dantheman Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 1 hour ago, kidzrevil said: Not trying to troll I am honestly trying to figure out what are you guys are shootings that require you to hit 6400 iso on a regular basis ?! When you shoot weddings? I often end up in candlelit only venues where adding light is just not an option, I"m glad if I can shoot at max 1600 iso but often have to go to 3200 iso and in rare cases but it happens to 6400 iso on my gh4. A weddingvenue is not a filmset and you can't treat it like one, couples often choose darker venues for the mood it creates and then they don't want a filmmaker to light up the place because he doesn't want to shoot at high iso. I for one will be happily pushing my gh5 when it arrives into the 1600+ iso region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 1 hour ago, kidzrevil said: if I have to use 800 iso im scared. 1600 iso ? Im having nightmares. 3200 ? Im changing to a fast lens and adjusting the lighting (if I have lighting). If not I pack it up and move to a location with better lighting and finish the shoot. Yup, I'm definitely with you on that as well. I'm just not eager to stretch my ISO that much. I mean 800, a fast lens, and slower shutter will easily expose a face lit by a small campfire. That's pretty dim. And any camera made in the last two years will more or less give you that ability. Scenarios that are darker absolutely exist, but if you have a choice, best to try to avoid such settings. Running 6400 ISO simply because you want to stay at a relatively slow f4 seems silly and wholly counter-productive to me. If you know you're consistently going into the dark, I'd certainly suggest making other gear decisions. Such as just getting a low-light-high-performance camera like an A7s. kidzrevil, noone and Kisaha 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Most of my wedding venues, I'm at iso 1600 usually on f1.8-2. Every now and then I'm up to iso3200. A clean iso 3200 would solve most wedding woes for me, but the GH4 certainly isn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 On 2/15/2017 at 6:36 PM, Simon Shasha said: I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple. Light the scene properly for your equipment. It's a crazy idea, but it might just work. kidzrevil, Simon Shasha and Kisaha 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thpriest Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 I have shot at upto 10,000 iso with the C100 and Sigma 18-35 1.8 at a wedding. Just a few shots but there was no other way of getting material. Having the option of high iso is clearly very useful as many of us don't get to shoot in ideal lighting. I've used the GX85 at 3200 with a Voitlander 25 and slr magic 12mm and whilst not as good as the Canon at same iso it was useable with a bit of Neat video. 6400 on the GX85 is not nice at all! If the GH5 can really pull off a useable 6400 for then I'll really consider buying it. Lightness and ibis make wedding days a whole lot more enjoyable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted April 9, 2017 Author Share Posted April 9, 2017 Interesting night footage: Ken Ross 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisaha Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 I just post to overcome my 666 posts, and move from the demonic side of this forum towards the light (the opposite of high ISO)! I was editing a multi camera project these last days, and a lot of times I was considering giving some more light to specific cameras, in the end I just kept the atmosphere the way it was, because I had a very dark scene, the solution is not 1983754298 ISO because the scene is dark, if there is no light source on my scene, why to try to make it like it is? Now I understand why people are obsessed with high ISO (because they are shooting "night for day"!), and I comprehended why I do not have such problems (because I shoot "night for night"!). Even in real cinematography, you just do not randomly light a scene, you have objective or subjective light sources.. Emanuel and PannySVHS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted April 9, 2017 Author Share Posted April 9, 2017 Ken Ross 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Ross Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 Granted I'm only watching this on an IPhone at the moment, but the colors on the Panasonic were, IMO, so much better. It's one of the reasons I moved away from Sony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arson519 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 the sony had an eerie vibe to it cold night feeling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Yeah the GH5 is tons better looking than the Sony A6500. But both Suck Ass on pans. noone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noone Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, webrunner5 said: Yeah the GH5 is tons better looking than the Sony A6500. But both Suck Ass on pans. Agreed. I would like to know what ISOs were used with each though. Looks to me the Sony was using a bit too low an ISO maybe but that is watching it with my limited laptop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, noone said: Agreed. I would like to know what ISOs were used with each though. Looks to me the Sony was using a bit too low an ISO maybe but that is watching it with my limited laptop. Well I am watching it on my 30" sIPS 2k monitor and the GH5 was wonderful looking, and they Sony looked, well Lifeless. But who knows what settings were used in each. I find it hard to believe the Sony is really that Bad! It says below the video "1600 ISO 1/50 standard picture profile" They both Ought to work at that ISO, especially the A6500! Makes me think the GH5 is maybe the best looking Video camera in the world LoL. The NEW baby Alexa. Hell , maybe the GH5 is the Alexa's Father! noone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, noone said: Agreed. I would like to know what ISOs were used with each though. Looks to me the Sony was using a bit too low an ISO maybe but that is watching it with my limited laptop. Both were at 1600. noone and webrunner5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 All kidding aside, The Gh5 is looking like a camera that is impossible to not buy if you are serious about film making. At least on a budget, and want a small size factor camera. Looking really Damn good. And I bet there is some LuT to make it a bit less Videoish looking. Is it going to look like a BMPCC in Raw, probably not, but I bet it can be made to get sort of close. But in reality I don't think you can really make 4k look less Videoish because the 4k on it has so damn much detail in it. I guess it would defeat the purpose of even Shooting in 4k??? I don't envy Sony right now. They are going to have to make a pretty unbelievable camera to compete with the GH5. They are almost going to have to come up with a bigger body size to compete with the better battery life, cooling that is going to be needed to outdo the GH5, or heck even match it. It will be interesting. We May find out at the end of this month at NAB! Davey, Ken Ross and Hanriverprod 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 If Sony don't implement 4K 60fps then they can forget about denting Panasonic's sales of the GH5. Regardless of everything else - even that which is of more importance for film makers - 4K 60fps is the main selling point for 99% of buyers. webrunner5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Davey said: If Sony don't implement 4K 60fps then they can forget about denting Panasonic's sales of the GH5. Regardless of everything else - even that which is of more importance for film makers - 4K 60fps is the main selling point for 99% of buyers. I would agree completely. But I am interested also because of the 6k Photo Mode. I still take birder pictures, and that would be a hell of a good thing to have for that alone for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deezid Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 The Sony looks kinda messy again, with it's ugly Highlight Aliasing™ introduced in the FS700. Wondering when they will finally fix that... Apart from that, the GH5 wins every other category as well. Interesting that both Cameras were at ISO1600 F4. What does that say about lowlight capabilities when Panasonic ISO 1600 is basically as bright as Sony ISO 3200? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, deezid said: The Sony looks kinda messy again, with it's ugly Highlight Aliasing™ introduced in the FS700. Wondering when they will finally fix that... Apart from that, the GH5 wins every other category as well. Interesting that both Cameras were at ISO1600 F4. What does that say about lowlight capabilities when Panasonic ISO 1600 is basically as bright as Sony ISO 3200? Well to me it doesn't really seem possible that they are that far off. I am no Sony Color Science fan, but I have seen some pretty good night time footage from them. This comparison doesn't really make sense to me. I mean the Sony A6300, A6500 are damn good low light cameras on average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deezid Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said: Well to me it doesn't really seem possible that they are that far off. I am no Sony Color Science fan, but I have seem some pretty good night time footage from them. This comparison doesn't really make sense to me. To me it does. Just watch the AF comparison video from Max Yuryev. The GH5 doesn't do AF very well but smokes the Sony in terms of skintone reproduction, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.