Could Someone Give me Advice on Best Camera Setup for Low-Light Filmmaking?

[besossenorita]

Hello there,

I am new to the EOSHD community and looking for some guidance on selecting the best camera setup for low light filmmaking. I have been doing some research and am particularly interested in how differen;t cameras handle low light conditions. I know that a lot of factors come into play; such as sensor size; ISO performance; and lens options; but I am a bit overwhelmed with the choices available.

To give you a bit of context; I mainly shoot narrative films and short documentaries where low light performance is crucial, especially during nighttime scenes and indoor shoots without sufficient lighting. I am considering cameras like the Canon EOS R5 and the Panasonic Lumix S1H; but I am open to other recommendations. Additionally; I am curious about the impact of lens selection on l;ow light performance do faster lenses like f/1.4 or f/1.8 significantly improve results?🤔

I would love to hear your experiences with different cameras and setups. What have you found to be the most effective in terms of image quality; noise reduction; and overall performance in challenging lighting conditions? Any specific models or combinations of camera bodies and lenses you would recommend?🤔

Also, I have gone through this post; https://www.eoshd.com/creative-filmmaking/tips-for-clean-iso-6400-and-12800-on-the-gh2-and-5d-blue-prism-ii/ which definitely helped me out a lot.

Also; if you have any tips or tricks for optimizing camera settings for low-light situations that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your help and assistance.😇

[Benjamin Hilton]

What's price bracket are you trying to stay in? If you could afford it the Sony FX6 is my favorite camera for doc work. Great overall image and camera handling, but also amazing low light capability. If that's too pricy the FX3 or A7Siii are also great options, similar image just in a DSLR body. The only major image difference between those and the FX6 is the inability to turn off the noise reduction which can be kind of a pain if that bothers you. 

 

Really most full frame cameras these days though can handle basic low light no problem, especially when paired with F1.8 lenses. 

[bjohn]

I kind of think you should turn your question around: if you're shooting narrative films and short documentaries, you should be focusing on learning about lighting and buying the gear that will help you adequately light your scenes, rather than looking for a camera that can handle poor lighting conditions. People constantly focus their budget and attention on cameras and ignore lighting, which is backwards. Lighting is 95% of what makes an image "cinematic." Any camera can look good with good lighting.

Nowadays even a single "run and gun" operator can use portable lights; you don't need a crew, C-stands, etc. If I had to do it over again I'd spend 2 years learning how to do lighting before I even started thinking about which camera to get.

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

To reiterate what the others said above, an FX3 is a good place to start for low light and you should still bring some lights.  You could start with a set of Aputure MC's (or any of the dozens of similar/less expensive third party ones) and fill in more lights as you find the limitations of that setup.  A few cheap collapsible reflectors can also work wonders.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

Really most full frame cameras these days though can handle basic low light no problem, especially when paired with F1.8 lenses. 

This, plus:

2 hours ago, bjohn said:

Nowadays even a single "run and gun" operator can use portable lights; you don't need a crew, C-stands, etc. If I had to do it over again I'd spend 2 years learning how to do lighting before I even started thinking about which camera to get.

Plus:

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

To reiterate what the others said above, an FX3 is a good place to start for low light and you should still bring some lights.  You could start with a set of Aputure MC's (or any of the dozens of similar/less expensive third party ones) and fill in more lights as you find the limitations of that setup.  A few cheap collapsible reflectors can also work wonders.

Or my pick which would be a used Lumix S5ii for approx $€£ 1500

There’s a range of quality f1.8 primes and some very tasty but slightly pricey zooms.

Or there are some excellent f2 primes from Sigma and some equally as excellent, but cheaper zooms.

I’d probably consider the latest 28-45mm f1.8 as a 3x prime zoom set up in a single unit, ie, 28, 35 and ‘nearly 50’.

That would set you back another 1.5k and it’s so new, no used options yet.

Total running budget, 3k so as long as that focal length is both wide and long enough, add in some of todays cheap but excellent lighting and you are good to go.

Some audio also obviously, but all in without going crazy, 3.5-4k max?

[Benjamin Hilton]

2 hours ago, bjohn said:

I kind of think you should turn your question around: if you're shooting narrative films and short documentaries, you should be focusing on learning about lighting and buying the gear that will help you adequately light your scenes, rather than looking for a camera that can handle poor lighting conditions. People constantly focus their budget and attention on cameras and ignore lighting, which is backwards. Lighting is 95% of what makes an image "cinematic." Any camera can look good with good lighting.

Nowadays even a single "run and gun" operator can use portable lights; you don't need a crew, C-stands, etc. If I had to do it over again I'd spend 2 years learning how to do lighting before I even started thinking about which camera to get.

 

This is true to a certain extent, but in doc work low light ability still can be very important. I've had to shoot a lot of stuff that happened so fast or spontaneously, or was outright just too dangerous to be lit. The nice part about having a camera that can do low light is it enables you to work with your setups quicker.

[herein2020]

I agree 100% with @bjohn your first question should be how much are you willing to learn about lighting, your second should be how much ambient light is typically available to you, and your last should be how much lighting are you able/willing to bring with you. 

Once you have truly learned how to maximize both available/ambient lighting as well as how to optimize your supplemental lighting then figure out what camera meets your workflow needs while delivering the image quality you are looking for. 

You need amazingly little supplemental lighting with modern cameras at ISO 3200 - ISO 4000 when filming only a few individuals which is where many current dual native ISO cameras tend to set their second native ISO. I have managed to adequately fill light up to 5 people at night with nothing more than optimizing my ambient light and two Falcon F7 panel lights.

One thing I keep alluding to here is ambient light. Yes even at night there can be plenty of ambient light if you know how to use it. A streetlight, window sign, digital billboard, lit candles, even oncoming car headlights can all be used to help light your scene at night. I like to use ambient light for back or side lighting whenever possible then a small panel light for front fill and as a key light for good white balance/skin tones at night.

At the end of the day all cameras need light, cranking the ISO as high as it will go trying to turn night into day is a newbie approach which just reduces contrast, washes out colors, and can make any camera you buy look worse than cell phone footage no matter how clean YouTubers will tell you a camera is at high ISO.

When you have mastered or at least optimized your supplemental/ambient lighting approach then and only then would I start looking at the camera side. A few generic non vendor specific features that I would look for is:

• What glass options are available for that ecosystem when it comes to fast lenses?
• How much do lenses in the F1.4-F2.8 range cost for that ecosystem and do they offer IS if you shoot mainly handheld like I do.
• Do camera bodies in that ecosystem offer dual native ISO and if so what are they set at? I have found ISO 3200-4000 to be a very useful second native ISO option for low light.

I keep mentioning ecosystem here, as I have said many times before, the actual camera body is probably the least important part of the equation, since any modern camera body will produce excellent image quality under the right circumstances. The camera's ecosystem (accessories, ergonomics, lens selections, cage selections, etc.) are what will ultimately determine if it complements your creativity or infringes on it.

[Benjamin Hilton]

3 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I agree 100% with @bjohn your first question should be how much are you willing to learn about lighting, your second should be how much ambient light is typically available to you, and your last should be how much lighting are you able/willing to bring with you. 

Once you have truly learned how to maximize both available/ambient lighting as well as how to optimize your supplemental lighting then figure out what camera meets your workflow needs while delivering the image quality you are looking for. 

You need amazingly little supplemental lighting with modern cameras at ISO 3200 - ISO 4000 when filming only a few individuals which is where many current dual native ISO cameras tend to set their second native ISO. I have managed to adequately fill light up to 5 people at night with nothing more than optimizing my ambient light and two Falcon F7 panel lights.

One thing I keep alluding to here is ambient light. Yes even at night there can be plenty of ambient light if you know how to use it. A streetlight, window sign, digital billboard, lit candles, even oncoming car headlights can all be used to help light your scene at night. I like to use ambient light for back or side lighting whenever possible then a small panel light for front fill and as a key light for good white balance/skin tones at night.

At the end of the day all cameras need light, cranking the ISO as high as it will go trying to turn night into day is a newbie approach which just reduces contrast, washes out colors, and can make any camera you buy look worse than cell phone footage no matter how clean YouTubers will tell you a camera is at high ISO.

When you have mastered or at least optimized your supplemental/ambient lighting approach then and only then would I start looking at the camera side. A few generic non vendor specific features that I would look for is:

• What glass options are available for that ecosystem when it comes to fast lenses?
• How much do lenses in the F1.4-F2.8 range cost for that ecosystem and do they offer IS if you shoot mainly handheld like I do.
• Do camera bodies in that ecosystem offer dual native ISO and if so what are they set at? I have found ISO 3200-4000 to be a very useful second native ISO option for low light.

I keep mentioning ecosystem here, as I have said many times before, the actual camera body is probably the least important part of the equation, since any modern camera body will produce excellent image quality under the right circumstances. The camera's ecosystem (accessories, ergonomics, lens selections, cage selections, etc.) are what will ultimately determine if it complements your creativity or infringes on it.

Are you talking about real doc work? Or narrative stuff. Because in my experience in the doc world, lighting has to be very selective. Of course I'm lighting interviews, and anything I can. But in the world of fast moving subjects and spur of the moment things happening, it is so incredibly handy to have a camera I can crank up the ISO and get a decent image when the character is only lit by the light on the stove, or the dash lights in their car, or the stars in the desert. 

I totally get it that knowing how to light is much more important than having high ISO, but that doesn't negate how important it can be for doc work. I guess this all totally depends on the use case though.

[bjohn]

Although on-camera lighting is never the best option, sometimes it's the only one and I'd consider it for run-and-gun documentary.

Matthew Heineman's documentary, Cartel Land, which won an award at Sundance, was shot on a Canon C300, which does do well low light but has probably been far surpassed by newer cameras; they mostly used ambient lighting but did use a small lighting kit for interviews. I remember some scenes that were lit by flashlights.

"Heineman: The majority of the film is run-and-gun verité, so we didn’t use lights. We only lit our main interviews, but in a way to keep the image as natural as possible. Since we had to keep ourselves small and mobile, our entire lighting package consisted of a Litepanels 1×1, Flexfill and small pieces of diffusion. We worked a lot with natural light and materials we found on location to help control/augment the lighting we had. Since we were shooting in Canon Log, we had a lot of information to work with. The Litepanels 1×1 gave us just enough additional punch for what we needed."

https://filmmakermagazine.com/93097-directorcinematographer-matthew-heineman-on-shooting-sundance-award-winning-doc-cartel-land/

[Andrew Reid]

Between the R5 and S1H, the Panasonic is the better choice for low light.

I also rate the Nikon Z6 quite highly for the price, and the good old A7 III.

At higher end of budget then the Sony a7s III and Fuji X-H2S come to mind.

 

[IronFilm]

What's your total budget? As a secondhand Panasonic GH5S (an older MFT camera, but damn good low light for its time! Note: this is a totally different sensor to the GH5! Don't mix them up) with a full set of f0.95 primes plus a couple of COB lights, couple of 1x1 panels, and a few LED tubes with of course all the stands/modifiers you wish, will cost a similar amount as a new Sony FX3 with a couple of zoom lens and nothing else. 

Yet that GH5S package will out perform by a large margin the FX3 when you're filming narrative shoots outdoors at night. 

 

On 7/27/2024 at 2:30 AM, Benjamin Hilton said:

Really most full frame cameras these days though can handle basic low light no problem, especially when paired with F1.8 lenses. 

As can most modern Super 35mm / APS-C cameras! Even good MFT cameras (GH5S / GH7 / P4K / E2-M4) can handle these tasks with ease. 

On 7/27/2024 at 5:32 AM, herein2020 said:

I agree 100% with @bjohn your first question should be how much are you willing to learn about lighting, your second should be how much ambient light is typically available to you, and your last should be how much lighting are you able/willing to bring with you. 

Once you have truly learned how to maximize both available/ambient lighting as well as how to optimize your supplemental lighting then figure out what camera meets your workflow needs while delivering the image quality you are looking for. 

You need amazingly little supplemental lighting with modern cameras at ISO 3200 - ISO 4000 when filming only a few individuals which is where many current dual native ISO cameras tend to set their second native ISO. I have managed to adequately fill light up to 5 people at night with nothing more than optimizing my ambient light and two Falcon F7 panel lights.

One thing I keep alluding to here is ambient light. Yes even at night there can be plenty of ambient light if you know how to use it. A streetlight, window sign, digital billboard, lit candles, even oncoming car headlights can all be used to help light your scene at night. I like to use ambient light for back or side lighting whenever possible then a small panel light for front fill and as a key light for good white balance/skin tones at night.

At the end of the day all cameras need light, cranking the ISO as high as it will go trying to turn night into day is a newbie approach which just reduces contrast, washes out colors, and can make any camera you buy look worse than cell phone footage no matter how clean YouTubers will tell you a camera is at high ISO.

Even if your particular location you're using doesn't have any ambient light (or only a very small amount of it), you can still have the possibility of this ambient light existing to drive the motivation of your "artificial" lighting. Could there be a street lamp out of frame that's throwing light onto your subjects? Yes, so place a light there to emulate it. 

Your scene will look a lot better because of it when done right. 

[BTM_Pix]

Can I just suggest an informal guideline for threads like this that are started by new members?

To save everyone wasting their time and effort adding additional suggestions, if the thread starter doesn’t reply to the first one to at least acknowledge it then hold back until they do.

We have had so many of these threads in the past couple of years where the original thread starter either doesn’t come back at all or comes back with some spam links.

Forums such as this are being used for AI training by using innocent looking requests for help so don’t be surprised if you ask ChatGPT for advice about low light image making and seeing your own words coming back at you in the reply.

If the original thread starter is genuinely looking for advice for this then please stop being rude and at least acknowledge the people who are going out of their way and trying to help you here and sharing their knowledge.

 

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

To save everyone wasting their time and effort adding additional suggestions, if the thread starter doesn’t reply to the first one to at least acknowledge it then hold back until they do.

We have had so many of these threads in the past couple of years where the original thread starter either doesn’t come back at all or comes back with some spam links.

^ THIS ^

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

If the original thread starter is genuinely looking for advice for this then please stop being rude and at least acknowledge the people who are going out of their way and trying to help you here and sharing their knowledge.

^ AND THIS ^

[eatstoomuchjam]

In that case, one of the greatest cameras ever made for low-light photography was the Kodak K-24 aerial reconnaissance camera which was used by the US in WW2.  Its "Aero Ektar" 178mm f/2.5 lens was ideal for low-light photography with the films that existed at the time.

You're welcome, robot.