Well, there are extremes and then there are extremes.
Personally I find the actual low light capabilities not as interesting as the look that can be achieved with it. But someone might feel differently, of course! :)
@thepalalias Yeah, there's that. Deal with what one is dealt and make something out of it. Tell a story regardless of the circumstances. If the fish likes the worm, nothing else matters. For the details on how results were achieved and to learn how to improve, I come here.
#RRRR It's all part of the pallet, isn't it? Candy colored beauty isn't always what's needed, but it's nice to know how to get it. Cheers.
@PixCanFly I shoot at -2. That gives you more flexibility for reducing the noise in post (if you find you want to) and it makes it a little easier for the camera to process, too.
By that I mean that a couple months ago I shot footagewith both settings (though ISO was obviously lower) and I got write speed errors with higher NRon some cards with some settings where they could shoot fine with NR at -2. The patches I use are more stable now, so it doesn`t tend to be an issue, but thought I`d mention the consideration.
In the continuing "just getting footage at all" as opposed to "getting good looking footage" I present this clip of the recent Santa Ana winds blowing some trees near my house, taken at night from my window when the power was out. The flash partway through is lightening that yielded no thunder.
This was several hours before the power mishap resulted in my mild electrocution but it was after I had to make several alterations to my route to get home due to the fallen trees (and had to spend several minutes moving fallen branches out of my driveway to get home).
With just a little more light, Canon FD 50.4 SSC, f-stops 2.0, 2.8 and ±3200 ISO. 3 shots, clip-wrapped and ungraded. Canon Colors, Vibrant -2, 0, 0, 0. >> Password: personal view
BTW, I figured out what was causing the massive flares on the 50mm B&W footage earlier, it still had the cheap Hoya/Hama UV filter on from auction.