Low light

[noone]

2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

@noone Tell you what, without a patronizing tone, of course!:) S1 in 4K at 25600 pushed by two stops downscaled to HD might look better. Will test that with my 50mm FD 1.4 these when I´m back home. Unless someone else is faster.:)

I sort of hope it does.     The A7s is a 2014 camera so there SHOULD be better now but it will do me for what I do (mostly low light stills shooting and live music video from time to time).

This light was very very low (a low wattage shaded downlight a room and a half away from over my left shoulder with a wall in the way and a LOT dimmer than it appears).     

I would like to see something in 4k from the A7s ii (or to have a 4k external recorder for my A7s) compared to various cameras.

[deezid]

Here's some seriously underexposed S1H 4K DCI ALL-I footage (original and denoised/graded) at ISO51200.
To me it looks better than ISO4000 on the GH5 which I used in my debut feature film in a night scene. I'm quite impressed with the latest firmware update 2.0.
I think when exposed properly I can easily push it one stop further in grading to get usable ISO102400

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zbdx7sq9yymT12_7ddr2v0uXFy2h8T24?usp=sharing

[IronFilm]

On 6/2/2020 at 8:53 PM, Snowfun said:

Is the A7Sii still the best choice for low light

I'd choose a Panasonic GH5S if I had to select a mirrorless camera for a project with a need for extreme lowlight shots

Or a Panasonic S1H (although this camera is priced at the extreme end for a mirrorless camera!).

Edit: just read you're using this for filming the aurora borealis (my great uncle Leiv Harang established the research into this phenomenon!), thus DoF considerations make no practical impact on you when you're set to infinity. So ignore my GH5S comment as irrelevant for your specific purposes. 

[jgharding]

The S1H basically has nightvision. V2 firmware removes the Vlog ghosting issues if you set NR to -1

Very very good night camera...

[kye]

19 hours ago, deezid said:

It bypasses NR externally? That's good.
The A73 sadly does not. Ghosting is almost as bad as the S1H was before the update.

I was going to say that the reviews I saw of the a73 said it had as good low light performance as the a7s2, but I guess if you're going external then they're not equivalent.

[Snowfun]

The S1H with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 is beginning to look like the optimum combination for what I want. I note that Hawk-Woods do a dtap-dummy battery so power isn’t an issue. 

Might wait until October to purchase just in case Sony announce something special in the interim...
 

[Geoff_L]

Bought my s1 last year, with real time auroras filming in mind. I added the sigma dg dn 14-24 2.8 art, and will later try a sigma art 20 1.4.
I only used it for photograph the northern lights, not video yet.

I wanted a good video and still camera, and with this type of video in mind, it was a7iii or S1. Back then, I read on some reviews that the s1 was better.

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I was going to say that the reviews I saw of the a73 said it had as good low light performance as the a7s2, but I guess if you're going external then they're not equivalent.

Both internal and external on the A7s2 are better than the A73. NR is just way heavier.

[FranciscoB]

22 hours ago, noone said:

I sort of hope it does.     The A7s is a 2014 camera so there SHOULD be better now but it will do me for what I do (mostly low light stills shooting and live music video from time to time).

This light was very very low (a low wattage shaded downlight a room and a half away from over my left shoulder with a wall in the way and a LOT dimmer than it appears).     

I would like to see something in 4k from the A7s ii (or to have a 4k external recorder for my A7s) compared to various cameras.

I have some clips of an a7s ii in super high isos. I can send some clips to you.

The problem with the a7s ii in crazy high iso is the compression and of course noise. You can get good results but your image starts to go soft.

[noone]

38 minutes ago, FranciscoB said:

I have some clips of an a7s ii in super high isos. I can send some clips to you.

The problem with the a7s ii in crazy high iso is the compression and of course noise. You can get good results but your image starts to go soft.

What I mean is I would like to see them side by side with similar from other cameras (same time and place and conditions)..

I still think that the A7s cameras are right up there for ISOs above 25600 but the OP will probably be better off with a newer camera like the Panasonic FF now for his use.

I use crazy high ISOs fairly often for stills with my A7s (first version) and it is just fine.  

I would prefer auto ISO could be set at intermediate levels as I would then probably have something like ISO 80000 as my top instead of 102400 but even 102400 is ok and i have had normal shots in newspapers at those sort of ISOs (IE nothing particularly special like Elvis partying with bigfoot).    In a pinch I am happy to go with in between 102400 and 204800 if I HAVE to.

A7s has greater DR at ISO 25600 than some cameras I have had at ISO 800.

MOST pub and club gigs with the little video i shoot does not need to go quite so high but i often like to use my Canon 17mm TS-E at night and I use it just as I do in the day time (IE stopped down when shifted) which requires sometimes very high ISOs and it is as i like it.     Rarely, I would also shoot sports at night and use higher ISOs  with my old MF 300 2.8 in order to get a usable shutter speed

[FranciscoB]

Sure.

I'm curious as well how the new competition is gaining on the a7s ii.

[Emanuel]

On 6/2/2020 at 9:53 AM, Snowfun said:

Is the A7Sii still the best choice for low light - I’m thinking iso 25k - or are there alternatives?

I’ve seen impressive footage from the C200 (Matthew Allard on Mzed & Bloom) but difficult to say it’s as good as the Sony. Is there anything else to compete? 

Presumably, expectations are that the A7Siii will also excel at low light but when...

 

On 6/4/2020 at 1:09 AM, FranciscoB said:

Sure.

I'm curious as well how the new competition is gaining on the a7s ii.

 

This is pretty much everything I need, even though, P4K or GH5s as you wish fills the cup (no need looking for any new extra capture device to arrive there):

 

Abraço Francisco! (E :- )

 

 

 

[Emanuel]

PS: The same applies for the previous a7s series generation(s)... ;- )

[noone]

10 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

 

 

This is pretty much everything I need, even though, P4K or GH5s as you wish fills the cup (no need looking for any new extra capture device to arrive there):

 

Abraço Francisco! (E :- )

 

 

 

Looks ok but never got above ISO 8000 (and even then only once I think) and most was at ISO 6400 and below.

Is there anything available in lower light than that (or in that sort of light with slower lenses)?

[Emanuel]

I never go above ISO 3200 on my P4K with two stops of difference in-between, go figure! :- D

[noone]

11 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I never go above ISO 3200 on my P4K with two stops of difference in-between, go figure! :- D

If you never go above ISO 3200 (or even ISO 6400 and rarely 8000), an A7s (1,11 or 111) is not needed by anyone I would think (unless you want it for some specific feature) but that isn't really what I would call "low light" camera performance (maybe unless you use slower lenses in that sort of light).

That is not to say the R5 (and R6) are NOT any good in what I would call low light....that is what I want to see.

[Emanuel]

Well, there's a difference between low light and no light... ; ) Nothing we can't handle with fast glass and modern sensors, even going along a small size such as MFT is : )

I've handled live music concerts very well, though, I don't feel need much else further.

I am a nocturnal shooter anyway. Ten years ago I was already taking the smaller format factor of a GH1 on behalf of my 5DII, even for stills any time. Night shots.

Good fast glass is your friend and makes the whole trick. Without mention a slower shutter speed option route when needed but that's also because fits the shooting style of my bill.

 

Different strokes for different folks. Marketing is a bit slow to catch me yet :- D

[noone]

21 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Well, there's a difference between low light and no light... ; ) Nothing we can't handle with fast glass and modern sensors, even going along a small size such as MFT is : )

I've handled live music concerts very well, though, I don't feel need much else further.

I am a nocturnal shooter anyway. Ten years ago I was already taking the smaller format factor of a GH1 on behalf of my 5DII, even for stills any time. Night shots.

Good fast glass is your friend and makes the whole trick. Without mention a slower shutter speed option route when needed but that's also because fits the shooting style of my bill.

 

Different strokes for different folks. Marketing is a bit slow to catch me yet :- D

Its all good!

MOST concerts i have photographed I could have done with ANY camera made just about.

The difference (for me anyway) is when I am at a really low light one (I would have LOVED my A7s when at a gig in club in Brisbane a few years ago that was lit by shaded table lamps.

I got a Canon 17mm tilt shift lens to use at gigs so i could get a shot of every band member in focus and covered by DOF from right next to the stage and because it is f4 and stopped down sometimes even to f8, when I am in a lower light gig all the other cameras I have used would not be much use.

I used my (now sold) GX7 alongside my A7s at a few gigs and it did ok but only with faster lenses.

I also use the camera and 17 tilt shift for walk around at night and for things like light shows and light projections (that can need faster shutter speeds while still being quite dimly lit).     There is no other lens i could use for that (Nikon 19 PCE maybe excepted) and not many cameras i would want to use it on either (have to be FF with decent high ISO).

Also from time to time for low light sports with a faster shutter speed needed.

The projection isn't the best shot (just one I had handy) but is ISO 51200 and at 1/30 and 5.6.     Because the lens is shifted, it would have been better stopped down a bit more and I could not really go below 1/30 because of the speed of the moving projections.

The four photos range from about ISO 2000 to ISO 40000 (this was used by a newspaper when that place closed down...it had a brilliant stage that bands from everywhere loved).    The Kasey Chambers (and band) shot is ISO 25600 and f7.1 to get them all in focus and at a fast enough shutter speed and remember I am very close to the nearest guitarist.

[leslie]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:15 AM, noone said:

I would love to see a comparison between a few of the mentioned cameras against the A7s (both one and 2) at the same time and at various iso levels in low light.

I have no doubt that a few cameras would win a blind test against the A7s pair at 12800 and below now and maybe at 25600 but am not so sure above that and i would still guess above ISO 51200 that things might favour the A7s.

Edit

Video frame grab A7s Canon FD 24 1.4 L at ISO 102400 1/25 at f1.4 just 8 bit (of course) xavc-s at 25p

 

i'll do it tonight with the p4k, but with spray and wipe  😉, was going to shoot the moon anyway. So it shouldn't be much of a deviation

[leslie]

take one ajax bottle, one full moon, one p4k, and one canon fd 50mm ssc f1.4 lens, its the fastest thing i own. Never tried the p4k  by the light of the full moon before. Straight out of camera grabbed three frames from three clips. one shot at 3200, then 12600, and one at 25600. They are ungraded so you can make your own assessment. It was an interesting learning experience. I can't see that i would normally use these iso's , maybe if i was trying to capture the aurora australis or a concert perhaps or some other once in a lifetime opportunity. i guess at that point, something is better than nothing.

the first photo is 12600 the second is 3200 and last is 25600. For some reason they didnt import in order