C100: recent low-light wedding

[Tim Bakland]

Hi, All,

In case you're interested in seeing more from this new camera, here is a recent wedding (short montage) with very low-light. (Even some of the exteriors -- such as the whole family pose) was short with almost no light on 50mm f/1.2). The interior ceremony was VERY dim. Goes to show how well the camera does in low light.

Only thing NOT the C100 is the timelapse and the spinning ornament (XF cams).

David & Melinda {a Winter Solstice Wedding} on Vimeo

[Monday Isa]

Looks good. Would be nice to view it as a 1080P size though to see the better quality. I've enjoyed using my C100 for 3 weddings so far and just recently had a lowlight reception event where you could see the C100 shine. Thanks for sharing.

[Darren Levine]

looks lovely, what was the average iso used?

[Tim Bakland]

Thank you! In these particular shots, I didn't have the iso above 850 in the interiors -- and outside, 320-640 or so.

But in other shots (not in this montage), during the reception I experimented with turning off my LED litepanels fill light and cranked up the iso to about 1600 and I was very impressed. As others hav said, it only resulted in softening, not graininess.

[Peter Chaney]

Everything looks good I can't wait to shoot a wedding with my C100. 1 question I have is during the best man speech I heard a hissing was that audio connected to a external recorder or into the camera?

[Tim Bakland]

Wow, Peter, pretty discerning pick-up on that audio.

Yes, there is a very slight hiss. But no worries. It was what the DJ gave me (to an external recorder, totally separate from the C100).

[Mark Watson]

Nicely done. I found the overall color tone/look to be very pleasing. I'm guessing you went with 30P?

[Tim Bakland]

Thank you, Mark. Yes, 30p.

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Tim Bakland

Thank you! In these particular shots, I didn't have the iso above 850 in the interiors -- and outside, 320-640 or so.

Thanks for posting this. It raises a couple of questions for me, if that's ok ?

1) What XF cameras do you use? 100 or 300? How would you compare the footage in terms of noise and sharpness to your XF?

2) Where would you need to be for ISO (at say f4) on the C100 to be comparable to the XF 6db gain?

3) Do you have a DSLR (e.g. a 5D2 / 5D3) and if so, are the ISO ratings comparable. e.g. exposure from one to the other? Just so I get an idea.

4) Have you tried pushing the codec in post? The XF 4:2:2 codec stands up well to lots of pushing and pulling around, how does the C100 codec hold up in comparison?

[Tim Bakland]

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

Thanks for posting this. It raises a couple of questions for me, if that's ok ?

1) What XF cameras do you use? 100 or 300? How would you compare the footage in terms of noise and sharpness to your XF?

2) Where would you need to be for ISO (at say f4) on the C100 to be comparable to the XF 6db gain?

3) Do you have a DSLR (e.g. a 5D2 / 5D3) and if so, are the ISO ratings comparable. e.g. exposure from one to the other? Just so I get an idea.

4) Have you tried pushing the codec in post? The XF 4:2:2 codec stands up well to lots of pushing and pulling around, how does the C100 codec hold up in comparison?

Hi, David, Great questions. Actually too soon for me to answer all of them just yet (just got it and am just getting to know it).

I have the XF300 and 100. This blows them away in low light situations. In ideal conditions, this camera has lots of the qualities of the XF300 (great color, sharp image) with noticeably better dynamic range and the ability to create shallower DOF shots. Have noticed hardly any moiré at all, perhaps less than the XF300, though it tends to do the jagged pattern on certain red edges.

In a situation where I was using 6db of gain in the XF, I'd be using 850-1200 iso in the C100 (I believe, again, very new to this camera). I'm one who's always avoided gain and high ISO -- perhaps too much. I read somewhere that the C100 is actually at its best with the ISO up a bit (640? 850?) -- so I'll have to be watching for that.

I only have a t3i. This blows that away -- from the dynamic range (goodbye to blown out highlights and splotchy blacks in the same image), and goodbye to mucky looking background details. Goodbye to random noise on patterned/even solid color objects in your image.

Drawbacks? Although the LCD is better image quality/easier to focus than, say, the t3i, it is more difficult to get it in a convenient viewing position. Sometimes, the record is slow to start. Need to check to see whether it's faster when not on dual-slot record. No intervalometer. No 5X zoom? (I think). That was very convenient on a t3i when you had a 24mm lens on and you needed a quick close detail.

As I write this, I realize that I should post a recent engagement story/video of a couple I did this past week. The interview footage and the footage of the woman when she's wearing a RED shirt is all done on the C100. The autumnal footage (woman with BLUE shirt) was shot a month ago with my t3i and a couple obviously clearer-than-t3i shots done with the XF300. But anything in the recent shots (woman in RED) is done with the C100. Probably a good video for comparison. I should have posted this a few days ago:

shot with a 50mm f/1.2 lens (interviews). And some shots walking around with the 17-55 IS USM:

Vimeo

[Nigel Barker]

850 is the native ISO for the C100/C300 & you will get maximum dynamic range using this setting. Use the NDs to get correct exposure.

[Peter Chaney]

Yeah I watch videos with headphones and I picked up on it pretty quick.

Originally Posted by Tim Bakland

Wow, Peter, pretty discerning pick-up on that audio.

Yes, there is a very slight hiss. But no worries. It was what the DJ gave me (to an external recorder, totally separate from the C100).