Canon vs Sony or...

[pablogrollan]

13 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Nope, the a6100 a5100 etc have the some soft 1080p mode as Canons with moire and worse compression artifacts.

There is a "soft skin" filter in the a6000 and a5100 which was "on by default" in the 5100 when using auto settings... not in the a6000. I only learnt about it after it was turned off in a firmware update -like most, I shoot manual-.

[jase]

On 17.3.2017 at 1:47 AM, webrunner5 said:

This review is good also for the A6500. Dan knows his stuff.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/12/01/sony-a6500-touch-autofocus-reviewed-it-does-a-better-job-of-focusing-than-i-can-but-thankfully-it-isnt-infallible/

Wow, that looks awesome!

[hmcindie]

On 18/03/2017 at 8:52 AM, IronFilm said:

Nope. And you kinda show you don't know what you're talking about when you refer to a non existent camera....  the "a6100"!

Whops, that's a typo. But the 1080p quality of the a6300 is not very good. I mean, it has moire and softness. It's really nothing compared to the 4k mode. If you shoot without s-log the a6300 and the a6000 have pretty much the same quality 1080p. I have the a6300, it's 1080p is as bad or worse as any Canon. So I'm just wondering... why are you saying that it's good?

[Prefabsprout]

I have both A6300 and A6000 ..the 1080 is better on the A6000

[IronFilm]

33 minutes ago, Prefabsprout said:

I have both A6300 and A6000 ..the 1080 is better on the A6000

That is curious!

[Kisaha]

It is not curious, it is very well documented by every reviewer, the a6300/a6500 1080p is of very bad quality.

"1080 video is surprisingly poor by current standards, even taking a step backward from the original a6000, and falling far behind what the company's own RX100 cameras are capable of."

Also, I add this,  "the 120p and 100p modes of Full HD video are shot using a smaller, 1.14x crop in from here and 30p 4K imposes a still tighter, 1.23x crop.

Cropping has several effects: it means you need a shorter focal length to achieve a wide-angle shot and also means that your noise performance worsens, since you're effectively using a smaller sensor area. In 4K/30p mode, the a6500 is using a sensor area a fraction larger than a Four Thirds sensor."

[Twist]

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

It is not curious, it is very well documented by every reviewer, the a6300/a6500 1080p is of very bad quality.

"1080 video is surprisingly poor by current standards, even taking a step backward from the original a6000, and falling far behind what the company's own RX100 cameras are capable of."

Also, I add this,  "the 120p and 100p modes of Full HD video are shot using a smaller, 1.14x crop in from here and 30p 4K imposes a still tighter, 1.23x crop.

Cropping has several effects: it means you need a shorter focal length to achieve a wide-angle shot and also means that your noise performance worsens, since you're effectively using a smaller sensor area. In 4K/30p mode, the a6500 is using a sensor area a fraction larger than a Four Thirds sensor."

But isn't the point to shoot it in 4k and downsample to 1080p? Is there any reason I'd use 30p in Europe? Better to have slow motion than not though?

 

Doesn't the 70d line skip at 1080p and have no 4k though?

[Kisaha]

I just quoted some facts about the a6300/a6500 cameras that some people that haven't use them do not know about. I replied specifically to the terrible (in my opinion, and all reviewers obviously) 1080p performance, but I just copied the next few lines as well on the review.

Whatever you do is your own choice! I can only reply for my self and the people around me.

I personally use my mirrorless (NX) cameras for live performances (we use 5-8 cameras per performance), that last 2-4 hours, so I want the least SD cards possible, the least files possible for synchronization (so around an hour per file time duration), no overheating issues, and "alright" 1080p.

There are a lot of people that care about 4K/30p, the world is a big place (or small, depending how you see things!).

I do not even shoot 4K with those, as for the low budget projects that I use my mirrorless cameras there is no need for 4K, and for better projects I use completely different (video) cameras. No clients ever has asked for 4K delivery, and in the scheme of things (media for recording footage, hard drives to work and as backups, processing power for editing) is completely unnecessary.

Those are my choices. People's mile usage vary greatly.  

[ntblowz]

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I add this,  "the 120p and 100p modes of Full HD video are shot using a smaller, 1.14x crop in from here and 30p 4K imposes a still tighter, 1.23x crop.

 

So in 120p it is 1.71X crop and 30P 4K is 1.85x crop?  That like gh1/2 level of crop!

[Phil A]

23 hours ago, Twist said:

But isn't the point to shoot it in 4k and downsample to 1080p? Is there any reason I'd use 30p in Europe? Better to have slow motion than not though?

 

Doesn't the 70d line skip at 1080p and have no 4k though?

Usually yes, but sometimes I'd like to shoot FHD with my A6300 because the extreme rolling shutter in UHD will limit what I could do. It's just that the FHD is so bad (not quite sharp, has moire and aliasing) that you can't really intercut it with downsampled UHD, people notice (even the non-geeks).

[Twist]

5 minutes ago, Phil A said:

Usually yes, but sometimes I'd like to shoot FHD with my A6300 because the extreme rolling shutter in UHD will limit what I could do. It's just that the FHD is so bad (not quite sharp, has moire and aliasing) that you can't really intercut it with downsampled UHD, people notice (even the non-geeks).

That's a good point, have you compared the AF to a Canon with DP or A6000? Thanks

[Twist]

It seems it may also be worth considering the nx1, what's the AF like guys? Is it on par with A6300 and Canon DP? Thanks

[Kisaha]

I consider dual pixel a league of its own, nothing else is so stable and reliable, it is the only one I have professionally use (Canon C100mkII).

I also use the NX1 (with the cheap PZ lens) on Ronin gimbals and the focus is right like 19/20 times, actually from all the good takes, none had an AF issue, so I am guessing that it could have lost the odd one.

I am not really using AF for anything else, as it isn't there yet, to keep shooting auto. In video you need full control, and it is better to loose a second to focus, than have an hour long take with the AF hunting back and forth and whatnot. Full auto in video is not an option, yet.

Philip Bloom has an AF test, and even though didn't took a lot of NX tests, it was very reliable for such an old camera and Sony cameras were a mixed bag, DP AF was the best of course.

[Twist]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

I consider dual pixel a league of its own, nothing else is so stable and reliable, it is the only one I have professionally use (Canon C100mkII).

I also use the NX1 (with the cheap PZ lens) on Ronin gimbals and the focus is right like 19/20 times, actually from all the good takes, none had an AF issue, so I am guessing that it could have lost the odd one.

I am not really using AF for anything else, as it isn't there yet, to keep shooting auto. In video you need full control, and it is better to loose a second to focus, than have an hour long take with the AF hunting back and forth and whatnot. Full auto in video is not an option, yet.

Philip Bloom has an AF test, and even though didn't took a lot of NX tests, it was very reliable for such an old camera and Sony cameras were a mixed bag, DP AF was the best of course.

Thanks Kisaha, very helpful post, looking back at everything that's been said and my requirements it seems that the best quality all rounder is the NX1, even though it's a dead system it just offers so much and the quality of the video I've seen is fantastic. It's going to cost more than I wanted to spend but what's new there.

[Kisaha]

You have to consider lenses as well, if you want 1 great zoom lens, and a couple of primes, then NX is a viable solution as there are packets with the 16-50S lens (2-2.8f, quite remarkable) for as much as a new a6500 body only. Adding a couple more NX lenses and you are set, there is also a speedbooster, if you are into this game, and dumb adaptors (no electronics) for other lenses. No metabones though, and that is a deal breaker for some.

The next best value for money, are the middle-ing Panasonic cameras, with as little as 1000$ you can have an ok set of camera and lens (a bit more though if you want the best zooms, they aren't exactly cheap).

In my opinion, and as I expressed it in the beginning, if you are after the best AF, you should consider an M5 or M6 Canon, as they have a very good touch screen implementation, best AF, a few great M lenses (the Ultra Wide Zoom, the pancake) and usually comes with a free AF adapter, which is great, but on the other side I am pro native lenses, and you would be amazed (in a bad way) how silly an M5 looks with a 24-70 EF lens in front. So the main disadvantages of the M system, is no exceptional native lenses (as Canon, like Sony, prefer you to buy into more expensive Full Frame systems) and no 4K really.

If you value 4K that much, then there are the Panasonic, NX, Sony options. If you value AF+4K, then NX and Sony. Even though I have 3 NX cameras, and most lenses, I am not 100% positive on advice people follow that format, as you know it is a dead system, and takes you nowhere after NX1, ofcourse there is also the exceptional NX500, which main disadvantages are a heavy crop in 4K, and 120frames slow motion in 720p (instead of 1080p of the NX1), and some other minor things. But it is a very reliable little camera doing all the modern stuff on a very small form factor, does not overheat, can record almost 73minutes per take in 1080p and can found for relatively cheap.

Also, a plus of the NX system (for me) are the spot on lenses that (except an S ultra wide zoom) are exactly the ones I need.

If you are considering getting a NX1 and a couple of native lenses, and literally, melt it from the heavy use in the next couple of years, then it may be one of the best value for money buys, until we see the new Sony ones, and the more advanced Canon M, and maybe a Nikon alternative. A very capable slightly used NX1+16-50S+accessories for 1500$ can be an excellent value for money option.

[webrunner5]

On 3/17/2017 at 6:13 PM, Twist said:

 

M43 is out of the picture tbh. Apsc is as small as I want to go. It doesn't help the 5div is a 1.7x crop in 4k either. A7rii seems the way to go but it's so damn expensive and after years of using Sony I'm not sure I trust then to dump another mount... plus the depreciation. 

 

Just buy a Speedbooster and problem solved on a m4/3 camera. Oh and every lens you stick on it is a Lot faster F stop wise. Win,Win.

[Cinegain]

With APS-C it's not just the crop: ease of establishing shallow depth of field (and not all lenses perform that well wide open, so it's nice if you could squeeze that aperture a tiny bit) and the better choice of wide angle lenses perhaps. It's much more the two main things about its sensor performance and that's: dynamic range and high ISO noise performance. You can do anything you want to a 4/3" sensor, but that's not going to improve. We already established that not always will you need a massive dynamic range... and you can and should always light your scenes... but if you're out about in the city, changing environments needing to quickly adapt, it's nice to be able to 'cheat' a little and have that flexibility in your camera to provide you with that. I absolutely adore Nikon APS-C sensor performance. Sony sensor performance is quite alright as well in terms of that mentioned flexibility (they could work on other things like color reproduction and defaults (that create color channel clipping issues), rolling shutter, etc). Guess the X-T2 proves that you can get great things out of an APS-C sensor indeed. Just... the bodies, features, eco systems (and their compactness) and perhaps prices that go with the current APS-C offerings... they don't really appeal to me that much to leave the MFT system quite yet as I'd rather have a nice system to work and work within the boundaries of what the sensor cán do... than ditching the system for something that doesn't really resonate with the way I'd like to shoot at all. I could be rocking anything from a A7RII to a F35, and they're amazing at what they do, but it's pretty useless if neither of these fit into my shooting flow.

[Twist]

Lots of useful info in this thread and I thank you all for taking the time. I've gone for the NX1, it just seems to offer everything I want and a lot more in terms of features and image quality, the only real negative is that it's a dead system.

It doesn't offer the AF lenses I usually use for stills but it seems manual focus is the way to go over time anyway. I have some rokkors laying around to try in the meantime and will also look at FD.

Thanks again

[Cinegain]

Now that's a camera I wouldn't mind giving a go as well, might be a good replacement for my D5300 that is awesome for its sensor, but which I hate for being a traditional DSLR with that clunky mirror inside. That 16-50mm f/2-2.8 S probably gives you little else remaining to still wish for. Maybe I'll run into a good deal some day. Hope it works out for ya! Have fun with it.

[Kisaha]

Whatever the angle, NX still offers great value for the money.

Some of my favorite lenses are: 10mm fisheye (most APS-C systems do not even offer one, amazing tiny and very near focusing lens) - 30mm pancake (incredible sharp, great for video, very very small, very slow focusing though) - 45mm (advertised as) pancake (my favorite NX lens, rendered all my 50-55-58mm legacy lenses useless, and that is the reason I was resisting this lens for a few years! very fast focusing also) and of course the unicorn 16-50S (2f in the first few mm that cover 3 common prime focal lengths, best AF for NX, great Dual Stabilizer with the NX1 - for non action scenes), 16mm on NX is 24.something mm, the usual 17mm in Canon EF-S is 27.something mm, quite a difference.

Amazing value for such a cheap price (so I had to own them to fill holes): 16-50PZ/12-24/50-200

Probably near the top of their respected lists: 60mm macro, 85mm (a truly amazing lens), 50-150S

There are also two small pancakes (16/20mm), and a few other kit zooms (20-50/18-55)

What I am missing? Only an S ultra Wide Zoom, some people something longer than 200mm.

If you bought for cheap (which I know you did!), the loss is minimal, and the enjoyment vast!

Just melt it from the use, it will be very difficult to need something more for a while!