Low light video

Messages
10,765
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the kit forum or the video one - but this is busier ;)

I need to do some low light video work (nightclubs etc). What's the best low light video capable DSLR style camera I can get for less than about £500 - second hand would be perfect. I'd FAR prefer a Nikon since I have lots of Nikon bits but if the M43 are great then I don't mind shooting 2 systems. 1080p is fine. 720 is not :( 4K would probably be overkill.

I was running a D800 with eBay bargain lite panel and it's not too bad on tight shots but suffers at distance.
 
I can only comment on the D7000 since that's what I have. You won't get new for under £500 (although I think they've been fully replaced by the 7100 now anyway).

High ISOs are pretty good on it though, all things considered. I shot some stuff in a dark warehouse using only a high powered torch for lighting during a motorcycle tour a while back and it was relatively noise free (I wasn't even using a particularly fast lens).

The 7000 will shoot 1080p, but only at 24 frames/second (I like to use 25 since I work in telly and that's what I'm used to, so I tend to stick with the 720 option).

Obviously if you can afford to get a fast lens on the front of whatever you buy that's going to help the most, but fast prime lenses may or may not be an option for your style of shooting. the 7000 for example is DX, and my fastest lens is a 50mm f1.4. The field of view on that is obviously very restricted, but my 35mm (which only loses half a stop (f1.8)) is quite workable, but again it really depends on your style of shooting as to whether you'd find a similar setup any use. I'm sure you know that all but the highest end zoom lenses lose more stops the further you zoom, which is when the higher iso's, and thus associated noise, comes into play. However video can be hard work without zoom lenses, even more so in the confined space of a nightclub I would have thought.

Anyway, this is neither a recommendation nor a review - Just what I find with what I have. Hope it helps.
 
If you are prepared to use 2 systems anyway, would you not be better buying a video camera?

The Panasonic HC-X920 is a little over budget, but could probably be bought cheaper `grey`?
 
If you are prepared to use 2 systems anyway, would you not be better buying a video camera?

The Panasonic HC-X920 is a little over budget, but could probably be bought cheaper `grey`?

Main reason is that I kind of understand DSLRs and although video is a bit out of my comfort zone I can pretty much figure them out in the dark. Video cameras not so much...

The 7000 will shoot 1080p, but only at 24 frames/second (I like to use 25 since I work in telly and that's what I'm used to, so I tend to stick with the 720 option).

Just what I find with what I have. Hope it helps.

Thanks :) Can you explain the 25/24 fps thing to me in simple terms? Every time I see a discussion on this all hell seems to break out :) As an average consumer would I generally spot the difference between 24 and 25 fps?
 
There are three generally accepted "standard" frame rates. 25 Frames per second (or 50 interlaced fields), which is really derived from television systems in primarily the UK and Europe. 29.97 frames (or 59.94 interlaced fields) (often incorrectly referred to as 30 frames per second) which derives from the NTSC television system used primarily in the Americas and Japan (originally 30 frames per second before the advent of colour television - it was changed to 29.97 for scientific reasons too long and boring to explain here), and 24 frames per second which is derived from (professional) film. Domestic cinefilm formats would often run at 8, 12 or 16fps, but that's just a sidenote.

In the very early days of television, frame rates were based upon the mains electricity frequency of the country which is how they originated, and became the standard even after advances in technology meant the mains frequency ceased to matter.

In this digital age, frame rates are less important than they used to be. If you play a file on VLC for example, it doesn't matter whether the frame rate is 25, 250 or 2.5. It's just a number, and the software will play it back at whatever rate the file says it's supposed to be. The benefit of using a lower frame rate is that your files will be slightly smaller, but ultimately if your productions will be all your own footage, and you're playing them back on computers then shoot in whatever rate you like.

However, if you plan on using material from other sources as well, you should try and have all the frame rates matching. For example, the iphone shoots by default in 29.97fps. If you shoot all your stuff in 25 then either the 29.97 stuff will need to be transcoded to 25 or vice versa. The crap editing packages like Movie Maker will do all this for you, but the transcoding will be equally crap. To get 29.97 to 25, it simply drops frames so motion will be jerky, especially on fast moving shots.

Professional packages such as Avid, Premier or Lightworks will not transcode (although often there are workarounds for importing 24fps footage into 25fps projects - it will simply play the footage 1/25th faster which is pretty much impercievable). They won't transcode because decent transcoding requires decent code and a lot of processing as entire frames will be reconstructed using information from the previous and subsequent frames. That you pay for, and would choose a package specifically designed for that application.

To summarise though, shoot whatever frame rate most of your footage will be.

I would also suggest that if you ever plan on putting it on DVD (which will ultimately output in 25fps, unless the DVD player is set to playout in 29.97), then try and stick to 25fps too, as again, it means there will be no conversion of frame rates anywhere along the production chain.
 
Excellent - thanks. So if I've understood, consistency it far more important than the actual number? But 25 is probably the best number for me to aim for.
 
In the very early days of television, frame rates were based upon the mains electricity frequency of the country which is how they originated, and became the standard even after advances in technology meant the mains frequency ceased to matter.

Technology hasn't yet advanced far enough for it not to matter. If you shoot under mains lighting at a rate different to that of the lighting, the brightness level fluctuates. It's quite obvious when you see it and almost impossible to fix.

Only very expensive, high frequency lighting has shown itself to be immune.
 
Technology hasn't yet advanced far enough for it not to matter. If you shoot under mains lighting at a rate different to that of the lighting, the brightness level fluctuates. It's quite obvious when you see it and almost impossible to fix.

Only very expensive, high frequency lighting has shown itself to be immune.
For incandescent and flourescent mains powered lighting - yes, that is a different story. I was just referring to the television technology itself.

Excellent - thanks. So if I've understood, consistency it far more important than the actual number? But 25 is probably the best number for me to aim for.

Yes - consistency is more the key. The end result will look and play better if it was all shot at the same frame rate... (and aspect ratio as well, obviously!). What you choose to be consistent AT is up to you. But as I say, personally, I stick to 25 (since it has the added advantage that if I need to do anything funny with it it's easier to use at work!). You're working in clubs though, so will you be cutting it with clubbers 29.97 cameraphone footage? something to consider...
 
You're working in clubs though, so will you be cutting it with clubbers 29.97 cameraphone footage? something to consider...

Hopefully not. I really can't face watching hours of cameraphone footage to find anything useful :)
 
Hopefully not. I really can't face watching hours of cameraphone footage to find anything useful :)
Indeed, certain things seem way more interesting and entertaining when you're drunk/not quite on the planet, than they are when reviewed in the cold, sobering light of day!..

Good luck with your project... Oh, and have fun with the audio in that loud environment... I reckon the frame rate of your pictures is going to be the LEAST of your concerns!! :)
 
I wear these.

http://www.howardleight.com/earplugs/laser-lite

ETA: oh recording audio? I get a mix from the DJ and sync to that. Not messing about with ambient ;)
Good man. TV's about pictures. Sound is for radio eh?!..

Check back in when you've made a decision on your kit and done your job. I've never shot anything in that kind of environment (video or photo) - I'd be interested to hear how it went.
 
Back
Top