Faratech

HAHA Sorry for the weird writing, I have no idea why there were so many typos there xD 1/50, f/3.5 at iso 3200 is usually good enough in most low light cases! Thanks for the reassurance! Now I save xD

oh this is yours? I have seen it a while back and really of the videos that really made up my mind! GREAT look footage esp straight out got the camera! Really looked like one of those Gordon Ramsay's Pro cooking shows. Very impressive stuff indeed!

well the local guys are actually a bunch of geniuses. My first camera was a Sony a58 which died after 8 months of use. always on auto (i was a complete noob) and still somehow died. Couldnt claim warranty since my sister got it from Canada this time and took it to Sony Malaysia and they said it would take $230 to change shutter and some other things. I didnt bother because by that time i was $400 brand new. And in an event (my sister wedding), the photographer introduced me to his go to repair guy and he repaired my sony for $60. WHICH then died again after 6 months of HEAVY use but I blame the camera not the guy. He also fixed the Canon 30D I have. I bought it somewhat running with the display stuck and fungus and dust all over the camera for $50 with lens.He fixed it all for $12. Anyway, I have my answer So thanks everyone for helping me with the decision! Won't buy a camera for another 2 months perhaps but when I do, I shall get the nikon.

By that I sort of meant that it was easier to make small setting changes. Yes. I realize that I was putting too much emphasis on that lens and kind of why i started wondering again. Oh A6000 was cheap as chips. Got it for around $430 with kit and 55-210 zoom. But it was bought by my brother who lives in Australia. HERE, Some Sonys are available for example, the a6000 goes for around $660 with just kit. So just getting it replaced is not quite easy, neither is renting. And if something does happen to it, local camera guys can easily fix nikons and canons, they cant fix sonys and they have never repaired such mirrorless cameras. Cant do too much with warranty either. So I guess theres no reason I should go for Canon here as my main priority is squeezing better quality video out of it. When I see d5500 and d5300 comparison people say d5500 is better, but not by that much, you could save money and get d5300. when i see comparison between d5300 and d5200, they say the exact same thing. Since my main priority is bang for buck, d5200 delivers the best image per dollar is what i conclude from all the reading and there no real reason i should consider canon.

Thats what my previous decision was based on. Pure picture quality and iso performance and post processing handling with the hack. But canon has a few nifty features going for it. Better handling, Focus Peaking, already have a lens for it when (and if) I chose to do photography, way easier to mount m42 lenses on it than Nikon. I dont know how well the increased bit rate(with magic lantern) works with post processing. There are no GOOD comparison with grading. whatever there is, they just show that the level of details and shadow detail are more or less same throughout, WHICH is true for the Nikon too except, but it can take GRADING and SHARPENING wayyyyyy better than stock video. But its my main camera! NOT ONLY is it my main Video camera for my "pro" tech youtube channel, it also is my main photography camera. When I have to cover an event and deliver the best quality I can, I use this. If somehow this goes through an accident at the gym or something happens, Everything else comes to a stop. I want to be able to take the new camera anywhere and not care about if it will be safe and just do whatever I can to 'get the shot'. ALSO, the flip screen. I bought my A6000 around same time last year and after a year (now) I am getting a few lenses. A sony A mount lens (30mm 2.8 macro for close up shots of products with a dumb adapter) and a konica hexanon 135mm and a few other m42(zeiss, helios) lenses. MIGHT even get the Samyang 85mm 1.4. Not the best for TECH but will be a HUGE boost to photography and if I use with an extension tube, OH BOKEH LORD for tech products. SO I am upgrading. This NEW camera wont be bought anytime soon. At least not this month. I am slowly saving for it. Whatever I had saved up until now I am spending on the lenses. So maybe next month or the month after. AND d5200 being cheaper and delivering better quality(for both photography and videography), I had my heart set on it. But then I started buying all the lenses and m42 is easier to mount on Canon and i already have a canon lens and IF Magic Lanterns bit rate hack is as good as d5200's bit rate hack then I guess 700d is a better buy. But then again, the footage from Canon looks SO blotchy and not CRISP. AT ALL. UGHHHH I COULD look into the used market though...ONLY canons and nikons of course.

I very often use my a6000 at 3200 without any problem. Was hoping the replacement could do at least half as good; and for gym footage it will most likely have to be around that ISO as well. So high ISO really is important. Like I said, these are for daily vlogs, the more i have to do in post, the longer it will take to render (mid range pc from 2011 with i5 2400 and amd card) and that is makes it all slow. Noise reduction takes a good while. In terms of robustness, how well does 700D with higher bitrates through hacks stand up to sharpening and grading? A6000's footage falls apart so badly, sharpening it isnt quite easy either. So currently, I just have the in camera sharpening to +3 and Contrast and Saturation at 0. And IF I decide to put film convert on it, its usually under 50% strength. Getting XAVC should help. My current workflow is like, import footage from both cameras, transcode the avchd to dnxhd, import the audio from phone. Then sync the audio in Premiere Pro and then put the whole thing together. Then I will grade on an adjustment layer, sometimes put some sharpening, maybe correct white balance with lumetri colors and export as H.264 with 15Mbits target and 20Mbits Max. The whole idea is to shorten the time for all this, and have better gym footage, and see myself as I talk so I can see whats going on (so crucial, had to redo a few long shots over again because i forgot to change a setting). d5300 is $525. More than what my a6000 cost me. And quality wise its much the same. And doesnt do justice as a backup camera to it for photography since i will only use kit lens. dont plan on buying any lens for it. and as for vlogs, i have only been doing it for a month, its a hobby, dont think i can spend that much on it. and again, even if i do, id feel terrible to 'not put it into good use' since i will only use the kit lens and make videos of myself talking into it and placing it somehwere in a dark gym to film myself workout. Oh yea that would be great! Do you have the bitrate hack installed? Also, i forgot to mention, d5300 does not have the hack, so low bitrate of around 24Mbits if I am not wrong, same as sony's. Now I am not complaining about sony, the quality is great. but grading is not easy, but the fix is already there, i just have to get a new sd card. How does it stack up with regards to post processing torture?

HEY GUYS. FIRST POST. SO. A few days back i decided to get a new camera, pretty much 4th camera to my arsenal. and i was pretty much SOLD on the Nikon d5200 because of the quality straight out of the camera and EVEN BETTER after the bitrate hack. BUT... I am having my doubts again. let me tell you what i need the camera for : 1. I need it to vlog. i have been daily vlogging my health transformation and i want a full time camera for it. usually, i just shoot at home or at the gym. when at home the iso on my current camera is usally below 1600 and same for the gym but the camea i use at the gym can go as far as that i think. (its a point and shoot). 2. A B camera to for my current camera to shoot tech unboxing and review videos in a studio environment. but this is almost minor and either camera will be more than enough. WHAT I ALREADY HAVE. 1. My main video/photo camera is Sony A6000. great camera, great low light, dont have xavc yet but will soon. I have been vlogging with this for the past month and the footage is great, except, the grading is very difficult. i like to grade my footage with film convert but after that it doesnt look quite as exciting. always use the kit lens at its widest. record my audio with rode smart lav + to my phone. bought a few m42 lenses for it which I MIGHT USE WITH THE CAMERA I BUY. MIGHT. not a priority. 2. Sony wx80. this is my small gym camera. my gym is pretty small and dark so its usually always at its maximum iso and the foorage is passable at best. i wouldnt dare take my a6000 to the gym. its my main camera!!! 3. Canon 30d. this is my backup camera to my a6000. i use this a lot for photographing events at school and such where i would much rather not take a6000 (since it doesnt require the best quality i can output) and it does a great job. i have a kit lens (35-80mm) and 50mm 1.8 for it. WHAT I NEED THE CAMERA TO DO. 1. look as good as it can for the money. thats really it. and i want to be able to sharpen the image and grade in post so high bitrate is important. without hacks d5200 looks superior and is superior altogether in low light. and with the hack it stands up very well to grades and sharpening and these made me want to go for d5200 before. BUT the magic lantern has a few nifty features such as focus peaking which i love. I dont need raw video at all. editing daily vlogs is hard enough. but ML's bitrate hack. i dont know anything about it. how well does it stack up to editing? 2. have good battery to last me a day of shooting (around 30 minutes or so usually) 3. be strong so if accidents happen i have nothing to worry about. 4. replace both a6000 and wx80 as a full on vlog camera. wont use the audio from the camera. will external audio connected to he camera. but will use at the gym and home. Leaning towards Nikon because : 1. better quality out of the camera 2. (possibly) better at handling grades after hack 3. better low light Leaning towards Canon because : 1. better kit lens 2. better AF ( i use the af for a6000 and it never hunts during video) 3. touch screen is handy for setting things on the fly 4. easier menus altogether 5. already sort of familar with canon 6. already have a lens and easier to adapt m42 lenses. 7. will most likely replace 30d as backup photo camera Nikon with kit lens costs around $415 and CANON with kit lens costs around $460 I will not buy a lens dedicated for either of this cameras. although, MAYBE in the future.. in 6 months or more, canon has a better, cheaper, auto focusing wide angle lens. an option. not a priority over picture quality. SORRY for the long read. I just dont want to regret purchasing it. CANT and WONT use a6000 at the gym because its my main camera. plus not having a flipout display is a major kill. getting an a5100 would be the best option without a question, but its not available where i live so anything thats not canon or nikon is pretty much out of the question. THANKS IN ADVANCE.