Shooting video on Canon 60D. Need better high ISO performance

I shoot video on a 60D. It works fine at low ISO but 6400 is a nightmare and unusable.

Have sensors progressed to the point where 6400 is much cleaner? I know auto focus technology has greatly advanced but I use manual focus on the lens

I also use a tripod and don't need internal stabilization.


EDIT: My budget is much better than when I paid 899 for the 60D. And I would like to stay with canon for lenses if they are falling behind in the high iso video spec then I will branch to other brands no problem. I have heard people crap on the 6D II video capabilities but that might just be that it doesn't have 4K ability like the other full frame cameras.

Sony a7s is clean at ISO6400 and usable at ISO 25,600 Since you're using MF, you can adapt Canon lenses just fine.

It depends if you want to stay with a crop camera, I found ISO3200 unusable on the 60d and 1600 was not good but that is just my opinion. Full frame sensors (on any brand) will give you much cleaner high iso's. there are many other improvements to video including dpaf and stm lenses if you want to stay with canon. live view touch focus on the 5Div is really nice. if you want 4k you may need to consider a brand switch. if 1080 is ok then Canon has some good options.

mystik610 wrote in post #18392740
Sony a7s is clean at ISO6400 and usable at ISO 25,600 Since you're using MF, you can adapt Canon lenses just fine.

Is there a clear cut high ISO leader right now for video?

I'm assuming sony?

FredM wrote in post #18393971
Is there a clear cut high ISO leader right now for video?

I'm assuming sony?

The a7s. It's a 12mp body though, so really low resolution for stills. If you need more resolution, the a7rII is actually not far behind the a7s in terms of high ISO performance, despite having a 42mp sensor.

mystik610 wrote in post #18392740
Sony a7s is clean at ISO6400 and usable at ISO 25,600 Since you're using MF, you can adapt Canon lenses just fine.

Agreed, unless you need video AF a used A7S would be the obvious choice.

best-low-light-camera

This list came out before the 5D4 and 6D2, but it's clear that if you want to stick with Canon, look at their FF cameras for high ISO. As for gripes about the 6D2 video: it is mainly aimed at its lack of 4K video.

davesrose wrote in post #18393990
best-low-light-camera

This list came out before the 5D4 and 6D2, but it's clear that if you want to stick with Canon, look at their FF cameras for high ISO. As for gripes about the 6D2 video: it is mainly aimed at its lack of 4K video.

I don't get how they put the 5D3 in the number three slot. I think they wanted to represent Canon, but the 1DX/1DXII/6D/5Ds(R) are all better lowlight cameras than the 5D3. Then including the D5 for FF but ignoring the D500 for APS-C? I don't think the author has any clue what they're talking about. I mean, the person seems to be evaluating the low light image qulaity of cameras based purely on their highest ISO setting.

5DSr?? You're the first person I've come across saying the 5DSr has good high ISO performance. As for the 6D vs 5D3 ISO, the difference isn't as significant as some claim (and fthe 5D3 has better video features). The author says the 5D3 was chosen out of the then current FF Canon cameras because of the range of features (they're not just looking at ISO). " Can it match the D5’s shocking ISO rates? No, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a really good option for low light photographers. The 5D Mark III’s ability to shoot in low light and do so at a fraction of the price of its nearest competitors make it a powerful tool for the night time photographer."

davesrose wrote in post #18394016
5DSr?? You're the first person I've come across saying the 5DSr has good high ISO performance.

If you look at 100% then the 5Ds[R] is worse, but at the same magnfication the 5D3 is a weaker high ISO performer although the difference isn't huge. This isn't anything new and I'm fairly surprised you havent' heard it before.

http://photonstophotos​.net …III,Canon%20EOS​%205DS%20R

davesrose wrote in post #18394016
As for the 6D vs 5D3 ISO, the difference isn't as significant as some claim (and fthe 5D3 has better video features). The author says the 5D3 was chosen out of the then current FF Canon cameras because of the range of features (they're not just looking at ISO). " Can it match the D5’s shocking ISO rates? No, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a really good option for low light photographers. The 5D Mark III’s ability to shoot in low light and do so at a fraction of the price of its nearest competitors make it a powerful tool for the night time photographer."

Yeah, I know. That's why I specifically said:

In any case, if you go by their reason for putting the 5D3 on the list; the D750 does everything they describe better at a cheaper price point.

raptor3x wrote in post #18394094
If you look at 100% then the 5Ds[R] is worse, but at the same magnfication the 5D3 is a weaker high ISO performer although the difference isn't huge. This isn't anything new and I'm fairly surprised you havent' heard it before.

That plus the fact that the 5DSr doesn't go above ISO 12,800...yes it makes me surprised that you'd be making the claim that the 5DSr is a better low light camera then the 5D3.

For video features, now that the 5D4 is out, the lower cost of the 5D3 makes it even more a worthwhile low light HDSLR option. If the OP wants to compare the 5D3 vs the upcoming 6D2, the 6D2 offers DPAF touchscreen and 60fps. It doesn't have headphone out (and haven't seen anything about uncompressed HDMI).

raptor3x wrote in post #18394094
Yeah, I know. That's why I specifically said:

Which, again, as demonstrated in the 5D3 selection: the reviewer isn't purely basing their selections on image quality of highest ISO.

davesrose wrote in post #18394109
That plus the fact that the 5DSr doesn't go above ISO 12,800...yes it makes me surprised that you'd be making the claim that the 5DSr is a better low light camera then the 5D3.

Wait, so you you're saying because the 5DsR gives the option to view at a higher magnification than the 5D3 with higher noise, then the 5D3 is the better low light camera, despite the 5Ds[R] looking better at the 5D3's maximum magnification? I'm sorry but that's an absurd opinion. As for ISO not going above 12800, that's fairly meaningless unless you're shooting JPG and I can't imagine anybody wanting to shoot JPG above ISO 6400 on a Canon body.

davesrose wrote in post #18394109
For video features, now that the 5D4 is out, the lower cost of the 5D3 makes it even more a worthwhile low light HDSLR option. If the OP wants to compare the 5D3 vs the upcoming 6D2, the 6D2 offers DPAF touchscreen and 60fps. It doesn't have headphone out (and haven't seen anything about uncompressed HDMI).

That's true, but again the D750 has lower noise, sharper output, as well as a headphone jack, hdmi out,a tilty screen, and better low light AF all at a lower price. The 5D3 was great when it was released, but it's simply not a great option anymore unless you're willing to use magic lantern and all its associated workflow issues.

davesrose wrote in post #18394109
Which, again, as demonstrated in the 5D3 selection: the reviewer isn't purely basing their selections on image quality of highest ISO.

This was never in question. All I said was that they're evaluating high ISO image quality purely based on the highest ISO listed, please don't try to put words in my mouth.

Am I missing something? How can you shoot above 12,800 ISO with the 5DSr?? How does shooting JPEG even enter into that equation. My original post was comparing FF Canon bodies for the OP: who was asking about options for Canon lenses. Now you create straw man arguments with the Nikon D750 and claiming my opinion is absurd. I see no positive resolution with this exchange....

davesrose wrote in post #18394134
Am I missing something? How can you shoot above 12,800 ISO with the 5DSr?? How does shooting JPEG even enter into that equation.

Just underexposed a stop and then push in post. Even older Canon bodies like the 5D3 are ISOless in the ISO >= 1600 range so there's no noise penalty like doing so at low ISO.

davesrose wrote in post #18394134
My original post was comparing FF Canon bodies for the OP: who was asking about options for Canon lenses. Now you create straw man arguments with the Nikon D750 and claiming my opinion is absurd. I see no positive resolution with this exchange....

I think you need to reread the original post.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not suggesting OP go to a D750 for shooting video. The D750 only came up because the recommendations in that article were a bit ridiculous on the whole.

So more post processing with limitations in one stop under exposure, and still not reaching the maximum ISO of the 5D3. If you read the OP, he states he'd like to stick with Canon and would consider a brand switch if significant difference in ISO performance. Anyway, I'm not going to nit pick with you. Now that the 5D3 is at a cheaper price and has better high ISO then the 5DSr, anyone else would see it's not an absurd option for a Canon HDSLR