split screen low light GH1 - 5D test

J

john deaver

Well-known member
hey folks

I've been looking around and i just haven't found someone who has put these two side by side and done some same scene/same situation low light test. I have seen plenty of great creative stuff from both cameras but i really feel like that just shows off the skill of the DP, and no doubt there are some very talented shooters here.

I suspect the 5D will be better in low light but how much better? a little? a lot?

enough to fork over the extra money?

I shoot mostly weddings where i have no control over the lighting and its all run and gun. but i also shoot with a hmc-150 and thats pushing me toward the gh1

has anyone seen any footage that might illustrate the difference in low light?

thanks
John deaver
 
john deaver said:
hey folks

I've been looking around and i just haven't found someone who has put these two side by side and done some same scene/same situation low light test. I have seen plenty of great creative stuff from both cameras but i really feel like that just shows off the skill of the DP, and no doubt there are some very talented shooters here.

I suspect the 5D will be better in low light but how much better? a little? a lot?

enough to fork over the extra money?

I shoot mostly weddings where i have no control over the lighting and its all run and gun. but i also shoot with a hmc-150 and thats pushing me toward the gh1

has anyone seen any footage that might illustrate the difference in low light?

thanks
John deaver
Click to expand...

I have not seen any side by side comparison, however there has been a long discussion about what appears to be a fixed pattern noise (banding) issue in underexposed video starting at:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174654&page=11

and going for 60+ posts or so.

I have a GH1 and it has this "feature" if I underexpose. The banding is most visible at iso1600+ but is present even down to the low isos as well.

The kit lens is also a bit slow for indoors (f4) so you would want a fast lens to go with the GH1.

Don't get me wrong I really like the GH1, and thus far highly recommend it. But this is something to make sure you are ok with and can work around in low light situations where underexposing is possible.

Good luck in your decision!
 
There is underexposure and then there is 'low light'. They're not the same. I have shot low light scenes with the GH1 at ISO 800 & even 1600 without visible banding. In fact I maximised my exposure to compensate for the low light... Why would you want to underexpose in low light? That doesn't make sense unless you want to end up with a black screen.

As far as I understand, banding works like this: If you put the shutter at 1/30 and the F stop wide open you are doing the best thing to avoid banding in low light. Of course all cameras have their limits but these depend just as much on how fast the lens is as how good the sensor is in low light. The GH1's noise levels are much lower than most other cameras. It's a big sensor.

The fact remains - if you haven't got a strong enough signal being read out of the CMOS sensor from light coming into the camera, you will get more noise. The noise appears in a fixed pattern on the GH1. This causes the banding. But remember:

- If your scene is dark, banding doesn't tend to show up on black.
- If your scene is bright and you close down the light getting into the sensor (high shutter, closed down aperture) you are MUCH more likely to see the noise because it'll appear over light coloured areas of the scene, i.e. a restaurant menu.

I believe the bad banding people have seen occurs mostly when underexposing on the camera by increasing the shutter speed (which should never be done frankly) because the electronic shutter in video mode decreases the strength of the signal running through the CMOS sensor in order to speed up the output of frames.

Banding is more of an issue in bright light when underexposing, even at ISO 100: if the sensor has to decrease the light hitting the sensor artificially with the electronic shutter the banding pattern takes over instead of light. It's much better to darken the scene in your editing software afterwards.

Yes the GH1 has it's foibles when it comes to image quality, but like mud before it banding doesn't have to be an issue if you know how to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
commanderspike said:
There is underexposure and then there is 'low light'. They're not the same. I have shot low light scenes with the GH1 at ISO 800 & even 1600 without visible banding. In fact I maximised my exposure to compensate for the low light... Why would you want to underexpose in low light? That doesn't make sense unless you want to end up with a black screen.

As far as I understand, banding works like this: If you put the shutter at 1/30 and the F stop wide open you are doing the best thing to avoid banding in low light. Of course all cameras have their limits but these depend just as much on how fast the lens is as how good the sensor is in low light. The GH1's noise levels are much lower than most other cameras. It's a big sensor.

The fact remains - if you haven't got a strong enough signal being read out of the CMOS sensor from light coming into the camera, you will get more noise. The noise appears in a fixed pattern on the GH1. This causes the banding. But remember:

- If your scene is dark, banding doesn't tend to show up on black.
- If your scene is bright and you close down the light getting into the sensor (high shutter, closed down aperture) you are MUCH more likely to see the noise because it'll appear over light coloured areas of the scene, i.e. a restaurant menu.

I believe the bad banding people have seen occurs mostly when underexposing on the camera by increasing the shutter speed (which should never be done frankly) because the electronic shutter in video mode decreases the strength of the signal running through the CMOS sensor in order to speed up the output of frames.

Banding is more of an issue in bright light when underexposing, even at ISO 100: if the sensor has to decrease the light hitting the sensor artificially with the electronic shutter the banding pattern takes over instead of light. It's much better to darken the scene in your editing software afterwards.

Yes the GH1 has it's foibles when it comes to image quality, but like mud before it banding doesn't have to be an issue if you know how to avoid it.
Click to expand...

GREAT explanation. Even a noob like me could understand it. Thanks so much!
 
thanks for the input guys

i know about the banding issues and the effects of underexposing.

unfortunately for most of my jobs at receptions i have the choice between coming home with dark underexposed video or no video at all.

after you have turned the gain up to your limit, opened up the iris all the way, and and are using an on-camera light and it's still to dark what ya gunna do. so i get what i can to make my client happy (and they are happy)


so if underexposed video is my norm and thats what i must deal with then is the gh1 going to be a dramatic improvment (with faster glass) than my HMC-150 or do i need to go to the canon to see a dramatic improvment.

for me its all economics. more, better, video means less time editing and means more money in my pocket.
if the gh1 will do that for me a $1500 plus better glass great.
or do i need to step up to the 5D to get better low light performance.

i'm not looking to compare apples to oranges,
but decide between apples and oranges.

thanks in advance.
john
 
To help in your choice of fruit consider this from a narrative filmmaker's point of view, ie; following actors that move about and keeping them in focus. When shooting with 35mm movie cameras it's common to keep the aperture around T2.8 - 4.0 on 'normal' FOV, 28mm to let the focus puller have a chance of not screw up to often (even the most experienced ones do occasionally). This DOF corresponds quite well with GH1 25mm at f/2.8 - 4.0, it's a tad deeper as the GH1 sensor is a bit smaller than the negative size of 35mm motion frame.

Now to compare the DOF one gets with movie cameras / GH1 at aperture 2.8 on 5DmkII with 'normal' FOV you use a 50mm and stop it down to f/8.0, that's a whole 3 steps loss of light. Open up the 5DmkII 50mm to f/2.8 and at a distance of 6 feet you have 3 inches of focus. That's a very slim margin to use in motion. To do it in rehearsable and repeatable circumstances with actors is rather hard, I'd expect lots of lots of retakes. To do it in a non-repeatable documentary situation I'd say it can be a nightmare. Clients have a tendency to react more strongly to blurry faces than noise on background walls.

It's is interesting from a still photography point of view to compare the cameras FOV at same aperture / ISO but not really for filmmaking purposes. I've yet to see this type of low light test between the two. Later in summer I'll see if I can rustle up a 5D and do it myself unless somebody beats me to the punch.

You can check my first clip for one low light example done at 720p
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175134

commanderspike has a nice one from a Taiwan market done at 1080p
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174543

I'm not trying to dissuade you from getting a 5D over a GH1, it's just one thing more that has to be considered. Another is that with HMC150 you already have a AVCHD workflow going I guess, with 5D you have to add dealing with it's h.264 files which aren't so editing friendly either.
 
Closing time looks very good Martti

so give me an idea of how dark was this

there are lots of lights from the shops and whatnot. My hmc150 would do well close up and near a shop window but the two girls outside (at 2:47) looks more like what i wold expect at a reception.

our worst nightmare is a candle light reception.


I am leaning to the Gh1 for all of the reasons stated. shallow DOF without being unmanageable, AVCHD, 1080 and 720, 24p, cost, articulated LCD, unlimited rec time.

my only hesitation is the low light performance, because if its not much better than my HMC150 (and it's very good for a 1/3 inch camera) then i should just by another 150.

so i guess really i would just like something to reference the low light capabilities of the camera that is objective. like candle light at 3 feet onto subject 2 feet away in otherwise dark room with canon 28mm at F2.0

I'm not asking anyone to go out of their way but I'm always afraid of the Your Results my vary thing. and don't want to waste money.

Heck if anyone in the Birmingham Alabama area is willing to do some testing like this and has a camera we can get together and put it up against my HMC 150 and post the results here.
Seams like the HMC150 is just as much competition for the GH1 as the 5D is

Any takers
john
 
With fast glass the GH1 is a huge step up, but the 5D just goes that extra bit further due to having a larger sensor. The 5D is pretty amazing. But the GH1 with good glass is also pretty good in low light.
 
john deaver said:
Closing time looks very good Martti

so give me an idea of how dark was this
Click to expand...

Thanks! The rain clouds rolled on and covered like a wet wool blankett after the initial shot of the high rise so there was virtually zero ambience light from the sky. I actually went home when the rain started.

there are lots of lights from the shops and whatnot. My hmc150 would do well close up and near a shop window but the two girls outside (at 2:47) looks more like what i wold expect at a reception.
Click to expand...
Only light there was a street light 5 meters back and 6 meters up and then the light in the doorway you glimpse behind them. The streetlight is dirty and old, still needs to be cleaned and replaced in fact. I could hardly see the girls faces with my naked eye when I walked up to them until I was close. I actually expected the EVF to be totally black. I had to push up gamma a bit in CC for it to read better but it was doable.

our worst nightmare is a candle light reception
Click to expand...

Ouch! Barry Lyndon comes to mind, some scenes lit with like 500 candles and a specially made 0.9 lens. For that I would get this baby then

http://voigtlander.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7s8jbr.html

and boxes and boxes of extra candles. Let me recommend a trip to Ikea :)

Just to be clear, for this kind of low light situations the kit lens will not cut it. You will have to get an adapter and get faster lenses. I opted for Canon FDs as they were the most available second hand ones around here. I'm lusting for this one as a base zoom but it's pricey:

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1334

Again you will get more light out of a 5DmkII but focusing will be hard. From my experience (as a guest mind) speakers at wedding tables usually wave and turn around a lot. People sitting down is easier I suppose. I'd really try to get hold of both and test before buying.
 
Barry Lyndon... it took a F0.7 lens made for NASA to be adapted to shoot acceptably under candle light.

After "tinkering with different combinations of lenses and film stock," the production got hold of three "super-fast 50mm" f/0.70 lenses "developed by Zeiss for use by NASA in the Apollo moon landings,"

Now we can probably do the same with a F1.2 on a 5D at ISO 3200 without much noise. The GH1 is more acceptable at ISO 800 than it's maximum (1600) but is still pretty handy in low light with the Canon FD F1.4 50mm I just got for 50 quid :) Not made by NASA but it'll do me.

Manual focus is hard in low light at the best of times especially with shallow DOF so I'd say, for stuff moving even an inch backwards or forwards it's gonna be difficult to keep focus.

The continuous AF of the kit lens works wonders here because you can track objects automatically and the camera even memorises certain objects in the scene.

It's just a shame there isn't a Panasonic HD video lens faster than F4... yet....
 
Last edited:
One thing lost on most about Barry Lyndon is the use of ISO100 film. Take that into account and the sharpness of todays 1.4 lenses and you can get just as much out of todays tech.
 
Oh that's true. I think it's just that we have that NASA inspired lens to thank for the same capability today in many other lens.
 
The major thing lost on Barry Lyndon is the insane amount of candles used off camera to get the light levels up since Kubrick refused to add any electric lights, he was stubborn in that way. The heat in the studio was crazy and the smog from all that burning wax was enough that the entire team wore masks - actors were not so lucky.
Take that into account, candles are not really good for photographic lighting of anything but face close-ups :)

However all digital DSLRs do cope way better with candle light scenery than 1970s film stock. It was a tongue-in-check reference, I thought the Ikea suggestion gave it away...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top