A6300 vs. A7s mk1

[Astvald]

Hey guys :),

I shoot music videos/shorts since over 2 years on my 700D with ML in raw. This body is broken now and I have only about 1000€ for a new body. Except a few times with a 5Dmk3 I never shoot with another camera. This is why I need your help. For years I'm interested in every new camera release so I'm informed about all the key features and the overall resonance of the A7s aswell the new A6300 but never had chance to shoot with. Besides I could not find any comparisons between these two cameras so my questions are:

(1) Which one to buy? A6300 or A7s mk1

(2) How big is the upgrade from the 700D ML raw footage range to the A6300 4k downscaled to 1080p footge, A6300 1080p mode aswell the A7s mk1 1080p footage?

(3) Considiring that 4k is not really necessary for me yet, is the older A6000 (less than 500Eur) a serious option for 1080p compared to the 700D ML raw?

1000€ - A6300 / A7s mk1 (used)

500€   - 700D ML Raw / A6000

Don't know what to go for - really appreciate your help and answers!

best regards,

Jonas

[DayRaven]

As an a6300 user, I could not reccomend it to anyone using it in a profesional capacity, from the overheating issues alone. It may be worth it IF you were interested in 4k, as it's 1080p is nothing special AND you had a solution to the overheating - I'm experimenting with Ram heatsinks AND you didn't mind the rolling shutter, but that's a tough sell - I see it more as a camera to learn on

[Cinegain]

Zactly. A6300 is unreliable. A7S only if you need the lowlight performance. Might want to get an external recorder. Actually wouldn't bother with Sony, unless you can cough up the dosh for the A7RII or A7SII.

Canon. Same, wouldn't bother unless you can cough up the money for a 1D C or 1D X mkII. Their 1080p cameras aren't really exciting. Maybe the 5DmkIII with ML RAW, but storage 'n workflow.

Nikon. They have the D5500 and D7200 which are actually decent options... if you care for solid 1080p without all the bells and whistles.

If you really want features, you got to go mirrorless. As we've already crossed Sony offa the list, there's Samsung with the NX1. Body only within budget, maybe you can score a cheap prime to have something native electronic, else it will be all full manual and there aren't any smart (electronic) adapters (for Canon glass) or focal reducers.

Olympus. Sure... if you want mediocre at best 1080p... atleast you'd have sick in-body stabilization.

Panasonic. I think this is your best bet actually. Especially if you'd be looking forward to use 4K. The G7 (or G70 depending on your location) is a great deal. Most Panasonic cameras are.

Let's throw the BMPCC and BMMCC in the mix for good measurement. But you got to rig it up quite well and sort out some issues to make it work for you (battery life/monitoring).

Of course, this is just my personal opinion. Nikon, Panasonic or Blackmagic. Of course, if you were perfectly happy with the 700D ML... it's not like they're expensive and if that worked and would still work for you, you can put some of the money you saved into other things that would up the production value.

[Hitfabryk]

I just bought a A7R2 and was thinking about selling my A7S, but I kept it and use them both. It's still a great cam, even for pictures it has mojo. Look @ some A7S video's on Vimeo and You Tube.

I would recommend the classic A7S. 

[JurijTurnsek]

Also, one of these days a small no-screen 4K recorder might pop-up and breathe new life into a7s.

[jax_rox]

Go A7s. You won't look back. I went from a Rebel series camera to the A7s and the difference was night and day. a6300 hasn't received the greatest of reviews so I would avoid that.

A mate of mine owns a GH4 which he likes. Personally, as much as I try to like it, for me it doesn't even compare to the A7s. Yes, you can get great images out of it. But I'd take my A7s over it unless I was forced to shoot 4K internally for some reason (maybe the production has no budget and the Director has an inexplicable phobia of external recorders??).

YMMV

[Astvald]

First of all thank you for all your help! I'm very grateful There are plenty of good arguments. I try to get my hands on an A7s now.

Cinegain, your overview is great. Thank you. I agree with your mirrorless argument about the film making features so Nikon is really no option for me. Before this will happen I really can stick with another Rebel series camera.

Also I don't see the E-M5 mkII aswell as the NX-1 over the A7s for me. In other words for this money for me low light > internal 4k. Same for GH4 and G7.

I watched sample footage the whole last night and really liked the full frame look and the overall 1080p image you get from the A7s most. Moreover I think I get the best video features possible yet in this price range. Especially the codec aswell the S-Log is something I think I want to work with.

Please correct me if I am wrong

 

[Cinegain]

Makes perfect sense. For the things you value most in a camera, the A7S seems to tick a lot of your boxes.

To me fullframe means fullframe covering lenses (who uses a fullframe camera exclusively in crop mode to match crop lenses, right?) and I like small native lenses as an option. Also, if something's decent up to say ISO1600 I'm good. Of course, it would've been better if it could go all the way up to ISO6400 or ISO12800 without cracking, they'll get there in due time. Until then, if you have planable shoots like shorts and music videos... don't see why you can't light your scene, something you'd want to do anyways! It will look better than waving a lowlight camera around without any lights set up (don't mistake the A7S for allowing you to be lazy). I don't need to shoot at ISO102400 or anything, personally, not to say it isn't a fun gimmick.

If a 1000 bucks is your budget, the A7S will eat a whole chunk leaving you with nothing much left. And no internal 4K and recorders aren't exactly cheap (yet). BMPCC is a really cool choice, it has the footage going for it. On all other bits, it doesn't really excell. It's the crop, fixed ISO you'd want to be at, battery life, poor screen, poor audio, dials/buttons situation. There's work arounds for everything, but that makes it a little cumbersome and expensive.

A camera like the Panasonic G7 (which Andy Lee is shooting a feature on, he has 4 because he likes 'em so much and it's able to surpass the GH4 in some ways) almost has it all. It is a little plasticky, your card slot is co-located at the battery compartment, missing some of the GH4 features, but has a lot going for it at quite an affordable level (leaving room for lenses, stabilizer, etc). And it does internal 4K. Sure light sensitivity of M43 might not be your thing (but shouldn't be a problem unless you're don't light and want A7S nightvision; besides there's affordable focal reducers (Lens Turbo's) and excellent Metabones options). The crop. Personally, I don't mind the S16, MFT or S35 look. FF is bokehlicious, sure; but it's also tricky, because you'd just blur out everything in the back, maybe not even get a person completely in focus and the viewer might lose overview of the surroundings, because they don't get to see any context the person's in. If you pick a nice location or build a set, show it off. Colors. To be honest, there's some good Sony shot stuff out there, but there's also a lot of pretty bad ones. You really got to know your color correction and grading and spend some time on it in post. And there's the color channel clipping with the Sony cams, so if you shoot a bit of a performance with catchy lights to put in a music video, chances are you need to be really careful.

That said, that's just how I would approach it. Of course, everybody has other needs and wishes. I always say 'a certain camera wouldn't exist, if they didn't think they'd have someone to buy it'. And there's different people, so there's different cameras. I'm sure the A7S would treat you well. Anno 2016 any camera does a great job (you've been shooting the old sensor tech 700D ML up to now yourself and was fine with it). It's just a matter of nittpicking which one is the better suited for your needs.

[Astvald]

You're dead right! That low light ability will never replace proper lightning and in the most situations it's not even necessary to shoot higher ISOs than 1600. Lightning in general for me is the most important part of film making and since I started I never had the opportunity to be lazy on lightning my scenes properly. But that's not the point for me here. Same with FF. I search for the best about 1k Eur body which gives me state of art video features and a gorgeous 1080p image for this price range. I don't have to deliver 4k yet. I can't even handle it on my edit setup. I'm not dissatisfied with S35 or afraid of shooting S16 or M43.

So let's just say all these cameras (G7, A7s, NX-1, E-M5ii etc. (not the A6300)) get the job done for me. Which on I'm going for? To answer this question I'm looking for the "extras" which the cameras can offer me. 4k? In body stabilization? Low light? FF? - For me low light is the nicer extra over 4k at this moment but I don't know if I will regret this decision maybe someday.

btw I own 3 lenses. All canon ff. I made this decision in reference to upgrade someday...

Thanks for warning about the Sony color "issues". I recognized it in many sample footage shoots too.

[Arizona Sunset]

If you will use it as a hybrid camera, tough to beat FF goodness.  I'd go with the Canon or Sony FF sensor and not look back. For my tastes, I can't really see any other route that's as satisfying to both objectives.

But if this is *only* for video recorded in 1080p, the question is more complex in my view. As others have alluded to, I'd recommend refining your approach, as you are leaving a grip of awesome 4K cameras that when downsampled will be better than the provided choices.  You also haven't intuited your preferences for lenses, or stabilization. 

The Sony color thing is palpable for those that grade color.  For those of us that don't, that use nearly straight out of camera settings, it's less, if any, of a concern.  I believe it is very much over stated in these forums due to the level of detail and skill required in grading SLOG 8 bit, a technique that many users emphasize around here but also that doesn't apply to most hybrid shooters.

For what it's worth, I shoot a lot of handheld and love primes, and IBIS is a godsend for video.  I would take IBIS over PDAF, and 4K, for domestic purposes at least. 

[jax_rox]

Being able to bump your ISO and not worry about noise is something that I never thought I would find so handy. Being comfortable with stopping down to increase your depth of field, and Compensating by increase your ISO and not having to think about noise.

It's so under-rated.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't light your scenes, but it also means you can comfortably shoot a scene at F4.

Especially if you want a pic+video cam.

[JurijTurnsek]

And there goes the whole FF vs APS-C (Super 35mm) debate - how beneficial is the DOF difference between f2.0 on FF and APS-C? Why bother with the 1-stop better light gathering ability of FF lenses if you are going to negate this ability by stopping down, since you need DOF anyway. APS-C is a great compromise if you can get all your lenses for just that size (and not FF).

Now ask yourself if A6300 can produce the same IQ at f2.8 as a7s at f4.0? Is it worth it lugging around the bigger lenses? (that is, if you can live with A6300 shortcomings).