GH4 Suggestions for low light companion for GH4

Lintel

Lintel

Active member
Hey,

I just finished my first shoot with my new GH4 (a promo for a yoga business). The GH4's been superb and I'm really happy with the results, but a few situations were just too dark for it to cope (I was shooting 4K downsampled with a speed booster + fast glass). I was using a BMPCC as a B-cam (yes I'll have fun matching them) which fared better in the dim room, but not by much. I think I need to add another camera to my kit. The problem I have is that I can't bring myself to go for an A7S. No offence to any Sony fans intended, but I just really, really hate the image it produces. I also really don't want to buy a (mirrored) DSLR so that's the D750/5D3 off the table for me.

The best option I can come up with is a C100, but even a used Mk 1 is out of my budget right now. Does anyone have any suggestions for a low-light capable camera? I had a D5300 but I made some tests and it wasn't much better than the GH4 in reality so I sold it.

Thanks in advance ...
 
FS100. Lacks NDs, but you wouldn't use those in low light anyway.

Used F3 is also affordable now... albeit in the C100.1 ballpark.
 
Obvious choice is the Sony A7s, especially if you get a Speed Booster for each camera to enable the use of the same set of lenses. The Sony's full-frame crop factor, however, would make the lenses' field of view twice as wide as the GH4.
 
Jim Simon said:
How fast? Some folks might consider 2.8 fast, but in my line of work, that's a snail.
Click to expand...

It's funny though, I've been ready tons of American Cinematographer articles lately, recent and old, and the majority of cinematographers shooting features seem to aim for f2.8. I rarely have seen faster speeds mentioned except in special circumstances.
 
Lpowell said:
Obvious choice is the Sony A7s, especially if you get a Speed Booster for each camera to enable the use of the same set of lenses. The Sony's full-frame crop factor, however, would make the lenses' field of view twice as wide as the GH4.
Click to expand...

Please read all of my OP. Thanks.
 
Why not just get better lenses. By better I mean going to 1.4 in terms of f stop. With the Speedbooster that would give you a 1.0 and if you can't shoot something at 1.0 you may need to get some lighting...
 
Jim Simon said:
How fast? Some folks might consider 2.8 fast, but in my line of work, that's a snail.
Click to expand...

All my primes and zooms are useably sharp at 2.8 or below (so f2.0 to f1.2 with speed booster). Below that not hitting focus, image issues and/or price all rule faster glass out for me.

Currently I'm thinking a BMPCC-specific speed booster is probably my best option.
 
yslee said:
Given it's a promo video, why aren't you bringing lights?
Click to expand...

I did for most of it but at one point I was shooting during a yoga class where lighting is rather dim (particularly during relaxation when they only had candles) and I couldn't control lighting much. There was an element of having to use available light throughout the whole promo and I see that happening again a fair bit with future work.
 
Last edited:
novoluc said:
Why not just get better lenses. By better I mean going to 1.4 in terms of f stop. With the Speedbooster that would give you a 1.0 and if you can't shoot something at 1.0 you may need to get some lighting...
Click to expand...

My lenses are fine thanks. I have lights - I wasn't always able to use them.

I'm looking for camera suggestions really guys. Thanks.
 
I'm also giving a nod to the FS100, used prices dropping and it shoots 60p unlike the C100 mk1. Former GH4/3/2/1 shooter myself and while I really liked those the FS100 ultimately is more versatile just not great for handheld work without some sort of shoulder rig. I've recently rediscovered the joy of old Canon FD glass which I used on the GH cams but they really shine on the FS100.
 
homerc67 said:
I'm also giving a nod to the FS100, used prices dropping and it shoots 60p unlike the C100 mk1. Former GH4/3/2/1 shooter myself and while I really liked those the FS100 ultimately is more versatile just not great for handheld work without some sort of shoulder rig. I've recently rediscovered the joy of old Canon FD glass which I used on the GH cams but they really shine on the FS100.
Click to expand...

Cool thanks. I'm a big fan of the C100 image though, so I'd probably rather spend a little more and go with that TBH. The C100 matches quite well with the GH4 too IMO. I'm not very familiar with the FS100 image but I usually dislike Sony colours (F35 being the exception!). It's also just a little out of my price range ATM - can't see a compelling reason not to just get an A7S instead TBH. But thanks - I'll have a good look at the FS100.
 
If you can scrounge the dough, I think you'll be really happy with the C100. It's a joy to use and maintains performance at high ISOs, unlike my GH2 which falls off badly past 800iso. Very solid camera that's great in low light.

C100 + a fast prime and you should be golden. Don't be surprised if you start leaving your GH4 on the shelf, unless you need 4K of course.
 
My question is: Why does it have to be mirrorless specifically?
I ask because there simply are not many of these at all anyway.....no choices.

I have a GH2 so I fully understand the less cumbersome shooting methodology and the SILENCE of a mirrorless.
But man, I recently shot on a Canon 6d and it is a GOJILLION times better in low light than M4/3 cameras. Also I could be imagining it, but I swear it's a sharper image than the 5DIII. AND IT'S CHEAP.
On an interior shot not too different from a yoga facility's lights, the 6D was so much better than my well-hacked GH2 that I was gripped with the feeling of wanting to just THROW THE GH2 IN THE TRASH! (Yeah...I got a speedbooter for my FD glass and I chilled out.)

The 6D with Magic Lantern will output a clean HDMI signal to a regular old cheap Ninja too, thus bypassing the internal compression and giving an image that to me was like ten times better in low/practical lighting than the hacked GH2.
 
DPStewart said:
My question is: Why does it have to be mirrorless specifically?
I ask because there simply are not many of these at all anyway.....no choices.

I have a GH2 so I fully understand the less cumbersome shooting methodology and the SILENCE of a mirrorless.
But man, I recently shot on a Canon 6d and it is a GOJILLION times better in low light than M4/3 cameras. Also I could be imagining it, but I swear it's a sharper image than the 5DIII. AND IT'S CHEAP.
On an interior shot not too different from a yoga facility's lights, the 6D was so much better than my well-hacked GH2 that I was gripped with the feeling of wanting to just THROW THE GH2 IN THE TRASH! (Yeah...I got a speedbooter for my FD glass and I chilled out.)

The 6D with Magic Lantern will output a clean HDMI signal to a regular old cheap Ninja too, thus bypassing the internal compression and giving an image that to me was like ten times better in low/practical lighting than the hacked GH2.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, thanks. Canon DSLR's in general haven't really benefitted from HDMI-out. Does the 6D output a full pixel readout via HDMI? If not I don't think I could get past the soft image and moire. Especially next to my GH4. I'd shoot 5D3 RAW if it was practical for work, but it just isn't.
 
Even in "dark" situations, simply shooting one light into the ceiling (dimmed to taste) to raise ambient levels can do wonders. A Lowel light or F&V4000 1x1 LED is a lot cheaper than another camera body and its attendant accessories, if budget is really an issue... and the result will look far better than the washed out, desaturated blech produced by a gained-up anything in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top