Mark Romero 2

That's probably a good lesson for someone like me.

Thank you.

I like cheap!!! So the Bower is pretty ok for the dollars??? I see one on Adorama that says they should be able to reduce the light by 8 stops max, but is there a certain level that you wouldn't go past due to IQ of the filter? I think I can get away with five or six stops. Are Bower's pretty neutral in color cast up to six stops? (Bower ND filters seem to be better rated on Adorama than they are on Amazon.)

Thanks. Good to know.

I think that is going to be difficult. Off the top of my head, a used Sony a7s (original version) can shoot 1080p up to ISO 6400 very well and I believe it can shoot at least 60fps (maybe 120fps, I am not certain). But then you won't have any money left over for a lens.

This is why I now just wear a pancake on my head for a hat...

Thanks for the insight!!!

It looks good (at US $59 ) and sounds good, but is there any other not-so-obvious reason you like the video micro???

Thanks again!

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I wish there was an aps-c sensor camera that had the 1080p output of the original a7s Maybe I should just pick up an original a7s and use my APS-C lenses on it for 1080p??? (Since I already have several Sony aps-c lenses and since I am too cheap to buy a Sony 16-35 f/4 lens)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience.

And what do you consider "low light"? What ISO are you thinking of? And which is more important to you: 4K at 60fps, or better "Low Light" performance?

Thanks for the input. Ok, well I guess I will just continue to use my a6000 for when I need 1080p (mostly for 60fps in sunny conditions so no need for the high iso capabilities of the a6500 sensor).

Noticed the Atomos Ninja Flame 4K recorder is on sale for $595 and am thinking of getting one for my a6500. But I am wondering if it would really make that much of a difference - in particular, to the quality of the 1080p footage. I have searched around the internets and it seems like maybe it doesn't help much with 1080p footage; maybe the only benefit is that it reduces compression artifacts, which are apparently not that high to begin with when using XAVC S codec internally. The other benefit is the brightness of the monitor. Anyone using an external recorder with the a6500 (or a6300) and see any real world benefits in terms of IQ? Looks like the Ninja Flame can record 8-Bit 4:2:2, and as far as I understand, the a6500 / a6300 can output 4:2:2 from HDMI port. Any real world benefit? Thanks in advance.

It's a helpful video. The most important lessons for me were: 1) Significant difference between cardioid and hyper cardioid patterns, and 2) Booming a cheap mic closer to your talent will be much better than having the most expensive mic sitting on top of your camera I know, I know, obvious to some already.

No one can afford the Bay Area!!!

I have to say that anybody who is both a hockey fan AND a fan of Wong Kar-Wai is ok in my book. Are you located in the Bay Area by chance??? I remember watching Days of Being Wild at the World Theater on Broadway in The City back in 1990 or '91 when it was first released. That was probably the closest to film nirvana I have experienced.

Yes, it is. Something to think about. But then the 16-35 is about US $1,100 used, and then I would probably need a 24MP body such as the a7 II as well. If sony full frame lenses were more affordable - or if I were halfway decent at manual focus with adapted lenses - then it could work.

I don't really know when the a6500 will get replaced, and I think that trying to predict what sony is going to do is kind of a fool's errand, IMHO. People were kind of right in predicting the a9, but it wasn't exactly what people had said it would be (the lower MP sensor). Not sure many people were expecting the release of the a7R III. Most people I saw were predicting an a7 III. But then again it kind of made sense that some of the tech that was in the a9 would go into another flagship camera. I'm not really sure what would go into an a6500 successor... and no telling if it would be at the a6500 price point or whether it would be closer to that of D500

I watched his video on WHY he switched and it is hard to argue with his points. I believe he shot primarily / entirely in 1080p with his Sony cameras, so that is one thing to keep in mind. The 1080p on the 5D IV does look good. How is the DR and rolling shutter on the 5D IV? My hope of hopes is that Nikon would release a new D750 / D760 that would have on-sensor phase detect AF and great 1080p, and still have the easy-to-work-with codec and really great colors. And please get rid of the mode dial lock function.

Thanks for the input. It is always good to get a diverse range of opinions on things. Is the dual pixel AF that much better than the AF on the a6500??? Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I kind of figured Sony might be over-optimistic with their data claims. And yes, being able to shoot at ISO 200 is much better than ISO 800 (which is base ISO for Slog 2 on the a6300 /a6500). Plus, I am a simple man with simple grading abilities, and slog 2 does not seem to like pedestrian colorists such as myself...

I am terrible at the maths, so I don't want to swear by this, but I BELIEVE that Sony says SLOG has a pretty significant dynamic range boost over the various Cine gammas: http://helpguide.sony.net/di/pp/v1/en/contents/TP0000909109.html Although I will defer to you if real-world experience is not in line with Sony's documentation.

Thanks for the suggestions on drumming up business. The 1/160th of a second flash sync speed of the a6500 (and the 1/200th of a second on the D750) are somewhat annoying. In essence, when i am photographing a room with a beautiful sunny view, I have to stop down to about f/11 and crank my speedlights all the way up in order to capture the view. Even sometimes at 1/200th of a second I get banding with the flash on the D750, so that is kind of a wash between those two.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I like my D750. For stills, the image quality is excellent, the RAW files are very malleable and I often just need to get exposure "in the ballpark" and I can adjust it up or down a couple of stops. I've been able to recover highlights that I thought were blown. The LCD Screen is very nice (tilt only, but a very good, bright image, and the screen is not to reflective). However, as nice as the screen is, it is let down by the poor live view autofocus. The LiveView (LCD) AF is slow and it is quite time-consuming to move the focus point with the selector pad on the back (I think Nikon calls it a "D Pad" or something like that...) If you enjoy focusing through the viewfinder then the D750 is quite good (although the newer cameras have a better AF system, according to most people). Personally, I HATE using the viewfinder, so I can't say that I am in love with the D750. Just a lot of like.