Lightwars - Low light video GH1 versus 5D

commanderspike

commanderspike

Carbonite Member
http://www.vimeo.com/6963453

You may notice on many of the shots I had the GH1 at ISO 800 and the 5D on 1600. As you can see, noise is about equal on both cameras at these settings, but why did I choose different ISO speeds?

Well the GH1 completely fooled me into using ISO 800. It's screen is much brighter and the camera itself is slightly brighter than the 5D at the same ISO speed. Unfortunately on the end footage, the GH1 is noticeably darker at ISO 800 than the 5D at 1600 so the difference isn't as big as the LCD made it out to be. A strange one!

I will fix this tonight by shooting again but at the same ISO. Also hard to get the same focal lengths on both cameras, with the 2x crop on the GH1. So the test tonight won't be with my Zeiss lenses on the GH1. It'll be 28mm Zeiss Distagon F2.8 at F3.5 on the Canon and a Canon 10-22mm zoom F3.5 on the GH1, set to 28mm equiv. It's sharper than the kit lens at 14mm so a fairer comparison to the insanely sharp Zeiss.

It is true that you can fool the GH1 into ISO 3200 mode. Also video on the Mark II can be shot all the way up to 12800 which is pretty amazing.

This was my first proper test with the cameras so apologies that it wasn't the most exacting. WB is different in a few shots, but it shows how the auto WB handles different kinds of light, I guess :) I also only had a very lightweight and portable tripod (Velbon CX580) with me so sorry if the slight wobble while pulling focus annoys you. I really need a better tripod head for doing that kind of thing on such small cameras.

GH1 advantages:
- Very little moire, although fine lines and detail tend to be a little smudged due to higher noise reduction.
- Slightly brighter image at same ISO as 5D in comparison

5D advantages:
- Found it much easier to frame the shot with a full frame sensor. Zeiss lenses come into their own.
- Colour is reproduced very vividly. What your eye sees is generally right there in the footage. The GH1 is a little muddy in comparison.
- Auto WB is steadier on the 5D but the GH1 is more accurate under electric lighting. The 5D's is VERY warm.
 


You can also tell quite clearly the difference between 30p and 24p. I prefer 24p because 30p is slightly too clinical and computerised for my tastes.
 
Last edited:
Seems like there wouldn't be a contest here, but I am presently surprised by how the GH1 holds up!!! Only another week or so and I get my FD adapter, yeeeey!
 
Call me crazy but I like the GH1 stuff better...it's not quite as crisp and you can see some of the weaknesses of the codec but I don't think they're that apparent without being directly juxtaposed, and the lighting, colors, and general aesthetic on the Gh1 are more appealing to me...The 5D is closer to "real life" but that isn't always what film is about...the Gh1 footage seems more cinematic.

For example: the 5D and corresponding GH1 shot beginning at around 0:27. On the 5D I was blown away by the detail in the ground, etc, and the GH1 does a good job with that too....but then look at the building in the distance, look at the way the Gh1 makes the lighting look...so much more dramatic and interesting. Maybe its just "poorer" low light performance but I think it looks much nicer...like a well shot film noir or horror film rather than a reproduction of what the eye is seeing. The 5D seems to give a brighter image with available light but in most cases at night that I've seen (especially in this test) the available light shooting of the GH1 seems more cinematic...like it wasn't available light at all.
 
Last edited:
great test, thanks for the hard work..i would also love to know the shutter speed for both cameras, to me it looked more like 30-40 than 20 ..
 
Ben_B said:
Call me crazy but I like the GH1 stuff better...it's not quite as crisp and you can see some of the weaknesses of the codec but I don't think they're that apparent without being directly juxtaposed, and the lighting, colors, and general aesthetic on the Gh1 are more appealing to me...The 5D is closer to "real life" but that isn't always what film is about...the Gh1 footage seems more cinematic.

For example: the 5D and corresponding GH1 shot beginning at around 0:27. On the 5D I was blown away by the detail in the ground, etc, and the GH1 does a good job with that too....but then look at the building in the distance, look at the way the Gh1 makes the lighting look...so much more dramatic and interesting. In this shot its like comparing the local news to The Exorcist.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is why you like the contrasty images of the GH1.

My very subjective impression, totally unsupported by anything but my feelings, is that the 5d has some sort of noise or hard edges within the super sharp images, and that "noise" fatigues me as I watch it. Almost like when you turn up the sound to hear the musicians talking among themselves but then the instruments as distorted.

The GH1 clearly has less DR and gets dark and opaque when it runs out of head room.

What were the settings on these cameras? Was the contrast and NR on the GH1 turned to -2? That could make a difference.
 
philiplipetz said:
Perhaps this is why you like the contrasty images of the GH1.

My very subjective impression, totally unsupported by anything but my feelings, is that the 5d has some sort of noise or hard edges within the super sharp images, and that "noise" fatigues me as I watch it. Almost like when you turn up the sound to hear the musicians talking among themselves but then the instruments as distorted.

The GH1 clearly has less DR and gets dark and opaque when it runs out of head room.

What were the settings on these cameras? Was the contrast and NR on the GH1 turned to -2? That could make a difference.
Click to expand...

I changed my post slightly since then >.<

I've always thought of the GH1 as less contrasty (better DR) in higher light situations than the 5D (just look at some of the 5D footage out there....wow do things get clipped) but that the 5D's "superior" (technically so but not in terms of aesthetics IMHO) low-light performance reverses this in low-light situations.
 
Ben B: so the paradox is that the GH1,whose usuablity is better suited to portable documentary work has an imaging system better suited to well lit situations not often found in documentary situations, and the 5d, which is very limited for documentary work, has a imaging system better suited to poorly lit documentary situations.

Such are the joys of newly emerging technology.
 
Ben_B said:
Call me crazy but I like the GH1 stuff better...it's not quite as crisp and you can see some of the weaknesses of the codec but I don't think they're that apparent without being directly juxtaposed, and the lighting, colors, and general aesthetic on the Gh1 are more appealing to me...The 5D is closer to "real life" but that isn't always what film is about...the Gh1 footage seems more cinematic.

For example: the 5D and corresponding GH1 shot beginning at around 0:27. On the 5D I was blown away by the detail in the ground, etc, and the GH1 does a good job with that too....but then look at the building in the distance, look at the way the Gh1 makes the lighting look...so much more dramatic and interesting. Maybe its just "poorer" low light performance but I think it looks much nicer...like a well shot film noir or horror film rather than a reproduction of what the eye is seeing. The 5D seems to give a brighter image with available light but in most cases at night that I've seen (especially in this test) the available light shooting of the GH1 seems more cinematic...like it wasn't available light at all.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth in that. The GH1 footage is more cinematic, more grimey, less contrasty and quite 'real'. It's colour reproduction isn't great in low light. But with the GH1 you don't have a choice. At least the 5D has the headroom to adjust the image afterwards.

The GH1 does have less contrast. Shadow areas are bright but lack detail. The 5D is very punch and contrasty. The colour is incredibly vivid, a little too vivid for my liking. I'd decrease contrast and colour saturation in camera if I were to keep it.

This is one of the most difficult compromises I've ever had to make. The GH1 is such a lovely camera, so progressive and fun to use. It's a thing of the future, whilst the 5D handles and feels like a thing of a past. It has some awful image quality traits which are very un-cinematic - moire, oversharpening, 30p. But it's imager is an extraordinary performer, it's colour reproduction (especially in low light) is incredibly vivid (shows all of it's 14bits as opposed to the GH1's 12bit) and you really do get as much or as little DOF as you like, and it performs much better with my much loved Contax Zeiss lenses, especially the wide 28mm with a slight light fall off towards the corners which is REALLY attractive.

Noise levels are very good for it's sensor size. Competes with 5D on noise, but not overall low light performance (colour, contrast, detail, etc.)

If the GH1 was full frame and so had a sharper image in low light, better colour and more dynamic range / contrast, better with my lenses, it'd be a no contest. GH1 would win.

But I feel image quality and flexibility is VERY important. Even if usability suffers, the Mark II's shots have a wow factor in nearly all conditions and a higher peak performance in good light, due to lower compression and a codec which doesn't push the limit's of it's hardware like the brave little GH1 does. The difference is big. Sometimes your aesthetic needs might be closer to he GH1 footage (realness, documentary, horror film?) but if it's 'wow-colour, wow-detail' and dynamic range you're after, the GH1 looks muddy in comparison to the 5D and even in bright light, detail on wide shots suffers.

And yes Philip, I agree with you that the 5D image can be fatiguing. It really is like a series of photos rather than true 'moving picture' style that a proper video format (AVCHD 24p) gives you.

Both cameras are astounding developments in the market.

I have still not made up my mind which to keep.
 
Last edited:
Ben_B said:
I changed my post slightly since then >.<

I've always thought of the GH1 as less contrasty (better DR) in higher light situations than the 5D (just look at some of the 5D footage out there....wow do things get clipped) but that the 5D's "superior" (technically so but not in terms of aesthetics IMHO) low-light performance reverses this in low-light situations.
Click to expand...

I find the GH1 to do exactly what you are describing, great in well lit situations but poor in low light. I did a short comparison GH1/7D yesterday and this confirmed this pretty much. But the GH1 can be good in low light if you avoid noise and banding.
 
As demonstrated by many of the shots in this sample.

I really think a lot of the GH1 stuff looked better–the colors, the contrast, and the way it made the lighting look...even the lack of harsh, sharp detail.

I also feel like the 5D's shallow DOF was a huge disadvantage here...it robs the scenes of detail in places you'd expect it thanks to blur, even as you get waaay too much in others. (the shot of the grass with the little light posts being a good example...the DOF just kills it on the 5D...ruins the shot.)
 
I take your point about the DOF being too shallow, but if you use a wider lens (the grass was shot on a 85MM at F2) with a closed down aperture to F4 or F5 then you can get deeper DOF. So it's under your control. On the GH1 it's not so much under your control - if you want REALLY shallow DOF you cannot get it especially at anything wider than 35mm.

To get the same shallow DOF and FOV as a 5D with a 50mm F1.4 lens you'd need approximately a 25mm F0.95. Anybody got one lying about? ;) My Leica 25mm F1.4 cost £600, and yet DOF on that due to the GH1's 2x crop is similar to a much less expensive standard 50mm portrait lens on the 5D.

Daylight scenes can look very similar between the GH1 and 5D, BUT when there is a lot of fine detail and high contrast detail like grass or trees in sunlight, the GH1 does trip up - fine detail gets smudged and greens come out a bit muddy. I have also found that oranges on the GH1 are greenish-brown a lot of the time, no matter what the white balance.

Also at low ISOs you still get low contrast in shadow areas and next to no detail, even in bright scenes. Dynamic range is just nowhere near the Mark II.

Okay sounds like I'm rubbishing the GH1 here. Let's be clearer. The GH1 has a very film-like look to it, but the 5D has a finer image with better colour and detail. I like shallow DOF and I enjoy maintaining colour / contrast in the shadows and low light scenes. For that reason I think the 5D wins in image quality, but damn this is a hard decision. The GH1 is just so much sexier.
 
Last edited:
Car3o said:
did you film this 720p with a shutter at 20 on the gh1?
Click to expand...

Shutter on both cameras was set to 1/30 for the most part, there were some 1/50 moments on the GH1 because I have a NTSC camera in PAL land and needed it to sync better with the street lighting. Although the Canon records at 30p, it seems less susceptible than the GH1 at 1/30 to out-of-sync 50hz lighting issues.

All footage was 1080p.

Picture settings - default Standard preset on both cams with a few tweaks. GH1 had slight boost in colour and 5D a slight decrease in sharpness. Will do more tests to see how these can effect the image. Seems 5D needs colour down a notch, contrast down, and GH1 needs opposite!

You know the more I think about it the more I agree with what Ben is saying - the GH1 is more filmic.

Yeah the 5D is crisp, amazing, shallow DOF, vivid colour. But it's almost TOO detailed and perfect. The GH1 has a murky, blurry cinematic quality to it and that goes for daylight stuff as well.

Here is another comparison, this time indoors. Same ISO. Same WB. Same aperture. Two fine lenses. On the 5D a Contax Zeiss Distagon F2.8 28mm set to F3.5 and on the GH1 a Canon 10-22mm EFS F3.5 set to 14mm. This one I'm afraid is a slam dunk for the 5D and I found in underexposed indoor shots in dimmer light, the difference was so dramatic the 5D footage was fine whilst the GH1 fell so short it's footage was unusable. Terrible banding, colour and no detail or contrast. It really was that bad.

*CRASH!!*

Oops that's the sound of the DVXUser negativity threshold being crossed :)

These below were the usable shots. Both ISO 640 in bright light. Same WB. 5D colour is just all round better. Bit warm, but more as my eye saw it. Look at the detail on the black bottle and the bottom of the glass table. That's not underexposure on the GH1 shot, it's a simple matter of the camera not resolving the dark details.

Panasonic GH1

gh1indoors.jpg


Canon 5D Mark II

5dindoors.jpg
 
Last edited:
You kick it into 3200 by putting it in semi-auto mode, shutter priority. Leave ISO at anything, push the exposure compensation to max and the shutter to 1/30. Press record and after a few seconds the camera gleefully hits the giddy heights of 3200 or more but it's not a pretty sight!

GH1 more filmic - quite possibly. Some beautiful creative work can be done with it.
GH1 image 'better'? No. The 5D is miles ahead in some scenes, a short way ahead in other scenes, but generally just all-round better.

If you have scenes which rely a lot on the wow factor from colour and detail, then the 5D is the one to go for, especially in low light.
 
Okay, well I'll sell both and save myself another $1500, spend it all on lights and shoot with a Flip HD then.

Just comparing some outside shots which is also interesting. The 5D looks a lot less filmic than the GH1. It's image is fatiguing and too smooth at 30p. Detail and colour are great but a lot of that is down to the way the GH1 screws up greens & oranges. The GH1 is actually resolving a very similar amount of detail in bright light.

You know - sometimes the difference is very small indeed. Sometimes it is a HUGE gulf.

I am really confused about which to keep. That gulf in image quality is always there but the way it's perceived by the viewer is actually very different. Some shots actually benefit from the GH1 in a way that they might look a bit plastic on the 5D.

But there is no doubt that it holds onto colour and detail much better in low light or indoors and there is no doubt that a full frame sensor makes full use of my Zeiss lenses whereas on the GH1 the 28mm is kinda useless.

Damn this is a hard one... both have such different styles and I haven't decided which one my next project will benefit most from and yeah there is always the cost side to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top