Mark Romero

On 9/7/2017 at 5:39 AM, sina_html said:

I own a GH5 and work alongside friends who use A7S and if a6300 image and dynamic range is anywhere near the original A7s then I think going from a6300 to GH5 you will feel a little disappointed in amount of noise and DR.

I dont feel comfortable going above iso 800 and 1600, specially when my footage is compared to A7S, in iso 1600 and 1300 you really dont want to under expose and then you may need to pull down shadows in post to hide some noise. low contrast looks really dont work for me in those high iso settings.

It is always nice to have a million stops of DR but it has never been a deal breaker for me, 10, 11, 12 stops are a lot and u can always work around limited DR.

In any other aspect, gh5 is a great professional tool. you get great IBIS, good and bright rotating display, great battery life, very nice slow motion and minimal rolling shutter, and 1080p image is much better than a6300. 

If 1 or 2 stops of higher iso performance and an stop of DR is more important to you than rolling shutter, reliability (battery, heat, dual memory, etc..) and ergonomic aspects of the camera, then why not stay with Sony?

Thanks for posting this a while back. Sorry I didn't see it earlier.

I do appreciate your input.

As for your final question:

If 1 or 2 stops of higher iso performance and an stop of DR is more important to you than rolling shutter, reliability (battery, heat, dual memory, etc..) and ergonomic aspects of the camera, then why not stay with Sony?

It's not quite that simple. Obviously, the GH5 seems to shine in many areas that the a6300 / a6500 is quirky. The sony is a frustrating camera. But it also works excellently as  a STILLS camera. 

So that is wwat I REALLY want; a camera with better high ISO and a bit more DR and great AF and great stills AND doesn't suffer from RS and overheating and terrible ergonomics.

Funny thing about the battery: My D750 gets just as many shots in LiveView as my a6300 did. I have two different Nikon batteries for my D750 and I swear that they run out of juice just as soon (if not sooner) that my a6300 would.

On 9/4/2017 at 4:19 PM, scotchtape said:

Every system has uwa.  You can use 7-14mm Panasonic or Olympus ...

Yes, that is what I thought. I was pretty sure that Panasonic had an UWA lens.

6 hours ago, Damphousse said:

No.

In real estate you also want to go wide in you field of view.  Going from APS-C to m43 makes no sense if you are taking pictures of cramped interiors.  You would want to go to full frame and squeeze more real estate in with optics that distort less.  A cheap extremely low distortion 50mm lens is going to have a field of view of a 100mm lens on m43.  Once you start adding in things like speedboosters or wider and wider lenses distortion creeps in and is evident with all the straight lines in interiors.

Not saying you can't use something smaller than FF but physics is clearly on the side of FF.

The Panasonic 12-35 ii is expensive but the GH5 corrects the distortion in camera.  Could be a nice way to "cheat".

True. With my current setup I use my Sony 10-18 f/4 and it is certainly wide enough (both for videos and stills).

I generally shoot RE interior video at around 20 to 24mm full frame equivalent, so for m43 format I would need (apparently) somewhere around 10 to 12mm lens.

Thank you, Everyone, who has chimed in.

I am just going to have to do some tests and make sure that I can get away with ISO 1600. I know that since the GH5 is m43 while the a6500 is APS-C, and that in real estate I WANTE more depth of field, I can use a larger aperture and still get the same DOF. So in thery, I could shoot at f/5.6 and ISO 1600 whereas with the a6500 I would have to shoot at f.8 and ISO 3200 to get the same DOF.

I will look into the Leeming LUTs. 

Another question if I may:

Now that you know my needs, Is there anything else by Panasonic (or someone else) that might work that costs LESS than the GH5?

Or will I need 10-bit color if I do have to work a lot in mixed lighting?

I don't specifically think I will need 4K 60fps, although i might WANT it. I definitely need clean 60fps 1080p though.

I guess the cost of the GH5 is the price you pay for getting something that is "future proof" (well, at least as future proof as can be in today's world).

After discovering that gravity, concrete and a faulty ladder are bad for an a6300 (not to mention for an ankle) I am in need of a new camera.

So of course I am looking at the GH5 because... well... it's a GH5. Or getting an a6500

For those with a GH5, how high of an ISO will you go before you really start NEEDING noise reduction software / plugins?

How high will you go if you DO use plugins / NR software?

And is the GH5 a good camera if you want to do MINIMAL post processing? I know that the ability to record in 10-bit is great for grading. But what if you want to avoid grading (but need to do color correction because no one nails white balance in camera... especially if you will be dealing with a lot of mixed lighting like tungsten, daylight, and fluorescent all in the same shot)

I would be using it fro real estate videos and I need something quick, easy to use, good dynamic range, good stabilization (will be on my Zhiyun crane), and decent enough HIGH ISO performance.

The thing is, I will only be getting about $300 for a finished two-minute video. So I can't spend hours grading it / color correcting / stabilizing etc. I need something that is going to require minimal massaging.

Thanks in advance.

Love This!!!

Because I don't always trust my eyes, I hope you can all help me out here confirming either way:

- The a6500 looks to be the softest (unsurprisingly), right???

- The RX10 III looks to have the most noise, right????

-The GH5 and the Leica seem to be the sharpest???

- the a7S II colors are very... ummm... "Sony Green"???

Is this what other people are seeing too???

18 hours ago, 64mulford said:

As a former user of an A7sii, I have come to learn that the GH5 is so much better in almost every way. However,

Please elaborate when you have a moment. Thanks.

Maybe I should start a new thread, but...

A few people mentioned that it performs well in low light and has improved dynamic range. Can anyone compare the low-light and DR to that of the sony a6300 / a6500???

Since I shoot real estate videos, I would need MORE depth of field and low-light performance is critical, along with dynamic range.

Thanks in advance.

19 hours ago, ade towell said:

I think the colour is much nicer with the a6300, the 4k is pretty spectacular, but rolling shutter is really bad 

Thanks for the note.

When you say the 4K is spectacular, do you feel that way once it is transcoded / exported as 1080p ?

5 hours ago, maxotics said:

In really good light, the A6300 will probably match the A7S.  HOWEVER, as soon as you start moving away from 400 ISO exposure the A7S will begin to crush the A6300. 

I would be using it primarily at Higher ISOs (1,200 to 6,400). 

Has anyone done much comparisons between the 4K footage of an a6300 AFTER it has been transcoded down to 1080p with that of the original a7s shot in 1080p?

Is there really that much of a difference in terms of details and other image quality aspects?

And I asking specifically for footage recorded in camera, not to an external recorder.

Thanks in advance.

(Still wishing that the D750 video had more detail... and that I didn't have to send it in to Nikon for a recall from the latest service advisory released yesterday.)

3 hours ago, BasiliskFilm said:

A Nikon mirrorless that matches Sony for video, but lets me use my existing glass, without breaking the bank, with DSLR quality autofocus? That might be very tempting.

For what it's worth, the autofocus on my Mirrorless a6300 is superior to the autofocus on my D750.

There are some instances where the D750 will autofocus faster than the a6300, but when it does, it is almost always less accurate than the focus of the a6300.

That is not to say that the AF on the D750 is bad, just that for my needs, the AF on the a6300 is better.

By The Way: I am rooting for a Nikon Mirrorless as well (preferably APS-C size).

You probably realized that you are asking for a lot of camera for not that much money...

Most likely anything you want with 4K (or even just really good 1080p at 120fps) is going to be somewhat north of one grand.

The a6300 has quite detailed 4K. With the latest firmware update (2), it shouldn't overheat as much (in theory).

There aren't really any adapters with FUNTIONAL AF or image stabilization support for adapting your Tamron Nikon mount lens to a Sony a6300. However, you could possibly get the Sigma (for Canon) mount 17-50 OS and put it on an MC-11 adapter and then you would have the same 17-50 crop sensor focal range and functioning optical stabilization. But.... you better double check how well the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 will AF with the MC-11 adapter on an a6300.

On the other hand, the 1080p on the a6300 falls behind some of the other cameras out there, and the screen is really not that good (compared to the swivel screen of D5X00 series or even the tilt screen of the D750).

Oh, and the screen dims in 4K when shooting with the a6300... and it is already really reflective. I ain't going to lie; I find it a PITA to shoot 4K video with my a6300. Much easier to shoot video with my D750, just that the 1080p resolution of the D750 is so soft...

A lot of people like the Panasonic cameras (l don't know all their models, but things like the G7 and G85 or something like that??? As well as the GH4 cameras). If you are looking for IBIS, then Panasonic IBIS with stabilized Panasonic lenses are supposed to be great. Then again, I have no idea on the pricing of Panasonic lenses,

The new D7500 is supposed to cost around $1,260 so that is out of your budget. I would imagine that image quality would be good (on par with the D500) but autofocus in LiveView with MOST Nikon cameras is painful. Did they improve liveview AF with the D7500??? If so, might be worth getting.

Heck, I am thinking of getting one anyway. Who knows. 

Also, maybe the Canon 80D ??? I have no idea if it is any GOOD or not, but it seems like everyone and their dog uses one. No 4K but at least you should be able to find one used for under a grand.

I have not used any Samsung cameras. But I have an a6300 and I think it is supposed to be close enough to an a6500 that I feel confident in telling you that if you are looking for a camera to shoot 1080p in hot sunny days then there are several cameras better than an a6300.

The 4K of the a6300 (and most likely a6500) is very detailed and the a6300 / a6500 have excellent low light performance.

For 1080p 60fps the a6000 would have better image quality than the a6300 / a6500 until noise become problematic.

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Find the one that responds to protocols over HTTP and get that one

I know what you mean though - I have the same dilemmas, in the end Mk IV has stood the test of time and I didn't feel upgraditus coming on... The A6300 and A6500 on the other hand, I regret buying.

Why do you regret buying them???

On 6/4/2016 at 0:04 AM, Eric Calabros said:

When will we accept this reality that with hybrids you have to compromise many things for the sake of not carrying another cam? I don't understand all this obsession with "convenience"!

I can only speak for myself, but...

On my jobs I need a main camera and a backup camera in case one dies / overheats / whatever. 

So if I needed a separate camera for stills and another camera for video, then I would have to bring FOUR bodies (main and backup stills cameras, main and backup video camera).

That is why I am using (for now) the Sony a6300. It can be a COMPLETELY FRUSTRATING camera at times, but it does the job and I have a backup for it as well, so I am only carrying two bodies and not four bodies.

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

FWIW, I regularly have to shoot stills at ISO5000 and the Fuji's haven't scared me off from that point of view. 

They don't have the bordering on night vision levels of the A7S etc but they're competitive enough at 'normal' high ISO levels.

Thanks.

Have you shot video in that range yet? If so, would love to see some.

@ mercer

@ BTM_Pix

Thank you both. I will look into the fuji.

The key I think is low light / dynamic range /  moire suppression performance (and better 1080p than the a6000 / a6300 at 1080p). And ease of use and ease of grading.

So I will start looking into the dynamic range and low light video of the Xt20.

Thanks again.

So I am still at a dilemma deciding what I am going to do...

I have a friend who is quite successful at real estate videos who uses an a7s shooting at 1080p with 16-35 and a Movi 5. He says he only spends about an hour in post editing together his walkthrough videos. 

I should probably just do that as well. Just... I don't like the colors from the a7s that much, and from what I can see, I really do like the colors of the D750 so much more.

So here is an option for a video / stills package for my real estate needs:

Plan A:

1) Sell D750 and various lenses, Sell D7000, sell a6300, sell a6000, sell 10-18 lens and other various lenses,

2) Buy original a7s and 16-35 for video, plus buy a7 II for stills (use the 16-35 for stills on the a7 II)

3) Possibly sell my crane and beholder DS1 and get Ronin M (if the a7s and crane don't play nicely together)

Main drawback being no 4K realistically (i would just get an a7s II instead of an a7s and Atomos shogun)

Plan B:

1) Sell D750 and D7000, and buy a SECOND a6300 for when the first one overheats from shooting 4K

2) Buy some sort of HDMI monitor so I can see what I am doing since LCD screen is abysmal.

3) Use my a6000 for 1080p (slightly better than the 1080p of the a6300 but noisy in low light and subject to aliasing and moire).

Main drawback: Less user-friendly for shooting and editing 4K. Colors not as nice (even with Andrew's color profile setup). Highlights not quite as recoverable as on D750.

Plan C

1) sell sony gear and buy a Nikon 16-35mm lens

2) Sell Zhiyun crane and Beholder DS1 Gimbal and buy Ronin M.

3) Use D750 for stills and video

Main Benefit: Easiest and cheapest solution (since already own the D750).

Main Drawback: In theory, any kid with an iPhone and a wide angle adapter lens will get "better" quality video than I will be able to produce...

All the videos everyone has posted look very good.

Sounds good.

@ Andrew Reed:

Thanks for posting. Did you try out the 1080p at other speeds? How would it compare to that of the a7s?

I know you only had it for a short time before having to send it back, but do you think it would be competent shooting 4K or 1080 (at 60fps) in the ISO 1600 to 3200 range? At what ISO would the 1080p of the original a7s becoming noticeably better than that of the a99 II?

Thanks in advance for testing this out when you have a moment.

I will agree with you that it can be hard to tell and that for probably 80& or 90% of stills photography by MOST PEOPLE one camera can be almost as good as another.

Only when certain criteria (extremes in DOF, or ISO, or shutter speed or flash or FPS, or ???) are you really going to notice the difference.

I was looking through some portraits I had taken and the ones I liked the most were NOT taken with my Full Frame D750 and 85mm f/18 lens (around $2,600) but were instead taken with my crop sensor D5100 and a crop sensor 55-210 f/4-5.6 which cost me about $600 used when I got them about five years ago (or whenever the D5200 replaced the D5100).

I would say that #3 is the cheapest camera and #1 is the most expensive.

Maybe you could put the answer ON YOUR WEBSITE instead of posting here so we can take a look with out spoiling the answer for others??? Then just post a link to your site where the answer is.

8 hours ago, BLACKOUT said:

The 17 TSE looks well resolved and clean, any issues with adapting the tse to the Sony mount??

I'm hoping to go this way for a future set up..any regrets..

Thanks........

I know some people (Rich Baum, Wayne Capili)  who use the Canon 17mm Tilt shift with a metabones speed booster on a crop sensor Sony a6000 for real estate and they love it (at least for stills). Don't know about video though.

But if it works well with a speed booster on a crop sensor I would imagine it works well (for stills at least) on a full frame a7s / a7s II.