JVC GY-LS300 reviews / low light

F

funkytwig

Active member
Thought it was worth mentioning it here as as it seems to be the logical upgrade for the AF100. Found a couple of reviews and generally things are encouraging.

News Shooter - http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/02/...dget-super-35mm-camera-with-a-micro-43-mount/ (reckons after 1600iso noise is bad, think this is around +9db)
HD Warrior https://vimeo.com/127439476 (shows 12gb, 2000iso - says with fill sensor up to 15gb - 3200 is good).

Am wondering what gain gives usable image with MFT lenses. I am also wondering if you get the parafocal behaviour with the Lumix HD lenses I get wit the AF100 (something I do not think you get from Canon or Sony cameras).

So how do those who had gont one rate its low light performance against AF100 (with MFT and Super35 lenses).

Ben
 
This should really be posted in the JVC area...not many on this board so far look at this camera as a cinematic upgrade to the AF100...

Cheers
 
Tye said:
This should really be posted in the JVC area...
Click to expand...
There is no JVC sub-forum on this site, so until there is, the AF100 sub-forum is really the most relevant place. The LS-300 fits into exactly the same MFT-mount, pro videocam category as the AF100, and there are currently no other examples of this type marketed. At this point in video camera evolution, DVXUSER might consider grouping its sub-forums within lens-mount categories rather than strictly by brand name.
 
In case there is interest...there is a sub-forum for JVC cameras called 'other other cameras' .... JVC is specifically assigned to that sub-forum.

Cheers....Tye
 
As a owner of two AF-102 cameras I'm very interested in any information on the GY-LS300 as it seams the only upgrade path at the moment for those that have invested heavily in M4/3 glass. - I'm waiting for a demo cam to turn up before I judge image quality (I don't trust anything on the web) but in the mean time I'm soaking up any info from people who have one.
 
Last edited:
funkytwig said:
So how do those who had gont one rate its low light performance against AF100 (with MFT and Super35 lenses).Ben
Click to expand...

There's a big difference in low light performance with AF100. LS300 has an incredibly clean image (noise is absent) at 800 and 1600 ISO. At 3200 noise begins to show, but it is still usable. Greater ISO shows significant noise and are not usable in serious works

Regards

Gary
 
funkytwig said:
Thought it was worth mentioning it here as as it seems to be the logical upgrade for the AF100. Found a couple of reviews and generally things are encouraging.

News Shooter - http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/02/...dget-super-35mm-camera-with-a-micro-43-mount/ (reckons after 1600iso noise is bad, think this is around +9db)
HD Warrior https://vimeo.com/127439476 (shows 12gb, 2000iso - says with fill sensor up to 15gb - 3200 is good).

Am wondering what gain gives usable image with MFT lenses. I am also wondering if you get the parafocal behaviour with the Lumix HD lenses I get wit the AF100 (something I do not think you get from Canon or Sony cameras).

So how do those who had gont one rate its low light performance against AF100 (with MFT and Super35 lenses).

Ben
Click to expand...


I already posted about the LS300 here or didn't you see that??
 
Couple of points. Firstly I was looking for a comparison between AF100 and LS300 which is why I posed here. Secondly I know there was a general ls300 post but this was a specific one. With the relativly low tragic here don't think having a few threads about the LS300 will be a problem. I personally prefer more specific subject lines as it helps skan the subjects and work out if they are relevent t me. I worst subject of all is simply 'Help'.
 
Gary Senda said:
There's a big difference in low light performance with AF100. LS300 has an incredibly clean image (noise is absent) at 800 and 1600 ISO. At 3200 noise begins to show, but it is still usable. Greater ISO shows significant noise and are not usable in serious works.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's great to know. Is this with MFT of S35 lenses?

Ben
 
Gary Senda said:
There's a big difference in low light performance with AF100. LS300 has an incredibly clean image (noise is absent) at 800 and 1600 ISO. At 3200 noise begins to show, but it is still usable. Greater ISO shows significant noise and are not usable in serious works
Click to expand...
This is my experience as well. The LS300 has a useful feature the AF100 lacked: Auto-ISO with a max ISO preset. This works well when highlights are not too extreme compared to the average light level. In general, the LS300's 400-3200 usable ISO range is one-stop higher and noticeably cleaner than the AF100's 200-1600 ISO range. That makes it well-suited for low-light shooting, as you can see in this original unedited 4K LS300 footage, shot at ISO 3200:


The streaming version above was resized down to 1080p by Vimeo at a lower bitrate. You can download the original 4K 150Mbps video file at the link.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top