How many money I need to buy a camera with those characteristics?

[Dan Wake]

Hi, how many money I need to buy a camera with those characteristics?

An effective internal stabilization; very very clean high iso up to 24000 and possibly more, flat profile and good for color.

Compatibility with cheap but good zoom lenses

 

thx

[herein2020]

2 hours ago, Dan Wake said:

Hi, how many money I need to buy a camera with those characteristics?

An effective internal stabilization; very very clean high iso up to 24000 and possibly more, flat profile and good for color.

Compatibility with cheap but good zoom lenses

 

thx

Your question is so vague it is hard to know where to start. I think any modern mirrorless will meet your needs, the ISO requirement though eliminates most of the entry level and even midrange cameras. I would have to guess  you are in the $3K USD range to get that kind of ISO performance. Are you sure you even need that kind of ISO performance? I've never shot a single image or frame of video at anything over  6400 ISO and I've been shooting video and photography for going on 10yrs. At some point you need light or you need to accept that there will be a ton of noise. 

 

You are better off getting a cheaper body and spending the money on faster lenses vs. thinking you can shoot in the dark by just cranking the ISO.

[noone]

4K? HD ok?  Lower?

If full HD is enough a used A7s will give you the low light but you would need an A7s ii for IBIS and 4k in camera though Sony IBIS is not as good as others. 

Also, while I do not have an issue with Sony colour, some do.

There are some stabilized lenses for Sony too..

Canon ME20F-SH would be even better but only 2mp and probably way too expensive.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, Dan Wake said:

An effective internal stabilization; very very clean high iso up to 24000 and possibly more, flat profile and good for color.

24,000 ISO is kinda getting ridiculous for most purposes, what do you need it for? Why not just use T0.95 lenses then you could get a Panasonic G9/GH5 for sub US$1K?

[noone]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

24,000 ISO is kinda getting ridiculous for most purposes, what do you need it for? Why not just use T0.95 lenses then you could get a Panasonic G9/GH5 for sub US$1K?

Not the OP of course but sometimes you might want deeper DOF or faster shutter speeds and sometimes you might need super high ISOs AND fast lenses.

25600 is quite common for me.

[aaa123jc]

At first I was like A7S2 would be great, but then I saw it had to be good for color, so...😅

Canon C100 actually fits a lot of the requirements. It has flat profile, good color, very good high iso performance and has a lot of cheap but capable zoom. The problems are, it doesn't have internal stabilization and the form factor may not be suitable for you. 

It depends on which features are the more important. Sometimes we can't just have it all. 

 

[Dan Wake]

On 8/17/2020 at 5:32 AM, IronFilm said:

24,000 ISO is kinda getting ridiculous for most purposes, what do you need it for? Why not just use T0.95 lenses then you could get a Panasonic G9/GH5 for sub US$1K?

Because I need to use zoom lenses during night. Those lenses are tipically dark like f5

[Dan Wake]

Does exist a super 35mm /apsc camera that have very good low light iso (similar to sony a7s2) and good internal stabilization? Thx

[noone]

22 hours ago, Dan Wake said:

Does exist a super 35mm /apsc camera that have very good low light iso (similar to sony a7s2) and good internal stabilization? Thx

In a word, NO.

There ARE a lot of APSC cameras now that are much better than they used to be.

What zooms are you going to be using?    Why the need for f5, dof?    2.8 would bring a lot more cameras into play (meaning you might only need a usable 12800 or so).

In a pinch how about a Sony APSC camera with a fast prime used as zoom (clearzoom).     Not perfect but it works ok.

[Dan Wake]

2 hours ago, noone said:

In a word, NO.

There ARE a lot of APSC cameras now that are much better than they used to be.

What zooms are you going to be using?    Why the need for f5, dof?    2.8 would bring a lot more cameras into play (meaning you might only need a usable 12800 or so).

In a pinch how about a Sony APSC camera with a fast prime used as zoom (clearzoom).     Not perfect but it works ok.

Hi thx for help. I need f5.6 because I needs to use zoom lenses as for example 28 - 300mm. 
For the majority of the shots I just needs to get closer to the subject from the distance with a tele (that’s why apsc). And the quality must be very good during bad lit places during night.

I need it for documentaries
 

[UncleBobsPhotography]

14 minutes ago, Dan Wake said:

Hi thx for help. I need f5.6 because I needs to use zoom lenses as for example 28 - 300mm. 
For the majority of the shots I just needs to get closer to the subject from the distance with a tele (that’s why apsc). And the quality must be very good during bad lit places during night.

I need it for documentaries
 

You need to prioritize. You can't have everything. It seems like your understanding of cameras is not that great, and in that case I would put off investing too much in cameras until you understand what you actually need. If you really need to get close to a subject while it's pitch dark, you should get a lens with a shorter zoom range and larger aperture. Learning how to use noise reduction properly is also much more affordable than quadrupling your ISO performance.

An all-in-one 1" camera and putting the rest of your budget into sound equipment might be good. This is not at all what you asked for, but it might serve you well.

[PannySVHS]

You can buy the Lumix S5 and be happy about its astonishing video quality and great codecs. Too bad I bought the S1 instead eight months ago. Seems like the S5 is the best you can get for your money.  An awesome deal! We will see September the 2nd, as Andrew stated. S1 owners will be a bit grumpy that day.:)

[aaa123jc]

1 hour ago, Dan Wake said:

Hi thx for help. I need f5.6 because I needs to use zoom lenses as for example 28 - 300mm. 
For the majority of the shots I just needs to get closer to the subject from the distance with a tele (that’s why apsc). And the quality must be very good during bad lit places during night.

I need it for documentaries
 

May I ask what kind of documentary are you filming? Are you filming wildlife?

Usually, superzoom lenses like 28-300mm already has stabilization on the lens. But they are in general not fast enough for shooting at night. You will need a bigger zoom lens or a tele prime. They are not cheap though, but depends on your work may be worthwhile to invest in. 

As for high iso performance, I believe a Sony A6600 is not that far behind A7S2, if not just as good or better. Still, no matter how good at high iso the camera is, there is a limit. High iso performance simply can't replace better lighting or faster lens. 

[noone]

1 hour ago, aaa123jc said:

May I ask what kind of documentary are you filming? Are you filming wildlife?

Usually, superzoom lenses like 28-300mm already has stabilization on the lens. But they are in general not fast enough for shooting at night. You will need a bigger zoom lens or a tele prime. They are not cheap though, but depends on your work may be worthwhile to invest in. 

As for high iso performance, I believe a Sony A6600 is not that far behind A7S2, if not just as good or better. Still, no matter how good at high iso the camera is, there is a limit. High iso performance simply can't replace better lighting or faster lens. 

I think the A6600 would match it with the A7s ii until ISO 1600 but at ISO 25600 (24000 for the OP?), well the FF camera has almost 2 stops more DR then.

Mind you, an A6600 and a 2.8 lens would be about the same as the FF camera with a 5.6 lens but if you stick the 5.6 lens on APSC I do not think there are any that would be great right now.

Good  APSC camera with a lens like the Sigma 50-100 1.8 (75-150 FF angle of view)? 

Sigma 120-300 2.8?    Expensive but you can not have it all.

Maybe M43 and stick to no more than 12800 with a four thirds (not m43) Olympus 35-100 f2 zoom (70-200) though it is much better for AF on the EM1 and latest Em5 bodies only (not sure about video).    Very expensive again though.

[aaa123jc]

6 hours ago, noone said:

I think the A6600 would match it with the A7s ii until ISO 1600 but at ISO 25600 (24000 for the OP?), well the FF camera has almost 2 stops more DR then.

Mind you, an A6600 and a 2.8 lens would be about the same as the FF camera with a 5.6 lens but if you stick the 5.6 lens on APSC I do not think there are any that would be great right now.

Good  APSC camera with a lens like the Sigma 50-100 1.8 (75-150 FF angle of view)? 

Sigma 120-300 2.8?    Expensive but you can not have it all.

Maybe M43 and stick to no more than 12800 with a four thirds (not m43) Olympus 35-100 f2 zoom (70-200) though it is much better for AF on the EM1 and latest Em5 bodies only (not sure about video).    Very expensive again though.

I personally had not used the A6600 but heard some friends saying it is pretty good.

My personal experience with an A6500 is that the high iso performance (in terms of how clean the footage is) is not too far behind from the A7S2, which I owned at that time. I think may be the noise reduction algorithm has improved. But then again, I never shot at over 12800 ISO. Anything higher, especially at low night situation, is not acceptable for me even on the A7S2. 

But I agree a full frame camera always wins over an apsc camera from the same era in low light, just like an apsc will win over a M43 camera. 

[IronFilm]

On 8/19/2020 at 9:08 AM, Dan Wake said:

Because I need to use zoom lenses during night. Those lenses are tipically dark like f5

What are you filming? Could you use telephoto primes?
Can you go tripod/monpod instead of handheld? 
Remember if you go with MFT, you'll get extra reach! Easier to find affordable very long zooms then which are f2.8
 

10 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

You need to prioritize. You can't have everything. It seems like your understanding of cameras is not that great, and in that case I would put off investing too much in cameras until you understand what you actually need. If you really need to get close to a subject while it's pitch dark, you should get a lens with a shorter zoom range and larger aperture. Learning how to use noise reduction properly is also much more affordable than quadrupling your ISO performance.

An all-in-one 1" camera and putting the rest of your budget into sound equipment might be good. This is not at all what you asked for, but it might serve you well.

Agreed. (and not just because you mentioned sound)