Jump to content

powderific

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Wow, this is great news. I didn't expect Sony to actually make improvements with new firmware. As someone else mentioned, I'm hoping they do something similar for the A6000.
  2. Yeah, after watching EyeSoul's videos again I think the quality is going to be more than sufficient for what I'm doing. And it's just so much more interesting than the D5300 as a stills camera (to me anyway.) Somehow KEH already had a used one in stock so I picked up the body and a 35mm 1.8 OSS to start.
  3. Yeah, that's a good point. When I'm shooting sit down interviews with three cameras it's not an issue, but it'd make it pretty annoying to use in anything even remotely run and gun. Which I do a ton of. Has anyone used the 16-70 F4? It's $300 off with the A6000 right now.
  4. I'm wondering the same thing. I've been looking for a camera to act as a second/third to my D800 for video that could also be a compact everyday camera. The A6000 looks like it could be a great option, but for whatever stupid reason Nikon seems to always get better video out of Sony sensors than Sony does. It makes no sense that a company with so much experience in the video world wouldn't be able to make their own sensors perform better than a company with minimal video experience that treats its as a total afterthought. I've been thinking it might make the most sense to stop trying to find something that fills both roles and just pickup a D5300 for video and a Ricoh GR or Fuji something for stills. No EVF for video and stupid aperture stuff, but at least I'd be getting the best possible quality out of the sensor.
  5. Really excited to see how this turns out. I like the 4k internal recording of the GH4, and generally like the looks of it for video better than the A7S, buuuut, I also need excellent stills capabilities. A combo of the A7S and A7R could replace my current D800/XF300 setup without sacrificing anything on the stills side. I'd been considering selling the XF300 to pick up a GH4, but that'd mean some lens replication between different mounts. Switching everything out to Sony would be very convenient. And, as someone who shoots a ton of run and gun in terrible light, the high ISO quality is very appealing.
  6. Ugh, the dimming display info thing drove me nuts on the GH3. I really wish they gave us an option to disable that.
  7. The D800 is my A camera anyway so I don't think the lower bitrate would hurt me that much—we don't do a much/any grading to our footage. The massive continuous recording available with the XF300 and hot swapping would be a bummer to lose, but I need it seldom enough I think I could get by just renting on those occasions. I have considered the XF100. Seems like the image quality is nearly identical to the XF300. That said, it's still pretty pricy and better low light would be huge boons for my work. I just hope Sony actually comes out with a nicely integrated XLR jack attachment instead of leaving it vaporware like Panasonic.
  8. Man, I'm definitely on board with the idea of buying an A7R and an RX10. Right now I'm shooting on an XF300 and D800 and would love to replace the XF300 with something significantly smaller. For a bit I tried to use a GH3 instead of the XF300 and it worked OK, but I kept coming back to the flexibility of the XF300's lens (range and great IS) and general features that you usually only get in video cameras. The built in ND's and quality lens on the RX10 might make it a more viable replacement. And it sounds like the A7R would be a good pretty interchangeable with my D800 which would be really nice. It'd let me dedicate one to stills for some shoots, or just let my multicam stuff cut together better.   Just how slow was the zoom on the RX10? I don't necessarily have to do snap zooms all the time, but it'd suck if it was slow enough that'd you'd wind up fighting it all the time.
×
×
  • Create New...