I recently bought an XF100 for one purpose only: shooting videos of local club bands.
The environment is very difficult: Generally low light, with harsh spot lights in localized areas of the stage.……….an extreme range. Setting up additional lighting is not an option; there is little room in these small crowded clubs and no one wants to take the time anyway.

I have received great help here in a separate thread on adjusting settings for these conditions.
However, the results still aren't what I would like.

I am now shooting at 50Mbps, 1920x1080, 24p, shutter 1/30. Even with max light at F1.8-2.8, gain runs +12 to +24 and I am getting lots of noise. The improved settings have helped and Neat Video works wonders removing the noise (and adds three days to my editing time). However, even after Neat Video processing, the final product still doesn’t really look professional…………still some residual noise, kind of flat looking.

I have considered other cameras like the EX1R, but I am a long time Canon user. I love the feel of the XF camera. Also, I zoom a lot and the solid steady non-jerky XF zoom is a thing of beauty.
So, that leaves the option of stepping up to the XF300. I am considering this because:
(1) I am only shooting in one situation of low light w/localized brightness, where the differences in the two cameras is most pronounced (I think)
(2) I always use a tripod, so that the extra weight/bulk of the XF300 is not a major issue
(3) I think I am close to the professional videos I seek, but I am starting to doubt that I can get there with the XF100.

Even with the XF300, I assume I would still need to use Neat Video to deal with noise. But my hope is that the final product with an XF300 would look more professional.

Questions:
How big of an improvement can I expect with an XF300 in these specific conditions?
Will the three sensors make a big difference?

Michael, I have not used the XF100 other than an in store test, but my view of the XF300 is that it is incredible but low light is not its strong point. If low lighting conditions are a must, you might be better off reseaching which cameras from a pure sensitivity point of view. The EX cameras are more sensitive.

Are you filming in 1080 or 720p? I have found 720p has about a stop more sensitivity than 1080p.

Is HD a requirement? SD cams generally beat the under $12,000 HD cams in light gathering.

Tim,
Yes, I understand the XF cameras are not the best possible candidates for low light conditions. Unfortunately, I am putting boundary conditions on my options. For example, since zooming is a must-have for me, the wonderfully smooth zooming of the XF puts it miles ahead of competitors like the EX1R. And I need a camcorder for ease of use and two XLR connections for an external stereo mic.

So yes, I am tying my own hands. I am just trying to determine how much improvement I can expect if I stay with the XF series and step up. It won't take much improvement to get me there.

You do understand the issue with zooming on the ex1 is only for slow crawls right? You are willing to give up a full stop of exposure and render 3 hours in exchange fo not using a crawl? I thought I would miss it coming from an a1 but I don't.

I agree, you are in a tough position. I share the same opinions about the importance of a responsive zoom servo. The XF300 excels in this area. Not as good as a broadcast lens, but about 85%.

So what do you do? All I have is some suggestions and questions:

Are you being hired to do this work or is it on spec?

Does your camera have to be small, like a handycam? How about a used 2/3" chip camera?

Can you film in 720p with the Canon's for more sensitivity? If not, is the trade off of resolution worth the noise?

Can you wait until the new JVC cameras come to market this fall? They are supposed to have f11 @2000 lux sensitivity. Here is to hoping the Fujinon lens has great servo motor action.

One point is to say if the job is very extreme, then it better be worth is financially to get it done well. If you have to basically get broadcast level 2/3" cameras to get a decent image then you might want to evaluate the situation. (I am guessing that dark concerts probably do not pay very well.)

Some random thoughts, hope it helps.

Hey, I am open to any options. Here are the requirements.
(1) Two XLR connections for an external stereo microphone
(2) Very high quality lens: excellent clarity and absence of chromatic aberration
(3) Excellent slow zoom: smooth, not jerky, with a nice gradual stop. I zoom a lot for musician close-ups, and I find zipping in and out with a fast zoom is disorienting.
(4) Cost in the rough ballpark of the XF300; i.e. $6k ballpark versus $12k ballpark.

I am assuming that in these light conditions, I will find the need to process for noise with Neat Video with any camera in this price range. I would love to be wrong on this.

I didn't find another camera that fits, but I am open to options.

Meanwhile, I would still very much appreciate input on my original question. :)

I agree, you are in a tough position. I share the same opinions about the importance of a responsive zoom servo. The XF300 excels in this area. Not as good as a broadcast lens, but about 85%.

So what do you do? All I have is some suggestions and questions:

Are you being hired to do this work or is it on spec?

Does your camera have to be small, like a handycam? How about a used 2/3" chip camera?

Can you film in 720p with the Canon's for more sensitivity? If not, is the trade off of resolution worth the noise?

Can you wait until the new JVC cameras come to market this fall? They are supposed to have f11 @2000 lux sensitivity. Here is to hoping the Fujinon lens has great servo motor action.

One point is to say if the job is very extreme, then it better be worth is financially to get it done well. If you have to basically get broadcast level 2/3" cameras to get a decent image then you might want to evaluate the situation. (I am guessing that dark concerts probably do not pay very well.)

Some random thoughts, hope it helps.

I was typing a response while you were posting, so I didn't see your post.

(1) This work pays nothing. It is my contribution to the local music scene. The bands are mainly bands of older musicians who have been contributing to the local music scene for decades. None of these bands could pay for the videos. A retirement hobby that keeps me busy.....my time is very cheap. :) I am fortunate enough to be able to set aside a budget for this.....much better than spending it on vacation trips. Once I settle on the right camera for this activity I sure don't plan on buying another one any time soon.
(2) I always use a good Manfrotto head/tripod, so weight/size is not a major issue. Still have to have the XLR connections, though, whatever the camera.
(3) I haven't tried 720, so I haven't compared the results.
(4) I don't have a deadline for buying another camera.

A good thing to remember is that buying good camera equipment is always just a rental. You can sell the gear if you need to and the difference is usually less than if you rented for that time period.

Honestly, the XF300 is not the best camera for this job. I prefer it to the EX-1, but the EX-1R is the closest match to this gig's needs. You basically have the HPX-250, XF300 & the EX-1R in this price range. The JVC 650 will be out this fall but that camera is yet to be reviewed.

I have used the XF300 at 6db and it looked very clean. It is a clean camera to begin with but even in 720p60 I find I am wanting more exposure from time to time. The camera has a great image. If they could add 1 stop of sensitivity to the XF300 it would be the camera to have in my view.

Maybe rent an XF300 for your next gig? Or rent a 2/3" chip camera with a broadcast zoom controller and you will never want to go back to handycams :)

I really appreciate you taking the time to advise, Tim.

I know zip about options for 2/3" chip cameras..........I am just feeling like I know a little about smaller camcorders.
What specific 2/3" chip camera are you thinking about?
.....................................

We, I did some quick homework and 2/3" cameras are out of my league. For example, an HPX500 and a decent lens appear to take me to $20K. I might be able to find something in the used market, but that would be risky for an uninformed buyer like me. So, I can only dream about that option...........which would seem to be the perfect solution for the low light problem. Such is life.

If I stretch the limit up to $12k (body + lens), I don't spot anything that would solve the low light problem (??).

How low is the light? I have both a 105 & 305 & i shoot pretty low light but sometines i have to shoot with a 7d ( or think t2i) to get super low light ability. Maybe save up and get a cs300? Sort of best of all worlds. I'd trade all 3 cameras for one cs300.

Try shootin 24p as it gives a stop more reach.

Check out my concert footage on vimeo, and let me know if your lowlight is worse than that.

I own all the following cameras XF105, XF305, C300, 5D2 & 5D3. For low light concerts I would use the C300 followed by the 5D3 with the 5D2 as backup. I would not use the XF105 or XF305. I rarely zoom anyway at least the zooms don't make it to the final product as we almost always use cuts. The longest zoom lens on the DSLRs & C300 is only going to be 3-4X unlike the 10-20X of the XF cameras but the answer is just to move your feet.

Michael, your options for the 2/3" chip market would have to be used as new the cameras are too expenseive. Used is not so much an issue as the cameras are built like tanks and meant to last. But, that is a lot of money to spend to shoot in a club pro bono.

Your absolute best option (for light gathering) would be a used 2/3" SD camera with a long broadcast lens. I know it is not HD but these are on Ebay for under $5,000 and can see in the dark. (SDX-900, HPX-800, DSR-450)

No easy options!

I would agree with Nigel's assessment if I owned the same cameras. Having a 7D or a 5D is much better for low light, but they have their issues for shooting long running shows. They are much more fiddley in regards to sound, etc. Again, I think you need to really look at 'how low is low'. If you are really shooting in super low light, then the largest sensor possible is a good idea.

I'm sort of astonished that someone is recommending someone buy an SD camera in this day and age. Even a broadcast one. I have a friend who can't seem to give his away. But if you can shoot SD and feel ok about it, then there you go. A high end SD camera can produce a beautiful image.

Hello Al, that someone is me. I can't say I understand where you are coming from if all of the posts had been read? Michael said he wanted the best low light and a very responsive zoom control in a certain price range. In the case that he might only deliver to DVD and the internet, a broadcast SD camera seems like a better tool for long lens tripod work than a 5D in my experience. The models I listed can shoot in a 24p mode as well.

Again, I think you need to really look at 'how low is low'. If you are really shooting in super low light, then the largest sensor possible is a good idea.


I'm not really sure how to define the degree of low light, other than to state the camera operating conditions: At 50Mbps, 1920x1080, 24p, shutter 1/30, aperture max open (F1.8-2.8), auto gain runs +12 to +24. The funny thing is I wouldn't call the lighting extremely low, but the gain says it is very low for this camera.

As an aside, I might also mention that when I run it on auto gain, the resulting Exposure Highlights I see in FCP X are above 100%, and typically need to be reduced 10-12 numbers. So, doesn't this say that the camera is not accurately setting gain in auto? I have run it in auto gain in my initial outings because there is no precise control for running in manual gain.

Michael said he wanted the best low light and a very responsive zoom control in a certain price range.

You are right on the limit I stated, Tim.........and this is more than it should be for a hobby. But I could stretch that limit up to around $10k if this gets me over a magic threshold where I could buy a much better used camera. But that is a stretch.


In the case that he might only deliver to DVD and the internet...........

Yes, I normally produce H.264 QT movies and the end product will normally go to the Internet for publicity for the bands. It is only my perfectionist bent that makes me want to be able to produce HD, and the hope that eventually it will find a higher use.
........................................


BTW, I really appreciate the help I am getting here. Otherwise I would be completely lost as to what options to consider. I am now realizing that the choices aren't so clearcut. :)

If I can figure out how to embed an H.264 QT movie in a post here, I will do that so you can see the conditions and the resulting product from this camera.

Sign up for a free account on Vimeo. Make an H.264 version that is 3000KBS or higher. After it uploads to Vimeo, you can copy paste the link and it will embed.

The EX-1 or EX3 with their 1/2" chips are the best low light cameras with servo zoom within your budget. The XF300, Pannys and JVCs with their 1/3" chips follow. If the EX1 zoom isn't good enough for you, the EX-3 uses interchangeable lenses and you may be able to find one that suits you. There's a rebate on the EX-3 I believe. You have to drop to SD to get better low light performance.

In the case that he might only deliver to DVD and the internet, a broadcast SD camera seems like a better tool for long lens tripod work than a 5D in my experience.Even if the video is destined for the web that will likely require 720p HD nowadays.

Sign up for a free account on Vimeo. Make an H.264 version that is 3000KBS or higher. After it uploads to Vimeo, you can copy paste the link and it will embed.

The EX-1 or EX3 with their 1/2" chips are the best low light cameras with servo zoom within your budget.

Lee,
Thanks for the info on Vimeo. I will try to get that done tonight.

The difference in video quality between the EX-3 with three 1/2" sensors and the XF100 single 1/3" sensor will be quite substantial in low light conditions.....correct?
I have read through part of the EX-3 manual.

Yes it will be substantial. You can also add 6db of gain, 12db if you have to and then use neat video. I think the thing is that you are going to the best low light performer in the class. If you go with another, you'll always wonder.

It need not be sight unseen. Rent an EX1 and you can see the performance for yourself. It'll cost you around $300 for a day or $350 for an EX3. Here's a dealer in Portland:
Koerner Camera Systems Motion Picture Camera Rental Equipment (http://www.koernercamera.com/cameras.html)

But I can't help you with EX-3 lens alternatives to address your concerns. Post in the XDCAM forum for that: Sony XDCAM EX CineAlta Forum at DVinfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/)

I got a sample clip up on Vimeo, just so you can see what I'm struggling with on color.

I was taken by how much the conversion process alters the color. The clip on Vimeo is more saturated, the skin tones pinker, less realistic looking. I had to go back and alter the original clip and then upload again to get a better looking clip on Vimeo. Still not very good.

In any case, the colors with the XF100 are a real problem. I assume this is because of the high gain, based on other posts here. As you change saturation/color in FCP X, it can quickly go from faded and flat to too saturated and unnatural. I would hope a camera like the EX3 would substantially improve the color.

The clip is here (I'm not authorized to allow the clip to be embedded, but you can go to the clip by clicking on the title):
Sample video using XF100 on Vimeo

Note the common difficulty in these clubs: A great Exposure range. Overall it is relatively dark, but the single overhead spot is very harsh against the upper back wall.

FYI, the XF100 settings were:
- 50Mbps, 1920x1080, 24p, Shutter 1/30, Aperture full open (F1.8-2.8), Auto focus
- Gain on auto ran +12 to +20
- Gamma Normal 2
- Black Master Pedestal 0
- Black Gamma Level 0
- Low Key Sat Enable Off
- Level 0
- Knee Enable On
- Knee Automatic Off
- Knee Slope 12
- Knee Point 85
- Sharpness Level -5
- Sharpness H Detail Frequency 0
- Sharpness Coring Level 5
- Sharpness Coring D Offset 5
- Sharpness Coring D Curve 4
- Sharpness Coring D Depth 4
- Sharpness HV Detail Balance 0
- Sharpness Limit 0
- Noise Reduction Auto
- Color Matrix Select Normal 2
- Color matrix gain 0
- Color matrix R-G 0
- AGC Limit Off

In FCP X I did the best I could with color and used Neat Video to reduce noise.

Michael, I was expecting something much worse from your ealier posts! You have some ambient light to work with even though you had to use a lot of gain. The problem is not so much the light level but that the musicians are not in any of it. Also, a localized level correction on the bright area on the back wall would really help.

I would think your saturation issue could be resolved and is not due to the XF100 showing a weakness. The Canon's can have great color, you just might need to bump the saturation or experiment with some of the different gamma choices.

Are you applying the noise reduction before or after any color correction? It would be best practice to apply the noise reduction as the very first step. Then sort out what you have to work with.

I know you said you do not want to bring lights, but that is really all this setup needs. If you factor in how much you are willing to spend on a different camera, adding a couple of lights would be the cheap route. Do for the sake of your product if not for the band's sake. Then your could create a ratio and let the ambient light fall where it may only exposing for the band members.

Always better to see rather than explain in regards to images.

Tim is correct, the lighting is awful. You'll get a better image from a better camera but that's about it.

Michael, I was expecting something much worse from your ealier posts! You have some ambient light to work with even though you had to use a lot of gain. The problem is not so much the light level but that the musicians are not in any of it.


Welcome to the world of small clubs.
Yes, it really helps to see the situation.
This club is brighter than most, but almost all have harsh local spots aimed in the general direction of the stage, or thereabouts.
The general lighting in this club is actually darker than it appears in the video. Note that the XF100 was running gain sometimes pushing +24 (where it chose to run in auto). It was overdoing it, since in FCP X I had to drop the exposure Highlights 10-12 numbers to get down to 100%, but I still left it brighter than the actual.
But you are right, this is not a candlelight dinner. :)

Also, a localized level correction on the bright area on the back wall would really help.

Yes, I agree. I tried this in FCP X, but it quickly because a tedious job because of the frequent zooming. As I get more adept in FCP X, hopefully I can do this much faster.

I would think your saturation issue could be resolved and is not due to the XF100 showing a weakness. The Canon's can have great color, you just might need to bump the saturation or experiment with some of the different gamma choices.

Yes, my hope is I can find better settings than those listed.
FYI, I dropped the Saturation 20 numbers (!) for the video you see. As it came from the camera, the video was very saturated, not realistic. I may have overdone it a bit, since it is somewhat lifeless. But it is a lot better than the original.

Are you applying the noise reduction before or after any color correction? It would be best practice to apply the noise reduction as the very first step. Then sort out what you have to work with.

I appreciate you telling me the correct order. I wasn't aware of the best practice.
Unfortunately, I can't do this at the moment because of an issue with FCP X, separate for what we have discussed.
When I apply Neat Video first, it is rendered in real time not background, i.e., you have to wait for around 75 minutes for it to render before I can do anything else. Then, if I do anything else after this, FCP X re-renders the noise correction when I export and I have to wait another 75 minutes! I don't have a clue why FCP X is doing this.

I just mention this as an aside, since I am pulling my hair out trying to get an answer from the FCP X experts at the Apple forums. Once I sort this out, I will do things in the order you propose. This may improve the noise correction........although, if you had seen the noise in the original, you would be amazed at what Neat Video can do. I guess the fine noise makes it easier to correct.

I know you said you do not want to bring lights, but that is really all this setup needs. If you factor in how much you are willing to spend on a different camera, adding a couple of lights would be the cheap route. Do for the sake of your product if not for the band's sake. Then your could create a ratio and let the ambient light fall where it may only exposing for the band members.

100% agreement.
But the problems are:
(1) Often the area you see right in front of the stage has dancers on it, inebriated dancers I should add. This is the same in almost all the clubs. The dancers don't want lights on them, so they would have to be right against the stage. A challenge to locate them.
(2) Club owners don't want lights and cables around the dance floor, anything that will increase their liability. The bands have to keep their gear on the stage.
(3) Transporting them is a hassle, not insurmountable.

I'm just not sure I can make this work. Sometimes it is a hassle just to get the owner to agree to let me take up space. :)

But again, I agree this would work wonders.
What I may be able to do is to suggest to the owners some improvements in the built-in spots they have..........like toning the one down a little in this club. :)

....................................

All useful help, I really appreciate it.

One other thing I will mention that I hope will also help.
The XF100 is not holding the color well throughout the shoot. For example, in the video I posted, the color went significantly toward blue at about 1:45. You can see some quick changes in color on the guitarist's head if you watch closely, a tip-off that I wasn't perfect in my correction. I cut the clip into several clips and used several transitions to make it as smooth as i could. I had to drop the Midtone color 18 numbers in the blue-green area to correct it (!!).

I assume this change was triggered by my zoom/pan from the singer to the guitarist.
This kind of color shift occurred in most of the clips I shot that night.
I would think the XF100 would be able to deal with zooming better than this.

This, along with the high saturation in the original footage and the fact that it is raising gain in auto well above what is really needed tells me the XF100 needs a checkup. I am going to ship it back to Cannon and have them test it.........I've only had it two months.
Hopefully this will also help.

So, I guess I shouldn't toss the XF100 quite yet.

The Canon's can have great color..................

One thing I forgot to mention, Tim, that is worrying me.
What you say is correct, but numerous posts here have said that the color quality goes down rapidly above +6 gain. Even if the XF100 needs repairs and afterwards will run at lower gain, I am not sure it will be below +6. So regardless of how the club looks, if the gain runs well above +6, I am assuming I am not going to get good color. This is really the reason I have been harping on the "low lighting" problem............what I really mean is the "high gain" problem.

Guess I first need to have Canon check out the XF100, then see how the next shoot goes.

Thanks again for the help.

Great info Michael. The more we know, the more we can help.

1) Neat Video & rendering. What your are experiencing is FCP needing to re-render anything that changes on the timeline. So if Neat Video is applied as a filter, it will always be there wanting to be rendered. You probably would be better off importing the original clips, applying the noise reduction and then exporting to make a new clip. Then import this new clip and do the rest of your editing and color correction. Yes, it is a drag but noise reduction is about the most render intensive filter you can apply.

2) Camera settings. I would get used to running the camera on full manual. In these challenging lighting situations, cameras on auto tend to freak out and chage a lot. Being on manual will give you something consistent to work with. It takes more attention when you are filming but that it what it takes to get good footage.

3) Lighting. Your only hope would be to get some LED lights you could run on batteries like Cool Lights. Put them very high so they shine downward to the bandstand and try to miss some of the dance floor.

Overall, I always applaud wanting to get the best product you can make, but in some ways, you are trying to do the impossible. This environment is too "normal" to look exceptional on a video. You would need to plan this out and add lighting to make it look the way you are wanting. Sometimes you just can not 'polish the turd' so to speak.

So I see your only hope is to work something out with the band/owner if there is a need for better quality. Otherwise, just work with what you have.

I would think you can make the color look right in post even though the gain is flattening out the image. That is what the 4:2:2 codec is for.

Great info Michael. The more we know, the more we can help.

1) Neat Video & rendering. What your are experiencing is FCP needing to re-render anything that changes on the timeline. So if Neat Video is applied as a filter, it will always be there wanting to be rendered. You probably would be better off importing the original clips, applying the noise reduction and then exporting to make a new clip. Then import this new clip and do the rest of your editing and color correction. Yes, it is a drag but noise reduction is about the most render intensive filter you can apply.

Man, finally a solution that makes sense. That will work. None of the FCP X experts have been any help. Thanks!


2) Camera settings. I would get used to running the camera on full manual. In these challenging lighting situations, cameras on auto tend to freak out and chage a lot. Being on manual will give you something consistent to work with. It takes more attention when you are filming but that it what it takes to get good footage.

OK, I am seeing this is where I need to go. I can do that.


3) Lighting. Your only hope would be to get some LED lights you could run on batteries like Cool Lights. Put them very high so they shine downward to the bandstand and try to miss some of the dance floor.

Maybe can do, in a few clubs where they will cooperate.


Overall, I always applaud wanting to get the best product you can make, but in some ways, you are trying to do the impossible. This environment is too "normal" to look exceptional on a video. You would need to plan this out and add lighting to make it look the way you are wanting. Sometimes you just can not 'polish the turd' so to speak.

Yes, starting to see this also. My perfectionist bent easily kicks in. The truth is, what I posted is far better than what the bands normally get.
I just want it a little better......... :)


So I see your only hope is to work something out with the band/owner if there is a need for better quality. Otherwise, just work with what you have.

I think I can get most owners to adjust the built-in lighting............if I'm willing to do it for them. :)
......................................................

Good practical advice that gets me back to reality. Thanks so much.

Michael, now that I see your shoot, I can agree with the other answers. I doubt that you will get much more 'bang for your buck' from a EX3 though. I think that you actually have pretty good lighting to work with here (G!). I would first off tell you to drop down to 24p from 30. That will buy you almost a stop more light. I always shoot at 24p in low light. Try it and see.

Secondly, to get much better quality out of that light without adding more lights, then you likely will have to go to a HDSLR with a larger sensor. There is likely no other way to substantially improve your image before post. And yes, you can manipulate it more in post than you have.

Here's some example's I've done. ( I wasn't trying to embed them, but it seems that this board does it from any link...). These aren't meant to be anything more than samples of struggling with low light club situations I've had over the last year or so. All the musicians loved the work, but certainly there was room for improvement. I try to get board feeds when possible, but the Blues in the Clubs was shot with a shotgun mounted on the 7D.

Stage lighting with a 305 (could have been my 100 without much difference). You can see it falls off dramatically on the right side.
Vibracoes - Jacob do Bandolim - Centrum Choro 2012 on Vimeo

Now for some truly hard lighting situations. In Portland at the Old Church downtown. The starting "A" camera was struggling. A 1/3rd HMC 150 at +9 db and then I shot B camera with my 7D. You can see the difference. It was the only way to capture it for real. And that was pushing it as well. The main lighting was just terribly dim.

Choro! Dudu Maia & Douglas Lora - Santa Morena by Jacob do Bandolim on Vimeo

This next one I really think came out great, but required the 7D. Extremely low club light. Various clubs. Needed to grab decent shots in all clubs to turnaround for advertising. I doubt I could have shot anything like this on my 100 or 300. Some of the clubs in this sampler resemble your club. Some are much worse. You'll notice the color is quite ok on most of them. The street band was under street lights and was a 'mood' shoot.
Centrum's Blues in the Clubs 2011 - YouTube

This is why I was saying that an HDSLR may some times be your only way out. But I think your specific club has 'good enough' lighting. Your 100 gain will be nice and fine as you crank it up.

Here is another one that was shot on the 7D that I could not have captured on the xf305 or 100 without a lot of grain or added lights. The goal was to show the beauty of the sunset, and the "b" camera was actually shot earlier in the evening on a different song, so that's why the stage was brighter.

Väsen live at house concert on Bainbridge Island USA on Vimeo

So keep working your 100 for now, get it down to 24p, and do the stuff the others mentioned. Give it a few more months of trying before abandoning it. You can modify the camera picture files, there are some listed for download on the Vimeo XF100/300 site, like "HIGAIN". (also try out the infrared for a film noire look!). If worse comes to worse, start considering an HSDLR. WIth the new upcoming fix to the 7D, you'll have audio monitoring, which is critical. WIthout it, I'd likely look at a GH2. Or may be a 5D.

This is why I was saying that an HDSLR may some times be your only way out.

Try doing this with a canon xa10 or a sony emor r series, you have to see it to believe it but my small sony cx730 can match my t2i in low light when I use a 35mm f 1.4 lens, wide open at 1600 iso and has less grain in the image.

With that dark perfomances you show these very small low light optimised handicams are the best investment you can make.

...I doubt that you will get much more 'bang for your buck' from a EX3 though. ...So keep working your 100 for now, get it down to 24p, ...

I disagree with this. An EX1R or EX3 will provide a brighter image with less noise potentially eliminating the need for adding gain or running noise reduction filters which seem to be affecting IQ.

The OP has stated he's already shooting 24p and a servo zoom is required.

Adding gain does not have to be a bad thing, just see how well a sony fs100 or a 5d markIII perform at very high gain levels with very clean images as result, it's all about how the camera's handles the gain, 21db gain looks cleaner on my sony cx730 then 6db gain on my canon xh-a1 and from what I have seen neither the xf100 or xf300 are that well performers when it comes to handling high gains. I"l take a camera that can give me a usable image at very high gain values any day without the need for the painfully slow neatvideo, many always say you need to add light but often that's not an option like the performances Al showed, then you need a camera that can cope and I"m sure that under these circumstances you"d be very happy having a ex1 or 3 in your camerabag.

Sorry Les, I guess I mistook the 24p for the 1/30th shutter. I would like to see samples of people's work with an EX3 in similar lighting to be convinced the price of selling off his 100 for a EX3 is going to buy him enough light gathering to make a significant difference. (I think Portland has a rental house that he could rent a EX3 to try it out, by the way).

My 305 is very similar to an EX3 in light gathering from what I've seen, and I wouldn't trade it for that reason (maybe to get interchangeable lenses). To be clear, I don't believe I could have successfully filmed the church songs with an Ex3, xf300, or any other smaller sensor camera. The 7D saved the footage. To me, the cameras are tools, and I try to grab the right one for the job. The stage performances I shot are a lock down, I dislike the 7D MOV footage vs. the 305/105 since I have the light and the 4:2:2: makes a big difference. Also, I can't move around due to a paying seated audience. I get plenty of light when the performers show up and the mains are brought up.

The clubs are a wildcard, and some like it dim. I just leave my 100 in the trunk of the car on those occasions and grab anything larger sensored. A T3i or T2i can do just fine in those jobs. For less than $2k ( since you rarely need anything more than a 50mm lens and I could shoot 80% of the club dates with a 18-50mm zoom), you can have a B cam that can go down to F1.8 or less, and still hold up well in post. (the T2i's do tend to overhead in prolonged use). Also a good tool for close up interviews to drop out the background, (maybe an interview between sets in the back room), since the smaller sensors only do a good job of that when you engage the telephoto. To get decent sound, switch out your shotgun you use on your 100, if you can't' get a board feed (or add it to the board feed for atmosphere), I shot all these club shots with a standard 'long' shotgun mounted as far back as I could. It worked ok. But he likely has more to do with the 100 to make sure he doesn't need to spend the money.

And be sure to stay at the Jupiter Hotel when in Portland. A unique experience (G)

To be clear, I don't believe I could have successfully filmed the church songs with an Ex3, xf300, or any other smaller sensor camera. The 7D saved the footage.

I have said it a few times in other topics on this forum but my Sony cx730 is equally light sensitive compared to my T2I (which should be comparable in lowlight to the 7d) paired with a 35mm f1.4 (wide open) and at 1600 ISO and the noise levels are not much worse then on my dslr. If you don't believe this I will make a side by side shot. I"m just trying to say that if the 7d saved the footage this small sony handicam wonder can too. (edit: as long as you don't zoom in completely)

...I would like to see samples of people's work with an EX3 in similar lighting to be convinced the price of selling off his 100 for a EX3 is going to buy him enough light gathering to make a significant difference. (I think Portland has a rental house that he could rent a EX3 to try it out, by the way).

Not only do you and I violently agree the OP should rent an EX1 or EX3 to verify it, I even provided a link to a rental house in Portland in post #19: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf-series-hd-camcorders/508991-looking-stepping-up-xf100-xf300-2.html#post1741994

Given the OP's sample and the XF300 a stop slower than the EX, I'd expect it to also be an improvement over the XF100.

Also, please note the numerous times the OP has stated the importance of a servo zoom. This is why he has rejected the numerous suggestions of DSLRs and why the EX3 is on the table.

Hi Michael.

I have been shooting in low light situations for many years and I have tried a variety of different cameras in all sorts of lighting conditions.

I have gone through the Canon XL1, the Sony Z1, the V1, the JVC HD 110, the JVC HD201, the HM 100, the Panasonic DVX100, the HVX200, the HPX 251 and the JVC HM 790 as well as the EX3 and EX1R.

And I can honestly tell you that the EX1R and EX3 are the best of the bunch when it comes to getting the brightest images.

I always bring a 300 W halogen lamp which I mount in the camera shoe and point it towards where ever I am filming. If this still is not enough I have the foundation for doing a little color correction in post and the images turn out great. If you are able to try the EX1R or an older EX1 give it a go. I am sure they will not let you down.

Not only do you and I violently agree the OP should rent an EX1 or EX3 to verify it, I even provided a link to a rental house in Portland in post #19: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf-series-hd-camcorders/508991-looking-stepping-up-xf100-xf300-2.html#post1741994

Given the OP's sample and the XF300 a stop slower than the EX, I'd expect it to also be an improvement over the XF100.

Also, please note the numerous times the OP has stated the importance of a servo zoom. This is why he has rejected the numerous suggestions of DSLRs and why the EX3 is on the table.

Whatever, Les. These are all tools. A servo zoom is a positive feature, but the OP might re-consider, due to other features, like low light ability, which is alo important. He hasn't experienced enough tool variety yet to know for sure which has precidence. He should spenda few more months learning his xf100.

Not sure where you came up with the extra 'stop' for the EX over the 305. The examples I've seen comparing the two don't show me a stop difference.i spent months comparing the two before buying the xf305, i didn't see one example that would lead me to think there was a stop differnce between them. I seriously was going to buy the EX3 until i spent time researching the xf305. I think they are very similar, regarding light gathering ability. I wouldn't choose either for his requirements! As to the choice of tools, I already saidthe the best bang for the buck for latitude in low light is a hdslr, or an Af100 like camera, and i stand by that, from experience. If the OP wants to go for an ex or xf, then he does so without benefit of trying a variety of tools to find the right one. He might like the AF100.

As to tool choice, I can use a pickup to do the job of a dump truck, but it's ineffiecient, and the wrong tool. As is choosing a small sensor to do club work, week after wek.

I'm not a Canon 'fanboy', just a working professional that wants the right tool in my hand for job. I think the EX 3 is a great tool but dated. Today, i think the xf300 is a better choice. Tomorrow, it might be a different choice.

Not sure where you came up with the extra 'stop' for the EX over the 305.

I saw below video last year about the xf300 almost loosing a full stop in 1080p compared to 720p, not sure whether this was a mistake the tester did but if this is the case that might be an issue if you need good low light capability and you need to film in 1080p

XF300 Resolution Sensitivity Test - YouTube

Also, the only video that I ever found back that showed more significant difference is below one, but then again, who can be sure it was done right

Canon XF300 vs Sony EX1 Low Light test - YouTube

...Not sure where you came up with the extra 'stop' for the EX over the 305. ...

It came from when I was shopping the two.... here's one reference I located from back then:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf-series-hd-camcorders/481813-raw-samples-canon-xf300-sony-ex1r-3.html#post1550279

One thing I haven't seen mentioned (unless I missed it - sorry if I did) is that the lens of the 305 is a 1.6 and almost a stop faster than the EX1. I know you can change lenses on the EX3 but a good zoom is expensive and the 305 zoom is great, both optically and in terms of smoothness/controllability.

I'm not a fanboy of anything but just offers this in case it helps.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned (unless I missed it - sorry if I did) is that the lens of the 305 is a 1.6 and almost a stop faster than the EX1. I know you can change lenses on the EX3 but a good zoom is expensive and the 305 zoom is great, both optically and in terms of smoothness/controllability.

I'm not a fanboy of anything but just offers this in case it helps.

Over what range of focal lengths, preferrably given in 35mm equivalent, is the f-stop 1.6?

It came from when I was shopping the two.... here's one reference I located from back then:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf-series-hd-camcorders/481813-raw-samples-canon-xf300-sony-ex1r-3.html#post1550279

I see Doug J's quote which I respect. I have his xf305 video, which was very useful. Everyone on that thread seems to agree they are very close in capabilities. I have shot xf100, xf305 and 7D footage and the choice, if sent into a low light nightclub is not even a choice. I'd grab the 7D first. I'd work around the limitations of sound recording with my Marantz 661, good shotgun and a field mixer, and get the better footage. It just doesn't seem worth trading out 100 or a 305 for another small sensor camera when your job is to record low light situations. The latitude in the larger sensor cameras is much better, from my experience. Shadow detail when needed is much greater. Colors more vivid because gain is minimized.

I've not tried working with an AF100 or Sony FS100 (?) but would assume they would be excellent choices, other than the lack of a servo zoom, for clubs. Again, in clubs, I can usually move around to avoid needing a servo zoom, and for the price of a xf100 I can buy multiple bodies of a 7D or T2i, outfit it with an external battery pack which lasts all day and night, and put an A cam on a tripod and a B cam on my shoulder. Avoid the 12 minute rule by going back and stopping the camera after every song. I've done that. It works, but is timeconsuming. So if I had to do over again, and wanted to live shooting clubs, then I'd seriously consider the Sony or AF100 large sensors.

Start with the rental of a ex3 at the place in Portland that Les suggested, and see if it gives you the light gathering that you want, with the servo. Then see if you can rent a large sensor camera there too. Then do your own tests. You'll know when you see it.

Lastly, working in clubs like this can create great vignettes, but ultimately the sound quality stinks. As an amateur serious musician, I'm sensitive to hearing clattering dishes in the background, people yelling, giving each other the finger (see, I did view your video -grin). I'm not sure I'd focus on working in clubs, as your ultimate quality is not going to be as good as a staged event. After a few years of trying club shooting, I try to avoid it whenever possible. Blues night once a year is my only exception as I can quickly club hop and get a wide array of shots quickly, and then head home. I found inexpensive day rates for stages here in town that allow me to *fake* a club, control the lighting and takes, and the customers are much more happy, as am I.

Here's a sample of one of my staged productions, avoiding the clubs. We get the whole hall for a ridiculously cheap price, which includes a stage lighting set, a snake that can isolate our sound guy in the lighting control board, and I can have the band fill the first few rows with friends if the need was for audience feedback. I've seen a few videos done in bars recently for professional music videos, where they hired the bar in the morning, and ran in the lighting kits to do it right. Camera A was my 7D, Cam B (left side) is the xf305, Cam C (right side) is a GH2 on a slider. I really liked the GH2 footage, but you can see it's almost impossible to truly match cameras. The 7D comes closest to the xs100 or 305. The GH2 would be a better match for a Panasonic HMC 150/160 or AF100, using AVCHD, which tends to be contrastier than the Canon footage.

Brothers Four - Heart of the Heartland on Vimeo

I have shot xf100, xf305 and 7D footage and the choice, if sent into a low light nightclub is not even a choice.

That shows both Canon's are no great low light perfomers, especially since the xf305 seems to loose nearly a full stop in 1080p mode and the xf100 seems to be quite noisy at higher gains. I can take my small sensor cx730 and almost match it with my t2I with a F1.4 lens at 1600 Iso, when paired with a f.2.8 lens the small Sony outperforms my t2I at 3200 Iso. I"d be very comfortable shooting with that small handicam in a low light nightclub. If I had to do a multicam shoot with several camera's on a budget I definitely would not be getting myself some dslr's but shoot it with small handicams.

Noa, i think you should go out, shoot some low light footage in some clubs and show us what you can do with that camera. It seems like a bunch of theory talk. When someone tells me how great their camera is at +1000 ISO i tend to want say, " show me. ". So please do.

No problem, just tell me what F-stop the lens on your 7d had when you where shooting that footage in the club where your other camera's where no option and also what ISO you where using. Then just give me a few day's and I"ll show you it's no theory talk.

In the meantime I do have a very short video I did inside the house in very dim situations, it's no club but just to give an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkz5okKWDIo&feature=youtu.be

First, let me say this is the best forum I have ever joined, bar none. No others come close to having so many knowledgeable people who are willing to take the time to help. And without the help, I would be completely lost. Thanks.

So, the input has led me to change my objectives/boundaries:
1. I am dropping the requirement for zoom. Zoom never was the end objective, just a way to obtain intimate close-ups of the musicians.
2. I am going with two cameras. I can mount one camera on the Manfrotto for shots of the entire group, and I can walk around with the 2nd and shoot close-ups from different angles. (I’ll need guidance on how to sync the cameras). Transitioning between the two in the video will be much more pleasing than the distracting zoom……..and give me great creative latitude in editing. Also, it will enable me to edit out audience activities I don’t want seen (yes, that finger, Al).

I am really excited about getting past my mental block of doing everything with one camera…….I’m slow, but eventually I get it. :)

3. My primary goal is to get the best quality images I can get in the difficult club scene, within budget. I fully see the many advantages of a staged production that Al points out. But part of this is about capturing (selected parts of) the club scene and giving the performers feedback on how they performed in the un-staged situation.
4. I have substantially upped the budget to $20k max for everything. I am now in the process of selling some beloved audio recording gear to make this possible. I would be happy if I don’t spend all of it……although I would guess we will come up with ways to spend it. :)

Please give me guidance on how you would recommend spending this, for a two-camera setup to get the best images I can.

Right now, I am doing my homework on the FS100 as a candidate for the camera to be mounted on the Manfrotto. I have lots of questions including:
- Do I need a better lens? Which one?
- Should I record thru HDMI to external recorder?
- Is the FS700 worth the extra cost? (I haven’t seen the advantage yet, but may be missing it)

Before you go mad & blow $20K I suggest that you just hire a Canon 5D Mk III with 50mm F/1.4 lens go to a dark club & shoot some video with it. I think that you will be amazed at the quality of the video for the money.

Definitely not wanting to blow $20k, Nigel. :)
I am having to sell other gear to make the $ available, whatever the total amount finally equals.

I will definitely look at the 5D Mk III. But I still need a 2nd camera, one mounted for group video and one handheld for different angle close-ups. Unless I'm missing what you are saying, the Mk III could be one of the two.

BTW, I am not trying to force myself to spend this amount of money.
I was just trying to be realistic about what a good two camera setup might cost, including good lenses.
Nothing scientific in the estimate: 2 x $5k for two camera bodies (say FS100 and 5D Mk III), plus another $10k for two good lenses and all the other misc. The key will be what is needed for two good lenses, of course.
So, not worth getting hung up on my rough number.

I will definitely look at the 5D Mk III. But I still need a 2nd camera, one mounted for group video and one handheld for different angle close-ups. Unless I'm missing what you are saying, the Mk III could be one of the two.You could use two 5D3s (or 3). It's much easier operating to use all the same cameras & easier for matching in post.

I would agree with Nigel, that sticking with same camera, or family of cameras is a good idea.

Yes, that may be the best option.

The reasons I was thinking an FS100 (or FS700) and a Mk III are:

(1) The FS provides a convenient way to mount the stereo mic and handle the audio XLR inputs, w/o a separate mic rig (which can be a headache with limited space).

(2) I still need a relatively long zoom lenses on the mounted camera, since I never know where I will be located. Sometimes the mounted camera will be right in front of the band, and other times in the back of the club. So I need to zoom to setup the full band shot. I could alternatively have lots of lenses, but sometimes I will need to adjust zoom quickly between songs.....so I think a zoom is preferable. These changes can be manual, not servo. I was hoping the stock zoom lens on the FS might be adequate and enable me avoid buying another lens.

(3) I would have the variety of two different types of cameras, for possible other uses.

But, I didn't think about the matching issue. :(