SOT: Sony NEX-VG30EH; low light performance?

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 2/17/2013, 4:29 PM

Hi,

Would be nice to hear if someone has got this cam (or the NTSC equivalent VG30H)? I'm especially curious about your low light experience using the included zoom lens? How good is it compared to some other HD cams in this price category with similar but fixed optics? The APS-C sized sensor is many times more sensitive than 1/3 ich sensors because its bigger size, but some stops are lost due to the zoom lens f/3.5-6.3 aperture. Is the overall SNR during low light circumstances excellent, or just good? Any other user comments are also welcome :)

Cheers,

Christian

Comments

Rory Cooper wrote on 2/18/2013, 1:51 AM

What I understand is that the only difference between VG 30 and VG 20 is the zoom rocker

I have a VG 20, what I find with the 18-200 zoom lens is it is good for outdoor stuff I wasn’t keen on it at first but finally am getting a better feel for it. This lens for low light situations is not good at all even if you set the cam up you will get an image that looks like it’s been attacked by digital mites. So it’s not the cam but the lens not built for low light.
Also that lens has to be locked down at 18 for panning any zoom gives you bad judder.

I compared my VG10 with NX70 side by side for run and gun NX70 was better but that’s because of the lens the NX70 lens is perfect for run and gun stuff.

I love the VG20 it’s a good cam.

VG20 with a good prime lens in low light is amazing with a hyperprime stunning .
http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/10/28/video-interview-slr-magic-lenses-for-m43-sony-e-mount-and-leica-m/

farss wrote on 2/18/2013, 4:19 AM

Today I swapped out much the same zoom for a f1.2 prime on a FS700.
As the numbers would suggest the prime blows the cheap zoom out of the water especially in low to very low light.

There's another factor though. The 50mm prime at f1.2 has an insanely shallow DOF. No doubt it could be great for stills but for anything that was moving I'd have very serious doubts.
Mostly people who are forrced to shoot in low light are shooting events and will be looking at longer focal lengths and that would mean the DOF issue is even bigger. On the other hand this zoom is down to f6.3 at max focal length and that's a lot of wasted light.

Bob.

Laurence wrote on 2/18/2013, 9:17 AM

I just shot a dimly lit restaurant ad this past weekend. Like all my videos, it is really low budget, so all I used for extra lighting was a couple of Z96s on some stands that I moved around. I had quite a few shots where I really couldn't use that shallow depth of field, so my regular large f-stop prime solution wouldn't work and there ended up being quite a bit of noise in some of the shots. All I can say is thank God for Neat Video NR!

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 2/18/2013, 9:21 AM

Thanks Bob and Roy for your good and informative comments. I had today the opportunity to make at brief test in a local shop. Took my HDR-SR12 with me for comparison. Here is a link to the YouTube clip:

The only processing I did in Vegas was to squeeze the two videos to half height and place them on top of each other (using track movement).

NEX-VG30EH is a very nice cam but I still wonder if it is the best option in this price range (cam+lens combined) for low light performance... Hunting continues :)

Cheers,

Christian

Laurence wrote on 2/18/2013, 9:24 AM

>Also that lens has to be locked down at 18 for panning any zoom gives you bad judder.

Try keyframing in a little blur on the axis of the movement. That does wonders for the judder you get with pans with fast shutter speeds.

farss wrote on 2/18/2013, 2:27 PM

"I still wonder if it is the best option in this price range (cam+lens combined) for low light performance"

What you need to tell us is what you want to shoot in low light.
Also as Laurence rightly hints at, it doesn't cost much in either money or conveniece to add some light these days.

Bob.

Laurence wrote on 2/18/2013, 2:46 PM

I have two Z96s that fit in the side pocket of a cheap tripod case that houses two light stands. One case, two lights, all of about eight pounds! With a large sensor NEX or other camera these days, that is often all the extra light you need. Remember, you're not lighting the scene, your just adding a little light to the faces within the scene.

A small battery powered Z96 (or competitor) light set and a couple of inexpensive 1.8ish primes, and you can shoot great video with minimal setup or fuss.

larry-peter wrote on 2/18/2013, 3:11 PM

I think the large-format itself is something to consider before the particular camera. As much as I love my AF100, I think it's very easy to paint yourself into a corner in low-light situations with any of the larger format imagers if you are relying on available light.

I found that with most of my low-light situations, the shallow DOF I got from fast primes was not what I wanted or needed for the shot and the stock zoom (14-140 f4-5.8) was just wasting light, as Bob said. If you don't have the ability to light the shots, the larger format becomes a balancing act between getting an exposure and an appropriate look.

The one bright spot I found with the AF100 imager, and I would bet the NEX would best it, is that you can shoot at a higher ISO than you think you can get away with if you get a decent exposure in-camera. I shot in an auditorium - ISO1000 with a marginal exposure and the hope I could bring the levels up a bit in post... UGLY! When I shot in the same location again I shot some tests at ISO2000 and got a decent exposure, thought they would be terribly noisy, but turned out surprisingly good. Usable, at least.

But as Bob said, knowing what you plan to shoot in low light is key to your decision. If it's shoots where you have control as a videographer and occasionally have to deal with low-light, the larger format may work for you. If it's event-type coverage, I would probably recommend a 1/3-2/3" camera overall.