Arikhan Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Hi guys, This morning my mom told me, she wants to buy a own camera for video and stills. We own some Canon & Nikon FF and APS-C cameras and lenses, but she told me, "she is tired to carry around the Canonikon bricks". She wants an own, small and tiny camera, light and easy to carry around. As she is a fan of APS-C and FF sensors (because of great low light, bokeh, general flair, noise level, etc.) and fast prime lenses, she wants to buy only one camera and one lens at a max. of 1.500 Euro budget (camera + lens + ND filter). After doing some research, she asked me, if the A6300 would be a good choice (she would prefer the a7r ii, but as she doesn't know if she generally likes the Sony system/ergonomics/results, she would like to start with the A6300). She is familiar with editing in Premiere CC (and other Adobe applications) and wants to shoot only short video sequences (so the overheating would probably be not an issue) and stills. She likes cameras doing well (!) in low light, but she loves HSS photography too. So it should be the A6300 with the 35mm F1.8 OSS to get a first idea and feeling of the "light" Sony ecosystem...I told her, that eg the Sony 85mm lens is NOT very light, so the term "light" - depending on used lenses - can become soon very disputable, but she was quite enthusiastic about the idea of a "lady cam"... What do experienced people think? Is the A6300 the "right camera" for a lady with these requirements? Is the 35mm the right "universal" (and only) lens for the first steps with this camera? Are there other recommendations for these needs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 There's a Nikon D5500 in pinkish red, talking about a lady cam, lol. Pair it with the 35mm f/1.8G. Not too big of a set. Wonderful images. 1080p60 only though. If that's too big... the LX100 packs a lot of fun in something small. Just not really any good pushed beyond ISO1250. Wildcard: 2nd hand Sony RX1R? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisaha Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I was expecting a newer LX yesterday with the announcements. They did announce a super GX850 though, with 5 minutes 4K video, ultra low price, most things right, and interesting design. Sony's design is notoriously un-lady like, or attractive at all. Even the discontinued NX500 in brown is super cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josdr Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 A sony a6000/6300 is a great choice that will work fairly well in low light much better than m43 counterparts. I would pair it with a sigma 30mm f 2.8 for a sharper lens than the sony one unless you really need the mediocre sony oss. A used a6000 in great condition and a brand new sigma will eat up half of your budget along with extra batteries etc. As a proper cinematographer, do get her a tripod . 30-35 mm apc lens (45-50mm FF equivalent) is a great, do it all lens . The notion of un lady like camera designs is silly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisaha Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 That's what I said when I used (I still have it, together with the 6500fd bridge) this Fuji Z5fd in Raspberry Red, but people were telling me it's pink. Go figure.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 @Cinegain Quote There's a Nikon D5500 in pinkish red, talking about a lady cam, lol It's not about the color, lol...The D5500 is really cool and it's a pleasure to shoot (stills) with it. BUT, as I said in my posting, my mom likes HSS lighting and the D5500 can't do this. As In know, only D7X00 and above models, can do HSS...The D5500 was on my list, because it's a real nice and light camera with a respectable image quality, very good DR and ISO capabilities...And at the end of the day, it offers much bargain for the price... Quote LX100 packs a lot of fun in something small. True, but she wants a sensor size APS-C +...Because of oftenly shooting stills of moving subjects in low light conditions (street photography).... Quote Wildcard: 2nd hand Sony RX1R? FF and 2nd hand would be great in terms of IQ, but the RX1R is - compared with current technology - very slow in focusing (for stills)...Video out of the RX1R seems to be quite very soft and sometimes mushy, not real 1080p, but more 720p...Are you personally experienced with this camera, or can you tell me more about it? @Kisaha Never heard about the Fuji Z5fd. Though (after taking a quick look) a camera from 2007 with a 1/2,5 sensor, fixed lens F3.5-4.2 and a max. of ISO 1.600 is not the device one must have nowadays...My mom shot in the last years with APS-C and FF, she only wants a tiny, light and unintrusive camera with a decent fast and tiny prime on it...Minimum APS-C sensor size... @josdr Quote A sony a6000/6300 is a great choice that will work fairly well in low light much better than m43 counterparts. I would pair it with a sigma 30mm f 2.8 for a sharper lens than the sony one unless you really need the mediocre sony oss. Is there such a big difference in IQ between the 35mm 1.8 Sony and the 30mm 2.8 Sigma? The Sony is much faster (great in low light) and has OSS...But I am not experienced with these lenses on a Sony A6X00 camera at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josdr Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 hours ago, Arikhan said: @Cinegain Is there such a big difference in IQ between the 35mm 1.8 Sony and the 30mm 2.8 Sigma? The Sony is much faster (great in low light) and has OSS...But I am not experienced with these lenses on a Sony A6X00 camera at all... Even when stopped down quite a bit the sony lens is not as sharp as the sigma wide open. For a first do it all lens with almost half the price of the sony lens, the sigma is great. He can also buy his mum a konica hexanon 50 mm f 1.7 with an adaptor and have a great fast lens for portraits and videography.. She can also play around with shallow Dof to her heart's content.. Konica glass is magical even compared to much mpore expensive zeiss solutions on sony e-mount . I have played around with all three on my a6000 and own the sigma and the konica which are the more astute choises in my opinion. The kit lens in its middle range is not that bad either . The camera produces good video with proper lighting (not to pro standard-let's keep this in context) and the resulting x-avcs 50 mbps files can be imported directly to a premiere/resolve timeline. It will take quite some time for his mum to learn and enjoy the whole workflow so I think it makes more sense to go for something cheaper than the whole of his budget for the first time around . Good glass, you always keep. Sony menu's are a bit of a dog's dinner but with some customisation they can be worked around for easy access to basic functions. P.S Get her some proper ND filters even if their price seems disproportionate. In a larger size perhaps and some step up rings.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 @josdr Thank you for the tip with the Konica hexanon 50 mm f1.7! If she decides to buy the A6300, I will recommend her this lens. Quote The camera produces good video with proper lighting (not to pro standard-let's keep this in context) It's not about "pro standard", it's about getting an idea and first impressions in videography for a person shooting stills (as hobbyist with professional gear) for over 15 years. She wants just a light gear (at the end of the day with max. 2 lenses, one on camera, the other one in the bag or pocket) and is quite enthusiastic about the A6300. My mom is used in working with Canonikon, but she is flexible in learning new menues/handling, so I don't worry too much about that. If she likes Sony after beginning with the a6300, she will surely buy the a7r ii (or the successor model) - but for the first, I think the A6300 is more than good enough to get first impressions about the insides of the "small & light" Sony ecosystem. Quote P.S Get her some proper ND filters even if their price seems disproportionate. In a larger size perhaps and some step up rings.. What could you recommend? Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahlfors Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I recommend bringing some SD cards into a shop. Try out the interesting models from Nikon, Canon and Sony that are suitable contenders. Let the usability of cameras and lenses, as well as the quality of end output matter. Personally I really love small and light - but small and light camera body still has lower priority than usability, certain features and quality of output. Also remember that it's usually the camera body itself that gets smaller and lighter, the lenses are the same size. This means that sometimes you have a smaller and more compact setup, but that at other times you have a setup where the camera + lens setup isn't as well balanced on a compact mirrorless as on a larger DSLR body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisaha Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 @dahlfors Depending the system, one can have the Canon M5 and the 22mm pancake and done. or the NX500 and the 30mm 2f pancake and done, e.t.c I have a NX3000 with the 30mm/10mm fisheye and its a great pocket camera with 20mgpxls ASP-C sensor. NX500+45mm and NX1+16-50S and I do not even change any lenses, ever (almost). @Arikhan I previously joked with @josdr 's comment, because when I bought the aforementioned Fuji my friends were making fun of me that I bought a pink camera. I didn't proposed that obviously. a6xx Sony is not at all like a7r. Have you seen a6000 and a7rII together? Have you hold them and use them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josdr Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 6 hours ago, Arikhan said: @josdr Thank you for the tip with the Konica hexanon 50 mm f1.7! If she decides to buy the A6300, I will recommend her this lens. It's not about "pro standard", it's about getting an idea and first impressions in videography for a person shooting stills (as hobbyist with professional gear) for over 15 years. She wants just a light gear (at the end of the day with max. 2 lenses, one on camera, the other one in the bag or pocket) and is quite enthusiastic about the A6300. My mom is used in working with Canonikon, but she is flexible in learning new menues/handling, so I don't worry too much about that. If she likes Sony after beginning with the a6300, she will surely buy the a7r ii (or the successor model) - but for the first, I think the A6300 is more than good enough to get first impressions about the insides of the "small & light" Sony ecosystem. What could you recommend? Thank you! Certain useful items in the menus can be assigned to the fn button and you can set up one of the Memory positions with the proper settings for video (i.e 24p, X-avcs codec, Zebra and focus peaking on, etc- so there is no unnecessary menu dive. Don't get too enamoured with the A7 series video, it is not as good as Sony would like us to think. The A7s ii has one party trick and that is low light performance, but at that price there are better cinema cameras around. We will see of course what the A7 iii series brings to the table. A7r ii , it does have the better af of all as far as the photographical side is concerned and decent video but sony colour science is just not that good... If you really intend to spend A6300 money plus a good lens I would urge you to have a serious look at the Fuji XT2 which is probably the best APS-C camera at this time with colours that will please her very much, great AF and excellent 4k video.. She will not need to upgrade. The XT2 also has very good picture profiles that may be used in video . If she is used to canon colours maybe this is a better choice for her. Sony RAWs have a lot of latitude to get the result you want but jpegs straight out of the camera are underwhelming as far as photography goes.. It all depends on your budget of course, that is why I mentioned the a6000 as a cheaper solution to start on.. For the full monty, the XT2 is a great choice, much better than the a6xx series in my opinion. As for filters, I guess you decide on the lenses you are going to purchase , see the upper filter size for all of them and then purchase accordingly. I suppose you start with Hoya filters and then the sky is the limit .Do not get the nasty £12 pounds one, it is a very false economy that will ruin your video. A ND 8 or a ND 16 should be enough if you do not want to pay for a variable ND one. But do not get the nasty cheap stuff, they are cheap for an obvious bad reason. There are of course Heliopans , Tiffens and the like after that.. Do discuss with her that video is quite a different discipline to photography and the skill-set of one and best practices do not necessarily translate to the other.. Good lighting makes a bad camera get decent results, it does not work the other way around.... Kisaha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 @Kisaha I own the NX1 and love it. But shooting stills with this camera in the combination low light + low contrast + moving subjects (means 1/200s and shorter shutter) is a pain. All quality gone, not only noise but destroying colors also...In good light and even highly overexposed, you can recover all (shadow) details in post...In low light, not only it loses all DR, but it terribly crushes colors. A friend of mine has the D7200 (DX/APS-C) and after shooting a quick comparison with my NX1 in real world circumstances (1/200s, ISO 6400, F1.8) I can tell you: A current Nikon DX wishes the floor with the NX1 in every aspect for low light and low contrast stills (for the kind of photography we do). @josdr Quote A7r ii , it does have the better af of all as far as the photographical side is concerned and decent video but sony colour science is just not that good... The color science for stills doesn't matter at all, she is familiar with postproduction in RAW - so she can do every prefered color/mood in post. For video she just doesn't like skin tones and lips color in some profiles of Panasonic (she calls Pana skin tones and lip colors "color hooliganism" when watching on computer or laptop display) cameras, but has no preferences for Nikon, Sony or Canon colors. @dahlfors Quote Also remember that it's usually the camera body itself that gets smaller and lighter, the lenses are the same size. Exactly what I told her. Let's assume, that she likes this experience with the Sony ecosystem. After the first two "light" primes (35mm and something like a 50mm, which both are very light and portable) she would surely buy the 18-105 F4 and would want to buy the 85mm Sony prime (she likes this lens on our Canonikons). With the 85mm/18-105 F4 on the camera, there is nothing more "very light" or "tiny". There are many good lenses transforming the "puppy" A6300 into a "brick", so the term of "tiny, light camera" is - depending on lens/gear you use - just an illusion. Same with a mounted flash, when needed...Let's assume, she mounts the 18-105 F4 and a Yongnuo flash on the A6300...It wouldn't be much more lighter than a combination of the Canon 6D with flash & similar lens...BUT she calls the Canon combination "Canonikon brick", meanwhile beeing enthusiastic about the "tiny Sony cameras". She made many shots with the combination 5dmiii / 7dii with the 300mm Canon prime lens. And we have a battery grip on most Canonikons we own. So I think, at the moment she compares these cameras equiped with with big tele lenses with the A6300 + tiny 35mm prime. And that is comparing apples with oranges. I showed her the combination of Canon 6d (without grip) + 50mm 1.8 Canon lens - it's a tiny gear. No way to convince her, she wants to go "tiny" now... ;-) Quote Let the usability of cameras and lenses, as well as the quality of end output matter. Full ACK. But as amateur, it takes days and weeks (as not working everyday with the gear) to get to conclusions on usability and preferences... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahlfors Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Arikhan said: @dahlfors Exactly what I told her. Let's assume, that she likes this experience with the Sony ecosystem. After the first two "light" primes (35mm and something like a 50mm, which both are very light and portable) she would surely buy the 18-105 F4 and would want to buy the 85mm Sony prime (she likes this lens on our Canonikons). With the 85mm/18-105 F4 on the camera, there is nothing more "very light" or "tiny". There are many good lenses transforming the "puppy" A6300 into a "brick", so the term of "tiny, light camera" is - depending on lens/gear you use - just an illusion. Same with a mounted flash, when needed...Let's assume, she mounts the 18-105 F4 and a Yongnuo flash on the A6300...It wouldn't be much more lighter than a combination of the Canon 6D with flash & similar lens...BUT she calls the Canon combination "Canonikon brick", meanwhile beeing enthusiastic about the "tiny Sony cameras". She made many shots with the combination 5dmiii / 7dii with the 300mm Canon prime lens. And we have a battery grip on most Canonikons we own. So I think, at the moment she compares these cameras equiped with with big tele lenses with the A6300 + tiny 35mm prime. And that is comparing apples with oranges. I showed her the combination of Canon 6d (without grip) + 50mm 1.8 Canon lens - it's a tiny gear. No way to convince her, she wants to go "tiny" now... ;-) To be honest. If she wants to go tiny, certain micro four thirds options would be better suited. However, it sounds like she's been convinced by some online reviews that Sony cameras are where it's at. Instead of just buying a Sony mirrorless, get her to try them out in a shop properly. Get a feel for the controls, shoot raw photos, shoot videos. Preferably do it side by side with some Canikon and perhaps Panasonic models - so she knows how they compare. What others have said here about the colors of Sony is true. It just isn't where Canon or Nikon is. With my old Sony NEX-5R I could take great shots. But the colors never were possible to tweak as good as the Nikon shots with Lightroom only. Personally I'm not happy if getting good color means having to work with masks in Photoshop... I'm afraid that this is something she'd only notice after a few months going from Canikon to Sony unless she does serious tests in a shop. ade towell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 @dahlfors 2 hours ago, dahlfors said: What others have said here about the colors of Sony is true. It just isn't where Canon or Nikon is. With my old Sony NEX-5R I could take great shots. But the colors never were possible to tweak as good as the Nikon shots with Lightroom only. Personally I'm not happy if getting good color means having to work with masks in Photoshop... I'm afraid that this is something she'd only notice after a few months going from Canikon to Sony unless she does serious tests in a shop. I understand...Though I don't have any personal experience with sony color science in real world, I heared the same story when moving from Canon to Nikon some months ago ("You will regret it!" Some Canon fanboys said...). The result: Nope, NOONE misses the Canon colors here. I still like them, but I like the Nikon colors too...They are not better or worse, they are different...And to be honest, I prefer a good composition and a general balance of compostion, image texture and subject expression and a expressive, interesting content more than discussing ad ultimo on color science. Colors are not only science but also an art and always a matter of personal taste... At the end of the day, I think that's a kind of "rebellion" against Canonikon. We have a bunch of Canon cameras, dozens of lenses and now some Nikon cams and lenses. So, if she wants a third system in the family, why not? She pays the bill, for me it's a completely free experience with the Sony ecosystem. :-))) She wants to make a decision within the next three days, wait and see...I discussed with her almost all possible technical specs, color and ergonomical aspects, but it's her decision...BTW: She has ZERO experience in color correction or grading of video footage (editing yes, but no color grading or correction)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josdr Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Having had both Canons and Sony's I can say unequivocally that Sony colour science is not that great out of the box compared to the competition. But and it is a huge but, its raw files have great latitude in doing whatever you want. If you want a canon profile in your photographs you will get it through raw.If you want something else there is the latitude there to make it happen.. As you said colouring is also an artistic expression for those of us that cannot paint using a brush.. Bear in mind that most Canon obsessed guys and gals in photography sites are rather an older part of the population and a bit set in their ways and adopting newer, different systems. It all depends on the mindset of a person of course and not his age.The soft, full frame shallow dof Canon look that was used to make brides look more beautiful has hopefully had its time as far as video is concerned At her price range sony is king there and canon is not even a contender .. She can use manual lenses from canon,nikon, konica etc aplenty for her video endeavours. Basic Color correction and grading are quite easy ,on an amateur level of course, either using Resolve or premiere with the colorista plugin.. It will be an interesting and stimulating journey for your mum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahlfors Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Arikhan said: @dahlfors I understand...Though I don't have any personal experience with sony color science in real world, I heared the same story when moving from Canon to Nikon some months ago ("You will regret it!" Some Canon fanboys said...). The result: Nope, NOONE misses the Canon colors here. I still like them, but I like the Nikon colors too...They are not better or worse, they are different...And to be honest, I prefer a good composition and a general balance of compostion, image texture and subject expression and a expressive, interesting content more than discussing ad ultimo on color science. Colors are not only science but also an art and always a matter of personal taste... Canon vs Nikon colors: Get the white balance correct, and Nikon colors are a bit more truer to what the colors actually were. The Canon colors will be a bit warmer. So, if you want Canon colors more natural, dial down a bit on warm colors. If you want Nikon colors to be more like Canon, make the shots a bit warmer. Not a major difference - it's easy to get pleasing colors out of both, be it for portraits with human skin or be it for nature. Sony is miles away from the color you'll get out of Canon or Nikon cameras. Maybe best if she tries it? Guess you can always resell the camera equipment if she doesn't like it in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josdr Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 4 hours ago, dahlfors said: Sony is miles away from the color you'll get out of Canon or Nikon cameras. Maybe best if she tries it? Guess you can always resell the camera equipment if she doesn't like it in the long run. It has to do with glass as well. Pop in a good manual lens or a Zeiss lens and you will see the image pop. There is of course a difference in how colour is handled but Sony is not miles away, although behind when it comes to skin tones. Sony handles yellow very well on the other hand. In any case we are talking video here which both canon and nikon do half-heartedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahlfors Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, josdr said: It has to do with glass as well. Pop in a good manual lens or a Zeiss lens and you will see the image pop. There is of course a difference in how colour is handled but Sony is not miles away, although behind when it comes to skin tones. Sony handles yellow very well on the other hand. In any case we are talking video here which both canon and nikon do half-heartedly. I've heard the newest Sony cameras have improved on colours. I hope that's true, since Sony's history is bad, while Canons and Nikons colours are true and tested and have been behaving the same way for a long while. I've mostly used the NEX series of Sony cameras, which I used due to portability. Even the RAW stills had horrible colours compared to the Nikon cameras. The colour response for colour channels were very unbalanced, and at higher dynamic ranges there was plenty of data loss for colour channels. Which meant that however much effort you put into trying to balance colours for highlights / shadows or anything in between - something was always off unless you started masking the image and tweaking different areas specifically (basically painting in colours in Photoshop). There just was no way to reach similar colour results to Nikon cameras (or to what the scenes looked like in real life) just by dragging sliders in Lightroom. Meanwhile, the Nikon cameras have had great colour output for a decade at least. These Sony issues were irrelevant of lenses, it was due to sensor and raw data processing (camera internal) only - lenses could never have made the colour response err that badly. If we're talking video, it's important that the user uses a camera with a workflow suited to the user, not according to camera specs. In this case it sounds like the user is not too well versed with color correcting / grading, and hence Nikon/Canon which are known for having good colors straight out of the camera should be a great alternative. Rather than having to work with LUTs and colour grading in post for a good result which the Sonys have been known for. Maybe the modern A6300 and A6500 are better and have suitable colour profiles that this specific user would be happy with, maybe not. They won't be the same out of the box as what the user is used to at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 @josdr Quote It has to do with glass as well. I hope, she buys the cam, because I could use it with a mark IV adapter with dozens of great Canon lenses and get much more experience in portrait shooting (Sony's great eye AF detection) and get more in deep with video shooting with S-LOG2 and 3. But now it will be a budget problem: 1.500 EUR to spend A6300 = 940 EUR (best price at the moment in Germany) + lens 35mm 1.8 OSS = 370 EUR...It remain about 200 EUR to spend on a variable ND filter (for the Sony 35mm lens) and a mark IV metabones adapter...This begins to get a hard deal, because of the expensive Metabones mIV EF to E-Mount. It's quite hard to keep it simple on a given and not negotiable budget... Hmh...are there cheaper adapters, similar to the metabones mIV, which pass AF from Canon lenses through (making Sony's eye AF possible with Canon lenses)? Someone experienced with this aspect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noone Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Arikhan said: Hmh...are there cheaper adapters, similar to the metabones mIV, which pass AF from Canon lenses through (making Sony's eye AF possible with Canon lenses)? Someone experienced with this aspect? I don't know how well they would work with an A6300 for eye AF but even the cheap (sub $100) Fotga adapter works for eye AF with my A7s and Canon lenses. I don't use it a lot even with native lenses as it only works in AFS on the first gen A7# cameras. Eye AF is not usable for me with the A7s with Canon lenses (slow AF anyway and only in AFS means it only works on posters/photos or extremely still people). I think most adapters would work with it on a later model camera like the A6300 (there are a lot of different adapters). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.