their market share is any better than Panasonic. Plus they don't have the larger more profitable company to keep them alive. Also why I'm not sure why Sigma even bothers.

Will Nikon even be able to survive? At least Canon dips its toes into cinema cameras and has a longer history of supporting indie film makers. Not to mention due to the almost universal support of EF mount on cinema cameras sticking with Canon kind of makes sense for at least right now. With Sony being the only other really realistic option as long as one sticks with a 100% Sony only ecosystem of DSLR or cinema cameras.

At least a GH6 allows me to use the lenses I already own plus the Metabones I already own. Even if Panasonic cans their camera business shortly after the GH6 comes out I will be set for glass options for many years to come.

Heres hoping they know this and throw the kitchen sink into the GH6 as one hell of a bang up send off. Make it so darn good it doesn't even need firmware updates. Just give us raw and let us worry about what to do with it going forward.



Also to be fair what exactly has Panasonic come out with in a long time to drive larger sales volumes? GH5S was a niche camera that was too expensive and over shadowed by the P4k shortly after its release. S series was a niche FF series targeting higher end customers which are a niche market. The f1.7 zooms and more pro m43 zooms and pro primes are a niche product for deep pockets. Almost every L series lens is a niche product for the big spenders. There hasn't really been anything since the GH5 and G9 to appeal to a higher volume of users. Even then I'm not sure how well the G9 did in the pro photography world. I do know some seasoned nature photographers that switched to a G9 but most photographers who liked m43 went Olympus. Has Panasonic even released a lens under $1,000 in the past five years? Ok yeah maybe the 12-60 but thats kind of it really. On the other side of their cameras I don't think the DVX200 and EVA-1 were as big sellers as they hoped either. All phenomenal products but all geared towards the bigger spending niche market.

The GH6 could ignite that spark again but if its priced at $2,500 I'm not so sure it will help drive volume sales either. Its again going to be that higher end niche.

Same kind of goes for Canon who seem to be abandoning their EF-M mount and seriously limiting and restricting all the RF mount DSLRs except for the highest end models. The R and RP were rather big disappointments by many and even though the RP is a stunning low price for a FF camera it just cuts too many corners for many to take seriously. The one camera that seems to get it all right the R5 is almost $4k. The R6 is decent but not affordable either in terms of high volume sales. I bet if Canon gave its more affordable Ef-M line some attention and love it would drive much larger sales.

 

[DLD]

Fujifilm has roughly the same market share globally as Panasonic - 4.7% in 2020 - but is likely operating on fatter margins due to its product mix and a much smaller corporate caboose. Sony's opening 2021 APS-C salvo is a $700 "vlogger" model, leaving the $1,000 clear for its Fuji (which contracts Sony for its sensor production) client. Fuji also uses Sony's sensor for their medium format line, which has even fatter margins.

Sigma makes its living off glass (mostly for Sony E-mount).

The other factor here is Nikon. Their DSLR breadwinner is not going to survive for long and their mirrorless doesn't generate much excitement but they still eat up about 20% of the overall market. And, if one adds up "at risk" companies - i.e., those losing money in a shrinking global market - Nikon and Panasonic are top two, whose shop their competitors would want closed for good. I think Nikon's business is transferable under certain conditions. I don't think Panasonic's is.

As to whether buy a product from a company likely to shortly cease its existence, it's a personal choice. A quality digital camera should last several years and then remain repairable by an authorized contractor. After that, it's a performance, value, etc. decision. I mean, one could still pick up a 30+ year old Soviet Kiev medium format camera (aka Hasselbladski) for a few hundred bucks too.

 

[ahalpert]

Same kind of goes for Canon who seem to be abandoning their EF-M mount and seriously limiting and restricting all the RF mount DSLRs except for the highest end models. The R and RP were rather big disappointments by many and even though the RP is a stunning low price for a FF camera it just cuts too many corners for many to take seriously. The one camera that seems to get it all right the R5 is almost $4k. The R6 is decent but not affordable either in terms of high volume sales. I bet if Canon gave its more affordable Ef-M line some attention and love it would drive much larger sales.

I read somewhere that canikony are pushing up the average price of their cameras (their real cameras, anyway), so I sort of feel like they acknowledge that their product is for a niche market. But the positive side of that is that they're trying to pump in more imaging firepower, so you get more for more and not the same for more.

I knew I was going to buy either Canon or Sony for my most recent purchase, just on the basis of company survival prospects and long-term use (or resale price) of lenses.

I feel like Fuji could survive if they're allowed to monopolize APS-C and MF, but who knows if they'll get to keep medium format to themselves.

Nikon has a very loyal user base, but I don't think that they're bringing newcomers into the fold, so I'm pretty sure that their days are numbered.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Fujifilm has roughly the same market share globally as Panasonic - 4.7% in 2020 - but is likely operating on fatter margins due to its product mix and a much smaller corporate caboose. Sony's opening 2021 APS-C salvo is a $700 "vlogger" model, leaving the $1,000 clear for its Fuji (which contracts Sony for its sensor production) client. Fuji also uses Sony's sensor for their medium format line, which has even fatter margins.

Sigma makes its living off glass (mostly for Sony E-mount).

The other factor here is Nikon. Their DSLR breadwinner is not going to survive for long and their mirrorless doesn't generate much excitement but they still eat up about 20% of the overall market. And, if one adds up "at risk" companies - i.e., those losing money in a shrinking global market - Nikon and Panasonic are top two, whose shop their competitors would want closed for good. I think Nikon's business is transferable under certain conditions. I don't think Panasonic's is.

As to whether buy a product from a company likely to shortly cease its existence, it's a personal choice. A quality digital camera should last several years and then remain repairable by an authorized contractor. After that, it's a performance, value, etc. decision. I mean, one could still pick up a 30+ year old Soviet Kiev medium format camera (aka Hasselbladski) for a few hundred bucks too.

It isn't the camera body I'm worried about. Its the lens ecosystem. If Panasonic is gone we might as well kiss the L mount goodbye. Some lenses may hit the used market but those that bought into it may not just dump it immediately. We likely will never see any new native lenses however. Considering the rather limited selection of L mount glass thats a problem.

Panasonic is active in the broadcast market still. Really only Sony and Panasonic are. BMD has tried to break into that market for a decade and still is not a common factor in the broadcast TV market. Canon, Nikon and Fuji never really were. Broadcast cannot sustain a company anymore however.

I still think Panasonic needs to focus on the affordable. Those are the users that made Panasonic known in this business. I'm not surprised sales are down for Panasonic due to almost every single release since the GH5 has been a more high end or pro product. As companies ditch or neglect APS-C this is the niche that could keep Panasonic around for awhile. Affordable 10bit 4k cameras and lenses. Considering Canon still struggles to get 4k right I think many would still prefer to have a camera that just works vs farting around.

Thats why I'm not sure yet how I feel about a $2,500 GH6. Even the GH5 II seems a bit high to me. The current G9 price is more realistic for where I think m43 should be now. Make the GH5 II $1,000 and the GH6 $1,500 and I guarantee people will be interested. Add DPAF to the GH6 at that price and Panasonic will be kings of the video world. They would struggle to meet demand for years. AF seems to be that one thing that upsets people the most. I'm not sure I agree but whatever. If its what sells then its what sells. Users can get past the low light and DOF. We have access to lots of options to get around that if we need to. Its 1000x easier to stick a $30 light on top a camera that has industry leading IBIS and great AF than it is to stabilize and deal with focus on a more sensitive camera. Plus I still argue the results will be better with m43 and that $30 light vs a FF used as is.

 

[NorBro]

B&H dropped it $2400. So it's $1499. I good deal maybe if you want a photo only or only wanted 1080p.

It's an old camera so B&H is usually the last one left selling them (all old cameras) when everyone else either sells their stock, or B&H purchases it when others can't move theirs.

But it's Canon's call on the drop as they enforce MAP (minimum advertised price). I'm sure behind closed doors you can usually get a better deal, but B&H can't just go ahead and drop the price $900 without Canon's approval. lol

___

As far as the video quality, the Japanese made cameras differently back then and the 1080p is pixel-binned and/or line-skipped and not worth it in modern times.

 

[ahalpert]

. Its 1000x easier to stick a $30 light on top a camera that has industry leading IBIS and great AF than it is to stabilize and deal with focus on a more sensitive camera. Plus I still argue the results will be better with m43 and that $30 light vs a FF used as is.

This is the only part I disagree with, but with a passion. It's easy, sure. But I don't think it's a good look either for the subject you're lighting or for the subject/background exposure balance. Not to mention that it calls attention to your camera.

But I'll admit that a m43 (especially gh5s) + speedbooster and fast lens (or just a nokton) is probably adequate for most doc scenarios

 

[DLD]

... I read somewhere that canikony are pushing up the average price of their cameras (their real cameras, anyway), so I sort of feel like they acknowledge that their product is for a niche market. But the positive side of that is that they're trying to pump in more imaging firepower, so you get more for more and not the same for more..

A Canon poobah said this a few days ago. And it makes perfect sense too. The low end and point&shoot have gone smartphone and the new smartphones, with their multiple cameras and periscope zooms, are good enough for a casual use (and, for 1,000 pictures a day "casual"). So, the only thing that's left is pro or well heeled enthusiast. I.E., the only good end is the high end. The "affordable" tier is to help cover the overhead.

Of course, the potential problem with "high end and nothing but high end" is that you begin moving very few pieces. And the second potential problem is with units like 42 MPX A7RII (currently $1,200) and 50 MPX 5Dsr ($1,500) - a five year old model is still an excellent choice and will remain such for a long time to come.

 

[Thomas Smet]

This is the only part I disagree with, but with a passion. It's easy, sure. But I don't think it's a good look either for the subject you're lighting or for the subject/background exposure balance. Not to mention that it calls attention to your camera.

But I'll admit that a m43 (especially gh5s) + speedbooster and fast lens (or just a nokton) is probably adequate for most doc scenarios

Yeah but there is also a dull, flat and lifeless look to just depending on ISO as well. Lighting was always about a lot more than just keeping the ISO down. It was about sculpting the scene. While a on camera light is far from perfect I personally find just cranking up the ISO on a FF camera to be a equally poor solution. Less noise and cleaner but not exactly award winning either.

I guess because my background was in broadcast video I have a totally different take on the subject. We always shot with lights on the camera when needed. I used to have to wear giant 18lbs battery belts to get an hour of light time if I was lucky. Even in run&gun we always used lights. Corporate/fashion/wedding whatever. Even back when we shot with SHVS we used on camera lights and it greatly helped the cameras at the time.

I'm also not talking about 200 watts blasting someone in the face either. Just enough to help the subject stand out and make them pop. Flash is used on camera in photography for a reason. sure one can get more dramatic results with off camera flash but I know a ton of wedding photographers that use on camera flash to great effect. In almost every instance a still photo with a subtle amount of flash will be better than cranking up the ISO. I also tend to use flash a lot pointing at the ceiling and bouncing the light for a nice soft throw around the subject from above.

https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/EOS_feature/flash-vs-high-iso.html

I realize a quick flash is very different from a constant light but we had to get over the embarrassment of shooting with a light. If we felt natural about it then so did the subjects we were shooting. If we acted all apologetic about it then the subjects started acting weird about it. Sure an occasional jerk would make a huge dramatic display about the light but whatever. I'm there to get the shot and not worry about that. Again if you keep it a subtle enough amount in combination with the ISO it doesn't even need too be distracting. I love using a on camera flash outside vs reflectors. Same can be true of a camera light to help define the subject.

Sensors and ISO are not designed to make our images look dramatic. They are just there to blindly fill in the light or lack of light. I will use just ISO as well at times and it is nice to have the ability to do so but I would not call it the superior solution at all. Lights also reduce our obsession with higher dynamic range. Light an interview in front of a window and you can capture everything perfectly with rec709. We depend too much today on the ISO and 15 stops of DR to do that for us.

 

[DLD]

Accounting for the fact that my opinion is only an opinion - me thinks that, if Panasonic folds its camera division, someone will pick up the MFT membership. It could be OMD (aka Olympus). It could be a Chinese company like Yongnuo, which makes some MFT product already. It could be an investment fund/holding company. The Chinese are likely to gain market share on the low end. OMD would then try to replace Panasonic in the mid-to-high end. The problem with the OMD potential are Sony sensors, which keep MFT as an entry level product anyway.

Meanwhile, Sony wants to push APS-C into the MFT territory and full frame into the APS-C. And Canon wants the same thing. Which is probably where the market is going.

 

[stoneinapond]

Accounting for the fact that my intuition is just that, I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that Panasonic wants out. As Thomas mentioned, they are still around the broadcast market, albeit a diminished one, they introduced a network based MFT camera and also a live streaming hybrid, the S1H is Netflix approved, although the Varicam seems MIA at the moment.

And who says that anything but domination is the be all and end all of business. I think much will rest of the success of the GH6, and a success I think it will be.

 

[NorBro]

Even if the GH6 is a success, how much money could be made off of that particular MFT $2000 camera?

I mean...it's nickels and dimes.

___

Now if money is not the end-goal then that's cool and they can just make one or two big cameras every 3-4 years as a hobby, but it would be easier to just close that section of business.

Obviously the worst outcome would be people losing jobs if they aren't repurposed, but the corporation would save money and/or use it for something else.

___

There are big Panasonic screens at the Olympics, so that's nice.

 

[DLD]

The information out on the webs is that both Panasonic and Nikon camera divisions are losing gobs of money and in a declining market to boot. And that's a precursor to those divisions being disposed of or shut down because they make the corporate financials look like crap. And stockholders, including various investment funds, don't like that shtuff. We'll see what happens with Panasonic in October. Those on the inside must have an inkling whether there's enough revenue being generated to cover the common overhead areas. Off the Japanese press, there isn't. And so tough decisions must be made. These companies exist for the sole purpose of making money and the long run projections for these two are rather bleak.

As I'd mentioned above, Nikon still has 20% share of the global markets and a lot of quality glass. Panasonic has 4.4% market share and not much of a lens selection beside the MFT. To me, Nikon is salvageable. Panasonic I'd punt on.

 

[DLD]

FWIW, the general consensus is that the market isn't recovering. The only debate is the floor of how far it will fall. Smartphone cameras keep getting better and better and they're replacing everything but the high end video and action/sports/BiF product that requires telephoto zooms and a high frame rate. Even for studio portraits, there are rumors of a 200 MPX camera module on the 2022 Samsung Galaxy. And then there are various aftermarket/third party lenses and software packages that make mobile photography virtually indistinguishable from the pros. And that spells doom for the ILC's. Eventually. (but soon)

 

[ahalpert]

Yeah but there is also a dull, flat and lifeless look to just depending on ISO as well. Lighting was always about a lot more than just keeping the ISO down. It was about sculpting the scene. While a on camera light is far from perfect I personally find just cranking up the ISO on a FF camera to be a equally poor solution. Less noise and cleaner but not exactly award winning either.

I mean, here's the toasts from the last wedding I shot. I'm using 2 lights off-camera but my ISO is still at 8000 with 1/50 shutter f/2.8 and a diffusion filter eating 1.7 stops.

​

​
and from the previous wedding, at iso 12800 or so:

​

So, even though I'm lighting, I'm still pushing up my ISO to 8000 or so. Even if I could give more output, I don't want to overpower the background. And if these toasts were an hour later or at a different time of year, it would be dark out and my ISO would be lower and my lights even dimmer. (To the eye, this lighting was quite dim. But so was the background.)

Still photographers at weddings typically use on-camera flash throughout the day, although usually they bounce it off a ceiling or a wall. But they are usually even more concerned with finding pretty lighting angles that are natural, often shooting in the shade of a building so that direct sunlight and the toplight from the sky are blocked. I've shot alongside a Nikon ambassador and a Canon explorer of light, and both of them operated as solo cameramen with a full-time lighting assistant. The Nikon guy had his assistant holding a flash with thick diffusion on a boom arm, often a few feet above camera or above and to the side. Or sometimes holding a light in motion stella LED from ground level at a 3/4 frontal or back light. The Canon lady had her assistant position a flash on a light stand, often hidden behind the subject to give a dramatic backlight.

Most commonly at the reception, the photographers will post off-camera flashes on stands high and at the corners of the dance floor, either bounced into the ceiling or angled down at the floor. Next most common is on-camera flash bounced at the ceiling. Least common is on-camera flash pointed forward, which is akin to on-camera LED light for video (although, as you say, we typically use a much lower output for our on-camera lights).

Also, one of the main reasons they use flash is to freeze motion.

Here are some unlit scenarios which I don't think look flat:

​

​
or this one after adding some contrast (the previous shots were sooc and could use some more contrast but not as badly):

​

I realize a quick flash is very different from a constant light but we had to get over the embarrassment of shooting with a light. If we felt natural about it then so did the subjects we were shooting. If we acted all apologetic about it then the subjects started acting weird about it. Sure an occasional jerk would make a huge dramatic display about the light but whatever. I'm there to get the shot and not worry about that. Again if you keep it a subtle enough amount in combination with the ISO it doesn't even need too be distracting. I love using a on camera flash outside vs reflectors. Same can be true of a camera light to help define the subject.

Sensors and ISO are not designed to make our images look dramatic. They are just there to blindly fill in the light or lack of light. I will use just ISO as well at times and it is nice to have the ability to do so but I would not call it the superior solution at all. Lights also reduce our obsession with higher dynamic range. Light an interview in front of a window and you can capture everything perfectly with rec709. We depend too much today on the ISO and 15 stops of DR to do that for us.

random dance floor shot where my lights were off, not sure of the ISO. also probably too far for on-camera light to make much impact:

but that's more contrasty lighting from the DJ anyway. these shots below are really what we're talking about. a very dark dance floor lit practically by space lights (chandeliers and hanging bulbs). iso between 12800 and 25600, 1/120 shutter, f/1.2. and yeah i'd say that the lighting is a little flat but frankly I think it's fine. on-camera light would have aesthetic drawbacks and most importantly might kill the reactions I'm getting. these are sooc




The issue has nothing to do with embarrassment. If I were embarrassed to be shooting, then I wouldn't be prancing around in front of large crowds brandishing bizarre contraptions.

The thing is - people behave differently when they realize they're being filmed. You see it happen in realtime on your monitor. In a split second, they evaluate how they appear and then try to make themselves look better, and all the genuine emotion drains from the scene. And when I'm evaluating my footage, especially wedding footage, what I'm most attuned to is the emotion of the subjects, and I'm sure that's even more true for layman viewers.

The impact is most acute with on-camera lights, but it happens with off-camera lights as well. That's why even if the venue and the photographers don't ask me to turn off my lighting, I usually turn it off for some portion of the night anyway. People get more into what they're doing. Men are much more likely to go out on the dance floor and join in. (And the lights I'm using aren't even that bright.) There's a reason why clubs and dance floors are so dimly lit.

Lighting the people giving toasts tends to make them more nervous as well, but I've decided that it's worth it and I just try to back off the lights and the camera as much as possible.

Why complain so much about high ISO capabilities? It's an extra asset. Anyway, there are so many different shooting scenarios, technical considerations, artistic goals and sensibilities, that of course there will be no one-size-fits-all approach.​


image widget

 

[Thomas Smet]

I mean, here's the toasts from the last wedding I shot. I'm using 2 lights off-camera but my ISO is still at 8000 with 1/50 shutter f/2.8 and a diffusion filter eating 1.7 stops.

​

​
and from the previous wedding, at iso 12800 or so:

​

So, even though I'm lighting, I'm still pushing up my ISO to 8000 or so. Even if I could give more output, I don't want to overpower the background. And if these toasts were an hour later or at a different time of year, it would be dark out and my ISO would be lower and my lights even dimmer. (To the eye, this lighting was quite dim. But so was the background.)

Still photographers at weddings typically use on-camera flash throughout the day, although usually they bounce it off a ceiling or a wall. But they are usually even more concerned with finding pretty lighting angles that are natural, often shooting in the shade of a building so that direct sunlight and the toplight from the sky are blocked. I've shot alongside a Nikon ambassador and a Canon explorer of light, and both of them operated as solo cameramen with a full-time lighting assistant. The Nikon guy had his assistant holding a flash with thick diffusion on a boom arm, often a few feet above camera or above and to the side. Or sometimes holding a light in motion stella LED from ground level at a 3/4 frontal or back light. The Canon lady had her assistant position a flash on a light stand, often hidden behind the subject to give a dramatic backlight.

Most commonly at the reception, the photographers will post off-camera flashes on stands high and at the corners of the dance floor, either bounced into the ceiling or angled down at the floor. Next most common is on-camera flash bounced at the ceiling. Least common is on-camera flash pointed forward, which is akin to on-camera LED light for video (although, as you say, we typically use a much lower output for our on-camera lights).

Also, one of the main reasons they use flash is to freeze motion.

Here are some unlit scenarios which I don't think look flat:

​

​
or this one after adding some contrast (the previous shots were sooc and could use some more contrast but not as badly):

​





random dance floor shot where my lights were off, not sure of the ISO. also probably too far for on-camera light to make much impact:

but that's more contrasty lighting from the DJ anyway. these shots below are really what we're talking about. a very dark dance floor lit practically by space lights (chandeliers and hanging bulbs). iso between 12800 and 25600, 1/120 shutter, f/1.2. and yeah i'd say that the lighting is a little flat but frankly I think it's fine. on-camera light would have aesthetic drawbacks and most importantly might kill the reactions I'm getting. these are sooc




The issue has nothing to do with embarrassment. If I were embarrassed to be shooting, then I wouldn't be prancing around in front of large crowds brandishing bizarre contraptions.

The thing is - people behave differently when they realize they're being filmed. You see it happen in realtime on your monitor. In a split second, they evaluate how they appear and then try to make themselves look better, and all the genuine emotion drains from the scene. And when I'm evaluating my footage, especially wedding footage, what I'm most attuned to is the emotion of the subjects, and I'm sure that's even more true for layman viewers.

The impact is most acute with on-camera lights, but it happens with off-camera lights as well. That's why even if the venue and the photographers don't ask me to turn off my lighting, I usually turn it off for some portion of the night anyway. People get more into what they're doing. Men are much more likely to go out on the dance floor and join in. (And the lights I'm using aren't even that bright.) There's a reason why clubs and dance floors are so dimly lit.

Lighting the people giving toasts tends to make them more nervous as well, but I've decided that it's worth it and I just try to back off the lights and the camera as much as possible.

Why complain so much about high ISO capabilities? It's an extra asset. Anyway, there are so many different shooting scenarios, technical considerations, artistic goals and sensibilities, that of course there will be no one-size-fits-all approach.​


image widget

I shot weddings for over a decade and always used lights and I got a natural response from people most of the time. Sure sometimes a guy would pose differently or freeze up but for the most part everyone carried on exactly as they were. I also shot as candid as possible and would use methods such as turning the light on slowly or pointing it at the floor first when I turn it on. If you just suddenly blast someone in the face then yeah they will cringe. You need to ease them into it.

While yes on camera is likely the least flattering place to put a light it is still better in my opinion to not having a light at all. Higher ISO is a tool and sometimes it needs to be used but an on camera light is a tool as well and created for a reason.

I hate to say it but I'm not overly impressed with the images you posted. They are fine for ultra low light but they look blotchy and flat. Its also our job to make our subjects look as good as they can look. Even a tiny bit of light like 10% output would have helped all of those shots a ton. Maybe in the first part of the day some guests might act odd but by the end of the dinner and with enough alcohol in the system nobody really gives a darn anymore. Maybe we have very different types of clients or maybe clients have been spoiled with the flood of shooters refusing to use lights but when I shot I would say only 1% of guests didn't like the light. At the end of the day I only cared about what looked best for the bride and groom and not how each guest felt about the light. Of course I tried to make each person as comfortable as possible but I also needed to get the job done. Every single client when I showed side by side samples with and without a light were 100% fine with me using an on camera light. A competitor using the same Sony DSR-300 DVCAM camera even asked me once why our stuff always looked so much better. It was the light.

When I first got into wedding video in art school I worked for a production company and they had to beat it into my head to not be afraid to use the light. I had no problem shooting in any form in front of people but turning on the camera light in front of people always made me cringe. I eventually learned to embrace it and let it become part of the norm of the day. Very few ever complained and not a single client argued against it. It was typically only a rare elderly person that had a sensitivity to sudden bright light or some macho guy who likely wasn't going to do much all night anyway. If a certain random guest was like that I either avoided them or steered around them in a way to not shine directly in their face.

Anyway I'm not trying t say your way is the wrong way. Just that there is a very valid artistic and technical reason why an on camera light can be a good thing. I think its wrong to just rule it our because it may be uncomfortable. There are situations when I will not use it out of respect or whatever reason. I also think its wrong to advise others to avoid it. Just because you don't feel comfortable using it doesn't mean it can't help a lot of people. I absolutely would never even consider using ISO 12800 or higher. Even if its low noise due to a larger sensor it just isn't all that great looking. Its partially why video gets a lower level or respect compared to photography.

 

[ahalpert]

To each his own. One of the studios I shoot for mandates that we not use lighting for the sake of the subjects, which is partly what got me considering the dynamic in the first place. And I'd say that about 40% of the time, either the venue or the photographers will ask me to turn my lights off a half hour into the night. I also get a lot of questions from the brides in prep about how obtrusive my equipment will be, and they're always happy to hear that I won't be using a light on my camera. It intimidates people.

Having people react to your camera is not just about on-camera light. If they notice I'm filming them without a light, they react anyway. the light just makes it happen a lot quicker. The thing about using a flash is that by the time they realize you're shooting them, you're already done.

You're not going to convince me that I'll get the same action from people with and without lighting them, especially with an on-camera light. I've seen the results both ways. it's the difference between performing and being.

^^ and that last point is probably the primary difference between my sensibility and that of other photographers and videographers I shoot alongside. I'm more concerned with capturing genuine emotion and documentary behavior. I see a lot of people setting up pretty shots and directing the subjects like actors. I don't think it works. When I review the footage from my angle of a set-up that the photographers direct in that way, I cringe. Maybe the subjects hit some nice angles and poses, but you can instantly tell that their minds are elsewhere and the chemistry isn't happening right then. The point doesn't apply as much to dance floor footage as to the rest of the day, but I think the mindset is reflected in how you capture both. I've watched stuff from other shooters on youtube that had very pretty set-ups and just seemed fake as hell. And about half the couples express an interest in capturing authenticity and avoiding fakery in our discussions beforehand.

In any case, I have to be prepared to shoot without lighting because it may not be permitted. So, I usually shoot both with lighting and without. Regarding where you light from, on camera light will always be hard, flat, sourcey, and contribute to sweat shine. I agree that even then it can be beneficial, but only if you can't light from somewhere else and anyway it will definitely influence your subject.

Grug was shooting scenes for a feature at ISO 12800. I mean...lol, dude. Anyway, while the texture of underexposed ISO 25600 footage probably can't be improved, I think a simple curve can improve the look of the contrast in post. Plus, I dont think the low light stuff is actually blotchy. It looks similar in texture on dvxuser to the ISO 640 stuff I posted, so I think it's mostly a compression issue. The wide shot of b/g on shoulders is from a super flat profile in order to handle passing dj lights, which obviously weren't happening in that frame. And again, your on camera light would accomplish nothing from that distance, not without blowing out the foreground anyway. I had 2 lights around the floor that I had turned off by then. finally, if you're adding on camera light at 10% output, you're probably not going to be lifting your ISO anyway but just reshaping the light on the subject. So it seems like a moot point regarding high ISO performance.

Also, who said that videographers get less respect than photographers? The photographers treat me with a great deal of respect, especially since there are many aspects of the craft they find challenging and unfamiliar. And the clients treat me with money and love. Just pulling out your gimbal with a field monitor and wifi smartphone controller on wrist will earn you a lot of respect.

 

[Tom Roper]

I've been asked to turn down or off my led panel lights but those are capable of lighting the whole dance floor. No one has complained about my AL-F7 - Aputure though, and you can give reasons for why it should affect behaviors on-camera but it doesn't unless it is too bright. You can dim it 1-100%. It takes only a little bit of fill to add so much in the way of color, separation and skin tones. Never mind what it adds to the sunset photos, the romantics, the send off, the sparkle of beads, sequins, jewelry, eyes, face and lips, and most important of all, is what it contributes as a fill light for shooting in the daylight shadows, against backlighting, indoors. Other videographers see the image on my lcd and move in to share the same light. It's not just about ISO. Light makes right.

Other than that I agree. I too don't care for the poses and directing the subjects like actors. I prefer the love and emotion that comes natural from family and friends. The coaching that I do, is to remind the couple to 'cheat' to the camera whenever they can, to avoid turning their backs to the camera, and when they greet friends and family to swing them around to face the camera. They will only do this 15% of the time but it's 15% of shots facing the lens they might not get otherwise. And to remind them, these video images could be the last recorded images they may ever see of some loved ones.

What I do find annoying, moreover rude and unnecessary is the overuse of gimbals, i.e. the videographer is out on the dance floor with the couple, circling the couple, moving in tight on the couple, coming in close, making an ass of himself, moving in front of you, spoiling everybody else's shots. Dude, the couple is already spinning! Get your shot and back off! Give them some space! Even worse than that, is this need to rove in front of your angle, park there, move in tight, back out, as if somehow that in/out move was going to add something more compelling than your static angle which they just blocked.

 

[Ralph B]

All these pictures needed was a little grading...

 

[ahalpert]

All these pictures needed was a little grading...

Thank you, that's what I thought. I never meant that they were finished

 

[ahalpert]

I've been asked to turn down or off my led panel lights but those are capable of lighting the whole dance floor. No one has complained about my AL-F7 - Aputure though, and you can give reasons for why it should affect behaviors on-camera but it doesn't unless it is too bright. You can dim it 1-100%. It takes only a little bit of fill to add so much in the way of color, separation and skin tones. Never mind what it adds to the sunset photos, the romantics, the send off, the sparkle of beads, sequins, jewelry, eyes, face and lips, and most important of all, is what it contributes as a fill light for shooting in the daylight shadows, against backlighting, indoors. Other videographers see the image on my lcd and move in to share the same light. It's not just about ISO. Light makes right.

I can agree with the utility of frontal fill for those reasons, but with such subtle output, does it make a meaningful impact on your ISO anyway? That's where the conversation started: ISO "vs" on-camera light (vis a vis full frame vs m43)