Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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=hkz5o...ature=youtu.be

New objectives, based on all the input
 

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)

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

You could use two 5D3s (or 3). It's much easier operating to use all the same cameras & easier for matching in post.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

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. :(

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

One thing to consider...If you have a wide shot of a band on stage, you will not be able to get too close to them as you will be IN the wide shot. So if you go this route, you are going to need a decent amount of telephoto on your hand held/closeup camera to get the intimate shots. A nice, quick adjustable monopod would probably be the best approach as handheld, DSLR and telephoto to do not go very well together.

Since DSLRs are pretty affordable, you might want to go for more than just a wide shot. Maybe two stationary cameras (one wide and one tight on the leader) to give different looks and also give you some choices of where to stand.

But, more cameras means more things for people to trip over...

You have not solved the problem, just created a new set of choices!

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Al, I"m still waiting for your 7d settings to show the latest sony handicams can keep up in low light (for that church recording you did where you said the ex3 or xf300 would not be an option), since you asked me to show it to you I need to know how the camera was set up do a fair comparison.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Yes I will need several lens to choose from depending on where the stationary camera is located, but in almost every case the handheld camera will need a somewhat longer lens. For a 5D Mk III, I was thinking a kit of 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2.0L. My son is going to loan me his 85 f/1.8, to test and see if a 50 is going to get much use.

Yes a monopod will be a must for "handheld" camera. I already have one that works pretty well.

Afraid one stationary is all I can deal with. :)
I will have to depend on the lens kit to keep me out of the wide shot. And BTW, I normally just frame the band and not shoot a wide angle of the band and crowd.

I'm still struggling with giving up an FS camera and going with two Mk II's. Two different types of cameras is mighty nice to have in the arsenal. These two will really be a big issue in matching, huh?

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

In my view, the FS-100 is not that different from a DSLR. Just a different body but the operation will be quite similar.

By MKII are you meaning 5DMKIIs? I think there is no reason to go with MKIIs when the new MKIII solves a lot of issues for not that much more. Yes, color matching is a mess between brands if you want them to look really good.

If you want to go large sensor/no servo then the Canon 5D MKIII (three) is the best option by a long way at $3,500. I would get two with some prime lenses (don't need "Ls") as well as on the of the new 24-70 f2.8L lens. You will be set. Pay up for lenses as they are worth it!

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, Al. :)
I looked back at your staged production video and yes, I can see the differences. And I also like the GH2 contrast and sharpness. But the video overall is beautifully done and I don't know how many viewers are going to notice the differences. They won't be looking for them like we are. I go through this all the time when I mix/master songs........I fret over all the imperfections, and then nobody ever notices.

Both cameras we are talking about should produce striking low light images. Do you believe the differences between, say an FS700 (still wrestling between 100 and 700) with AVCHD file format, and the 5D Mk III (compressed AVCHD: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) will be a substantial issue?

If this is something that will always be a significant problem, then OK.
This is just a tough trade-off for me.
I really hate to give up the flexibility of having an FS camera in the tool box, along with the convenience of handling audio. The combination of FS and 5D Mk III cameras would give me the flexibility to shoot just about anything, any time. And yes, I do remember I started this thread saying I wanted the cameras only for club shoots. :)

BTW, each viewing I am taken by the very slow zoom with the XF305.........very effective. It makes me want to consider having a zoom lens in the 5D Mk III lens kit, if there is one that can handle the low light.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Yes, 5D Mk III, not II......my mistake.

I definitely want a zoom in the kit. I'm not sure if this is long enough to keep me out of the stationary camera shot.
Will the 70-200mm f/2.8L handle the low light?

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Michael.

I don`t mean to make matters worse for you. Having two cameras of the same type is preferable when doing multicam shoots. That is why I went with two EX1Rs.

Have you considered your workflow and archive as well? Shooting with the AVC- HD format is very computer intensive and ingesting via USB 2 can take a long time. Depending on what editing program you are using you may end up with large files in the end. Also editing two streams of AVC HD is really intensive on the computer.

On my FCP 7 system I have to transcode AVC HD to Pro Res resulting in much bigger files and also takes uo more space when archiving. The XDCam EX format has, in my opinion, the best balance between quality and file sizes when comparing Sony to Panasonic to Canon. Mind you, I don`t know anything about the Canon´s, but I have tried the P2 format and to me, in the long run, it wasn`t very economical. I have the FS 100, but if I were to choose again, I would go with something like the F3, based upon workflow. And the same batteries, SxS cards and so on.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

I have not worried about it, probably should. I just haven't wanted this to override the goal of best low light image quality.

the F3 is outside the budget for a two-camera setup, so not really an option.

I download from the camera overnight, just let it run.
I edit in FCP X, everything is converted to Pro Res. Yes, large files.
I am having a problem right now of full spare hard drives because I am waiting on the release of the LTO-6 generation of tape storage. Once I get that, I will be fine on storage. I will edit, generate the QT movies, then simply transfer the FCP X files to tape and clean them off the hard drives. I rarely return to the Projects, once I finish working with them.........I'm on to the next one. :)

I am concerned about having clips from the two cameras in one Project and whether my Mac will struggle with that. I now have only the one long clip from one camera. If this is a problem, then I may have to put the clips in two different Projects, cut up the handheld camera clip, and import short clips into the other Project. This is just off the top of my head..........I haven't really thought about it. I am assuming there is a way to handle it. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

There is no need to do any transcoding if you use Premier Pro.

The Canon XF format files at 50Mbps are broadcast quality & easy to edit. Just to get Michael thinking again the other Canon camera that uses XF file format is the C300.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Yes, the XF files are easy to use, download directly into FCP X with the plug-in, are automatically converted to Pro Res. Very nice, I'm spoiled using the XF100.

I am familiar with the AVCHD format because earlier I used a Canon HF M40. I used Clip Wrap to convert the files from the camera to Pro Res before importing into FCP X. Not nearly as convenient, but it worked fine.

So I am assuming I can deal with 24Mbps AVCHD from an FS700 and compressed AVCHD (which I've not dealt with) from the 5D Mk III, and have focused on getting the cameras that will give me the best images (and I recognize "best" is highly debatable).

Am I right that I can deal with AVCHD, it will just be more of a hassle than some other formats?
Or is it a big of enough issue to make me reconsider my choice of cameras?
I sure hope that wouldn't dictate my camera choice, but if I'm missing something let me know.

BTW, I was very surprised when I first looked at the FS700 and saw that the bit rate would only be 24Mbps max at 1080/24p. I sure like the Canon specs of 50Mbps and 4:2:2 color, and I love Canons........note the title of the thread. But specs aside, the FS low light image is extremely good, and that is my primary consideration.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Michael, since you are now looking at large sensor cameras like 5dm3 and fs-100 and this is a hobby, there's a camera to consider that will save you money and be perfectly appropriate for shooting a couple angles that your friends can use to review their performance.

Much time has been spent here discussing the video half of the recording but few musicians I know are very interested in that. They want to know how it sounds. DSLRs are hard to shoot with and adding the gear to get good audio is just one of the reasons. So keeping a camera with professional XLR inputs will simplify things yet give you high quality audio directly into your recording.

Take a look at the Panasonic AF-100. It's a large sensor camera so you get the low light performance but without the headaches of the 5DM3 and extra gear it requires. There's a rebate on them right now and the pricing for two of them with a lenses could save you from selling off some of that audio equipment. Since this is a proper camcorder (as opposed to a DSLR), you get a nice side mounted and adjustable LCD, XLR audio and some other things you'll appreciate. In fact, two of them give you 4 tracks of audio which could be helpful to your performers if each one is a specific mix from the sound board. Just a thought.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Something important to consider if you go the DSLR route: you can't leave some on for long without overheating the thing. EG, on the 5D TWO (not sure of the time for the THREE) its only about 12 minutes. So the idea of leaving it on and forgetting it is not feasible. You could leave a camcorder on (depending on the available recording media time) but then you need to try shooting hand held on a DSLR - not something I can do.

Re: Decisions made, moving forward
 

Well, it has been a meandering process, but this usually works out in the end for me.
I have made my decisions, am awaiting gear, and I am very happy with where I have ended up.
We are blessed with so many amazing options from which to choose.

I have gone with two FS100 cameras, two Novaflex adapters for Nikon lenses, a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (for primary full band shots with stationary camera), a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (for close-ups with monopod "handheld"), and various accessories. I may well add a prime lens later.

I initially didn't think it important, but on reflection, I fully agree with the view that two identical cameras are a big plus:
- No matching issues
- Same file formats
- Same workflow processes
- Only one camera to master.

Once I decided on two identical cameras, I quickly opted for a camera made for video with proper audio connections, etc.

I looked hard at the FS700, but again two identical cameras ruled this out. The extra cost would have been $6k, 30% of my max budget. With the FS100, I am well below my max limit.
And the added features of the FS700 didn't seem that important for this particular task:
- I wouldn't expect to use the ultra slow motion, except for an occasional effect (yes, would be very nice to have)
- I wouldn't expect to use the ND filters for the low light work (although they would be even nicer to have)
- 4k.....who knows how this will progress.

I decided I can live with the inconvenience of handle problems, flush buttons, etc. to save $6k.
And for the low light work, the FS100 is marginally more sensitive than the FS700.

So, I am very happy with where I've ended up, and am counting the days until gear arrives. I am sure many of you would have ended up at a different place, since we all have our own weightings of pluses and minuses. For me, I believe this will work well.

Thanks so much for all the help!

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

BTW, I'm late to the party but if anybody hasn't tried the training videos from Doug Jensen and Vortex Media, they are outstanding. I just received my FS100 video and have already learned enough to save me weeks/months of wasted motion.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

I think you'll be fine, just take time to fully learn the new gear. Not sure you spent enough tiime with the Xf100 to know it's capabilities. But, whatever. End of this thread, time totake your questions to the sony thread.

Re: Decisions made, moving forward
 

I think you made a good choice, f2.8 lenzes paired with a dslr could have been an issue in very dark places (unless you went for the 5dIII) but the fs100 can handle very high iso's and it will also give a bit more usable dof. As long as your subject doesn't move too much faster primes are a good choice too for some creative very shallow dof shots but I think your f2.8 lenzes will do the job just fine. And you at least got a videocamera now that will give you much more ease of use and don't have to deal with the limitation of a dslr, compared to your xf100 it will be quite a difference when the lights go out. Good luck with it :)

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

You are a bit misinformed. The recording limits are not due to the cameras overheating/ The limit on the 5D2 is due to FAT32 4GB file size limit which equates to about 12 minutes. The 5D3 can record for just under 30 minutes. This limit is Canon's decision to avoid tax as if capable of recording over 30 minutes it would be classed as a camcorder & subject to 4.9% EU customs duty.

Re: Decisions made, moving forward
 

The crop factor on the FS100 is 1.5x so DoF will be deeper than a 5D2 but a little shallower than a Canon APS-C DSLR that have a crop factor of 1.6x.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

I was not really referring to the cropfactor but the fact that a f2.8 lens gives you more to work with when focussing then a f1.4 lens, something which also applies to a full frame camera. f1.4 is nice to have but for me only usable for creative close up shots, a f2.8 lens paired with a camera that can deal efficiently with high iso is the best you can get when working in very dark area's, f1.4 will only give you headaches when trying to nail the focus.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Hi Nigel

Thanks for correcting me, I didn't realise that. However, I wanted to find out how I had got it in my mind that long takes cause overheating. So I checked my 5D2 manual. On p 126 (sorry if I sound like a nerd!) it says:"When you shoot with Live View function for a long period the camera's internal temperature may increase and it can degrade the image quality." The next point says: "Before... shooting a movie, stop Live View shooting and wait several minutes. This is to prevent image degradation."

So I definitely think this is something to take into account. The manual adds that using high ISO will make the overheating worse. Going for several long takes in succession would certainly seem to lower image quality.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Many of us shoot all day on 5Ds & encounter no issues with overheating. There is a theoretical increase in noise if the sensor is too hot. Shane Hurlburt describes in his blog shooting feature films with a shedload of 5D2s & swapping them over frequently to avoid any increased noise but it's not a consideration for most of use. I have only seen the red warning message come on once in over 3 years of 5D2 ownership & that was when it was left on a tripod in direct sunlight when the ambient temperature was 35C in the South of France.

Re: Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300
 

Well, I"m back with some footage, it's still some very quick and dirty test as I don't have/had time to do a extended test, so it's nothing scientific but nevertheless it clearly shows the potential of that small sony cx730,

I hope I"m not sidetracking this thread too much as it was about canon camera's but since it was about shooting in very low lit rooms it's still abit relevant, Al also said that one time shooting with his canon xf camera's was not an option and that his 7d saved the day but below is proof that the cx730 can match dslr with a very fast lens with high iso and not displaying more noise. (iso 1600/3200 vs 24db on the sony) The Sony is at it's max low light settings (24db gain, 1/25th shutter) between 1600 and 3200 iso when the dslr has a 1/50th shutter, if I put the dslr at 1/30 shutter (not in the test) 1600 iso is closer to the sony at 24db gain)

It's a pity though that Al doesn't want to share his lens/settings on his 7d but as the 7d and t2i should have the same perfomance I doubt he used something faster the f1.4 and a iso higher then 3200 iso.

cx730 vs t2i - YouTube

Ofcourse you can push the dslr more with 6400 iso or a shutter of 1/30th but I think it's not even a fair comparison to put a large sensor/fast lens camera against a small sensor handicam but you have to be honest that the cx730 produces some remarkable results and should outperform many other camera's in low light that are much more expensive, including the xf100/300.

The test footage was done at a wedding where I was yesterday, it might not look that way but it was very dim, the sony easily held up giving footage that is brighter then what I could see with my own eyes.