Sony A6500 or Panasonic GH5...?

[mercer]

20 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

dont think so, even FS7II doesn't have hybrid AF and that thing cost a lot more

 

Maybe the A9 will have it all!

The a6500 has Touch phase detection af, so no reason to doubt that the a7siii will have it. 

[Axel]

I think the GH5 is the ultimate MFT camera - the most advanced as well as the last GH. You simply can't stuff significantly more pixels on such a small sensor. Or if you could, you had a hard time finding lenses sharp enough for it. It's an interesting detail in lens tests how lenses always perform better on Super35/APS-C and even better on full frame.

Read the GH5 PPP linked to in the all is revealed thread. You'll notice how many techniques are used (and obviously have to be used) to top the perceived sharpness of the GH4. And yet - in my subjective view, it does not reach the Sonys. I've downloaded every clip available so far, and I admit it looks quite pleasing. However, we are starting to get used to 4k images ...

And since resolution matters and unstable camera movement drastically reduces it, it's time to make friends with stabilization, lens, camera, gimbals. With these put to the equation, the A6500's rolling shutters (almost) ceases to be an issue at all.

In the past I raised my voice for 10-bit, stating that it was more important than 4k. Now that we've got it in a mirrorless consumer camera, I'm curious to see what people make of it.  It's an advantage, sure. 

[ntblowz]

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

The a6500 has Touch phase detection af, so no reason to doubt that the a7siii will have it. 

A7RII have PDAF and A7SII doesn't have it, A6500 have but not RX100 V, so yeah i doubt it, Sony have their own way of differentiate product line

 

My A5100 have touch screen phase detection af and it has been out for how long now?

[agachart]

5 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Yep. As you point the AF is the problem on the pana. For this reason I will get the A7S3, which will be close in spec with GH5 but with:

way better low light 

way better AF (I expect A6500 level) 

swallow DoF when needed 

better DR

 

where is testing of GH5's AF?
why you tell it's slow!!!

[webrunner5]

Well I think the next Sony A7 cameras will probably be the way to go, granted they will be nearly a $1,000.00 more than a GH5. Sony is not going to  let Panasonic overcome them. Sony seems to be going for the throat lately so I would expect the next A7s will be 10 bit, god knows what else. They are not going to stand still.

[wolf33d]

2 hours ago, agachart said:

where is testing of GH5's AF?
why you tell it's slow!!!

1 - it's not PDAF

2 - first multiple shots on youtube with AF confirm this 

AF is gonna be a bit faster than GH4, but no magic can be done with contrast detection aF in video

[jonpais]

11 hours ago, agachart said:

where is testing of GH5's AF?
why you tell it's slow!!!

Because if Panasonic had made such great strides in that department, they would have thrown a press junket and invited photographers and journalists to shoot rodeo, Indie 500, and track and field events like Sony. It just ain't gonna happen.

[Kisaha]

Even though I will be waiting for the next Sony move (a7000 and/or A7Siii), I am pretty sure they will be finding more than one ways to ef up!

I know it isn't relative of what you ask, but I am really longing for a C100markIII or a Panasonic LS300 (with variable sensor and the insides of GH5) more than anything, and I hope just in time for my next camera buy in the summer!

[jonpais]

From what I've seen perusing the G80/85 and GX80/85 threads, the Canon 1Dc or whatever threads (I'm not at all familiar with Canon products), and the NX1 threads, there might be a couple of individuals who purchase the GH5 who won't be able to exploit what it's capable of anyway and who will be sorely disappointed. If you thought the GH4 had lots of customizability, the GH5 is going to have 10X more, yet many still don't even know the basics, like how to white balance their shots correctly. I'm still seeing lots of videos here that have craploads of sharpening added in post, which absolutely destroys any cinematic look. Shooting in harsh lighting conditions that is not only beyond the scope of the dynamic range of these cameras, but is completely alien to a film-like look. Ruben Latre was able to get more out of the mushy 720p Canon 5D than most of us will ever get out of one of these 4K cameras. Then there are those who are going to settle for a slow universal zoom kit lens, which again is like putting a set of $400 tires on a Lamborghini. In practically every forum I've ever participated in, it seems to be the mantra that a Speed Booster is the secret to getting that elusive quality we associate with film, but in a recent non-scientific test I did comparing the Nocticron to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, most preferred the native u4/3 lens. Log is the other most requested feature, yet most of the grading of V-log I've seen in the GH5 downloads thread also leaves a lot to be desired (and I suck at grading myself). So what am I doing? I'm watching as many videos as I can, by people like Ruben Latre, Brandon Li, Kendy Ty and others; following as many online grading tutorials as possible; and going out and shooting every day to try to improve my skills: if for no other reason than to convince myself that I really need to spend $2,000 for another camera.

[Axel]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Then there are those who are going to settle for a slow universal zoom kit lens, which again is like putting a set of $400 tires on a Lamborghini. In practically every forum I've ever participated in, it seems to be the mantra that a Speed Booster is the secret to getting that elusive quality we associate with film ...

If that's the case, it's a misconception. Buying a speedbooster can be a rational decision. It allows you to buy better glass for less money. It allows you to capture comparatively more light without smaller DoF. Think about it.

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

... but in a recent non-scientific test I did comparing the Nocticron to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, most preferred the native u4/3 lens.

People reliably choose the image with shallower depth of field. Not necessarily because the bokeh is nice, but because the selective focus clearly signals that the shot has had an intention. If you follow this path, you never needed to care about set design, framing and all the other arts. Just buy a full frame camera and a 0.95 lens and blur everything!

[scotchtape]

19 hours ago, Axel said:

To get both AF and Dual IS on the GH5 you are restricted to Pana glass, which is expensive while not being very fast and not looking too spectacular. Comparable to Sony. But with the bigger sensor and better SNR of APS-C, the Sony lenses perform better. 

But you can shoot handheld with non-stabilized, adapted lenses with the GH5, because it has virtually no RS. Not so easy with the A6500. 

Bro.

Panny 7-14mm f4 can be had for under $500.

Sony 10-18mm f4 is around $600. It does have oss though and takes screw on filters.

Panny 12-35mm f2.8 can be had for $500

Sony: no f2.8 standard apsc lens. But you can buy the FE GM 24-70mm for $1,800

Panny 35-100mm can be had for $600

Sony: no equivalent but you can use the new 70-200mm f2.8 for $2,600...

 

The only other "comparable" lenses are the sony 18-105mm f4 for $500 which is a stop slower and the Zeiss one (forgot specs) that is closer to $1,000. 

 

Panny Trinity is under $2k USD used on eBay if you scrounge for deals - for f2.8 zooms! Small and lightweight.  Admittedly the 35-100 stabilizer is shit for video but the IQ is fine.

Sony lineup has nothing close and you have to use the heavy and crazy expensive full frame lenses for f2.8... Currently the 10-18 24-70 and 70-200 would be just under $5k... And heavy and large. 

 

$3k vs $5k. Is that a "fair" comparison? Maybe not, but we have no choice since Sony has no comparable lenses!

 

Sony is boatloads more expensive.  Whether it's worth it or not is up to you.  The GM 70-200 f2.8 looks pretty sweet since I think they said it was parfocal.  The 24-70 I'm disappointed has no built in oss.  I really like the 5 axis dual is on the 18-105 a6500 combo.  Haven't really been overly impressed with ibis and adapted lenses.

 

No way Sony is cheaper!  When have they ever been cheaper?!  It's Sony! 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Axel said:

If that's the case, it's a misconception. Buying a speedbooster can be a rational decision. It allows you to buy better glass for less money. It allows you to capture comparatively more light without smaller DoF. Think about it.

People reliably choose the image with shallower depth of field. Not necessarily because the bokeh is nice, but because the selective focus clearly signals that the shot has had an intention. If you follow this path, you never needed to care about set design, framing and all the other arts. Just buy a full frame camera and a 0.95 lens and blur everything!

For most users here, from the comments I've seen posted, buying a Speed Booster is an expensive proposition, and often it's less expensive and more practical to just purchase native glass. To take just one of the most popular lenses as an example, lugging around the Sigma 18-35mm all day isn't my idea of a picnic.

It wasn't just the depth of field they were looking at - the viewers, myself included, already knew there was going to be more bokeh and a softer background with the Nocticron.

Anyhow, my argument is not that everyone should throw their MB SB in the garbage, it's that you can still get a pleasing look with some native u4/3 mount lenses.

[jonpais]

@Axel I do agree, however, that if you've already got a bunch of legacy glass and are just starting out in the micro four thirds system, it would be cheaper in the long run to pick up a focal reducer. Also, I see your point about bokeh, but since I'm a street shooter, I've got little choice but to blur out the background in order to make my subjects stand out. But I've also grown tired of watching endless videos with razor-thin DoF.  

[BasiliskFilm]

1 hour ago, scotchtape said:

Bro.

Panny 7-14mm f4 can be had for under $500.

Sony 10-18mm f4 is around $600. It does have oss though and takes screw on filters.

Panny 12-35mm f2.8 can be had for $500

Sony: no f2.8 standard apsc lens. But you can buy the FE GM 24-70mm for $1,800

Panny 35-100mm can be had for $600

Sony: no equivalent but you can use the new 70-200mm f2.8 for $2,600...

 

The only other "comparable" lenses are the sony 18-105mm f4 for $500 which is a stop slower and the Zeiss one (forgot specs) that is closer to $1,000. 

 

Panny Trinity is under $2k USD used on eBay if you scrounge for deals - for f2.8 zooms! Small and lightweight.  Admittedly the 35-100 stabilizer is shit for video but the IQ is fine.

Sony lineup has nothing close and you have to use the heavy and crazy expensive full frame lenses for f2.8... Currently the 10-18 24-70 and 70-200 would be just under $5k... And heavy and large. 

 

$3k vs $5k. Is that a "fair" comparison? Maybe not, but we have no choice since Sony has no comparable lenses!

 

Sony is boatloads more expensive.  Whether it's worth it or not is up to you.  The GM 70-200 f2.8 looks pretty sweet since I think they said it was parfocal.  The 24-70 I'm disappointed has no built in oss.  I really like the 5 axis dual is on the 18-105 a6500 combo.  Haven't really been overly impressed with ibis and adapted lenses.

 

No way Sony is cheaper!  When have they ever been cheaper?!  It's Sony! 

Given the shallower DOF and better low light on APS-C you really have to compare an F2.8 lens on µ4/3 with F4 lenses on Sony. The smaller the sensor the easier it is to build f2.8 lenses, so naturally they will be cheaper.

[Axel]

2 hours ago, scotchtape said:

Bro.

Panny 7-14mm f4 can be had for under $500.

Sony 10-18mm f4 is around $600. It does have oss though and takes screw on filters.

Listen, bro!

I actually owned the 7-14mm f4. Welding goggles. That's why I sold it after a few weeks and bought the Olympus 12mm f2 instead.

56 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Given the shallower DOF and better low light on APS-C you really have to compare an F2.8 lens on µ4/3 with F4 lenses on Sony. The smaller the sensor the easier it is to build f2.8 lenses, so naturally they will be cheaper.

For physical reasons, you're right, Basil. I never bothered about too deep depth of field with extreme wide angles, sDoF can look very wrong (three flowers on the window sill. Either the one in the middle is sharp or the two left and right). There is more than the theoretical 1 stop difference between an f4 on MFT and on APS-C. Look at these shots @ 24"ff. You think you can shoot this with a Pana 7-14 on the GH5? The lowlight shots we saw so far don't suggest it ...

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Anyhow, my argument is not that everyone should throw their MB SB in the garbage, it's that you can still get a pleasing look with some native u4/3 mount lenses.

You proved that!

I want to make one thing clear: I'm not a Sony fanboy. I became a temporary GH5 fanboy when the Neumann footage and the specs were published. No buyer will rue it. Everybody has his reasons to buy one or the other. It's not a lifetime decision, and I've been selling my equipment multiple times during the past decade. And I shrugged.

[Kisaha]

Sorry for bringing the old ghosts back, but I can't resist reading the Sony extremeties!

NX 16-50mm 2-2.8f, is the one lens can't find in any other system. 2f from 24mm-35mm (equiv) and the specific rendition and image stabilizer of this lens make it an amazing set (that you don't need!) of 2f primes, and a few more 2.8f ones. Together with the amazing AF and DIS of NX1 is a still relevant combo for most jobs.

Someone posted recently an asking price of 1200€ for NX1+16-50S+extra batteries+external charger. This is what I call value for money!

Fuji is also an option, X-T20 anyone?

[jonpais]

11 minutes ago, Axel said:

Listen, bro!

I actually owned the 7-14mm f4. Welding goggles. That's why I sold it after a few weeks and bought the Olympus 12mm f2 instead.

For physical reasons, you're right, Basil. I never bothered about too deep depth of field with extreme wide angles, sDoF can look very wrong (three flowers on the window sill. Either the one in the middle is sharp or the two left and right). There is more than the theoretical 1 stop difference between an f4 on MFT and on APS-C. Look at these shots @ 24"ff. You think you can shoot this with a Pana 7-14 on the GH5? The lowlight shots we saw so far don't suggest it ...

You proved that!

I want to make one thing clear: I'm not a Sony fanboy. I became a temporary GH5 fanboy when the Neumann footage and the specs were published. No buyer will rue it. Everybody has his reasons to buy one or the other. It's not a lifetime decision, and I've been selling my equipment multiple times during the past decade. And I shrugged.

The OP's already sold his GH3 and Panny glass and now he's ready to buy all over again, ? so yeah, like you said (or did you?) it's not a marriage (or perhaps it is!). I don't have much experience with wedding photography, but isn't the GH5 a bit overkill? Just asking, I genuinely don't know. I do know that I'd never arrive at a once-in-a-lifetime event armed with just one camera though, and if it were me, I'd pick up two G85 bodies instead. But again, I don't know what common practice is when it comes to weddings. 

[Kisaha]

The best video camera for weddings is a C100 (any of those) with any standard APS-C 2.8f zoom, and a couple of very good LED lights (or redheads). 

[Axel]

23 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I don't have much experience with wedding photography, but isn't the GH5 a bit overkill? Just asking, I genuinely don't know. I do know that I'd never arrive at a once-in-a-lifetime event armed with just one camera though, and if it were me, I'd pick up two G85 bodies instead. But again, I don't know what common practice is when it comes to weddings. 

I am not a professional, but I just know the GH5 was the perfect camera for a wedding videographer - plus external mic(s). It's run&gun most of the time, but you have to make it look good. You have to rely on the camera. Of course, Kisahas Canon also was an option. But absolutely not the A6500!

[jonpais]

12 minutes ago, Axel said:

I am not a professional, but I just know the GH5 was the perfect camera for a wedding videographer - plus external mic(s). It's run&gun most of the time, but you have to make it look good. You have to rely on the camera. Of course, Kisahas Canon also was an option. But absolutely not the A6500!

Thanks for the link - great post.