I was disappointed in Bloom's failure to include the Nikon D7000 in the low-light tests. While I wouldn't expect it or any DSLR to seriously compete with the FS100, F3, or C300, the D7000's specs would lead you to expect it to show its best performance on this test. In my experience with the Nikon D5100, I can rely on it to deliver comparable noise and dynamic range at ISO 3200 as the GH2 at ISO 1600.
GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout
- Thread starter Boon
- Start date
I imagine Philip used the 80-200 so he could frame up the various sensors the same within that small room. Doubt he intentionally tried to rile us GH2 guys! The m4/3 defenders may expect the 0.95 Nokton to be used on every camera. Aside from the reframing issue, I'm sure he didn't have the adapters to use the Nokton on everything. As a GH2 shooter, I'm fine with the test and I really appreciate the effort put into it.
Stevet
Veteran
Everyone knows the GH2 in a low light test would not best out the highend cameras that are 8X to 15X the cost! lol
Also, as mentioned here, I believe the lens was a Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 which was used on all the cameras.
Like mentioned here, of course a f/1.4 less would of made the GH2 a lot better in low light, but all of these cameras
used the same lens.
And of course, one would use the fastest lens they own under extreme low light conditions.
I'm not sure why everyone is dismayed on the low light test.
You already know what your camera is capable under all conditions.
Also, the GH2 came out on top of the first test.
If you go back to this test and look at some of the other cameras here, I was surprised in how bad some of these looked.
Philip believed the GH2 camera did well in the first test:
"So interesting results from Part 1. Bang for buck the clear winner was the Gh2 with the Driftwood hack but this is purely on resolution. The F3/ C300 are damn close to each other and the FS100 not far behind. Part 2 moves onto skin tones and low light where the camcorders come into their own. I also take a look at how well each of the internal codecs hold up to colour correction and grading."
Also, as mentioned here, I believe the lens was a Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 which was used on all the cameras.
Like mentioned here, of course a f/1.4 less would of made the GH2 a lot better in low light, but all of these cameras
used the same lens.
And of course, one would use the fastest lens they own under extreme low light conditions.
I'm not sure why everyone is dismayed on the low light test.
You already know what your camera is capable under all conditions.
Also, the GH2 came out on top of the first test.
If you go back to this test and look at some of the other cameras here, I was surprised in how bad some of these looked.
Philip believed the GH2 camera did well in the first test:
"So interesting results from Part 1. Bang for buck the clear winner was the Gh2 with the Driftwood hack but this is purely on resolution. The F3/ C300 are damn close to each other and the FS100 not far behind. Part 2 moves onto skin tones and low light where the camcorders come into their own. I also take a look at how well each of the internal codecs hold up to colour correction and grading."
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The FS100 is $5k, the C300 somewhere under $20k, not even in the same category. I've not seen really nice cars for $5k, but that's hardly the point, if you don't understand the pricing of expensive cameras, they are not for you, or your needs, so move along. The FS100 is a GREAT deal for the cost. The GH2 does not perform as well in low light AND the GH2 has worse rolling shutter. Also, the FS100 can do 1080p60. While the GH2 can do a lot of things, and I think it's a great camera, there are things it cannot do, period. It has it's place just like all other cameras.
With regard to the lens, as someone else mentioned, he used a zoom lens. I can see this for getting the framing the same on the different sensor sizes. At that, F2.8 is pretty fast. Take a look at all the zoom lens. I promise you are not going to find anything in F1.4 or F1.8.
I shoot events at night some time. If I need a wide lens, and at these events I cannot control the lighting, I use the Tokina 11-16mm. AND, it's at F2.8. There is no other option for a lens to give me that focal length and anything faster that I've seen. So in my case, for some of the uses I've used my FS100, this type of test would have been perfect because F2.8 is a common fast zoom.
Everyone's needs are different. I've shot in many scenarios where having great low light performance on the FS100 has really been nice. The whole point of testing lenses with cameras is that you can see what limitations you have. With the FS100 you can use slower lenses and still get very clean images. That's a good thing to know. It just opens up the range of opportunities in how you can use the camera. That's clearly why he is doing multiple tests because (1) people have different needs and different values on those needs and (2) no one camera is typically ever the winner of everything so it is best to just focus on one or two things at once for better comparison.
Once again, I think Phillip has done an outstanding simplistic test.
Finally put to rest the idea that you can go above 1600ISO on this thing with no light...
And I am still not sold on the FS100 not having some sort of denoise going on that scales with dB.
I will say the camera I disliked the most actually looked like an appealing option in this, the F3 with the S-Log straight to the camera. Seriously don't like that thing, but the 6400 ISO image made quite a case indeed.
And I am still not sold on the FS100 not having some sort of denoise going on that scales with dB.
I will say the camera I disliked the most actually looked like an appealing option in this, the F3 with the S-Log straight to the camera. Seriously don't like that thing, but the 6400 ISO image made quite a case indeed.
Sage
Well-known member
This
This is just crazy GH2 fanboy talk. I didn't even realize cameraguys had that much fanboy mentalities but apparently they do... If both lenses are at f2.8 it is an excellent test. And as said before, fastest zoom lenses tend to be f2.8 across the range. And the GH2 is not that great in lowlight, even the Sony VG20 beats it. You really think the GH2 reaches FS100 levels?
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Looks like the "queen of the night - bang for the buck" award goes to the FS100 with my G-LOG profile enabled. :cheesy:
Actually I was surprised - I expected the F3 with S-LOG to outshine the FS100, since the G-LOG is not a real LOG, more a simulation of a LOG curve.
Also the skintone test came out pretty nice.
Nice to see how the clicks on my blog skyrocket, every time Philip uses my profiles.
I would probably make a ton of money, if I would have advertising on my blog :happy:
I think Philip´s test are totally legit.
Showing those differences NOT with the fastest lens on the planet, and under extreme conditions,
gives you a idea what would be the worst situation you can run into. And yeah, using a zoom lens to
compensate for sensor sizes was exactly what I would have done.
Frank
Actually I was surprised - I expected the F3 with S-LOG to outshine the FS100, since the G-LOG is not a real LOG, more a simulation of a LOG curve.
Also the skintone test came out pretty nice.
Nice to see how the clicks on my blog skyrocket, every time Philip uses my profiles.
I would probably make a ton of money, if I would have advertising on my blog :happy:
I think Philip´s test are totally legit.
Showing those differences NOT with the fastest lens on the planet, and under extreme conditions,
gives you a idea what would be the worst situation you can run into. And yeah, using a zoom lens to
compensate for sensor sizes was exactly what I would have done.
Frank
AVCHD itself is a denoiser. And doesn't every camera have denoising going on when the db's go high? Sony EX1 starts blurring the image, old Sony FX1 does it. Don't they all? But the FS100 actually looks great. Only real problem are the highlights on that one. The loggish profile probably helps somewhat.
I kinda find it odd that people are complaining about prices that much. The FS100 is less than the XF300.
The F3 caps at +18dB (or was it 24?) but the FS100 goes to 30. It's the same sensor but with newer processing and a different group made it inside Sony. S-log is also supposed to be graded and the blacks brought down. That would get rid of some of the noise down there. Also 35mbps mpeg2 doesn't work that well with noise compared to the smoother AVCHD encoding.
It's definitely not the zoom lens for the low light test. Looks like a silver ring on the front like the Zeiss he used in the resolution test. Must be a smaller one, probably the 50mm. He also doesn't change focal lengths between the different crops on the cams in the low light test. Just so you all can quit making excuses, the GH2 with a great lens in low light still looks like pucky 
This test pretty well proves out that the FS100, especially with it's native 1080-60p and this incredible low light ability, is looking quite competitive.
Cheers,
Pete
This test pretty well proves out that the FS100, especially with it's native 1080-60p and this incredible low light ability, is looking quite competitive.
Cheers,
Pete
Philip is a smart guy.
He chose the F2.8 ZOOM lens instead of a FAST PRIME
in the low-light test for a reason. He also DIDN't select
a 70-200 F4.0 also for a reason...
The low light test simply shows the
low-light limitation of ANY F2.8 Zoom lens, not the bodies selected.
If you have a F1.2 50mm and 85mm primes, WHY NOT use them
across the board FIRST at F1.2 or F1.4 and F1.8, then show the same lens at 2.8?
and 4.0 if he had an extra second...
That said, the larger sensors generally performed better at F2.8 as expected...
There are tons of F1.4 PRIMES for a reason,
and I find using a F2.8 Zoom for a low-light test
stating the rather obvious limitation of slower lenses, not the bodies.
As he concludes, do your own tests to see what works for you...
Last edited:
I thought he kept the same lens on to isolate the sensor as the variable. To say that, all things being equal, the GH2 is a (relatively) poor low light performer.
I thought that much was obvious though. I'm fine with it's low light performance, and I only have a 20mm 1.7. Even that can shoot in places I would've never dreamed of taking my HMC150. I'd be even happier with a 1.4, or the 25mm 0.95. Looks like the AF100 is a better low light performer than the GH2 as well.
Some of the other cameras were mind blowing though, like the C300 and FS100.
I thought that much was obvious though. I'm fine with it's low light performance, and I only have a 20mm 1.7. Even that can shoot in places I would've never dreamed of taking my HMC150. I'd be even happier with a 1.4, or the 25mm 0.95. Looks like the AF100 is a better low light performer than the GH2 as well.
Some of the other cameras were mind blowing though, like the C300 and FS100.
Now THAT is funny
Everything is relative. there's a world beyond the border, and it's big.
Last edited:
It wouldn't have made a difference which lens he used. the result of the comparison would be the same. the aim was to compare low light capability of each cam, not lenses and not to get the best images.
goodgoings
Well-known member
They all have low light capability, but good ISO capability translates to good low light capability. The test was fine.
He didn't chose a zoom for the low light test. Did you even watch the video? Here's a frame from 19:27 of the low light setup and another from the skin tone test with the big zoom. Clearly not the same lens.
Stevet
Veteran
ISO capabilites.. You can gain up all you want, but if the signal-to-noise is not great, the noise floor will be more apparent.
Larger size sensors will gather more light; therefore offer better noise levels.
This was a good comparison test and before going into this it was a given that the smaller sensors would not fair as well.
Larger size sensors will gather more light; therefore offer better noise levels.
This was a good comparison test and before going into this it was a given that the smaller sensors would not fair as well.