Kangaroo

A few days ago I helped a friend with a shooting, he was using the a7s, the first one, and he was shooting everything in 1080p. The footage was really impressive, I started looking at a few samples online and I found this:

https://vimeo.com/104968552

It's 60p so it should be even worse than 24p and in my opinion it looks better than most of the normal consumer cameras. I've read that even the a6000 should have better 1080p than the a7s but I had that camera and I don't think so, maybe I'm wrong but even by today standards the a7s look like a really fine camera. Is there anyone still using it?

The xt3 has 4k 60p and other cool stuff but if you're more of a photographer maybe the a7rii will suit you better 

32 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

My wife and I shot a doc with the G85 as the b-cam, was not disappointed at all.  If I was told to go out in the field and use this as my only camera, I'd be okay with that.

I was just talking about the AF in video! It's a bit slow and not super fluid so I would not use it for paid work but the camera it self would be 100% usable for a weeding or whatever as far as I've seen. Tomorrow I'll shoot more with the light of the day. 

What's the quickest way to downscale 4k to 1080p? Does it make sense to scale down the footage before editing to have better performance if the output would be 1080p anyway?

Just got the g85 for 320€ with an olympus kit lens(probably garbage but still), I was doing some test and wow, the quality for the price is amazing, 1080p is good but get 24p only in avchd, the 4k is really great, and I was using a CCTV lens. I tested it against the d600, I know that it's not a camera meant to shoot videos, but even at 1600(g85) vs 800(d600) iso in 1080p the difference is night and day! Photos are a bit meh tough, I already knew, probably a fuji x-t2 would be a better hybrid camera.

Btw the autofocus may not be great but for personal usage it's totally usable, the IBIS works really well and the EVF it's much better than my much more expensive X100f and than the xt30 that I've tried. 

I'm talking about DR in video! 

Thanks to everyone! 

Do you think that there's something for less than 1000€ that has significantly better DR? I was considering having a single camera to do everything and for 900€ you could find an a7r II or and eos RP

6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I can only really talk about the a6500 since that is the one I have experience with, and since used they might fall in to your price range.

And I am basically going to try and talk you out of contemplating an a6500.

The ibis on the a6500 is thoroughly mediocre. You get a slight improvement using IBIS in conjunction with a liens that has stabilization (called OIS in Sony parlance). But nothing compared to Panasonic or Olympus IBIS.

The a6500 has a metric tonne of rolling shutter (even with IBIS enabled). 

The 1080p of the a6500 is really bad. Not sharp, tonne of aliasing  and moire.

The LCD screen is dim and highly reflective. It is VERY difficult to use when shooting 4K or when shooting 1080p in higher frame rates.

If you are willing to shoot in SLOG 2 you will get better dynamic range than the M43 cameras by about a stop and a half or so, and I am pretty sure that the low-light capability of the a6500 is significantly better than the capabilities of ANY M43 camera (except possibly for the GH5S, which is way out of your budget). 

Also, the AF on the a6500 is VERY good. Even though it can't match the third generation of Sony aps-c cameras (a6400, a6600), it is still quite good and far better than my Panasonic S1 (faster, works better in low light, no "pulsing" in af-c).

And the 4K is very detailed, despite the drawbacks.

In short, the a6500 is an EXCELLENT stills camera, a capable but not overly pleasant 4K video camera  that performs admirably (for aps-c) in low light or scenes with a lot of contrast.

If you need a camera that will AF well and is light enough to use on an inexpensive gimbal (like the original Crane gimbal), the the a6500 might fit that bill, despite the numerous drawbacks.

The a6300 is pretty much the same as the a6500 but the a6300 lacks IBIS and lacks a touch screen.

I was looking into the a6500 but where I live it's really expensive, around 700€ used, the a6300 is not that expensive but then it's around the same price as the xt20 which I would prefer

4 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

It's hard to beat G80 for its price. If you don't need AF or 120p it is still a pretty decent camera. Get some nice manual lenses to go along with and you will be set. 

I can live without the fastest AF, I realy enjoy shooting with manual lenses! 

37 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

At that price, if it's in decent condition, just buy it... Then add a few cheap 3rd part batteries, V30 rated SDXC cards (for 4K) and some cheap but good lenses and go out and have fun!

(I own a G80, G9 and GX80 - the G9 will beat the other two hands-down for video quality but the G80 is smaller and lighter, and the GX80 is the one I usually pick up if I want to take a camera with me 'just in case'. Which one is my favorite - hard to say, it depends on the situation...)

I previously owned the gx80 and I really liked it, especially for the size, but I was missing the mic in, I know that I could use a recorder but I'm not doing any fancy stuff so having everything in a single camera would be awesome

21 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

I've been considering the EM10III for awhile now.  Might be worth looking into it for you as well.  It's around 300€ used too.

Personally, Olympus impressed me when I owned the EM5 and EM5II.  Liked the way the colors looked, the IBIS, and the ergonomics.

I was thinking about it, it has no crop for 4k and 120fps but no mic in, I know it may sound lame, I'm not even using a very good mic but It's really convenient sometimes 😕

4 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Not really for the price. Olympus would be a good option too with slightly better IBIS, but you don't get a profile like CineD. 

The XT30 is a camera I always recommend but no IBIS and I don't think it has unlimited recording. You do get great ISO performance and nice Log/eterna profiles. 

The xt30 is really beautiful, I do really like the eterna profile, I'm currently using a x100f but I was looking for a simple and cheap setup for run and gun video stuff, I think that eventually in the future I will sell everything and I will get an xt3

I was looking for a camera to shoot video on a budget and even if I'm not really into m43 I found the g80 for around 300€ used and it has a few things that I would really like to have:

• Decent build quality
• IBIS
• Nice IQ for video but 4k it's not mandatory, I shoot mainly 1080p
• Flippy screen
• Audio in

Is there an APS-C/FF with the same spec for around 500€(used)? 

In the fuji lineup the only camera with ibis is the x-h1 but it's more expensive and the only "normal" lens with OIS is the 18-55, sony has many cameras but again the price seems to be higher for the a6300/6500/6400 and the a7/a7r/a7s are not the best from what I've seen( I'm talking about the first gen models)

All canon dslrs lack ibis but there are some model with software stabilization, the iq is not the best but i think it would be enough and they have great af but spending double the money for a canon m50/70d...I don't know if it's worth 

Do you have any suggestions? 

16 hours ago, canonlyme said:

Good job! If you need any more tips regarding the gx85 feel free to ask me, I own it for some time now.

Thank you! Right now I'm testing picture profiles, what do you think it's the best?

15 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

You know now if you are lucky you can find a used Canon M50 for 500 bucks or a bit more. I know they don't have all the video bells and whistles a Panasonic has, but they are an interesting camera for the money.They sure do have the Canon CS and DPAF in 1080p. And I bet down the road they will have ML out for it. No IBIS though.

That's a really nice camera, I've looked at it but I think that now that I now what IBIS is capable of I don't wan't to lose it!

BTW I got the gx85 in the end, the ibis is really amazing, with an adapted 50mm (so 100mm equiv) I can achieve some amazing steady shots, the body itself seems to be built much better than the g7 and with a pancake lens the camera is almost pocketable. The only downloadside is the missing jack input but I can charge the battery using my phone power bank, that's really useful! 

1 hour ago, ac6000cw said:

No - the GX85 is a bit older, and the internal processing is set up differently - take a look at the 'Video stills comparison' (for 1080p) on dpreview - the GX85 is much softer. Also the G85 has a few more adjustments (like continuous autofocus speed) that can be useful (I own both of the cameras).

If the audio from the on-camera mics is important to you, note that both of them suffer crackling and hissing noises from the IBIS system breaking through to the mics.

That is the only bad review I've found, that's why I'm not sure it's really softer than the g85 ? 

After a few days with the g7 I returned it to Amazon due to the fact that with the lightweight body+2x crop factor it was really hard to get handheld stuff and I've seen a gx80/85 for the same price on amazon warehouse. I've also found a local used g80/85 and after talking to the seller he told me that the 1080p on the gx85 it's much worse, I've also read a few thing online about it, is it true? Isn't the gx85 exactly the same as the g85 minus jack input, good evf and articulated screen?

I found a used g7 on amazon for just 50€ more than the gh3 and I've bought it! It has warranty and I could always send it back if I don't like it ?

23 minutes ago, ShaunC said:

I keep going to upgrade my GH3, but never do. It has been dropped, dragged along the footpath, rained on. Rubbery bits have fallen off and I’ve gaffer taped them back on, and still the damn thing keeps working for me. In terms of income vs camera cost ratio, I can’t complain. The thing is bullet proof. I’ve  been looking at all the new releases, but 2nd hand GH3s are so cheap... 1080p is all I need, and that thing paired with my voigtlander 25mm is just heaven. 

I also have a GX85. Yeah, it’s okay, but I just know it won’t be around as long as the GH3.

If you could get the gh3 and the gx85 at the same price what would you chose? 

Now that we are talking also about fuji, are the x-e3, x-t20 and x-t2 better in terms of IQ? 

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I shot plenty of docs on the gx85 for TV broadcast on PBS.

Would recommend. 

BTW, shot 4K and mastered in 1080. It's perfectly effortless to do. 

Whats your editing platform?

My goal is to build a small rig with decent IQ, the gx85 was one of the first thing that came to my mind but it does not have a mic input, I could buy an external recorder but it would not be so little in the end and it would cost me twice the price of the gh3. Also the IBIS looks really weak from the sample I've seen ?

8 minutes ago, mercer said:

I guess I’ll be the first to ask... what lenses will you be using? Since you’re used to FF, that 2X crop may feel a little limiting. Sure there are speedboosters to help with the field of view but it’s still not FF. 

With that being said, I really like the image from the GH3 and the price seems great. I’ve even seen some videos online where filmmakers will use the GH3 as a B-Cam to their C100. The C100 would be a great choice too if you have a bigger budget... which isn’t that much if you consider what you’re getting.

The original BMPCCs are selling for next to nothing... so also a consideration.

I guess take a look at the a6000 for good 1080p... you can get them new for not much more than a used GH3.

To add... or ask... what type of video work do you plan on doing?

The BMPCC is just too much to handle, I would like something more simple and practical, I've tried the a6000 from a friend but I haven't enjoyed it much plus not headphone input. I think that I'll use the 20mm 1.7 for most of the time. The usage would be personal work and youtube so nothing crazy, that's why I'm going cheap

I've also found a cheap gh4 with the LCD that's not working but I could probably fix it, I think I'm gonna go for it 

Is the hacked gh2 really better? 

4 hours ago, kye said:

Shooting 4K and downscaling in post is a pretty good way of getting high quality 1080p, and it may record in a higher bitrate too.

I have done image quality comparisons of different resolutions given the same file size, and you're normally better off with the higher resolution, so even if the camera shoots the same bitrate for 1080 and 4K, you'd still be better with the 4K file.

Yeah I know but I don't want to shot 4k and downscaling everytime

5 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Nigel Barros? GH3 probably has better 1080 than any canon DSLR. Audio Pre amp should be better but remember its not to the level of the GH5.

The only drawback is the GH3 is total ass in lowlight.

Yes, Nigel!

It's worst than the gh2 in low light? 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Buy a G7, better camera and it has 4K. Probably same money. You can find them for less than 400 bucks. I Never liked my GH3. Liked the G7. I would rather have a hacked GH2 than a GH3 anyday.

I could get the gh3 for less than 200 bucks plus the gh3 it's rugged >_>

4 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The benefit of the GX85 is IBIS. 

I know but from what I've seen it's not that great 

Hi! 

I'm currently using a 6d for both photo and video, nothing professional and I've found a very good deal on Gh3. The 6d would still be used for photos because it's all I need but the videos always feels a bit too mushy, I like the color and the FF look but in the last few years I've seen so many videos from other cameras that I would really love to have a clean and crisp image. I was considering the gx85 but I'll be shooting only 1080p and the gh3 should be better in this regard. So I was wondering if the gap would be actually huge or if it would just be a minor upgrade. I've seen a few samples from a guy on yt that is still using the gh3 and to me it's pretty amazing but maybe I should just work more with the camera that I have. 

Also, the pre amp on the gh3 should be much better right? 

Hi!

I'm currently using a Nikon D600, I switched from the fuji (first gen sensor) system because I was having too much problems with sharpening and autofocus and previously I owned a Canon 5d2.

I was pretty much only interested in photography but recently I wanted to go back shooting videos, nothing professional so probably the quality of the 5d2 would be enough. 

As far as I've seen the D600, though it's really an amazing photography tool, it's quite meh for video stuff, so I'm considering selling it and buying something that's around the same price and I would like to stick to a FF sensor.

The a7 series is too much expensive, I could only afford the A7 or the A7 II but it seems it's not worth it, I could go back to the 5d2, I could wait to find a good deal on the 6d but I'm afraid that I won't find it before I leave for Iceland in 2 weeks and I need a camera asap.

The other 2 options are buying a new X-T20 (it should be equal to the x-e3 right?) or keeping the D600 and using it also for video, then switching to a D750 in a few months.

What do you think? 

3 minutes ago, mat33 said:

Why is the E-M10 or E-M5/1 not that great for photos?  Unless you are a pixel peeper, then I think the current m4/3 hold there own for most types of still shooting and the array of high-quality AF glass (and often quite affordable i.e olympus 25, 45 1.7 primes) shouldn't be discounted.

I've read this article http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/9/25/wrapping-up-the-olympus-journey-final-review-of-the-m43-system

I don't trust it 100% of course but it makes me question if the oly m43 is what I want 

5 hours ago, Phil A said:

Just quickly giving feedback on this specific part of the question as I've tried the X-T1 which has the same sensor.

You don't want to shoot video with the X-E1/X-E2/X-T1/X-T10. It's so full of moire and aliasing that you won't get happy.

I've seen some samples and yes, it's very very very bad for video, but for stills it's amazing.

Right now I have to decide, buying the em10 ii (the em5 II it's a bit expensive) or buying the xt10 for stills and in the future something more video oriented. 

Fuzzynormal is right, I don't need the super IQ, but I'm afraid that the em10 II is not that great for photos either 

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

If the EM5II had slightly better video, I would have never bought two GX85's for my current project.  The EM5II with the battery grip feels and works like a "real" camera.  It just jibes with my old school sensibilities.  I swear to you, and it's almost embarrassing to admit this, but I have carried that EM5II camera around a few times simply because it felt good!  Not because I wanted to do anything with it, just simply because I liked the way it felt in my hands.  Crazy.

I really do like the GX85's.  I don't love them.  Aside from the IQ, the model comes up short for me in the ergonomics.  It's not bad per se, just not as reassuring as a EM5II. When you're using a camera 8-14 hours a day, that really makes a difference.  And son-of-a-bitch, I hate the GX85's EVF.  Gah!

Believe me, there's been times recently where I've thought to myself, "The heck with it, I should take the IQ hit and go back to the EM5II.  The video is 'good enough'."  Also, I can do (good 'nuff) on camera audio recording.  Man, that is such a god-send when dealing with hundreds of hours of b-roll.

But these are concerns that lean more to the pro-side of things.  If you want something for more personal use, getting the most video IQ out of a hybrid might not matter. 

So, if you're looking to get a stills camera FIRST, and then a video camera second.  I'd definitely recommend the EM5II.  Keep in mind this:  The video from the EM5II isn't bad, it's just not as good as the GX85's clean and crisp 4K.

I'm pretty sure, if I can rustle up the cash, when the next gen of OMD comes out with 4K, I'm hopping back onto that line.

I've looked a bit online and I found out that the only advantages the the em5ii has over the em10ii are the flat profile and the water sealing.

Dpreview also said that the em10ii has less noise.

Is the flat profile  that good? I mean, it's not log, does it worth the 300€ difference? Because I think that I'd love the omd, it's something beetwen the xt10 that I really like and a panasonic.

2 hours ago, Flynn said:

The em5ii has better image stabilization and is much more video focused, especially after the update. I'd consider it or the EM1. They recently had the EM1 for a 1 day only sell at $799. EM1 mkii is gonna be announced at Photokina so you should be able to get new EM1's cheap after Photokina. I would not consider the EM10ii. I'd probably get the EM1. Also, not sure about where you're at but there was a really good deal on the G7. You can get it, the 14-140, a free 25mm f1.7, and $100 off the 42.5mm f1.7. So for $1,297 you could get a zoom that gives you a lot of range and two fast primes. You can also get the G7 without the 14-140 for less money and you still get the free 25mm f1.7.

The em1 has 30p only, that's the reason why I'm not considering that model

1 hour ago, mercer said:

If you are not interested in 4K and do not like Panasonics, then my first choice would be the Olympus em5 Mkii. My second choice would be the Nikon D5500. 

Can I ask you why you would choose them over the a6000? Isn't the em5II almost equal to the em10II? I'm really interested because I really like the omd line

I think the upcoming Sigma Quattro with 30mm f1.4 kit lens for $999.99 looks like an interesting camera, just for photography though.

I'm sure about that but as you said it would be a still camera only