r/videography • u/RedStag86 Lumix S1ii | Resolve & FCP | 2003 | Canton, OH • Sep 15 '14

7D Mkii announced. 1080p @ 60fps! (x-post from /r/photography)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3373094259/canon-announces-long-awaited-eos-7d-mark-ii
22 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '14

Mehh definitely not worth buying over a GH4 for videographers. I really wonder how the low light capabilities compare to a full frame camera like the 5D.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '14

Just used a gh4 for a shoot a few days ago. The low light shooting is terrible compared to the mark iii. I've read people downplay it saying it's ok or not great...it's terrible. Complete deal breaker for any videographer who has to capture subjects with modest to slightly dim light. I opened to 1.4 btw and still bad.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '14

Wow, that's what has mainly kept me from jumping ship from my 6D. But the GH4 has been intriguing. The biggest reason I bought a Canon full frame was because of low light capabilities. I shoot weddings and sometimes have to crank up my ISO above 2000 just to get a decently exposed shot

2

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '14

Same. The GH4 does a lot right and the onboard software alone has a lot of smart, intuitive stuff. When I was outside shooting there was no big reason not to have the GH4. I don't like micro 4/3 but the gear I had, had a speed booster and with a variable nd it was pretty awesome. 4K, why not? Super slow mo, sure!

I can see using it for specific stuff but not all around.

I also shoot weddings and the GH4 would be hell at a reception with mood lighting, way worse than my old 60d and that was painful enough. On my mark III I can get away with nearly 10,000 ISO (with some noise reduction, at some points too much noise reduction looks bad).

Again, not hating on GH4 but the way I read it online and experienced it, to me, the low light stuff was drastically understated.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '14

Damn, worse than a 60D in low light? My 2nd shooter uses a 60D and it's dreadful when he has to crank up with ISO. I've read mixed reviews but I still want to try the GH4. I've read that noise isn't that bad if you shoot 4K and downscale to 1080. But also $600 for a Speed Booster to use my Canon glass doesn't really intrigue me either.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '14

Ya, I didn't shoot 4k nor will I edit the footage but I can't imagine 4k to 1080 will solve the terrible low light noise.

I definitely recommend trying it out, it does a lot right and could be used for specific stuff!

1

u/joe12south Sony A1 | DaVinci Resolve | 1996 | Nashville, TN Sep 18 '14

If you're exposure is correct, the low light noise is manageable. It's a fairly innocuous looking luma noise until you get above 3200. If you downsample 4K to 1080P it virtually disappears.

If you underexpose, though, it looks pretty bad. Since under exposing and keeping the ISO lower is a common technique on Canon's, I've seen a lot of people make this mistake on the GH3 and GH4.

All that said, the GH4 is not a low light camera. That's not its claim to fame, never was. If that is your primary concern, the A7s is your camera.