Jump to content

"One woman, one lens" - A6300 ??


Arikhan

Recommended Posts

"

f we're talking video, it's important that the user uses a camera with a workflow suited to the user, not according to camera specs. In this case it sounds like the user is not too well versed with color correcting / grading, and hence Nikon/Canon which are known for having good colors straight out of the camera should be a great alternative. Rather than having to work with LUTs and colour grading in post for a good result which the Sonys have been known for. Maybe the modern A6300 and A6500 are better and have suitable colour profiles that this specific user would be happy with, maybe not. They won't be the same out of the box as what the user is used to at least."

 

Let's make another point here.. at this price range, Sony gives you the ability of slog , canon and nikon will not...   You can use picture profiles in the a6300 as well of course and Andrew's PP are quite good but she is going to very tempted to play around with colouring /slight grading and you can do that efficiently either shooting with a log or a toned down, flat profile.. Resolve is very capable in its free edition and has very nice colour tools. Since his mum is a an accomplished photographer and knows her way around handling photo raw's she will certainly be able to handle some wb corrections and some basic colouring at leat. It is of course her preference to do this or shoot to a picture profile but the capability is there..  Sony handles colours differently than Canonikon but at least in raw photographs you can get the warm Canon look if you want . Jpeg's not so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, josdr said:
2 hours ago, josdr said:

 

 

f we're talking video, it's important that the user uses a camera with a workflow suited to the user, not according to camera specs. In this case it sounds like the user is not too well versed with color correcting / grading, and hence Nikon/Canon which are known for having good colors straight out of the camera should be a great alternative. Rather than having to work with LUTs and colour grading in post for a good result which the Sonys have been known for. Maybe the modern A6300 and A6500 are better and have suitable colour profiles that this specific user would be happy with, maybe not. They won't be the same out of the box as what the user is used to at least."

 

Let's make another point here.. at this price range, Sony gives you the ability of slog , canon and nikon will not...   You can use picture profiles in the a6300 as well of course and Andrew's PP are quite good but she is going to very tempted to play around with colouring /slight grading and you can do that efficiently either shooting with a log or a toned down, flat profile.. Resolve is very capable in its free edition and has very nice colour tools. Since his mum is a an accomplished photographer and knows her way around handling photo raw's she will certainly be able to handle some wb corrections and some basic colouring at leat. It is of course her preference to do this or shoot to a picture profile but the capability is there..  Sony handles colours differently than Canonikon but at least in raw photographs you can get the warm Canon look if you want . Jpeg's not so.

I have not been unhappy with the colour from any maker really (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus used in interchangeable lens digital cameras).     I like Sony jpegs though that is subjective and many will prefer others.

 

While I like Sony colour as it seems closer to reality to me often, for those that don't want to grade with Sony E mount, there is also the Liveview grading App (costs $10) and it gives millions of different combinations to play around with.      I had it with my A7 and even that was far more than I need for video.     You could spend years trying out all the combinations available.

"This app expands creative possibilities by letting you fine-tune the color of your movies while viewing the effects in real-time. What used to require special equipment or software can now be done with just your camera! You can adjust color depth, color saturation and other parameters manually or apply one of several presets — such as Clear, Vivid, Monochrome or Bold — to produce popular tonal effects with ease."

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000010

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, noone said:

I have not been unhappy with the colour from any maker really (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus used in interchangeable lens digital cameras).     I like Sony jpegs though that is subjective and many will prefer others.

 

While I like Sony colour as it seems closer to reality to me often, for those that don't want to grade with Sony E mount, there is also the Liveview grading App (costs $10) and it gives millions of different combinations to play around with.      I had it with my A7 and even that was far more than I need for video.     You could spend years trying out all the combinations available.

"This app expands creative possibilities by letting you fine-tune the color of your movies while viewing the effects in real-time. What used to require special equipment or software can now be done with just your camera! You can adjust color depth, color saturation and other parameters manually or apply one of several presets — such as Clear, Vivid, Monochrome or Bold — to produce popular tonal effects with ease."

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000010

I totally forgot about the sony apps LOL. Yes that is useful.. I took some photos today in a snowy environment (started snowing heavily in my area of the woods). WB set to auto.. I swear that skin tones look much more realistic and authentic out of the raw file than any photos that I have taken before.. I cannot possible attribute that or be sure that I am correct in my assertion.. I personally don't like overly warm colours but Sony is still not there with the other big two colour-wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about colour science...and claiming Canon is a leader - there are some other opinions too...Three examples:

Example 1

I showed in my school 31 colleagues (aged between 17 and 19 years old) a portrait (2 stills) comparison between Canon and Nikon. Same subject, different colour sciences with original colours. 5 of them said they have no preference, 18 prefered the Nikon colours (in their eyes "more realistic") and only 8 prefered the "legendary" Canon skin tones...

I showed the same photos 13 aged people (between 55 and 81 years old) and 2 had no preference, 7 loving Nikon colours. Only 4 prefered the Canon colours.
Then I tested the same thing (same 2 stills) two weeks later with the same aged persons...And then 3 of them had no preference, 5 were Nikon fans and 5 liking the Canon colours. So, in my eyes, the quintessence is: Colours are absolutely a matter of taste, sometimes depending on a momentary mood of audience. The same person "loving" now Nikon colours, could prefer a week later Canon colours.

Example 2

Last summer I shot 2 weddings as second shooter (with a 5Dm iii) to get more experience in real world portrait, event and low light photography. The pro wedding photographer (first shooter) used a Nikon D3S and a D7100 as second camera. After taking a look to the Nikon photos, they (bride, groom and some friends) took a look at some of my photos (original Canon profile)...Most of them said skin tones were "too warmish" / "unrealistic".

Example 3

I showed 14 colleagues (17-19 years old) on a larger tablet one of the legendary "cinematic look" examples, hailed by thousands filmmaking enthusiasts. Only 1 loved the colour science, 3 gave a shrug and the other persons were downright shocked, asking if these were film sequences from the 70's. After telling them, that the footage was shot and edited 2009+, they asked, if the DOP was on steroids...some of them even saying, "the man is a miserable failure" needing to be fired...

I am aware of the fact that my experience might not be representative, but there is a bit of truth therein. Most average Joes (= "non digital imaging" freaks) don't even care about colour science, it's only a obsession for geeks, enthusiasts and some pixel peepers putting their nose 10cm close to a HR computer screen. Completely irrelevant for 99,9 percent of audience...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arikhan

"Geeks, enthusiasts and pixel peepers" are people that can EXPLAIN, manipulate, and work with color science. "Normal" people do understand color science, but can not express it, and that goes on since for ever, because skin color associates with survival.

Like you can understand when a medicine is good for you, but in no way you can make better medicines than Bayern laboratories, because there are some "geeks, enthusiasts and cell peepers" over there to try to achieve the best in their field (or to be better at least).

Color science in video is more important than ever right now, I know people that leave their editing jobs to become colorists, and are paying good money for special seminars and courses (usually in London).

In European cultures, rosy cheeks, are considered healthy, green and sicky-yellow obviously are not the best, etc. I am sure there are similar patterns for people all over the world. Look at the interpretation of color in old school cartoons (and from different countries), that explains a lot, in a very simple way. Color is a very important factor in evolution terms and goes further than camera science, but camera color science is explained by that, and that is why Canon sells a ton of cameras with out any real innovation, it is just takes pleasing photos.

Also, Canon and Nikon color sciences are the best in the world, it is not like you compared the best and the worst, you compared the 80-90% of the professional cameras out there, and I do prefer Nikon to be honest, but I am not really that anal about it. You should have tried with some other manufacturer probably. I use Samsung by the way. No complaints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arikhan   Statistics are a difficult beast , your methodology, or  better lack of it,  is not going to provide statistically significant results to support your hypothesis. I am writing this with the best intentions :glasses:.     I like that you discerned amongst age groups though. Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

@josdr

Quote

Statistics are a difficult beast , your methodology, or  better lack of it,  is not going to provide statistically significant results to support your hypothesis.

Oh, I know. I wrote in my statement above "I am aware of the fact that my experience might not be representative, but there is a bit of truth therein."...

@Kisaha

Quote

Color is a very important factor in evolution terms and goes further than camera science, but camera color science is explained by that, and that is why Canon sells a ton of cameras with out any real innovation, it is just takes pleasing photos.

In my eyes Canon still sells "a ton of cameras" because

  • a. Most "normal Joes" shoot JPEG and never care about RAW, post or any colour science. They take the colours OOC as given by Canon engineers
  • b. Most people don't want to adapt to another system (menues, handling, etc.) - 99 percent of people are too lazy and comfortable to try something new
  • c. Canon is still a great brand with a strong worldwide reputation and people believe their marketing morons or never think about changing the ecosystem
  • d. They don't want to spend additional money on lenses of a new manufacturer, when changing the ecosystem

@josdr

Quote

A used a6000 in great condition and a brand new sigma will eat up half of your budget along with extra batteries etc. As a proper cinematographer, do get her a tripod

She wants the a6300 because of A. eye detection AF (her claim: "when always having the eyes in focus, portrait photography gets much more easier...") and B. because of the phantastic low light capability of the A6300 (the a6000 is in low light not bad, but not comparable with the A6300 4K put in a 1080p timeline).

Tripod? We have enough tripods, but she wants to buy a monopod ("light and suitable to carry...", "I need it only for occasional stabilisation of my shots..."). BTW: She decided to buy the 35mm 1.8 OSS because of the stabilization for hand held video.

After holding the camera in a shop in her hands, intensive research and many videos (Gary Fong, Northrup, etc.) she is now convinced, Sony could be a solid alternative to our existing "Canonikon bricks", furthermore Sony would make much better and "modern" cameras for "women shooter". If she likes the A6300 after shooting with it till summer, she would buy a Sony FF, preferable a A7R m3 (perhaps announced till then)...lol...This would be very good, as if she buys into the Sony ecosystem, I don't have to spend my own money on good low light film cameras... ;-)

@Kisaha

She loves to shoot with my NX1 but she does not understand how I could buy a camera not supporting standards for wireless HSS (not master/slave priciple, but HSS with wireless transmitters...). And she hates the low light failure of this camera...I believe, my mom dreams of a camera without limitations, but this is not what she gets when buying the A6300...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flynn

Thanks Flynn...but the Sigma has no stabilization...and many buyers currently have problems with the optical quality (not sharp at all) when using F 2.0 +/-. Sigma knows about the issue, but there is no solution till now. Googling on this topic (or taking a look at reviews of verified buyers - Amazon Germany) will reveal the massive problem (not all owners have it, but quite a lot)... --> Amazon site with reviews (German) <--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the price range and specification, I think a6300 and 35mm 1.8 is the best option.

But if I were in your position with access to this future purchase for low light shooting, I would try to convince her to spend some more money (or help chip in) and get the a6500... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yuan

Quote

I would try to convince her to spend some more money (or help chip in) and get the a6500...

Nope...It's not about the more features of the A6500 (de facto "only" IBIS, touch focus and "overheating improvement") over the 6300, but it's about to get an idea about the Sony (IQ, high ISO / low light, wireless HSS, DR, handling, ergonomics, post production, etc.) ecosystem compared to Canonikon. And therefore a 700 Euro cheaper A6300 (cheaper than the A6500) does the job. If it's the "best system" in her eyes, she would buy a Sony FF, probably the A7R xyz. The A6300 is only for testing personal preferences and IQ...

In this context (A7R xyz), Some interesting thoughts on the debade sensor size (MFT vs. FF/APS-C):

Quote

 

I own a business and trust me I have to make very careful decisions, I sadly have no money to throw out the window!

I now know Olympus, and Micro Four Thirds will just never cut it versus full frame. You only need to use both to understand why.

 

Via diyphotography.net - a quite interesting point of view of a pro photographer pointing out his real world experience...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2017 at 7:23 AM, Arikhan said:

@Flynn

Thanks Flynn...but the Sigma has no stabilization...and many buyers currently have problems with the optical quality (not sharp at all) when using F 2.0 +/-. Sigma knows about the issue, but there is no solution till now. Googling on this topic (or taking a look at reviews of verified buyers - Amazon Germany) will reveal the massive problem (not all owners have it, but quite a lot)... --> Amazon site with reviews (German) <--

Thanks. I'd only heard great things about the Sigma so that is disappointing. I can't remember your criteria. You want a fast smallish lens with stabilization? I guess the only choice is the 35mm and 50mm. Out of those two I'd pick the 35mm. But I'd prefer the Sony 28mm f2, because I find that a more useful focal length on APSC, but it doesn't have stabilization. Do you know if she has a focal length that tends to feel right to her?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flynn

Quote

Do you know if she has a focal length that tends to feel right to her?

28mm F2 would be her preference, but - as known - there is no stabilisation for spontaneous hand-held shots. So she should buy the stabilized 35mm 1.8. She already took a look at the 18-105mm F4 OSS and it seems to be a good lens, but as the thread is named, "one woman, one lens" and not "one woman + dozens of lenses". As my father and me already collect Canonikon lenses, we need an "purist" in our family... ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@Flynn

28mm F2 would be her preference, but - as known - there is no stabilisation for spontaneous hand-held shots. So she should buy the stabilized 35mm 1.8. She already took a look at the 18-105mm F4 OSS and it seems to be a good lens, but as the thread is named, "one woman, one lens" and not "one woman + dozens of lenses". As my father and me already collect Canonikon lenses, we need an "purist" in our family... ;-)

Off topic, but do you have a preference for vintage Canon or Nikon glass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flynn

We own only 3 Nikon lenses at the moment (35, 50, 85mm F1.8) and dozens of Canon lenses. My favorite lenses at the moment are two Canon glasses: Canon EF 200mm F2.0 L + the 300mm F2.8 delivering great IQ with the NX1...I'm testing at the moment slow motion (100fps / 1080p) and 4K with the NX1 and the tele lenses...Phantastic IQ but not a realistic scenario to shoot with in real world situations - it's just "image porn" for my own eyes but ZERO content...
In about five weeks I will visit a friend and we will make a "detail / sharpness shootout" with the two Canon tele lenses and my NX1 vs. his RED. I am very curious to see differences on his expensive HR display...I know, the RED will wipe the floor with the NX1 (not only in DR), but I'd like to see the differences in detail / sharpness (and colour science OOC) on a 4K timeline...

To be honest, I generally prefer the Nikon lenses on the NX1 (just at the moment testing with the Canon teles)...In my eyes, they deliver a more "organic" image than the Canons - probably a matter of personal taste. The Nikon and the Canon lenses my family own blow ALL native Samsung lenses out of the water. I am far away from pixel peeping, cropping images 300% or putting my nose 5cm close to my display and screaming, but there are visible differences...Compared with most Canon and Nikon primes, the Samsung lenses are by far inferiour...

For using our Canon and Nikon glasses on the A6300, my mother has to buy an EF to E-Mount adapter (Mark IV) first. And I should get familiar with shooting with this camera before talking about lens preferences or commenting on a6300 IQ... ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-01-19 at 7:59 AM, Arikhan said:

@Yuan

Nope...It's not about the more features of the A6500 (de facto "only" IBIS, touch focus and "overheating improvement") over the 6300, but it's about to get an idea about the Sony (IQ, high ISO / low light, wireless HSS, DR, handling, ergonomics, post production, etc.) ecosystem compared to Canonikon. And therefore a 700 Euro cheaper A6300 (cheaper than the A6500) does the job. If it's the "best system" in her eyes, she would buy a Sony FF, probably the A7R xyz. The A6300 is only for testing personal preferences and IQ...

In this context (A7R xyz), Some interesting thoughts on the debade sensor size (MFT vs. FF/APS-C):

 

Why not rent in this case? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18-105 is a great all around lens, best value for money in Sony-land (my opinion), very good IS (impressive with the a6300 that I have used it), very good 4f (a6300 is a great low light camera). The only thing is, I prefer using a 16-50 (ideally a 16-70 or something) as the 24mm focal length (16mm in most APS-c) is one that I use the most, but for whoever the 27-28mm is fine, the Sony zoom is a very good choice.

Not fantastic sharp in photos(and in every length), but a very good one lens solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...