Am I An Idiot??? (Going From D750 to a6500...)

[Mark Romero 2]

WARNING: This is a long post...

Is "seller's remorse" a thing?

I've brought this up before, so bear with me please...

After watching Mattias' review of the D750 again (for like the fiftieth time) I can't help but feel I am making a mistake selling my D750 and Nikon lenses and using my a6500 as my hybrid camera.

I shoot 95% stills and only 5% video, and the stills I shoot are almost always large, stationary objects  (i.e., architecture, or people sitting in a chair).

I like the a6500... to an extent.  As a stills camera, for shooting real estate like I do, it really is just about on par with the D750.  I use the LCD for shooting (since I am almost always shooting at waist level), and despite having a worse LCD monitor, the AF using the a6500 is so much better than the liveview AF of the D750 that it is hard to give that up. 

I've only had about five video jobs this last year, but I really want to do more. The average pay I will get for each job is only going to be about US $250 or so. Because of that, I need to get kind of quick video and will be on a gimbal for doing walk-through videos. (Setting up a slider / jib just takes too long). I know the a6500 with IBIS and light weight is better for gimbal work. It's just really smooth on my Zhiyun crane.

The a6500 is capable of getting some great footage (thanks in particular to Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Sony). But it is a pain to capture 4K with the overheating and the dim, smaller screen and the difficult to press buttons (when you are holding the gimbal in one hand and trying to press buttons with your off hand).

And while my computer can handle 4K XAVCS ok, it handles the 1080p of the D750 better. And the dynamic range (very important to me) is about equal to Slog 2 on the a6500

But I like the size and weight of the a6500 so much better than the D750. If I am going somewhere with my family I would just leave the D750 at home...

Arrggghhh....

So here is how you can help me decide:

Aside from the potential handful of real estate video jobs I am likely to get going forward, what sorts of areas can I make money with video with "minimal" gear? (A video tripod, gimbal, slider, couple of LED lights, couple of mics, basically a one-man-band setup)???

And which camera is going to be better for those things moving forward?

Financially, I could keep both. But I would rather stick with one or the other so I could invest in other areas that would contribute to a better filmmaking experience.

Sorry if that is beyond the scope of this forum. And thanks again for bearing with me.

 

[mercer]

Hmm... I would do one of two things... especially since you have been weighing this decision for a while now....

1. Keep the D750 and get a G85 or GX85 for handheld 4K when needed. @kidzrevil has shown what can be done with those small Panny 4K cameras.

Or...

2. Since the D750 is due for a replacement within the next year or so, sell it now while you can make the most bank from it and then instead of the A6500 but a D850 instead. You’ll have D750 level 1080p with focus peaking, internal VR (although digital) and for those jobs where you need 4K, you have near 1DC level quality.

If you can put the money together I would choose number 2.

Thanks for reposting Mattias’ D750 video. It’s simply gorgeous. His color work is so good and effortless.

Now I want a D750... thanks...

[satoshi]

Nikon better than sony ALWAYs but still has its gooofy controls and dials

 

just get 5d mk3 - check mate!

 

 

[Mark Romero 2]

8 minutes ago, mercer said:

Hmm... I would do one of two things... especially since you have been weighing this decision for a while now....

1. Keep the D750 and get a G85 or GX85 for handheld 4K when needed. @kidzrevil has shown what can be done with those small Panny 4K cameras.

Or...

2. Since the D750 is due for a replacement within the next year or so, sell it now while you can make the most bank from it and then instead of the A6500 but a D850 instead. You’ll have D750 level 1080p with focus peaking, internal VR (although digital) and for those jobs where you need 4K, you have near 1DC level quality.

If you can put the money together I would choose number 2.

Thanks for reposting Mattias’ D750 video. It’s simply gorgeous. His color work is so good and effortless.

Now I want a D750... thanks...

Thanks for the well-thought out response.

I thought kidzrevil shot sony?!?!?! Maybe both and I just missed it.

Yes, with the D750 being due for replacement, I do feel a bit of pressure for selling it. They also have something of a bad rap due to the shutter problems, but Nikon has basically been replacing shutters on out-of-warranty cameras for a while and there seems to be a possibility that the will be covering other issues out-of-warranty as well.

The GX85 does seem like a good camera BUT the two things I would most likely need would be low light (maybe up to ISO 6400 in some dark houses for video), and really wide angle (about 20mm to 24mm full frame equivalent and I think the GX85 has a crop factor when shooting 4K).

The D850 looks gorgeous (aside from rolling shutter), but I am also thinking / hoping that a D750 replacement might also have some of the video features of the D850.

Sigh...

5 minutes ago, satoshi said:

Nikon better than sony ALWAYs but still has its gooofy controls and dials

just get 5d mk3 - check mate!

Thanks.

I don't know anything about the 5D MK III. Does it have a tiltable screen (like D750, D850, most sony cameras)?

Because if not, that would kind of be a deal killer for me since I am ALWAYS shooting at waist level (at least for stills).

[Don Kotlos]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

1. I use the LCD for shooting (since I am almost always shooting at waist level), and despite having a worse LCD monitor, the AF using the a6500 is so much better than the liveview AF of the D750 that it is hard to give that up. 
2. I know the a6500 with IBIS and light weight is better for gimbal work. It's just really smooth on my Zhiyun crane.
3. The a6500 is capable of getting some great footage (thanks in particular to Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Sony).
4. But I like the size and weight of the a6500 so much better than the D750. If I am going somewhere with my family I would just leave the D750 at home...

Why don't you want to just keep the A6500 again? Do you really have that much of a problem with overheating, the dim LCD or the small buttons, that you are willing to give up all the previous things you really like? 

 

 

[Mark Romero 2]

13 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

Why don't you want to just keep the A6500 again? Do you really have that much of a problem with overheating, the dim LCD or the small buttons, that you are willing to give up all the previous things you really like? 

That's a good question...

I guess watching Mattias' video again just got me thinking that maybe the D750 isn't that bad of a camera after all...

And the fact that the dynamic range of the D750 is about equal to the DR of the a6500 - but without having to deal with slog 2 / slog 3 - is appealing.

But those are the only real things. I think that I could eventually nail down a good picture profile with the a6500 that would be quick and easy to grade and give me good DR and low light. Overheating seems a bit better controlled compared to the a6300, and as I mentioned in another thread, I can more or less see the LCD of the a6500 as long as I am wearing a sombrero.

Although there is the fact that if I want to shoot 60fps, the 1080p on the a6500 is not that good.

I usually edit / produce to 1080p so the ability to zoom on the timeline with the 4K from the a6500 is nice for replicating a dolly in shot.

[anonim]

Sell both and for some time be happy with saved money and - more important - with peace in mind. Seriously.

Than look around. New tools principally and in most cases are - although we all try to neglect admitting - indeed more complete and better.

Maybe Panasonic G9 will be the best balanced answer - it seems that you'll have enough money for it and some sort of speedbooster.

Maybe Sony technician will experience technical illumination and provide marvel in form of undimming screen in a7000 incarnation.

Maybe Nikon mirrorless will knock in the door after New Year and show you how to magically make 4k without 2.3x crop in APS and full frame.

 

[Mattias Burling]

The DR is better on the Nikon for both stills and video. The color is of course personal taste, I dig Nikon more.

Other than that its a classic mirrorless vs DSLR and FF vs APSC imo.

[Mark Romero 2]

1 minute ago, anonim said:

Sell both and for some time be happy with saved money and - more important - with peace in mind. Seriously.

Than look around. New tools principally and in most cases are - although we all try to neglect admitting - indeed more complete and better.

Maybe Panasonic G9 will be the best balanced answer - it seems that you'll have enough money for it and some sort of speedbooster.

Maybe Sony technician will experience technical illumination and provide marvel in form of undimming screen in a7000 incarnation.

Maybe Nikon mirrorless will knock in the door after New Year and show you how to magically make 4k without 2.3x crop in APS and full frame.

Well... can't sell both because I have lots of stills photography gigs coming up soon. 

G9 I am sure is a great camera. But since (for video) I think that dynamic range and high ISO performance would be more important than even 4K for me, I think that an a7s original shooting at 1080p might be a better video camera for the type of work I am LIKELY to do in the near future.

Unless I can line up other types of video work...

[mercer]

The D750’s color is so effortless. I really think you will miss it. Yeah if you need a camera now or soon, I would definitely sell the D750 and buy the D850, if you can afford it. It has everything you need except IBIS... but you’ve been going without that for how long now?

I had an A6500 last January, and I loved the 4K out of that camera, but I returned it because I got the dreaded overheating warning after shooting a dozen 10-30 second clips in 40 degree Fahrenheit weather. It didn’t shut off but I stopped filming after the warning popped up, then went home, boxed it up and sent it back. Of course, it’s better than the RX100 V I tested last December, that camera shut off after using the menu and no video recorded. 

[Mattias Burling]

Just for the heck of it and added confusion I will suggest the D500. Im so far very happy. A baby D5.

[Mark Romero 2]

2 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The DR is better on the Nikon for both stills and video. The color is of course personal taste, I dig Nikon more.

Other than that its a classic mirrorless vs DSLR and FF vs APSC imo.

Yeah, but it is also beyond that really a question about how much I might be giving away by moving away from 4K... if not now, then in the near future, too. 

For example, if I shoot 1080p on the D750, will I soon miss the ability to zoom in on the 4K footage on the timeline if I am working on a 1080p timeline?

I see lots of one camera documentary or talking head commercials and it seems like a lot of them use just one camera (maybe two at most) and just punch in for close up shots.

Just now, Mattias Burling said:

Just for the heck of it and added confusion I will suggest the D500. Im so far very happy. A baby D5.

Yes, I would gladly buy a D7500 or D500 if it weren't for the crop factor. For me to shoot at about 20mm full frame equivalent in 4K I would need a stabilized 10mm APS-C lens.

By the way: how is the 1080p on the D500???

[Mattias Burling]

Well if that something you need then it is.

I almost never do post zooms. Hate them. And I can do it with HD. No one can tell.

I have yet to ever "need" 4k. Webb, TV-commercials, you name it. I could honesly use 720p and it would be fine.

Have a look at the d500 if you like Nikon and need 4K. And no, the crop isn't a big deal imo (I would almost go as far as calling it a bonus).

[Trek of Joy]

I would keep the a6500 and sell the d750. Get more lenses, lighting, whatever it takes to bump your stuff up a notch. Or just sit on the cash and wait for the d760, flip the a6500 and get the new Nikon body. But really, the a6500 is a great hybrid, better than the d750 as a video body IMO since you don't have a goofy mirror and you have IBIS. Add a speed booster and you get the part of a stop advantage the d750 has. I had a d750 for a short time - lovely image but the awful LCD and no EVF just killed shooting video for me. To keep it, I would have needed a monitor and a stabilizer. Instead I sold it and bought a a7rII - which shoots much better stills and video.

Good luck.

[Mark Romero 2]

1 minute ago, Trek of Joy said:

I would keep the a6500 and sell the d750. Get more lenses, lighting, whatever it takes to bump your stuff up a notch. Or just sit on the cash and wait for the d760, flip the a6500 and get the new Nikon body. But really, the a6500 is a great hybrid, better than the d750 as a video body IMO since you don't have a goofy mirror and you have IBIS. Add a speed booster and you get the part of a stop advantage the d750 has. I had a d750 for a short time - lovely image but the awful LCD and no EVF just killed shooting video for me. To keep it, I would have needed a monitor and a stabilizer. Instead I sold it and bought a a7rII - which shoots much better stills and video.

Good luck.

Thanks for the kind wishes.

Yeah, an a7R II would also be a possibility - in theory. Even with the crop sensor Sony 10-18 lens on an a7R II there would still be plenty of megapixels for shooting real estate stills. Don't know what video is like on it with the 10-18 lens though.

Feel like I am running around in circles though

[Nikkor]

A7R2 + canon ts-e 17mm. Badass

[Trek of Joy]

2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Thanks for the kind wishes.

Yeah, an a7R II would also be a possibility - in theory. Even with the crop sensor Sony 10-18 lens on an a7R II there would still be plenty of megapixels for shooting real estate stills. Don't know what video is like on it with the 10-18 lens though.

Feel like I am running around in circles though

In crop mode the a7r2 would be almost identical to the a6500. If FF mode the fact that the 10-18 is not a FF lens will show as the corners and edges are absolutely terrible. It is somewhat useable in a narrow range - about 13-16mm, but even then its at the cost of IQ because the outer part of the frame is complete mush. Outside that narrow range its complete garbage on FF because of the vignette and smearing. If you're shooting real estate, get a FF UWA like the 16-35 or even better the new 12-24, and your clients will thank you.

[Mark Romero 2]

22 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

In crop mode the a7r2 would be almost identical to the a6500. If FF mode the fact that the 10-18 is not a FF lens will show as the corners and edges are absolutely terrible. It is somewhat useable in a narrow range - about 13-16mm, but even then its at the cost of IQ because the outer part of the frame is complete mush. Outside that narrow range its complete garbage on FF because of the vignette and smearing. If you're shooting real estate, get a FF UWA like the 16-35 or even better the new 12-24, and your clients will thank you.

Hi there, Trek:

Yeah, if I used the 10-18 on an a7R II, it would be in crop mode (both for stills and video). 42 Megapixels is WAY too large for shooting real estate, which is more demanding of dynamic range than sheer resolution.

On full frame (in full frame mode) the 16-35 is indeed pretty much perfect for RE photography. I was using the 18-35 on my D750 and it is actaully an excellent lens, but that 2mm difference between 16m m and 18mm is actually kind of significant when shooting a bathroom.

[maxotics]

6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

And while my computer can handle 4K XAVCS ok, it handles the 1080p of the D750 better. And the dynamic range (very important to me) is about equal to Slog 2 on the a6500

If you make most of your money shooting stills I predict you would super regret selling the Nikon.  However, if you shoot real estate, the 10-18 is a MONSTER lens and I'd rather use the A6500 and that and call it a day (but only for real estate photography, not other stuff).

What really affects the ability of a computer to handle video is the type of CODEC you use.  Transcode any footage you have, D750 or A6500 into Prores, Cineform or Motion JPEG and there will be no difference between cameras.  I have a pretty nice computer and it still chokes on H.264 once I apply any sort of effect.

The Sony is better than the D750 in video, for all the reasons you mention (Sorry, I disagree about the Nikon having better video color than the Sony).  However, it has the same shortcomings as the Nikon when it comes to what you'd need to do professional video which is 1.) mics (shotgun and lav), 2.) lights 3.) gimbal, fluid-head tripod, rails, etc.  In other words, if you do get real video work which camera you have will be the least of your struggles.

As everyone here knows, I believe LOG is mostly bullshit.  Unless you know EXACTLY WHY you must shoot LOG, it is the inferior profile in 95% of all situations (just my opinion).  In short, it trades true mid-tone color for a noisey increase in DR.   I've even done a video about why Nikon doesn't provide LOG to its users to hang themselves with

The big question for me is what other equipment do you have in terms of strobes, video lights, mics, etc.  My guess is that is where you need to spin your wheels a bit

 

[Mark Romero 2]

1 minute ago, maxotics said:

If you make most of your money shooting stills I predict you would super regret selling the Nikon.  However, if you shoot real estate, the 10-18 is a MONSTER lens and I'd rather use the A6500 and that and call it a day (but only for real estate photography, not other stuff).

What really affects the ability of a computer to handle video is the type of CODEC you use.  Transcode any footage you have, D750 or A6500 into Prores, Cineform or Motion JPEG and there will be no difference between cameras.  I have a pretty nice computer and it still chokes on H.264 once I apply any sort of effect.

The Sony is better than the D750 in video, for all the reasons you mention (Sorry, I disagree about the Nikon having better video color than the Sony).  However, it has the same shortcomings as the Nikon when it comes to what you'd need to do professional video which is 1.) mics (shotgun and lav), 2.) lights 3.) gimbal, fluid-head tripod, rails, etc.  In other words, if you do get real video work which camera you have will be the least of your struggles.

As everyone here knows, I believe LOG is mostly bullshit.  Unless you know EXACTLY WHY you must shoot LOG, it is the inferior profile in 95% of all situations (just my opinion).  In short, it trades true mid-tone color for a noisey increase in DR.   I've even done a video about why Nikon doesn't provide LOG to its users to hang themselves with

The big question for me is what other equipment do you have in terms of strobes, video lights, mics, etc.  My guess is that is where you need to spin your wheels a bit

 

Thanks for the well-thought out reply. I would love to see your video about why Nikon doesn't use slog. For me, the appeal of slog (and expanded dynamic range in general) is because in Real Estate video their just isn't the time or budget to deal with lighting. And often we have to film when the light is directly overhead so often have to film in VERY contrasty situations.

For stills, I have PLENTY of flash power, although I will probably pick up another 600WS strobe to go along with my One X 300ws strobe and three X 80ws flash guns. Lots of light stands. 

As for transcoding, I usually use resolve (the free version) and it seems to handle the XAVCs ok as long as I use optimized media. But then when I get into the coloring panel, I was told that I should use the actual footage when grading since how the actual footage looks when graded will be somewhat different than what the optimized footage preview looks like while graded. That's when things slow down a bit.

Would handbrake be good for encoding? Any suggestions on which codec to encode to (using Resolve with Win 10 64bit on an i7-6770 with 24GB RAM and a GTX 960 2GB graphics card)

As for using the D750 for stills, yeah, I like it, but to be honest for the last year I had pretty much been using my a6300 and the 10-18 for stills and the D750 was sitting on the shelf. About two months ago I was on a ladder that gave way and it destroyed my a6300 and I had to send in the 10-18 for repair. So I only started using the D750 for stills again a couple months back. So - and this may sound derpy - I guess I am more worried about losing the D750 for video than for stills. ..

In terms of other video-centric gear, I have a Zhiyun crane (the first one, not the Crane 2), a cheap amazon slider that is pretty much useless, a "sort-of" video tripod with a manfrotto 501 "sort-of" fluid head (I've hear that it is not a "true" fluid head), a Zoom H1, a $30 lav mic, a YN600L light panel and  a YN216 LED. Am thinking of picking up a rode video micro to go into the zoom H1. So, admittedly, enough stuff to maybe do a vlog and not much more. Which is why I want to consolidate around one camera or the other (as opposed to keeping both, as was suggested earlier) to free up more budget for acquiring the necessary gear for other jobs. 

I do have like 8 light stands and lots of umbrellas and a couple reflectors and a couple of dollar-store flags.