Sony A6500, Panasonic G85 or Fujifilm XT-20?

[Givememypips]

Hey guys! How are you? I would love to know your opinion on the best travel camera setup with a budget of 1k to 1.5k

Right now I own a D7000 with Nikon 24-120 F4 and Nikon 50 F1.8 and I am looking into selling the whole setup for something more practical(lighter weight) and with better video capabilities.

Which camera setup do you recommend for taking great quality photos and videos while traveling?

I have been researching a lot and I think I narrowed it down to either the Sony A6500, the Fujifilm XT-20 or the Panasonic G85 (I am open to new suggestions too)

Thanks a lot.

[scotchtape]

A6500 has bad rolling shutter but good af-c.  Also horrible battery life and overheats after a while. Sharpest 4k, no flip screen. 1080p trash.

G85 is ok but af-c is trash. Flip screen. Smaller lenses, less dof.  Low light not great.

Get gh5 4k60p but af-c is useless, not as good low light because of sensor size.

Just depends on what great quality means to you and what you are using it for. For "real" landscape photos I use FF with good Dr sensor.

For casual use I just bring rx100.

You can make great videos with any of those cameras, at that level the content is more important than which one of those you use.

[kidzrevil]

Wrong. @scotchtape do you own any of these cameras because the a6500 definitely does not overheat unless you are shooting in a furnance.

anyway @Givememypips the g85 has been the best overall camera for my usage and I own an a6500 as well. Both are good but the g85 is more reliable across the board

[Cinegain]

Tbh, I wouldn't get into the Sony APS-C system either. A bit russian roulette regarding overheating, because some people don't seem to run into it almost at all and others have it constantly. Of course, you now have the tripod mode, where you're raising the threshold where overheat protection kicks in, but rendering it so hot, that you can't comfortably hold it in your hands, hence: tripod mode. Of course it greatly has to do with them deciding to keep the body so damn small, which makes no sense as they've neglected a dedicated APS-C lens line-up for the last several years now, so it's more like an APS-C limited FF entry level to get you warmed up for an A7 or A9 body, already having the FF covering lenses. In the end, the lenses are what makes a system compact, so releasing new cameras that are very compact, but failing to embrace very compact lenses to me is the wrong strategy. Then there's just ergonomics 'n stuff. No frontfacing screen, touchscreen is a rather limited implementation, there's no dual cardslot, no dedicated headphone port, battery life is not that great. Then there's the footage... lots of potential on a purely sensor/pixel performance level, but that rolling shutter... and default profile colors you definitely need to mess about with because else you're getting zombie skintones and color channel clipping. All in all, I just can't be bothered with them unless they change up their approach in this APS-C segment (bigger body... better heat disspation, more features/better interface, new exciting compact lenses native to APS-C). Like, if Sony could give me a Panasonic GH5 or Olympus E-M1 Mark II with APS-C sensor... and a exciting compact lens line up to go with that, I'd be all about that. But... no joy. Maybe 2018?

In the APS-C realm, I actually consider Fujifilm to make the most sense now... and they're still quite traditional, have still a bit to go. Atleast they're nice to use. Now they just need a body with sensor stabilization, a frontfacing touchscreen and a dedicated headphone port on the body.

My money's still in the MFT basket. You just can't beat the compact factor and value you're getting. It just means you can't be relying on super smooth C-AF and you need to really think about your shots as lowlight and dynamic range challenges you. But, that's all stuff that you can actually make work. Except for the DR, this is as close as you'll get to shooting with an actual cinema camera. With a BMD, RED, ARRI etc, you're not relying on lowlight and C-AF either. So it also kind of depends what kind of shooter you are of course. Of course the GH5 packs a punch, but I'd consider the Lumix G9 as well if you're into a lot of viewfinder work and stills (I guess that's what the Nikon was used for partly as well). Shorter clips only, but still impressive. Supposedly the processing is quite nice and gets raving reviews. Both the GH5 and G9 are quite sizeable bodies though, mind you, so with going compact, it isn't so much about the bodies, but the lens advantage there.

But I always say: a camera wouldn't get made, if they didn't think anyone would buy it. And everyone has different needs/wants/budgets, so really it's up to you to figure out. If you have friends or a rental place, see if you can get your hands on 'em. Or just at the camera store alone. That will probably tell you more than comparing specs on paper.

[maxotics]

Depends on where you're traveling to.  The Sony cameras are not as robust as Nikons.  If you shoot outside in good light the MFT cameras are great.  Less than ideal light and you might get frustrated, coming from APS-C.  It doesn't sound like it's a sure thing you'll shoot much video.  I can tell you for 7 years I go everywhere planning to shoot video, yet do it rarely.  If that's a possibility for you I'd get a Nikon D750 or D7500.  Keep in mind I have a Sony A6000,A6300, A7, A7R!  I haven't shot video since the D600, which was atrocious, but people here say the new Nikon's video is good stuff.   Again, bottom line, if you're POSITIVE you'll shoot a lot of video, consider a change.  If you really need to go small, I agree with @scotchtape just get an RX100 (doesn't have to be the latest).  For photography, stick with Nikon.

[Inazuma]

Just get the G85 dude. It's much more ergonomic in comparison to the a6500 and XT20. Also from my experience, the G85 is no slouch in dynamic range or low light. Yeah it's not the best, but there are definitely worse - including from APS-C and full frame cameras. A lot of it comes down to how they process the raw image into video. 

[scotchtape]

12 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Wrong. @scotchtape do you own any of these cameras because the a6500 definitely does not overheat unless you are shooting in a furnance.

anyway @Givememypips the g85 has been the best overall camera for my usage and I own an a6500 as well. Both are good but the g85 is more reliable across the board

Yes I have owned the A6500 since it came out, I have used it on a job and got OH warning, I know you can use it for longer but I'm getting paid to keep shooting and not babysit the cameras temperature.  So yeah I guess I'm wrong... as are the many youtube videos showing the overheat, we are all wrong

A6500 is not a pro camera though you can get nice images out of it.  I use GH5 instead.

[Thomas Hill]

Don't forget the newer Fuji X-E3. It's small with a good EVF and, with one of their f1.4 primes, you're good to go in low light, too. It's doesn't have a flippy LCD, though. 

[kidzrevil]

@scotchtape I get paid to shoot too and literally never ran into an overheating issue with the a6500. To each his own though, maybe I have a damn good copy. I know this for a fact though “pro” camera or not you can get a far better image out of the a6500 than the gh5 sensor. Its a bigger sensor, with wider dynamic range & a far lower noise floor. 

Anyway to the original poster. Get the G85. The image is solid and the ergonomics is great.

 

 

[Thomas Hill]

If you want to see what the a6500 is capable of (with some work), check out any of @kidzrevil's videos in this thread: 

And @markr041 has some great looking footage in there pretty much SOOC.

If you shoot a lot of manual focus, I especially agree with Kidz on the g85. Panasonic's monochrome live view in combination with peaking is a dream for manual focusing. Does anyone else have this?

[IronFilm]

Do you lean more towards stills or video?

If video: then get a Panasonic G85 (still a very capable stills camera)

If stills (also by far the cheapest option, spend the spare cash then on also getting the ultra portable Sony RX100 pocket camera): then stick with Nikon and get a D7100 (much improved video over the D7000, read what Andrew Reid as said about the D5200. It applies to the D7100 sensor too). Or get the newer D500 or D7500 if you really want that 4K life.

[kidzrevil]

I shot some stuff with the g85 and the Lumix 12mm f1.4 last week just thought I’d share. The first one is SOOC and the other is with the Impulz lut’s. sidenote im over grading with LUTS but I posted the two versions to show how the camera handles traditional workflows

 

[webrunner5]

Thing I don't like with the A6300, A6500 is the 1080p sucks ass on them unless you down sample from 4k. Now 4k on a A6500 is about as good as it gets for the money.

But I must admit a Nikon D750 with the lenses you have can get the job done also. Pretty colors out of the Nikon. Not the best of the above for video though. But good.

There is a dark horse here and that is the New RX10 mk IV. That thing is pretty bad ass for the money and a killer lens is included. And if you are into travel, nature photography or video it is the Machine to have hands down.

But a G85 with a good zoom is the cheap ass way to go. I ain't too big on m3/4 anymore but this new GH5s may change that, but that is WAY out of your price range, probably for the money out of most people's on here, that is used C100 mkII, C300 territory, even BM Mini, Canon 1DC, 5D mk IV, Sony A7r mkIII damn near.  I know I am forgetting some. It had better be DAMN good..

And the Kicker is if you are Really Really into video is a used Panny GH4. I know the G85 has IBIS and a bit better colors but there is not a damn video camera in the world overall better than a GH4 with all it has to offer Video wise for the money, and if you want to do Anamorphic, well shit to bed, it is the one to buy. There is a Lot of people that have made some damn good money with one and still are.

[IronFilm]

55 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

But I must admit a Nikon D750 with the lenses you have can get the job done also. Pretty colors out of the Nikon.

With his current two lenses (because they're both FF. How did you exist with nothing wider than 24mm on APS-C?? :-o ) he could very easily transition from the D7000 to a D750.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

And the Kicker is if you are Really Really into video is a used Panny GH4. I know the G85 has IBIS and a bit better colors but there is not a damn video camera in the world overall better than a GH4 with all it has to offer Video wise for the money

I'd disagree, because all the things that makes a GH4 "better" (such as anamorphic, YAGH, or 10bit external) a budget minded sub $1K buyer is not going to be buying a secondhand GH4 for!

Thus that then leaves instead all the things the Panasonic G85 does better instead, which makes it the better buy in the end. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

But a G85 with a good zoom is the cheap ass way to go. I ain't too big on m3/4 anymore but this new GH5s may change that, but that is WAY out of your price range, probably for the money out of most people's on here, that is used C100 mkII, C300 territory, even BM Mini, Canon 1DC, 5D mk IV, Sony A7r mkIII damn near.  I know I am forgetting some. It had better be DAMN good..

We all believe the GH5s will come in at sub $3K, and at probably significantly less such as say $2.5K

So with those prices in mind, let's look at those other cameras:

C100mk2: If you're lucky you'll find it for around $3K, but $2.5K? Unlikely. Perhaps you are thinking of the original old C100mk1? (which will be even cheaper, sub $2K easily) But both these cameras are 1080 cameras, which serve a very different niche of shooters. 
C300mk1: no way are you getting that for less than $3K (except maybe in PL mount). And again, this is an old 1080 camera, which doesn't even have 4K, doesn't have 10bit, and doesn't even have 60fps FHD slow motion!
BMD URSA Mini: again, no chance of finding this under $3K (unless referring to the 4K sensor, which is widely seen as BMD's worse). 
Canon 1D C: that won't be selling for under $3K either. 
5Dmk3: now we're finally starting to find something which will sell in the low to mid two thousands (maybe even less than that if lucky). But you'll be dealing with a heavy crop (and no lenses or focal reducer to match with the sensor), and a terrible codec (which is still only 8bit 420), and the DSLR form factor. 
Sony a7R mk3: nope, won't find that cheaper than a GH5s.

[Mattias Burling]

24 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

C300mk1: no way are you getting that for less than $3K

Canon 1D C: that won't be selling for under $3K either. 
 

You sure can. I've seen the c300 that cheap more than once and I sold my 1DC for sub $3k.

[IronFilm]

Ah my bad then, but my point largely remains... they're kinda rare at those prices. 

And there is the whole issue of news vs secondhand. Some are fine with taking that risk (I am), but others are not. 

Plus the C300mk1 vs even the original current GH5 has a lot of downsides: no 4K, no 10bit, no slow motion (and in reverse, the C300mk1 has a number of advantages: NDs/SDI/TC)

[scotchtape]

C300 not a "travel" camera

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

We all believe the GH5s will come in at sub $3K, and at probably significantly less such as say $2.5K

So with those prices in mind, let's look at those other cameras:

C100mk2: If you're lucky you'll find it for around $3K, but $2.5K? Unlikely. Perhaps you are thinking of the original old C100mk1? (which will be even cheaper, sub $2K easily) But both these cameras are 1080 cameras, which serve a very different niche of shooters. 
C300mk1: no way are you getting that for less than $3K (except maybe in PL mount). And again, this is an old 1080 camera, which doesn't even have 4K, doesn't have 10bit, and doesn't even have 60fps FHD slow motion!
BMD URSA Mini: again, no chance of finding this under $3K (unless referring to the 4K sensor, which is widely seen as BMD's worse). 
Canon 1D C: that won't be selling for under $3K either. 
5Dmk3: now we're finally starting to find something which will sell in the low to mid two thousands (maybe even less than that if lucky). But you'll be dealing with a heavy crop (and no lenses or focal reducer to match with the sensor), and a terrible codec (which is still only 8bit 420), and the DSLR form factor. 
Sony a7R mk3: nope, won't find that cheaper than a GH5s.

You need to move to the united States. You are nearly  thousand dollars higher than I can get just about anything you mentioned on most all those cameras. I have found 3 1DC's for 2000, I can buy Canon mk 1's with DPAF all day for 1750. BM mini's 2500 all day etc. etc. Craigslist here has thousands and thousands of those kind of cameras here for sale. There are 340 million people that live in the US. Rental houses in LA, NY are dumping these cameras left and right. They are making way for EVA1's and C200"s etc.

I don't think any of the above cameras are worse than this new GH5s is going to be unless you Need 4k on the Canon C100, C300 for film making. They all have a hell of a proven track record. There is a lot to be said for cameras that have external controls on them for video compared to Menu Diving all the time. And FF on the Canon DSLR's have their place high on the totem pole.. Shallow DoF is the name of the game in Films. Ain't happening with m4/3, even with a Speed Booster it isn't the same.

But we are getting into pretty big money on any of the above by the time you rig one out for the average person. But if you want to take this stuff half serious you have to pay the price. These we dream cameras not many years ago, and now they can be bought with some penny pinching now.