GH3 More low light tests, seems a 2.8 lens is not really quite fast enough;(

F

funkytwig

Active member
Hi, ive done another set of low light tests and wonder what people think. These are low light tests testing the camera in low light, rather than ISO tests which tend to test high ISO where there is a decent amount of light. Anyway the bottom line is noise starts to creep in at 1600 (and there may also be a little at 800). I did the tests using a 2.8 12-35 Lumix lens with a shutter speed of 25 and f stop of 2.8 shooting MOV 25p files.

My conclusion is a) I need really to use f1.8 lenses for shooting at dusk if I don't want noise and b) 1600 is the highest ISO I would want to use and even with this you get a little noise (this is similar to my 550D which is very disappointing).

Vimeo version at https://vimeo.com/65779507 (password gh3) but a lot of the noise has been removed by them.

To see high quality version goto https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2rnfiz8xbsarqb2/0lj3VBqXy8 if you are really interested (download and unpack zip).

Interestingly it is the wood on my shed which shows the noise the worst and largish light areas next (smallish very bright areas seem ok). Framing to avoid this would obviously help but I think it is going to be a bit hit and miss, which is obviously very bad.

Was wondering what people thought, if there were some setting I could use to help, have I missed something?

Ben
 
Last edited:
Curious what your NR setting is.

I see a lot more noise at 400 ISO and frankly find 800 to be way too noisy.
I never needed to with Canon but I just picked up the new Neat plugin for FCPX to clean up the noise in post.
 
Not sure, guess it is default, how do I find out. I guess it depends what you are used to/what you want to use footage for. As I said YouTube has removed a lot of the noise. Go to the dropbox link to view high quality version.

Which Canon are you referring to. 5D is probably better buy 60D/7D is not meant to be as good as GH3.

Its when you deliver a DCP/uncompressed ver and watch it at a cinema it becomes a big issue. Also depends how dark you are shooting, this all came about because I was shooting at night, abstract stuff with lights but the sky was noisy.
 
Last edited:
What is the purpose of these videos?

It seems to me that most people in my opinion who are not actually doing projects and run mostly tests worry all about the wrong things. From a cinema standpoint or even personal project you have & use light.
I wonder when and where did people think or assume that shooting with no light somehow made something magical?

In my most humble opinion, please rethink what you are doing and want to do. Even if the camera had no noise what would you be doing.....

I honestly need to take a break from here and get some work done, I wish more people actually created Art instead of worrying about the little things.....
 
1600 is the highest i go, 3200 for last resort and lens at least f2. i have shot nightclub stuff with no lightig and the 12-35 doesnt cut it. the olympus 45 on the other hand is just magic on the gh3.

but agreed, the one think i have learnt from shooting with gh1 and gh2 is how to use light. no different with the gh3.
 
Indeed, you need to light your scenes - everybody understands that, so there's no point in harping on this like we're all 5 years old. We know, and we get it.

The reason for testing low-light capability is not so that you don't have to use lights, but that you can use less light. This is both a budgetary and practical issue. If you can't afford $20K worth of lights, but only $5K worth, you can still light with fewer lights with a good result if your camera is sensitive enough. But there are also practical reasons. If your camera is great in low-light, you can get away with using smaller, fewer lights - which is often very desirable, especially for exteriors. If I can get away with using smaller battery-powered lights because my camera is great in low-light, I'd rather do that than rent a generator and deal with that nonsense.

So, please, let's examine camera capabilities without attacking other posters for doing so. If you don't think a given feature or camera capability is important to your style of work, that's great, but allow those who have different needs to discuss those features of our cameras - after all, this site was founded on examining the technical capabilities of a camera.

Therefore I thank the OP for bringing up this topic. One of the things I was hoping for in GH3 compared to the GH2 was better low-light capability, and so far it looks pretty disappointing... there seems to be very little if any improvement. YMMV.
 
OldCorpse said:
Indeed, you need to light your scenes - everybody understands that, so there's no point in harping on this like we're all 5 years old. We know, and we get it.

The reason for testing low-light capability is not so that you don't have to use lights, but that you can use less light. This is both a budgetary and practical issue. If you can't afford $20K worth of lights, but only $5K worth, you can still light with fewer lights with a good result if your camera is sensitive enough. But there are also practical reasons. If your camera is great in low-light, you can get away with using smaller, fewer lights - which is often very desirable, especially for exteriors. If I can get away with using smaller battery-powered lights because my camera is great in low-light, I'd rather do that than rent a generator and deal with that nonsense.

So, please, let's examine camera capabilities without attacking other posters for doing so. If you don't think a given feature or camera capability is important to your style of work, that's great, but allow those who have different needs to discuss those features of our cameras - after all, this site was founded on examining the technical capabilities of a camera.

Therefore I thank the OP for bringing up this topic. One of the things I was hoping for in GH3 compared to the GH2 was better low-light capability, and so far it looks pretty disappointing... there seems to be very little if any improvement. YMMV.
Click to expand...


Please show me 1 light used in this video, heck even an led.... I know exactly what this site was built off of and know furthermore what dslr brought to this art. Many people thinking you can shoot something without light, I won the GH3 and compared to our old cameras it is a blessing in low light. Think about our dvx, hex 500 and so many cameras before where it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot like this. So when you make such a broad and wrong statement I know Clearly what the GH3 is and can do.

For about $100 you can buy 3 led hand held lights and light up any scene with the GH3, but if you plan on using No light than this isn't the camera for you...... I believe the OP might be looking for a Canon C300 then......
 
J.F.R. said:
Please show me 1 light used in this video, heck even an led.... I know exactly what this site was built off of and know furthermore what dslr brought to this art. Many people thinking you can shoot something without light, I won the GH3 and compared to our old cameras it is a blessing in low light. Think about our dvx, hex 500 and so many cameras before where it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot like this. So when you make such a broad and wrong statement I know Clearly what the GH3 is and can do.

For about $100 you can buy 3 led hand held lights and light up any scene with the GH3, but if you plan on using No light than this isn't the camera for you...... I believe the OP might be looking for a Canon C300 then......
Click to expand...

He's just trying to figure out what the low light abilities and requirements are. Not every person doing video is doing narrative, or projects with set up shots. People use these cameras for all different purposes, some are one person operations and take photos and video at events or film bands, where you're mostly stuck with the light you have to capture moments on the fly.
 
I agree with JFR - I don't think the GH3 has poor low light capabilities but funkytwig has too high an expectation of what a DSLR should do. You would NEVER shoot stills with 1600 ISO and expect clean shots - so why would you exect video to do it. I never go over 400 in either stills or video. Whoever said you need to $20K worth of lights to shoot well at night is having you on. More like $2K ??
The other thing is shooting lighter objects against a dark sky without a light is a pointless exercise - everyone knows it's going to look like crap without a test.
 
J.F.R. said:
What is the purpose of these videos?

It seems to me that most people in my opinion who are not actually doing projects and run mostly tests worry all about the wrong things. From a cinema standpoint or even personal project you have & use light. ...

In my most humble opinion, please rethink what you are doing and want to do. Even if the camera had no noise what would you be doing.....
I honestly need to take a break from here and get some work done, I wish more people actually created Art instead of worrying about the little things.....
Click to expand...

These tests were very mutch a result of a real worl problem. A couple of nites ago I was doing some shooting for a director and one of the things he wanted was to get some dusk/nightime landscape shots. The kind of things that you cant light, we are talking about cityscapes here. He realised it was very chalanging and realised there would be a lot of darkness. One of the shots was of trains, where we were mainly interested in the lights, and building lights. He had previousaly done a shoot from a river at night with a C300 and GH2 (I just spoke to one of the cameramen and it was noisy but I think they were planing on crushing the noise into black). Basicaly it was at the end of a shoot and thought we would give it a wherl. As I said with this type of things you can crush a lot of the blacks in the grade and hide a lot of noise. It was a experiment, a not verry sucsessfull one (whitch is why I did the tests). I chose a too high ISO so decided to do some tests.

OldCorpse said:
Indeed, you need to light your scenes - everybody understands that, so there's no point in harping on this like we're all 5 years old. We know, and we get it.

The reason for testing low-light capability is not so that you don't have to use lights, but that you can use less light. ...
So, please, let's examine camera capabilities without attacking other posters for doing so. If you don't think a given feature or camera capability is important to your style of work, that's great, but allow those who have different needs to discuss those features of our cameras - after all, this site was founded on examining the technical capabilities of a camera.

Therefore I thank the OP for bringing up this topic. One of the things I was hoping for in GH3 compared to the GH2 was better low-light capability, and so far it looks pretty disappointing... there seems to be very little if any improvement. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I do a lot of factual/docs where you have limeted lighting opitunities. I am indeed trying to find out the limits of the camera. I am also learning it depends on what the final delivery format it. Youtube/Vimeo seem to be able to remove a lot of grain. My tests seem to indicate that even at 32000 they remove almost all of it (I guess Neat Video would do simeler alough it would soften the image). If you are showing at a cinima its a diferent story, would love to do some tests showing from DCP, but dont have my own cinima;).
pulpfiction007 said:
He's just trying to figure out what the low light abilities and requirements are. Not every person doing video is doing narrative, or projects with set up shots. People use these cameras for all different purposes, some are one person operations and take photos and video at events or film bands, where you're mostly stuck with the light you have to capture moments on the fly.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head.

malibudutchie said:
I agree with JFR - I don't think the GH3 has poor low light capabilities but funkytwig has too high an expectation of what a DSLR should do. You would NEVER shoot stills with 1600 ISO and expect clean shots - so why would you exect video to do it. I never go over 400 in either stills or video. Whoever said you need to $20K worth of lights to shoot well at night is having you on. More like $2K ??

The other thing is shooting lighter objects against a dark sky without a light is a pointless exercise - everyone knows it's going to look like crap without a test.
Click to expand...

I did shoot some stills at 1600 but they were only going to be printed A4, came out quite nice, but yes would idealy like to keep to 400. I guess I beleved the hype, there was something shot in artificial light when the GH3 came out by a well respected DP (cant remember who) , I think they were using verry fast glass (possibly < 1.8). It looked great (it was a panasonic publicity shoot).

One thing that makes assesing what ISO to use difficult is that as the amount of light that falls on the sensor decreses noise goes up regardless of ISO (alough with low ISO of 400 and below this probably is not noticable). Therefore you can use a highrt ISO for shooting at dusk than at night.

I have also learned that is is always better to use a higher ISO that do it in post as the camera is amplifying a raw image and in post you would be amplifying a compressed one, which is why it is important to know the limits of your camera. Basically if it is to dark in the viewfinder you are screwed.

Whenever you go above the base ISO (I beleve for the GH3 this is 200) you are aplifying the signal and you do loose detail and increase noise. For factual/docs its always a comprimise and that is why I am trying to get to know the camea well.
 
Last edited:
@funkytwig The GH3 gives very good video ISO performance considering the sensor size - but do consider the sensor size. :)

The C300 is over 24mm wide, the GH3 over 17mm and the highest performing lowlight cameras (1D X/1D C, D4, D3s, etc.) are all full-frame. Note that it is not just the sensor size, however: the 1D X has noticeably superior lowlight performance compared to the 5DMkIII and the D4 greatly outperforms the D800.

As far as fast glass, the promo video you mention made significant use of lenses faster than f/1.6 (including the shots at f/0.95). Given the type of material you are trying to capture, I would definitely look into some f/0.95 lenses: Voigtlander, SLRMagic and Mitakon all offer them for M43.
 
Per Lichtman said:
@funkytwig I went ahead and posted Seb Farges comparison video link in that thread too, so you can see a couple f/0.95 or faster lenses.
Click to expand...


I would say having f/ 0.95 lenses opens an amazing world. Even 1.4 lenses. Since the GH3 sensor is smaller you need fast glass. I have Hyper primes and love them. The GH3 is no C300, I would say to look into F /2.0 lenses or faster.

peace
 
My favorite lesnes for the GH3 are the Zuiko 12mm, 45mm and 75mm and the Lumix 20mm.
They're not as fast as my Zeiss and L primes for our Canons because of the half sensor size but they deliver great low light performance...and all four have terrific detail and contrast.
We have a couple of Oly 12-50mm for outdoor, daylight, run and gun zooms that are sharp and versatile for remote and fast changing work but that's all I'd use zooms for on the GH3.
Indoors and night time it's all fast primes.
 
While the GH3 sensor is smaller remember it is still larger than many other cameras. Having shot on 1 chip and 2 chip cameras for a long time I love the GH3. Heck many professional broadcast cameras have smaller sensors, even 16mm film which many movies were shot on has a smaller sensor than the GH3.

So while yes the sensor is smaller than say S35mm and of course Full Frame it is still a very amazing tool that should never limit your creativity. If you cannot have any electrical lights, then use battery powered. Couple that with the right time of day and Fast lenses and you can achieve a blockbuster motion picture with this camera.
 
Also keep in mind no movies are shot on full frame so M4/3 is not that much smaller than S35mm. So in terms of comparing to Hollywood films low light M4/3 actually isn't as bad. Yes A S35mm sized sensor is bigger but not as big as full frame.

The OP should look into the Lumix 25mm f1.4 lens. Great sharp lens that is two stops faster than f2.8. That means the same sensitivity at ISO 400 as the f2.8 lens at ISO 1600. The full manual f0.95 primes will be another stop faster or the same brightness at ISO 200. Huge difference in noise there. The full manual lenses tend to be a bit soft but many love that about them. If you want a nice crisp picture go with the 25mm f1.4. Fastest M4/3 lens you can get without going full manual.
 
For someone who really didn't plan on working with the 4/3 system, I've mentioned recently how enamored I've become of it.
One reason is that we produce so much work in challenging conditions.
Now I'm really warming to the GH3 and grabbing them more and more.
Yesterday for instance we had to film at a high elevation mountain lake and falls.
We were able to bring two cameras systems, lenses, carbon fibre tripods, jibs, up the mountain without breaking a sweat - and shoot in variable frame rates.

I don't find the sensor size a limitation for creative work but I do miss the lowlight capabilities and plan for that with every shoot.
What I'm most impressed with, as we continue work to get the best color and tone from the sensor, is the detail.

Last night I had some footage shot with the Z 45mm sitting in FCPX beside C300 footage and the GH3 was as or more detailed to my eye.
Like I said, the GH3 doesn't have the tone of the "C" sensor (I'm starting to get first grade looks with FilmConvert that's showing real promise) but with great glass, I don't think anyone would pick one over the other in terms of detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top