I don't know what you mean by banding streams?...but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D
cheers,
pete
GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout
- Thread starter Boon
- Start date
cheers,
pete
bitcrusher
Well-known member
100% agreed, I love the GH2 there is no way.
On the contrary, I think the result is night and day.
davidschmaus
Active member
Man the fs100 Looks really good in the low light test. To me its fs100, f3, c300, 5dii, gh2, 7d
Chris Adler
Veteran
On the blog he said it was a Nikon 80-200mm F2.8
GH2 really fails in low light, but that understandable.
the C300 wasn't a big hit either.
but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D
F3 and F100 are clear winners of the low light test.
Indeed. FS100 KILLED in low-light. C300 was third for sure, and I did figure that head to head the FS100 would beat the C300 in low light. GH2 looks like an amazing cam. Same as the FS100 in low light? I think the images speak for themselves.
Ian-T
Veteran
GH2 really fails in low light, but that understandable.
the C300 wasn't a big hit either.
but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D
F3 and F100 are clear winners of the low light test.
I agree except...I don't think the GH-2 "fails." Like I mentioned on Vimeo I think all of these cameras do better than film in low light. So it's not really a fail. It's just the DSLRs came up short in this particular test. the FS100 has the biggest ang for its buck...in this test. I kind of like that there is no one camera that comes off as the "be all end all of digital cameras." The C300 is not a bad camera....but even here....wasn't the greatest (though it costs the most....I think).
Chris Adler
Veteran
And remember, that test was beyond a stupid situation to ever shoot in. Even if they lit the subject with an iPhone screen it would have been worlds different. They could have opened the door to the crapper even wider and let in some light.
I have a problem with tests like that when they don't mimic reality. How do you draw a conclusion from seeing footage in a situation you should never be in to start with?
I have a problem with tests like that when they don't mimic reality. How do you draw a conclusion from seeing footage in a situation you should never be in to start with?
Apefos Adapter
Well-known member
Just to repeat what i said in vimeo comment:
The money for a FS100 or C300 I could buy a very nice CAR!!! Those cameras are not for me. I would love to shoot with them, but my way to go is to "extract milk from the rocks" as I always did. Nothing personal in my posts, just showing the low budget way of life.
The money for a FS100 or C300 I could buy a very nice CAR!!! Those cameras are not for me. I would love to shoot with them, but my way to go is to "extract milk from the rocks" as I always did. Nothing personal in my posts, just showing the low budget way of life.
I just finished a shoot with a GH2 and a set of G10s in not really low light but low-medium light, and the main thing I noticed was just the sticky noise from the GH2 on flat surfaces. GH2 slightly sharper, colors totally pop, but noise everywhere at ISO 400. I mean, ISO 400. G10 had less aliasing as well. Mixed feelings about the results. It is really only a problem with with large flat areas, like a grand piano, walls, sheer fabric. But how can you complain about the cam when you get that sharpness and great color for that price?
IF he shot the low light test with a F2.8, I conclude he was
INTENTIONALLY TRYING to show smaller sensor cameras
looking WORSE than they could with APPROPRIATE lens choice.
ESPECIALLY when he could have used a Canon 85 1.2 at F1.2 or F1.4
which HE OWNS for the low light comparison.
I would immediately fire any DP if they said-
"hey, I can barely see anything, let's get a F2.8 lens for a closeup shot!",
ESPECIALLY when they OWN a 85 F1.2 in their kit....
I love Philip, but this isn't "right" to me for a low light test- I hope he clarifies
the details and the reasoning IF he really did shoot at F2.8...
Last edited:
My two cameras (AF100 and GH2) both performed amongst the middle to worst in the part 2 test situations. They performed amongst the middle to best in the part 1 test. That's fine, I'm familiar with their limitations and it's nice to know the degrees to which they can be pushed. However, I'm far more likely to shoot 1080p slow motion and landscapes than I am to shoot people in the dark.
I'm not buying anything new any time soon because what I have works very well in every real-world situation for which I've been hired.
I'm not buying anything new any time soon because what I have works very well in every real-world situation for which I've been hired.
davidschmaus
Active member
It doesn't matter if he shoots at 2.8, 1.4, 5.6 . The point was to compare all the cameras in the same crappy low light conditions. I do think that he should of least used a realistic low light situation which clearly this was not.
Then again, if you want to get the same shot with each camera, you'd have to shoot them at different apertures. A fullframe camera has a shallower DOF at the same angle of view, so you have to stop it down to a smaller aperture. This means that you also have to bump up the ISO. You wouldn't be shooting these cameras at the same ISO for the same shot.
What is clearly emerging for me is that while the GH2 has a great overall look, it is just too noisy for my taste. Add some occasional banding and I really feel we are coming up against the size of the chip.
Yes, for low-light work I would choose an FS-100 or F3 if I had the budget to rent them.
Nothing to do with the size of the chip, and everything to do with the sensor and the electronics that back it up.
If the soon to be released GH-3 is no better than the GH-2, then I'll stay with the GH-2 for now.
Cory Braun
Well-known member
Which very nice car can you get for $5,000?
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Apefos Adapter
Well-known member
Here in Brazil I can get a good condition used car for 5000 usd, but as Philip Bloom said on vimeo: a bike is enough for GH2 owners... or as I do: bus and foot.