Sony A6500 or Panasonic GH5...?

[webrunner5]

I guess things have Really changed since I, and others in my era, Only had One camera at a Wedding! Gee all those poor Millions of people that had Weddings really got screwed!

I guess they missed out of people wiping their butt in the bathroom, little kids picking buggers out of their nose, boys looking up women's skirts when they bent over etc. , etc., God I feel bad for them.

Sorry people for me Only taking shots of the shit you REALLY needed!

I am poking fun at you guys, I guess, well not too sure, yeah I am, I think, hmm.   Scratching head, then ass, then head, wow something stinks. Ehh.

[IronFilm]

On 21/04/2017 at 3:08 PM, webrunner5 said:

You must do Donald Trump's weddings to be able to have someone to afford that much gear!! Really, I mean really? 

That is the sweet sweet awesomeness of Panasonic, is very very extremely affordable to pick up their older cameras! I started out years ago with one Panasonic GH1, and over the years I've got very cheaply indeed: GX1/GF3/G3/GH1(another one!)/G6. Plus a little Nikon/Sony/Samsung/BMD in the mix too.

On 21/04/2017 at 6:16 PM, Orangenz said:

IronFilm is the real deal! 

Haha, thanks! Not sure about the truth of that...  But OK! :-D

[webrunner5]

28 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

That is the sweet sweet awesomeness of Panasonic, is very very extremely affordable to pick up their older cameras! I started out years ago with one Panasonic GH1, and over the years I've got very cheaply indeed: GX1/GF3/G3/GH1(another one!)/G6. Plus a little Nikon/Sony/Samsung/BMD in the mix too.

 

Yeah it is pretty amazing how cheap a lot of m4/3 cameras are on the used market. And a lot of them are damn good at video! Oly and Panny have done a good job for the little guy that is for sure.

[IronFilm]

Exactly, even an old Panasonic GH1 is still a better choice than many filmmakers out there get to make.

[Grégory LEROY]

On 21/04/2017 at 4:33 AM, Chrad said:

The field of view of the GH5 in video mode is about 1.3x wider than the RX100 in video mode. APS-C in video mode has a field of view 1.35x bigger than GH5.

This is almost the same as the photo mode field of view difference of 1.33x between APS-C and M43. The difference the proportions of the sensors make is very minimal.

If you're not talking about DOF, it's totally psuedo-scientific and neaningless. What you're referring to is a property of the DOF, and if it applies to M43 then surely it must apply to S16 as well.

I trust my eyes, not specs sheets, m43 have this kind of weird robotic look to my eyes. Of course a talented videographer can produce beautiful things with m43 but the average footage I'm watching on youtube have this weird look.

[Chrad]

9 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:

I trust my eyes, not specs sheets, m43 have this kind of weird robotic look to my eyes. Of course a talented videographer can produce beautiful things with m43 but the average footage I'm watching on youtube have this weird look.

This is a situation where you should actually trust the specs. There is literally no reason that M43 should look more 'robotic' than say, super 16mm, in terms of the look of transitions between in and out of focus. It's total nonsense. 

Maybe you're looking at images produced with lenses that don't have much of 'pop' in terms of subject separation. That would make sense and could be attributed to optical design. But there's a solution - pick a different lens. 

[Grégory LEROY]

I've never wrote about super 16mm

[Ken Ross]

On 4/23/2017 at 2:07 PM, Grégory LEROY said:

I trust my eyes, not specs sheets, m43 have this kind of weird robotic look to my eyes. Of course a talented videographer can produce beautiful things with m43 but the average footage I'm watching on youtube have this weird look.

There's simply no technical reason why you should see this other than someone using a high shutter speed or your computer not playing the clips back smoothly. It's certainly not inherent in any way with m43. I've never heard this before.

[Chrad]

10 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:

I've never wrote about super 16mm

Yes, but I mentioned it when I asked, if you think M43 looks 'robotic' in the out of focus transitions, where does S16 come into it for you? A smaller sensor, so the transition between focused and unfocused areas should be more sudden than even M43, but no one would call it 'robotic' or say it isn't cinematic.
There's no reason for the 'robotic' thing you're talking about. M43 is nothing but dimensions for the size of a sensor. 
I challenge you to point to footage that exemplifies this look you're talking about.

[Fritz Pierre]

On 4/5/2017 at 10:04 AM, Grégory LEROY said:

I don't own either cameras (I hate sony science color), but the big plus of the A6500 seems to be its stills abilities: Better autofocus, dynamic range, low light and Aps-C look (as opposed to the m43 robotic look)

You should  see the Academy Award winning film Hurt Locker lol....shot on "robotic s16 mm" won Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow...in 2008!!!...some of the posts on this forum can be hilarious!...I would recommend you see the film though...It will make you want to own a 16mm sized sensor on a Digital Bolex...by comparison m4/3 is enormous!

[jase]

About focusing: is it really true that on the a6500 you either get MF or AF-C only? Nothing like AF-S or MF with AF-ON? Is there any way to MF and use AF for a quick focus while you are shooting?

[scotchtape]

9 hours ago, jase said:

About focusing: is it really true that on the a6500 you either get MF or AF-C only? Nothing like AF-S or MF with AF-ON? Is there any way to MF and use AF for a quick focus while you are shooting?

That is how it works.

What I do is assign a button to AF enable/disable.  Then in af-c mode I just use it to switch between af-c and MF.

Stupid cludge but it works.

[Eduardo Granadsztejn]

14 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

You should  see the Academy Award winning film Hurt Locker lol....shot on "robotic s16 mm" won Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow...in 2008!!!...some of the posts on this forum can be hilarious!...I would recommend you see the film though...It will make you want to own a 16mm sized sensor on a Digital Bolex...by comparison m4/3 is enormous!

It is not about the mount (BMPCC is very cinematic), I think it is about the GHx ¨mojo"

[Fritz Pierre]

7 hours ago, Eduardo Granadsztejn said:

It is not about the mount (BMPCC is very cinematic), I think it is about the GHx ¨mojo"

So I take it you don't feel this piece shot on the GH5 has the "mojo" you need in a camera?...perhaps you can tell us what camera you shoot on that works for you?

 

[tweak]

On 23/04/2017 at 8:07 PM, Grégory LEROY said:

I trust my eyes, not specs sheets, m43 have this kind of weird robotic look to my eyes. Of course a talented videographer can produce beautiful things with m43 but the average footage I'm watching on youtube have this weird look.

Agreed. GH4 had it and was one of the reasons I stopped shooting with it, motion always looked very "digital" imo. Not sure if GH5 has it as I haven't really looked. As people said I don't think it's to do with sensor size though, more to do with the processing and compression pipeline Panasonic employs.

[deezid]

20 minutes ago, tweak said:

Agreed. GH4 had it and was one of the reasons I stopped shooting with it, motion always looked very "digital" imo. Not sure if GH5 has it as I haven't really looked. As people said I don't think it's to do with sensor size though, more to do with the processing and compression pipeline Panasonic employs.

It defintely is. As far as I know Panasonic lowered the sharpening and nr in the GH5, so shooting with a non native lens with sharpening at -5 should be close to almost no sharpening at all. Have to try it out when I switch (if I switch, otherwise: BM Ursa Mini Pro, which doesn't show any nasty processing, which makes the picture thin and digital)

[Dimitris Stasinos]

I am trying desperately to like gh5. It's specs fits my needs, in some cases they exceed them. I am scanning YT for days, seeings clips from early owners, i graded some downloadable files my self and i think it is time to stop. I have seen great little movies and single shots from cameras like NX1, A6300-500, even RX10 & RX100 but every time i am watching a GH5 clip these days, (i will say it, don't start throwing rocks at me...) ALL i am seeing is crashed blacks, stuttery motion, & ugly sharp edges on dogs, girlfriends & trees. I kinda liked Luke's footage so let's say that this is a little gem that many hobbyists can afford but a few of them can make art with it (and these guys will buy it next month), so you know nothing until you get your hands on it. But this is weird...It was only a month after RX10 ii's release when i saw some clips on YT that blew my mind, and that was a camera aimed at less experienced users. I won't say that in my hands this camera will sing, but cmon....i am the only one that doesn't see anything cinematic in this YT early GH5 garbage cluster? 

[tweak]

1 hour ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

I am trying desperately to like gh5. It's specs fits my needs, in some cases they exceed them. I am scanning YT for days, seeings clips from early owners, i graded some downloadable files my self and i think it is time to stop. I have seen great little movies and single shots from cameras like NX1, A6300-500, even RX10 & RX100 but every time i am watching a GH5 clip these days, (i will say it, don't start throwing rocks at me...) ALL i am seeing is crashed blacks, stuttery motion, & ugly sharp edges on dogs, girlfriends & trees. I kinda liked Luke's footage so let's say that this is a little gem that many hobbyists can afford but a few of them can make art with it (and these guys will buy it next month), so you know nothing until you get your hands on it. But this is weird...It was only a month after RX10 ii's release when i saw some clips on YT that blew my mind, and that was a camera aimed at less experienced users. I won't say that in my hands this camera will sing, but cmon....i am the only one that doesn't see anything cinematic in this YT early GH5 garbage cluster? 

I've seen some stuff that looks pretty nice, pretty good for hyper-realistic blogger type shots. I saw a Jon Olsen vid where I thought the colours at least looked way better than anything I got from GH4 (skin wise). However I'm not sure that it's the camera that a lot of people focusing on the "10bit" part expect it to be though. I mean shoot 10bit MLRaw then shoot even 14bit (or even 12bit) and see the difference, it's huge (and that's in a non-compressed Raw type set up so the difference will be even bigger in a compressed h.264 type setup) I just don't think the 10bit part is going to give most what they expect (something like bmpcc or whatever).
All I can say is; use the right camera for the right job. For quick edits with little fuss (probably most corporate stuff) GH5 should be a fantastic cam for most.

[Oliver Daniel]

In 2017, it's definitely not the camera. It's the user. All of them can deliver great results, if you make it so. 

I've seen A6300 footage which at first sight I though was RED footage (these users happen to be very skilled). 

The GH5 will have crap loads of poor footage out there. It's price is very accessible and amateurs will be pushing around Vlog like you would an elderly person on the edge of a cliff. 

The GH5 in great hands will be a monster. 

I'm absolutely astounded by the 4k image from the A6500. I shot a paid music video project using only the A6500 and the 18-105 f4 in autofocus and absolutely no other gear at all (to see what would happen). I think you need to put the camera (and yourself) under pressure, it forces better results. This video might be out this week. 

 

[Fritz Pierre]

15 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

In 2017, it's definitely not the camera. It's the user. All of them can deliver great results, if you make it so. 

I've seen A6300 footage which at first sight I though was RED footage (these users happen to be very skilled). 

The GH5 will have crap loads of poor footage out there. It's price is very accessible and amateurs will be pushing around Vlog like you would an elderly person on the edge of a cliff. 

The GH5 in great hands will be a monster. 

I'm absolutely astounded by the 4k image from the A6500. I shot a paid music video project using only the A6500 and the 18-105 f4 in autofocus and absolutely no other gear at all (to see what would happen). I think you need to put the camera (and yourself) under pressure, it forces better results. This video might be out this week. 

 

+1

if you can't make the GH5 or the A6500 or practically anything going back a couple of years work and produce something beautiful, learning something about cameras and how to use them would be probably the next order of business...getting the camera is of course the first step and writing nonsense on a forum has never landed a minute of footage on either the big or small screen...just because one reads a term on the internet (say cinematic...yawn) it does not mean you know what that is....getting out there and working with a camera and creating projects can only improve things...or of course one can simply land up with some or more of the same crap everyone sees on YouTube....hey...if it was easy, everyone would be doing it so don't feel bad??