Z280 versus FS5M2 in low light

[Rich Pfeifer]

I was wondering how these two matched up in low light. A lot of people online complain that the low light on the FS5M2 is not good - which suprises me since the sensor is so large. I know it also depends on the glass you put in front of it. Maybe people use the wrong settings and complain about the results? I know these are two completely different cameras. Thanks.

[Doug Jensen]

Before you can compare the cameras you first have to decide what shooting mode? S-LOG or REC709? And if REC709, then what paint settings? Settings that make the camera look it's best? Or settings that might work better for lowlight? And what speed of lens on the FS5? There are too many variables to just answer a blanket question like "which is better?". But in my opinion, I think both of them are good enough in low light that people shouldn't be complaining about either one.

[Tom Van den Berghe]

The PXW-Z280 is equipped with a 17x professional zoom lens able to zoom from 30.3mm to 515mm (35mm equivalent)

Which full frame lens is needed to have the zoom range (zoomed in) to match the z280?

Sometimes I think that a (for example) A7IV (very good low light) with a slower zoom (F6.3) will be enough to shoot dark(er) stage shows.

[Doug Jensen]

Compared to a camera with a full-frame sensor, the Z280 has the equivalent of a 30mm to 515mm f/1.9 lens. You will never find an such a lens in the real world. And if you did, it would be so massive you couldn't shoot with it, and it would cost so much that you couldn't afford it.

Its worth noting that the Z280 lens also has auto-focus and servo zoom.

[Christopher Young]

Originally Posted by Rich Pfeifer

I was wondering how these two matched up in low light.

I find if both cameras are on 0dB, the Z280 is generally better in low light than either the FS5 and FS7. Partly due to its faster lens. But if you gain up the FS5/7 you can get similar results if they are fitted with quicker lenses. Even though they have larger sensors, don't forget, only half the sensor is recording on the green channel and a quarter on the red and blue channels. Whereas the Z280 has three sensors with a full complement of 4K pixels on each sensor. One sensor each for RG & B. There are arguments for both cameras, both single sensor S35 and three sensor 1/2". I use both sensor sizes in everything from normal lighting scenarios to low light. Some areas of shooting are best served with the larger sensor and some areas with the smaller sensor. Depends on what you are trying to achieve in your images. There are areas where both cameras can overlap, and either can be used for many types of shooting. I often use the two together. Their commonality of codecs is great when it comes to post. There again I also use an A7iv for certain applications because it delivers certain characteristics neither of the other two are able to under certain very low light scenarios. Especially when it comes to quietness of image in low light and dynamic range in really WDR scenes day or night.

Chris Young

A few years old now, but maybe worth a look.

Sensor Size & Sony Z280 | Jeremy Humphries | Talking Kit - YouTube

[Noa Put]

You are responding to a question that was asked 4 years ago :)

Tom, do you really need such a huge zoom range for stage shows? a 70-200mm f4 should be just fine if you combine it with a second camera that has a wider lens. You even could shoot in APS-C/Super 35 mode if you want to extend the range of the lens. Don't expect to get smooth zooms though.

[Tom Van den Berghe]

Noa,

I used a 200mm (18-200mm F3.5-6.3) in the past on my sony FS100 and the reach was ok.

Sometimes a bit more reach was even better. Also have a nikkor 80-200mm F2.8 (full frame lens) I used
on the FS100 with an adapter. But this is a manual lens.

I'm aware off not getting a smooth zoom but like you said I always have a second (fixed) camera
for wide shots. In my case it's the GH5S.

Really like the picture quality (and low light) of my GH5S.

So a sony A7IV looks really nice for that and also takes great pictures (I have the orignal A7 without ibis for stills but not having IBIS is really a minus for me) or a FX6 (much more expensive and video only)

[Tom Van den Berghe]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Compared to a camera with a full-frame sensor, the Z280 has the equivalent of a 30mm to 515mm f/1.9 lens. You will never find an such a lens in the real world. And if you did, it would be so massive you couldn't shoot with it, and it would cost so much that you couldn't afford it.

Its worth noting that the Z280 lens also has auto-focus and servo zoom.

30 to 515mm F1.9? That's impressive. I think in most cases a bit more than 200mm will be enough to shoot stage performances (like Noa said). In the past I shot with my fs100 and a 18-200mm F3.5 -6.3. A bit more reach would be great and also better low light would be great.

I saw now that a store (here in Europe where I bought in the past) has the sony FX6 in stock! So a FX6 with the FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 would me more than enough?

I know you have both (fx6 and Z280) I also have some full frame fast prime sony lenses.

[Doug Jensen]

I'm not sure if you are asking me if I'd recommend the FX6 over a Z280 for stage shows, but the answer would be absolutely not. It doesn't matter what lens you put on the FX6 you are never going to match the zoom range, servo control, image quality, simplicity of operation, and excellent OLED viewfinder of the Z280. The Z280 is made for that kind of shooting.

Why does Sony build dozens of different camera models instead of just one? The answer is because some cameras are better suited for different kinds of shooting, and the Z280 is ideal for this kind of shooting. The FX6 is not.

BTW. if you think the FX6 is the right tool for stage shows, you might as well pick up a nice used FS7 and save a lot of money.

[Tom Van den Berghe]

Hi Doug,

Thx again for taking the time to answer my question. I understand the Z280 is more suited for that kind of shooting.

But keep in mind that I always shoot stage with a second fixed camera for wide shots.
So having no servo control would be not a big problem. This is for close ups so mostly shot on the same focal distance.

I tested the FS7 but this was not a camcorder for me. A shoulder mounted camera is not my style of shooting. Also my GH5S is better in low light than the FS7.

If a go for a non fixed lens camcorder it must be something like a fx6.

When I read you previous post you said a need a 515mm full frame lens ? (zoomed in) to match the 17x zoom of a the Z280.
30.3mm to 515mm (35mm equivalent). So If I put for example the FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 lens on the FX6 the Z280 zooms in about twice as far? (515mm vs 240mm ?)

I'm I understandig this correct?

I can't have both (Z280 and a fx6) Filming is just my secondary occupation.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Tom Van den Berghe

So If I put for example the FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 lens on the FX6 the Z280 zooms in about twice as far? (515mm vs 240mm ?)
I'm I understandig this correct?

Yes, that is correct. But just as important, in my opinion, is the faster f/1.9 speed with no exposure ramping when you zoom with the Z280 lens. If you want to avoid ramping with the 24-240 (a lens I have never used) then you'll have to shoot at f/6.3 all the time. f/6.3 vs. f/1.9 is a significant difference.

Have you considered equipping yourself with a couple of Z150s or maybe a Z150 and a Z90? I think they would work quite well for stage performances, whether they are locked down or manually operated. You could get two of them for the less cost than a Z280 or FX6. I've owned both a Z150 and Z90 and they are excellent cameras for the price. In fact, you could drop down to a NX80 or AX700 if you don't need some of the bells and whistles of the Z90. At their core, the Z150, Z90, NX80, and AX700 are all the same camera in different skins, so they match perfectly.

[Tom Van den Berghe]

a sony Z150 and Z90 only shoot 4K 25/30p. I like the look of 50/60P. All my camcorders can shoot that (GH5S, DVX200) Sometimes I slowmo my footage by 50% for aftermovies.

Maybe I was misguided by this video of a FX6 and the FE 24-240mm in low light. When I saw that i thought i could do most of my shooting with that combo.

sony fx6 with Sony 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 low light test [mostly 40.000 - 80.000 iso] S-CINETONE - YouTube

Thx again for your answer Doug! I really appreciate this.

[Christopher Young]

Yes, I have no doubt you could shoot concerts in low light with the FX6 and the 24-240*mm. As Doug said, just shoot at F6.3 so that you have no ramping when you zoom. I've shot a fair bit of live entertainment for TV with FS7s using similar speed lenses. The main thing I don't like on the 24-240 is that it's not parfocal. Something I hate when you are pushed into having to zoom on non-parfocal lenses. Zooming, which is something inevitably you have to do on most stage shows. Why the shooter of this particular video you highlight had to shoot between 40-80,000 ISI with that much light around, I have no idea. A full frame FX6 Can still deliver perfectly good full level images in that light with an F/6.3 lens at much lower ISO levels.

I've shot with a much higher pixel count sensor on a Sony A series camera in crop mode at F/6.3 with much lower ISO levels than 40,000 ISO with no drama. I've shot 2 hours 22 minutes not stop rolling in 4K 50p with an XLR-K3M on an A7 taking a line feed from a desk. No problems at all. So that may be another option for concert work. A lot cheaper than an FX6. Just a thought.

To get an idea of low shooting and focusing at various ISO levels this following video was shot in 4K 50p with Tamron's 18-300 mm F/3.5-6.3 when I had it on test. I've since bought one. This Tamron has proven to be parfocal and exhibits virtually zero breathing and in my experience with AF and AF tracking virtually as good as anything from Sony. The AF being top-notch is not surprising, seeing Sony's major investment into Tamron. Part of that deal being Tamron having access to Sony's AF technology and IP. An amazing 16.6 x zoom lens for concert type coverage. Very competitively priced in that performance/price bracket.

Chris Young

Sony a7iv XAVC S 4K 50p 422 10 bit S Cinetone - Tamron 18 300mm Low Light Dynamic Range Test - YouTube

[Tom Van den Berghe]

thx Christopher! I watched your video in 4K on my 55inch tv and it looked great!

You filmed with A7IV in crop mode (it crops that camera in 4K60P) so that tamron is a apsc lens.

I have read that in crop mode it's less sensitive in low light vs full frame mode but it looks clean to me.

If I'm correct that's a 450mm 35mm equivalent?

The FX6 doesn't have a 35mm crop mode in 4K, only in 1080p.

[Christopher Young]

Yes, in crop mode. In crop the A7iv is still downsampling from 4.6k unlike the 12MP FF sensors from Sony which as you say do not have crop mode in 4K. So the A7iv is delivering a very crisp very quiet image. And yes, again, the Tamron 18-300mm is an APSC lens, (27-450mm FF equivalent) . Which suits me as it also works on my two FS7s which are still getting plenty of work for in both corporate and broadcast. So APSC glass fits the bill for me. Generally, the APSC glass is also smaller and lighter, and often cheaper.

I mainly got the A7iv as a hybrid for stills and occasional video. The truth of the matter is, I now find myself using the A7iv far more than I thought I would on video. In combo with the 18-300 it's proven its self. To the degree that I'm going to drop the $$$s on the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 APSC lens (FF equivalent 25.5-105) as it can do dual-purpose work on both the FS7s and the A7iv.

When I saw the promo video for the A7iv last year I felt it might fit the hybrid bill. Since I got it, it has shot sideline in football and the pits in motor sport and It's shot live stage entertainment, corporate and doco material. I haven't regretted getting it for one minute. For corporate work where PC screens with off-frequency scan rates need filming and a fully variable shutter in 0.1 steps is required, the A7iv is the go-to camera. I can't do that with the FX6. For doco type interviews with FF lenses it can deliver stunning footage because of it's dynamic range and very good AF.

You hear a lot of people dump on the A7iv because it does display more rolling shutter in full frame than an A7siii. Most of this comes from keyboard warriors not users. That doesn't worry me in my real life shooting. In crop mode it has a better rolling shutter at 13ms than the good old FS7 and for me that has never been an issue for motor sport which I have shot a ton of. A fantastic rolling shutter is something I only require occasionally. Great dynamic range? I want that every time I pick up a camera. To me, dynamic range is one of the most powerful tools in our hands to capture what we see.

A camera that can cover the range of material seen in these videos with decent results is beyond anything I'm shooting these days, so plenty good enough for my requirements.

Chris Young

CineD latest camera dynamic range chart and the Sony "Shot on A7iv" release video, along with Jacques Crafford's nice piece shot on the A7iv. This last one was the one that convinced me I could work with this small A7iv camera.

Trappers of Time: Shot on Alpha 7 IV | Sony Alpha Films - YouTube

Sony A7IV Cinematic BTS Video - FOOTAGE shot on Sony A7m4 - YouTube