JVC GY-LS300 Why is there not more Buzz about this camera?
- Thread starter Green Hornet
- Start date
kwkeirstead
Well-known member
HD Warrior is doing a test this Sunday and will typically post a review shortly thereafter
http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/.
http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/.
lovecameras
Carbonite Member
Footage looks decent. Idea of using old C-Mount lenses is appealing.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
We felt that at this time, 1600 is the max usable....at 3200 well, a judgement call. In talking with the JVC head of engineering, they are planning on improving the ISO and adding a noise reduction feature in future firmware upgrades.
Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
Good! Now if Panasonic, Canon or Sony could hurry with good servo lenses (and good adapters for this JVC, unless JVC have to create them for those lenses), this could be a nice market. But seriously, why can't JVC create their own lenses or compatible electronic adapters for servo lenses ? I mean, they do know that sports events and journalism are a big part of their sales and that the cameramen involved do other works as well (weddings, corporative, etc). Right ?
Last edited:
RRRoger
Well-known member
When at NAB, I rushed to the Panasonic booth to see the successor to the AF-100 and was disappointed to see the DVX-200.
Then, I looked across the isle to see the LS-300 in the JVC booth where I got "Hands On".
I was very impressed and really liked all the features.
But I did not order one because it was not quite capable of use in the poor/low light I have to shoot in without supplemental lighting.
Hopefully, someone (Panasonic GH5?) will come out with something with a better s35 or APS-C Sensor and MFT mount.
In the meantime I am forced to use my A7s with 4k recorder, 28-135 Cine lens, and bag full of batteries.
No, the A7sII is not it. I sent mine back.
And, I would really prefer a CamCorder.
So, let's see what 2016 brings.
Then, I looked across the isle to see the LS-300 in the JVC booth where I got "Hands On".
I was very impressed and really liked all the features.
But I did not order one because it was not quite capable of use in the poor/low light I have to shoot in without supplemental lighting.
Hopefully, someone (Panasonic GH5?) will come out with something with a better s35 or APS-C Sensor and MFT mount.
In the meantime I am forced to use my A7s with 4k recorder, 28-135 Cine lens, and bag full of batteries.
No, the A7sII is not it. I sent mine back.
And, I would really prefer a CamCorder.
So, let's see what 2016 brings.
Last edited:
maranfilms
Veteran
No doubt the camera has some cool features, variable scan mapping to use a massive gamut of glass, but the body is a lousy form factor, and it feels plastically, there's been numerous reports of people sending them in for repair, and as mentioned, the low light ability is lack luster compared to other offerings in the s35 sensor arena. The image has a baked in video look mostly due to the poor highlight roll-off. Jlog seemed to help some, but the dynamic range is still meh. Perhaps theirs reasons, but I can't understand why one would buy this over the ursa mini. The overall image is night and day.
Wholelifemice
Member
JVC were never popular from my experience. None of my filmmaking friends ever recommended JVC cameras. I personally think they look nice, and they also did have that one thing I liked about them that were not on other cameras, which is usually the case when it comes to cameras though.
I doubt there'll be fixed lens camcorders in APS-C/s35 sizes. Something like LS300 MKII seems eminently doable from the technological angle but it might find itself without a market. 1D X MKII and D5 should do very well in low light and that leaves very little room for a Non-Sonikon type.
RRRoger
Well-known member
If the D5 beats out the A7s/A7sII for low light Video, I will be a buyer
because I like the ergonomics and controls so much better.
I would also be able to take my Pro Nikkors off the shelf and put them to use again.
Then again, for that much money, I could buy an LS300 and several f1.5 Cine lens or use my MFT to Nikkor SpeedBooster.
because I like the ergonomics and controls so much better.
I would also be able to take my Pro Nikkors off the shelf and put them to use again.
Then again, for that much money, I could buy an LS300 and several f1.5 Cine lens or use my MFT to Nikkor SpeedBooster.
Last edited:
RRRoger
Well-known member
Last night I shot our Candlelight Service with my A7s and 7Q+ 4k external recorder.
4k was DownRes to 1080P30.
The candle light was so dim that I had to use ISO 10,000
This screen shot is what the D5/LS300 needs to beat:
RRRoger
Well-known member
The Church is poorly lit even in daylight and I usually shoot my A7s at ISO 6400 and f/9
to get the Projected movies not too bright focus and the Pastors face slightly brighter than what you see with your eye.
The Screen shot came from candle light and leds on the trees, the overhead lights were off, and it was also dark outside.
The lens was the 28-135 Cine and I was changing the f-stop from 4-9 as I moved around the room.
My best guess for the screenshot is F/8 with ISO 10,000 and it was darker to my eyes.
Using the 7Q+ to shoot the Event was a real blessing, as could see everything clearly on the 7" screen while the Choir were mere shadows to my eyes.
F9!! Just shoot wider open, I could easily shoot at f/2.8 on a GH4/LS300/whatever, which would mean I'd get to let in HEAPS MORE LIGHT and not need to worry about shooting at such crazy high ISO levels.
m4/3 cameras are quite suitable for such middle of the road low light situations like that church.
m4/3 cameras are quite suitable for such middle of the road low light situations like that church.
RRRoger
Well-known member
I have a GH4 and usually use the 12-35 F/2.8 lens
I have used it side by side with the Lumix and my A7s with 28-135 f/4 Cine lens.
The difference is Day & Night
The Church is so dark that the Lumix has to be used wide open with ISO 3200+.
The results are full of moire and shooting our Video screen is blow out with the Pastor barely in focus.
Using a SpeedBooster and faster lens at ISO 1600 is really not noticeably better or I would not have bought an A7s.