Arikhan

@noone Thank you for sharing the link! I think, for my mom this kind of simple "grade" will be enough for the beginning. First of all she should get familiar with handling the camera, shooting settings, audio, etc. - as said, a pro uses every day the gear, a amateur once in a blue moon. Postproduction/manipulation is the second step...

@josdr I hope, she buys the cam, because I could use it with a mark IV adapter with dozens of great Canon lenses and get much more experience in portrait shooting (Sony's great eye AF detection) and get more in deep with video shooting with S-LOG2 and 3. But now it will be a budget problem: 1.500 EUR to spend A6300 = 940 EUR (best price at the moment in Germany) + lens 35mm 1.8 OSS = 370 EUR...It remain about 200 EUR to spend on a variable ND filter (for the Sony 35mm lens) and a mark IV metabones adapter...This begins to get a hard deal, because of the expensive Metabones mIV EF to E-Mount. It's quite hard to keep it simple on a given and not negotiable budget... Hmh...are there cheaper adapters, similar to the metabones mIV, which pass AF from Canon lenses through (making Sony's eye AF possible with Canon lenses)? Someone experienced with this aspect?

@dahlfors I understand...Though I don't have any personal experience with sony color science in real world, I heared the same story when moving from Canon to Nikon some months ago ("You will regret it!" Some Canon fanboys said...). The result: Nope, NOONE misses the Canon colors here. I still like them, but I like the Nikon colors too...They are not better or worse, they are different...And to be honest, I prefer a good composition and a general balance of compostion, image texture and subject expression and a expressive, interesting content more than discussing ad ultimo on color science. Colors are not only science but also an art and always a matter of personal taste... At the end of the day, I think that's a kind of "rebellion" against Canonikon. We have a bunch of Canon cameras, dozens of lenses and now some Nikon cams and lenses. So, if she wants a third system in the family, why not? She pays the bill, for me it's a completely free experience with the Sony ecosystem. :-))) She wants to make a decision within the next three days, wait and see...I discussed with her almost all possible technical specs, color and ergonomical aspects, but it's her decision...BTW: She has ZERO experience in color correction or grading of video footage (editing yes, but no color grading or correction)...

@jonpais Wow...very beautiful with pleasant, organic color flair & balance I really like. Full ACK. It doesn't make sense to ruin very good, balanced colors with wannabe color correction or grading, at the end of the day it makes things worse and steals editors time without any benefit...In my eyes, it's NOT EASY AT ALL to apply a pleasant color correction or grading. It requires thousands of hours of experience, the fewest filmers have it. So the results would be rather a "color massacre", instead of improving original color look and balance. Two questions: You say, you used the Leica Nocticron F1.2 to shoot this footage...What about the look of footage shot with a Panasonic 42,5 mm F1.7 lens? I assume, manual focusing...you shot this footage on tripod (it looks like this, because it's very stable), or handheld?

@Kisaha I own the NX1 and love it. But shooting stills with this camera in the combination low light + low contrast + moving subjects (means 1/200s and shorter shutter) is a pain. All quality gone, not only noise but destroying colors also...In good light and even highly overexposed, you can recover all (shadow) details in post...In low light, not only it loses all DR, but it terribly crushes colors. A friend of mine has the D7200 (DX/APS-C) and after shooting a quick comparison with my NX1 in real world circumstances (1/200s, ISO 6400, F1.8) I can tell you: A current Nikon DX wishes the floor with the NX1 in every aspect for low light and low contrast stills (for the kind of photography we do). @josdr The color science for stills doesn't matter at all, she is familiar with postproduction in RAW - so she can do every prefered color/mood in post. For video she just doesn't like skin tones and lips color in some profiles of Panasonic (she calls Pana skin tones and lip colors "color hooliganism" when watching on computer or laptop display) cameras, but has no preferences for Nikon, Sony or Canon colors. @dahlfors Exactly what I told her. Let's assume, that she likes this experience with the Sony ecosystem. After the first two "light" primes (35mm and something like a 50mm, which both are very light and portable) she would surely buy the 18-105 F4 and would want to buy the 85mm Sony prime (she likes this lens on our Canonikons). With the 85mm/18-105 F4 on the camera, there is nothing more "very light" or "tiny". There are many good lenses transforming the "puppy" A6300 into a "brick", so the term of "tiny, light camera" is - depending on lens/gear you use - just an illusion. Same with a mounted flash, when needed...Let's assume, she mounts the 18-105 F4 and a Yongnuo flash on the A6300...It wouldn't be much more lighter than a combination of the Canon 6D with flash & similar lens...BUT she calls the Canon combination "Canonikon brick", meanwhile beeing enthusiastic about the "tiny Sony cameras". She made many shots with the combination 5dmiii / 7dii with the 300mm Canon prime lens. And we have a battery grip on most Canonikons we own. So I think, at the moment she compares these cameras equiped with with big tele lenses with the A6300 + tiny 35mm prime. And that is comparing apples with oranges. I showed her the combination of Canon 6d (without grip) + 50mm 1.8 Canon lens - it's a tiny gear. No way to convince her, she wants to go "tiny" now... ;-) Full ACK. But as amateur, it takes days and weeks (as not working everyday with the gear) to get to conclusions on usability and preferences...

@josdr Thank you for the tip with the Konica hexanon 50 mm f1.7! If she decides to buy the A6300, I will recommend her this lens. It's not about "pro standard", it's about getting an idea and first impressions in videography for a person shooting stills (as hobbyist with professional gear) for over 15 years. She wants just a light gear (at the end of the day with max. 2 lenses, one on camera, the other one in the bag or pocket) and is quite enthusiastic about the A6300. My mom is used in working with Canonikon, but she is flexible in learning new menues/handling, so I don't worry too much about that. If she likes Sony after beginning with the a6300, she will surely buy the a7r ii (or the successor model) - but for the first, I think the A6300 is more than good enough to get first impressions about the insides of the "small & light" Sony ecosystem. What could you recommend? Thank you!

@Cinegain It's not about the color, lol...The D5500 is really cool and it's a pleasure to shoot (stills) with it. BUT, as I said in my posting, my mom likes HSS lighting and the D5500 can't do this. As In know, only D7X00 and above models, can do HSS...The D5500 was on my list, because it's a real nice and light camera with a respectable image quality, very good DR and ISO capabilities...And at the end of the day, it offers much bargain for the price... True, but she wants a sensor size APS-C +...Because of oftenly shooting stills of moving subjects in low light conditions (street photography).... FF and 2nd hand would be great in terms of IQ, but the RX1R is - compared with current technology - very slow in focusing (for stills)...Video out of the RX1R seems to be quite very soft and sometimes mushy, not real 1080p, but more 720p...Are you personally experienced with this camera, or can you tell me more about it? @Kisaha Never heard about the Fuji Z5fd. Though (after taking a quick look) a camera from 2007 with a 1/2,5 sensor, fixed lens F3.5-4.2 and a max. of ISO 1.600 is not the device one must have nowadays...My mom shot in the last years with APS-C and FF, she only wants a tiny, light and unintrusive camera with a decent fast and tiny prime on it...Minimum APS-C sensor size... @josdr Is there such a big difference in IQ between the 35mm 1.8 Sony and the 30mm 2.8 Sigma? The Sony is much faster (great in low light) and has OSS...But I am not experienced with these lenses on a Sony A6X00 camera at all...

Hi guys, This morning my mom told me, she wants to buy a own camera for video and stills. We own some Canon & Nikon FF and APS-C cameras and lenses, but she told me, "she is tired to carry around the Canonikon bricks". She wants an own, small and tiny camera, light and easy to carry around. As she is a fan of APS-C and FF sensors (because of great low light, bokeh, general flair, noise level, etc.) and fast prime lenses, she wants to buy only one camera and one lens at a max. of 1.500 Euro budget (camera + lens + ND filter). After doing some research, she asked me, if the A6300 would be a good choice (she would prefer the a7r ii, but as she doesn't know if she generally likes the Sony system/ergonomics/results, she would like to start with the A6300). She is familiar with editing in Premiere CC (and other Adobe applications) and wants to shoot only short video sequences (so the overheating would probably be not an issue) and stills. She likes cameras doing well (!) in low light, but she loves HSS photography too. So it should be the A6300 with the 35mm F1.8 OSS to get a first idea and feeling of the "light" Sony ecosystem...I told her, that eg the Sony 85mm lens is NOT very light, so the term "light" - depending on used lenses - can become soon very disputable, but she was quite enthusiastic about the idea of a "lady cam"... What do experienced people think? Is the A6300 the "right camera" for a lady with these requirements? Is the 35mm the right "universal" (and only) lens for the first steps with this camera? Are there other recommendations for these needs?

@noone I am aware of Sony's technical excellence and innovative power, especially concerning some phantastic (not only low light) skills of the a7s ii and a7r ii. I wish, Canonikon would be so innovative as Sony. In my eyes, Sony's eye AF is eg stellar for portraits, I've seen some shots with the a7r ii and they were mindblowing... BUT in this case, a quick and reliable AF is very important, when shooting moving subjects. Not even FAST moving subjects, but simply moving subjects (eg wanting to capture the facial expression of someone smiling or wondering, etc.). AF needing 1,5+ seconds to focus properly in low light are not good enough for this purpose... As you mentionned DXOmark: It's a nice read, but my real world experience is very different. For example the Canon 6D is rated very bad. I agree concerning DR and the non existing ISO invariance. BUT the 6D is a GREAT low light camera, much better then many "reviews" and DXOmark suggest. I know even some "Nikon purists" owning this camera for astro and night photography (of course also because of WLAN and GPS, but a bunch of Nikon owners are low light fetishists though). My father owns the 6D and the 5dm3, and there are low light situations, where the 5dm3 fails to focus - but the 6D (center point) still locks focus. So DXOmark lab (theoretical) conclusion about the 6D has ZERO value for my real world needs. Z E R O...

@noone + @bigfoot Obviously I am not the only one having some issues with the low light AF (stills) of the a7s ii: As seen in this article...This might be a good explanation for slow AF in low light... @webrunner5 Not necessary to get ironic. I am sure, I use enough flash and lighting - when possible....But there are many situations, when it is not possible or permitted. For example I shoot horse sports (show jumping) indoor. In Germany - in most indoor competitions - it's not allowed to use flash. When I shoot show jumping, I mostly need 1/1000s shutter. And no flash. As you see in this case, there is a real practical need for high ISO cameras having fast AF. In many cases, APS-C (7D / 7D ii) fail with noisy, not acceptable IQ (though using HQ tele with constant aperture f2.8). In my eyes and from technical point of view, I speak of photography (implicating my quality needs) up to ISO 12.800 (on FF cameras known for good low light capabilities). Till this point it's light processing. Above this ISO, it's no more photography as processing of light, but interpretation of darkness. It might sometimes be useful, but it is not my understanding (!) of photography.

@noone2 I think, most professional photographers worldwide will now throw away their Nikons and Canons and start a insane run on the a7s ii after holidays...Time for Canonikon to immediately stop R&D plus camera production and sales - nobody needs in fact their inferior devices. The end of established camera manufacturers is not far off... ;-)

@noone My statement (only for stills) doesn't contradict yours at all. The a7s ii is a phantastic camera. But for some situations, it takes too long for its autofocus. Depending on what you shoot, too long to capture a momentary situation (not posing)...This is my personal impression, but there are many stills shooters who say, the AF speed is not fast enough for spontaneous shots. For still shooting, a very fast and accurate AF is decissive too - and that is not the major strength of the a7s ii... About 4 weeks ago I've hold it in my hands, it's the camera of a friend of mine. We've done a simple shootout in low light (not darkness) and low contrast. The Sony was always noticeable behind the D750 at AF speed (I still can remember our settings at that time for better comparison, it were 1/250s and ISO 6.400 with 50mm 1.8). It was about the same lighting conditions as in a restaurant or church with very decent lighting. In focus of the shootout was "AF speed in low light / low contrast with moving subjects". The a7s ii oftenly needed 2-3 times longer to focus on moving subject as the D750. We tweaked a little bit around (as described here), but still much slower in AF than the D750... BTW: It's simple to prove, just do a shootout (stills) on moving objects in very decent light and low contrast, and you will see it within minutes. Even the Canon 6D (with its center point AF) was faster in focusing than the a7s ii...

@bigfoot Stills shooting: And that is the problem, depending WHAT you shoot. If you want to shoot moving subjects (eg in low light), you need a reliable autofocus. There is not all about IQ and high ISO, but also about focusing. And that's where the a7s II fails. When shooting moving subjects in low light, you simply mostly need a decent AF. And the a7s ii sometimes (in low light) needs 4-6 seconds to focus. For moving subjects, it's simply useless. Most people don't consider that for stills: you don't only need IQ and high ISO capabilities, but excellent AF (accuracy + speed) in low light too. And that's where even a Canon 6D (with its center AF-point) is much more reliable than a a7s ii. The Nikon D750, D4/D4S and the new D5 are herein "focusing kings" in low light, sometimes the D500, though a DX and far away for from high ISO capabilities of newer FX cameras. In complete darkness, all mentionned cameras will surely fail without additional focusing help, but ALL of them have the better AF (even in normal light) than the a7s ii - crucial for photographing moving subjects in critical lighting situations. One famous example: The Nikon D610 is an excellent camera, with a great DR and very good high ISO capabilities (quite similar to the famous D750). But...it doesn't focus properly in the dark, it "can't see" in the dark like other low light kings... So, if you want to shoot stills and your subjects are static, you have the time to wait on getting proper AF or focus manually, as the focus peaking of the a7s ii (and other modern cameras) is very good. If your subjects move (impredictably) and you have to capture them, then go for a stills camera known for focusing quite fast and accurately in low light...

@mike_tee_vee I use the FZ1000 (predecessor of the FZ2500) for 1,5 years now and the AF is a little bit tricky, you have to test it for your needs to get it working when shooting. Face tracking works eg very well, zone AF in some situations too. Other AF modes hunt quite often if background or foreground are more contrasty than subject. There is also some unexpected hunting in decent light, don't rely on it in poor (or even decent) lighting scenarios. Focus transitions and refocusing work mostly well with the Pana APP and smartphone or tablet, as the FZ1000 does NOT have a touch display. As I have some architecture shots in the pipe, I will give Andrews LUT for Panasonic (though there are no faces/skin) a try. I'm quite curious about results with/without lut. Thanks @Andrew Reid for the work! BTW: I didn't hold the FZ2500 in my hands, but the predecessor (FZ1000) was all the time a good and reliable workhorse for me. Nice stabilization, nice low light for its 1" sensor and generally a decent point and shoot camera. 1080p quality OK. Not an outstanding camera but worth the 800 Euros at the time I've buyed it. AUDIO is miserable (because poor preamps) even used with high quality mics...worst quality I've ever met in a current filming device, much worse eg. than sound in the old 7D...Use Tascam or cheap Saramonic preamp (or record audio separately) to get good audio.

@IronFilm No stills shooting professionally...I am still a scholar for the next 1,5 years. I do photography with my family. My father travels in the context of his job around the world and his passion is taking stills (now for around 25 years). So this is a "family passion" and not a money making profession... ;-) The D750 and D810. After decades of using Canon cameras (all available FF and APS-C till 2015). I still love Canon, but times and kind of shooting change and we love more and more the "neutral" Nikon skin tones, DR and ISO invariance, moreover you can work on the colour science in post when shooting RAW. When shooting portraits, meanwhile (after some time working on colour science in post) it's impossible to distinguish a Nikon from a Canon shoot. So the famous "Canon skin tones" are not a point to buy Canon any more after establishing a fast and effective workflow in post - depending on lighting conditions, composition, prefered mood, etc....

@OliKMIA Full ACK. The problem is, buyers don't pay any more just for cameras as hardware, they pay for huge marketing and PR (very often "lipstick on a pig") costs. In my eyes, the 80D - as camera - is worth max. 500 Euro (without DPAF probably only 250 Euros). The difference to current price are marketing costs I would never pay. The best philosophy for camera buyers is to wait some time after release of a serious piece of camera/gear and buy it decently used in mint condition (or from a pawn shop). Doing it this way, initial buyers pay for marketing costs I don't want to pay for.

@IronFilm No. At the first only 4 primes: 20, 35, 50 and 85 1.8. After some weeks/months of familiarization, we will see which lenses we need furthermore. We have to evaluate the quality of some Nikon tele lenses (for our personal way of shooting, needs and IQ requirements) to make a decision and therefore we have to borrow them first.

@jonpais You have to read my statement first: The test was about stills at 28mp and not for video at a much more inferior resolution.... BTW: I LOVE my NX1 and some of the Samsung native lenses. But inferior quality is inferior quality, specially when proven and noticeable by normal users (not even pixel peepers) like me... ;-)

@jonpais Samsung never claimed, the 16-50 2.0-2.8 was a cine lens or a stills lens only. They claim, usage of this lens is for stills AND video...So I tested it for stills, as most of people use DSLR to shoot stills...Nothing wrong about that. Again, test it yourself.

@jonpais Jonpais, how can you explain, that the mentioneed Canon lens, adapted to the NX1, delivers better results in stills than using the 16-50mm Samsung native lens? As you state: WOW. If you were right, adapters would help to improve image quality. I my eyes, this statement is ridiculous...Because we talk here about a massive improvement (IQ) with adapter + third party lens over the native Samsung lens. That shows clearly, how inferior the native lens is, compared with the Canon lens + cheap adapter...As simple as that...

@jonpais LOL. There are credible tests with the Samsung 16-50 (lab tests) claiming the same...Just test it yourself, without blaming people...Spreading theoretical scenarios is not very helpful. Test it in real world and you will see... English is not my first language. The day you speak German as good as my bad English is far away... ;-)

You always have to differ between using a lens for stills or for video. Let me give you an example: The Samsung 16-50mm 2.0-2.8 is a phantastic native lens for NX1 to make videos. For stills and compared in real world with eg a Canon 24-70 2.8 ii (manual focusing with adapter on a NX1), the Samsung lens is more than poor....And this is noticeable, not a matter of pixel peeping details. In this special case, the optical capabilities of the native lens are far behind the optical quality of the Canon 24-70 ii in stills. In video (even with 4k) the enormous differences aren't noticeable, because of the big difference in resolution (stills resolution vs video resolution). It gets much more noticeable with NX-adapted major Canon prime lenses, where the Canon glasses wish the floor with the Samsung lenses (even with the Samsung 45mm 1.8, considered to be a very good lens). Please consider: in stills.

@austinchimp Canon lenses are a class of its own, over the years we gathered about 60 major lenses, zoom and rare and expensive primes like the 300mm 2.8 (buyed a couple of years ago for about 3.500 Euro, now the lens is about 5.200 Euro) or the 600mm 2.8. Or the 200mm 1.8...In my eyes, extraordinary lenses, worth every penny. Now (in 2017) we will leave the Canon stills ecosystem and buy a bunch of Nikon cameras. BUT we will not sell our Canon lenses or older cameras... I love the character and precision of these lenses, we never had even one technical issue with them.... All my claims are ALL about stills, we never used them for filming on Canon stills cameras, just on my Samsung NX1 with a EF adapter...And in future probably (?) on Sony film cameras... Merry cristmas everyone!

Still remember Nokia? Years ago, Nokia was the number 1 in mobile phone market...Within 5 years they were blown away by other manufacturers. That's today's economy: From hero to zero (and viceversa) in 5 years. Canon is at the moment the number one in digital camera market, without doubt. But their ultraconservative attitude and unreasonableness remembers very strong about Nokia's haughtiness before their spectacular fall down. Consumers and many market trends are unpredictable nowadays, so manufacturers always should consider this...Credibility and an excellent image as an innovative manufacturer hearing to users demands (and not lying on them) stay, market trends and consumer behaviour come and go...

@Tim Sewell Exactly. But the audience has the power in its hands: add blockers & co are your friends. From economic point of view, users can vote against this such called "journalism" by blocking ALL ads and NOT clicking on any sort of affiliate link. But there is another site too: authentic, credible work and sites MUST be supported. As said, it's up to us users... Same as buying cameras: it's all about our decision to spend money on gear of manufacturer A, B or C. Things will only change, if we do NOT give manunfacturers our money. Miserable service? Don't buy! Fooling enthusiasts? Don't buy! Poor specs? Don't buy! etc....or buy cheap...the only possibility to take influence on them is MONEY...