[johnmflores]

I suspect that the OP is most concerned about low-light/high ISO with respect to video. For still, he can use a tripod and do a longer exposure. For video, he's limited to around 1/50

[AquaDome]

I suppose bringing a lamp in is out of the question? You can get a lovely football sized full-spectrum CFL bulb fairly cheap on Amazon.

My thoughts exactly. Obtain some lighting gear, unless you are looking for an excuse to buy another camera.

[Digitalis]

Do the rooms you are making the videos on have to be dark? - you change a few lightbulbs and make your job easier ( and cost you a lot less than a new camera system). Professional cinematographers usually bring in their own lights because locational illumination can be unreliable and in some cases it is simply bad light.

Most movies are shot under lighting that is really quite bright, they grade the footage in post production to make environments look darker than they really are.

[johnmflores]

My thoughts exactly. Obtain some lighting gear, unless you are looking for an excuse to buy another camera.

Do the rooms you are making the videos on have to be dark - you change a few lightbulbs and make your job easier ( and cost you a lot less than a new camera system). Professional cinematographers usually bring in their own lights because locational illumination can be unreliable and in some cases it is simply bad light.

Most movies are shot under lighting that is really quite bright, they grade the footage in post production to make environments look darker than they really are.

Those are good ideas, but if this is real estate photography, then supplemental lighting adds a least a half hour of shooting time for every room that needs it to set up, fine tune, and break down. That extra time will eat a hole in the profits.

[Stavri]

Those are good ideas, but if this is real estate photography, then supplemental lighting adds a least a half hour of shooting time for every room that needs it to set up, fine tune, and break down. That extra time will eat a hole in the profits.

I've never heard of a real estate photographer that doesn't use a multitude of lights, flashes triggers etc to compose their shots.

[johnmflores]

I've never heard of a real estate photographer that doesn't use a multitude of lights, flashes triggers etc to compose their shots.

I've got one friend, an architectural photographer that works for publishers and marketing companies. He goes the whole nine yards - big gear, suitable natural light, accessory lights, etc… He'll often take days to get the right combination of natural and artificial lighting to get the shot.

I've got another friend, a real estate photographer that works with real estate agents to get 20-25 good shots to post on Realtor.com and elsewhere. Shoots HDR stills to give him exposure options. Throughput is the key for his viability. For stills, a couple of strobes on light stands can certainly help and are pretty easy to set up.

But if we're talking video, then we're talking about copious amounts of constant light. I've got one of those 85 watt gonzo CFLs and it's barely enough for a head and shoulders interview shot. I also have a 300led light that pumps out about 300 lumens and when I place it 2 feet from the subject I still have to push the ISO. I shudder to think how much light I'd need for a family room, along with light stands, extension cords, and a lighting plan that will enable a Steadicam-style walk-through without getting in the shot or getting in the way.

If the OP is the first kind of photographer, then great, go for it. If he's the second kind, I'm not sure that supplemental constant light will be time or cost-effective.

I could be wrong. It's happened before.

[skid2964]

I shoot bracketed shots on a tripod so I get a very nice natural look. I wish I could use lighting but to make the money I am bringing in, I have to get in and get out... it's bad enough hoping the home owner has the house staged properly without having to setup and breakdown more equipment. I actually own lighting equipment and have tried it but it's just too cumbersome and time consuming... I shoot at least one house per day, usually 2 and sometimes 4 or 5. All this while working a regular job.

[Digitalis]

I'm not sure that supplemental constant light will be time or cost-effective.

But it may be the only option since a FX format 15mm f/1.0 lens or a camera with perfectly clean ISO 12,800 video simply doesn't exist.

then supplemental lighting adds a least a half hour of shooting time for every room that needs it to set up, fine tune, and break down. That extra time will eat a hole in the profits.

Well the choice here is simple - either make a sub-standard walk through video using High ISO and a super wide angle zoom lens that is optically compromised due to the need for a fast aperture, Or make a high quality video production with professional lighting. Sure it may cost a bit more but will be more attractive to clients in the long run. Setting up lights and breaking them down isn't hard once you have learned how to do it a few thousand times - you may have to hire assistants to set them up for you which will involve splitting the profits so you will have to do more work - but the quality of your work will be higher so it will increase the likelihood that you will be hired.

[johnmflores]

But it may be the only option since a FX format 15mm f/1.0 lens or a camera with perfectly clean ISO 12,800 video simply doesn't exist.

Well the choice here is simple - either make a sub-standard walk through video using High ISO and a super wide angle zoom lens that is optically compromised due to the need for a fast aperture, Or make a high quality video production with professional lighting. Sure it may cost a bit more but will be more attractive to clients in the long run. Setting up lights and breaking them down isn't hard once you have learned how to do it a few thousand times - you may have to hire assistants to set them up for you which will involve splitting the profits so you will have to do more work - but the quality of your work will be higher so it will increase the likelihood that you will be hired.

Or the OP can consider my suggestion - hacked GH2 with the Olympus 12mm/F2. The results won't be Hollywood but should be more than enough for the market that he's currently trying to serve. I know that market-in a prior life I oversaw the digital marketing for one of the largest real estate companies in the country and understand the financial side of marketing your typical middle class/upper middle class American home. There simply is not enough money in it to hire assistants to set up and break down lights a half-dozen times in a 10-12 room house that the agent is going to make 3-5% on (low 4-figures in $ after taking out the broker's share) and is willing to pay a photographer a couple of c-notes for.

Now there's something to be said for climbing up the ladder to bigger, more expensive homes where the realtor's 3.5% results in a bigger pie, but one step at a time.

[AquaDome]

I shoot bracketed shots on a tripod so I get a very nice natural look. I wish I could use lighting but to make the money I am bringing in, I have to get in and get out... it's bad enough hoping the home owner has the house staged properly without having to setup and breakdown more equipment. I actually own lighting equipment and have tried it but it's just too cumbersome and time consuming... I shoot at least one house per day, usually 2 and sometimes 4 or 5. All this while working a regular job.

This sounds like a good place to use a video camera instead of a "DSLR that does video too". Cinema isn't my sport, but I have gawked at those one-man set-ups.The camera is mounted in a frame that keeps it steady. Lights are mounted on both sides. The whole rig hangs from a neck/shoulder/chest harness.

Congratulations on getting the work. Having the jobs lined up and needing to upgrade your hardware to accommodate is an enviable position to be in.

[narual]

I don't think I've ever seen a walk through video that wasn't pretty awful. I've seen some great "videos" made of slide shows and circular panoramas though. Is that a viable option for you? If not, look into a DIY steady cam rig, if you don't have one.

[Digitalis]

I recall several years ago Quick time VR was commonly used, and that worked from single frame shots.

[PiDicus Rex]

But if we're talking video, then we're talking about copious amounts of constant light. I've got one of those 85 watt gonzo CFLs and it's barely enough for a head and shoulders interview shot. I also have a 300led light that pumps out about 300 lumens and when I place it 2 feet from the subject I still have to push the ISO. I shudder to think how much light I'd need for a family room, along with light stands, extension cords, and a lighting plan that will enable a Steadicam-style walk-through without getting in the shot or getting in the way.

Following from what John's suggested, a couple of my own,..

In my experience, the key to getting a SteadiCam style float through the space without massive shadow issues, is to keep the light as diffuse as possible, bounced off multiple surfaces.

I've strung several new 'Warm White' LEDs (they're close to 3000Kelvin) together in a wire frame that hangs inside a cheap paper Chinese Lantern - makes for a damn good and nicely diffuse light source for close-ups in interviews, dramas, stuff where you can have the shutter open and the light in close.
This was shot with it,. and a clip on LED desklamp for the rim-light.
https://vimeo.com/101513903

With such a rig, it is essential to use a custom white balance function, but with the all up cost being under AU$100, it's been good value - and that includes replacing the Chinese Lantern part 3 times.
It'll also run for several hours off a 7.2amphour Lead-Acid Gel Cell with a sub 100 watt inverter.

For small scenes, where people or the camera are moving around a lot, I like to take an 800 watt Tungsten 'Redhead', bounce it off the wall, with a diffuser in front of it, for a similar diffuse light that fills in the shadows.
So that's the light, two stands, a boom arm, fleckie kit, safety-switch enabled power board, power leads, gaffer tape and shot bags.
( Which explains why the boot - trunk to you Nth Americans - of my '66 Valiant is always jammed with road cases )

And the bigger the room, the more light you need to fill it - one setup we were using last week had two 2000watt 'Blondies', a couple of 650watt Dedo's, an Area48 LED panel and an Umbrella style reflector on a 20 foot boom stand.
Plus a smoke machine, replacing all the prac lights with tungsten globes, etc etc,... And it was a small shoot, and that was far from the biggest set up of the week.

Bouncing the light for diffusion, letting it come to the subject from as many angles as possible, gives a nice soft look to surfaces and skin tones. Choosing the colour of the lights before hand, or deliberately biasing the white-balance, can warm up a room and make it feel more livable.

Hard, direct lighting has the opposite effect, making walls look harder - good for lighting scenes in seedy hotels with private dicks, and dames who smoke too much.

[johnmflores]

If the OP looks at Micro Four-Thirds...

First real world images of the new Nokton 10,5mm f/0.95 lens! | 43 Rumors

10.5m F0.95

[skid2964]

If the OP looks at Micro Four-Thirds...

First real world images of the new Nokton 10,5mm f/0.95 lens! | 43 Rumors

10.5m F0.95

I was investigating four-thirds because of the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera but I didn't see that it offers much in low light performance, at least not compared to the Sony A7s...

That looks like an awesome lens though!