Jump to content

Sony A6500 or Panasonic GH5...?


Secret Garden Films
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think these days there are more than enough lenses available for almost any system.

There are always going to be certain lenses not available for one system that can not readily be replaced but those are not that many.     The latest Sony's (like the A6500) it seems can even use many manual focus lenses for AFC with the Sigma adapter.

 

There are a few different zooms these days faster than 2.8    .

50-100 1.8, 18-35 1.8 (Both APSC), 24-35 f2 (A FF lens) and of course the 2 four thirds lenses and maybe another that I can  not remember.

As for focal reducers, to me they can be very useful but I just look at them as making a lens shorter and faster as in can turn a garden variety 2.8 zoom lens into a f2 lens but equally can turn a cheap old 5.6 lens into f4.       Some focal reducers are quite cheap and still work ok (others like the Light Cannon are pretty poor).     Lens Turbo can have its uses but is a dumb adapter.

As a user of both M4/3 and Sony, I don't think I am missing anything I don't need in either and that is using most of my lenses on both cameras.

Back to the purpose of the thread.      A6500 VS GH5.

If the lenses the OP wants are not there, then go for the one that has them.

Are stills part of the equation?   If so, what camera has the specs that matter?     

https://***URL removed***/products/compare/side-by-side?products=panasonic_dcgh5&products=sony_a6500

Is a built in flash wanted? (A6500)

Is a higher flash sync wanted? (GH5)

Is a faster max shutter speed a factor? (GH5)

GH5 generally seems to have the higher stills specs.

Then again, the Sony has better high ISO and likely better low ISO too (ISO 100 is a boosted setting on the GH5) and slightly better image quality (maybe) as well overall.

If it is ONLY about video, the GH5 and as I said, I still think the GH5 would be the choice of those two anyway for wedding use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Unfortunately the fact that the video AF on the A6500 is looking so useable means that native lenses are suddenly looking more "essential".

One could almost suspect Sony (and Pana, for that matter) are implementing these improvements to make us buy their lenses. It's as if ACME had invented the best can opener ever, but only for their own cans. The beans - or whatever - had to be ACME beans as well. Genius!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Axel said:

One could almost suspect Sony (and Pana, for that matter) are implementing these improvements to make us buy their lenses. It's as if ACME had invented the best can opener ever, but only for their own cans. The beans - or whatever - had to be ACME beans as well. Genius!

To be fair, Sony have been producing the best cameras for adapted non-Sony lenses for several years, unlike pretty much any other manufacturer, certainly in the full frame market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BasiliskFilm

Quote

To be fair, Sony have been producing the best cameras for adapted non-Sony lenses for several years, unlike pretty much any other manufacturer, certainly in the full frame market.

Exactly...There is a nearly unlimited variety of EF lenses (with Metabones IV), Sigma-EF lenses (MC-11 adapter) supporting perfectly AF on Sony devices for stills. For video AF, adapted Canon and Sigma EF lenses work with the A6500 quite well (not all of them, some not working at all)....When wishing the most reliable AF, Sony native lenses are the way to go...

People often say, high quality native Sony lenses are expensive...Hehe...Just try to compare the new Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR ED III - it's about 2.800 EUR - with the corresponding Sony lens, the SONY SEL-70200GM (also OSS)  - it's the same as Nikon, about 2.800 EUR...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these camera chase politics and obsessions slow down the progress of many. 

We're at a time now where sticking and investing in the system of one brand is the best way to go. 

i currently shoot with the FS5 + Inferno, A7SII and A6500. I can do pretty much everything with these cameras. I have Sony as they cover a much wider spectrum of uses than any other brand. 

You understand the operation, the dynamic range, color space, the community, the workflow, the lenses etc without having to change your mindset and learning development much. 

I'd love a GH5, but it would be a camera too much in my kit, and the odd-one out. Plus I'd need native MFT lenses to get full performance. That money can be spent on native Sony lenses, a new soft light or even marketing. 

If you're not invested in a system, the GH5 is a no-brainer. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beside the pushed 100 Iso which is crap, think of this: On a Sony A7s2 i don t go over ISO 5000 for any shot. So if ISO 3200 is acceptable on the GH5 and has neraly the same noise as a A7s2 with 5000, go for a speedbooster, that will make your iso 3200 the same as 6400 on a Sony.Giggidi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Axel said:

One could almost suspect Sony (and Pana, for that matter) are implementing these improvements to make us buy their lenses. It's as if ACME had invented the best can opener ever, but only for their own cans. The beans - or whatever - had to be ACME beans as well. Genius!

Those were my thoughts exactly when I first bought into the u4/3 system - I felt like I was almost being coerced into purchasing Panasonic lenses for their OIS, and I have to say I felt a little resentful, especially since Olympus had come out with IBIS. OIS also meant costlier optics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dude_ger said:

Beside the pushed 100 Iso which is crap, think of this: On a Sony A7s2 i don t go over ISO 5000 for any shot. So if ISO 3200 is acceptable on the GH5 and has neraly the same noise as a A7s2 with 5000, go for a speedbooster, that will make your iso 3200 the same as 6400 on a Sony.Giggidi.

Can I ask why you got an A7sii if you don't go over ISO 5000?  Seems a waste to me.

That said, even ISO 6400 on a A7sii is going to have greater dynamic range than a GH5 at ISO 3200 (with or without a focal reducer).    Going on the GH4, even ISO 12800 on the A7sii might be better than 3200 on the GH5.      The noise and colour sensitivity differences will likely be a bit smaller but still there too.  

The Speed Booster does not change the camera.     It changes the lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dude_ger said:

Beacuse i do professional work. Even i don t own a Sony. Youre right with dynamic range.

Just seems to me that if you are sticking at ISO 5000 or less, there are plenty of cameras that would work and the main point of the A7s cameras is they work great at higher ISOs/low light.

The A7s (first version) is my all time favourite camera to date but that is BECAUSE I shoot so much above ISO 6400 (and often way over).      If I was only sticking to ISO 5000 or less, it just wouldn't make sense.      It is a nice enough day time camera but for its price point and specs, there are plenty of others that make more sense I think just for good light.

I just find it interesting how people don't want to shoot with some cameras at ISO 6400 but will with another at 3200 even though the 6400 one might be better.      Sometimes it seems people are scared of the numbers rather than the results.

No matter, I was just curious.     Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, i will also have to see what gh5 produces, and on which iso i can shoot. Abolutely no idea because i don t have this camera. But like i said, even the a7s2 produces noise at iso 6400, so it s not accepteable for me and my clients. If the gh5 isn t clean on 1200, i won t go over that. Regarding my 5d mkiii, i never go over iso 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For another take on low light performance, have a look at the final shot of my GH5 unboxing vid. I was using Summilux 25mm 1.4 and playing about with the focus transition feature. The camera was hand held and moving with no dual / dual 2. The text on the box is still pretty crisp considering it's in the dark in a roadside bush - you get a sense of how dark from the harshness of headlamps from a passing car. If I remember right, the penultimate shot nighttime street, was at ISO 200.

I haven't done a wedding in a while but if I had to I wouldn't be worried about taking a GH5 to the job.

      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2017 at 4:42 PM, Secret Garden Films said:

I started filming weddings about a year ago using my GH3 which I recently sold.

I am looking to replace the GH3 with either a Sony A6500 or Panasonic GH5.  I am leaning towards the GH5 just because I am very familiar with this format and the spec on the GH5 looks amazing.

Obviously the A6500 will perform much better in low light than the GH5, however, I still feel I want to buy the GH5.

I am at a crossroads as I have sold my camera and glass, so I have an opportunity to either reinvest in the M43 system and buy the GH5 or change and to a new system such as the Sony A6500.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

James

 

I won't read the comments and answer straight out - I find in the info age one can quickly loose sight of their instinct via other opinions.

Here's my take - a6500

I have owned and operated the gh4 for 2 years personally and professionally. 

Its a blessing for its ease of use... but only by comparison to Sony equivalents. Truth is you would be happier with a camcorder, I filmed weddings with those for 10 years and the camera was at the bottom of my list of concerns during the shoot. Buttons worked, ND when needed, zoom when needed - I could focus on coverage.

Now, yes, photo cameras produce better images in the camcorder price range (something that I am assuming and someone needs to test - hvx200 4k vs GH5 anyone?) - but whenever you can, for brides, choose image over your own comfort. In this instance, the a6500 in auto on a gimbal will mean you come home with your sanity after a 10 hour workday.

The images should relate to the super dreamy full frame dof photos they will be receiving from the photographer. They should work together. No matter their tastes, background, culture... they are always happy with a beautiful image (and decent speech and ceremony recording, documentary standard at minimum).

A6500 gives you all of this. The GH5 gives you this, but through battle and uncertainty in the midst of a shoot (if you dont settle for native lenses and natural profile). You will need workarounds for almost everything to compete with the a6500 on auto in a standard profile. Eg. Speedbooster, vlog, fix for inconsistent auto focus, extra grading time, re encoding footage... 

But, they are just as good as each other if you have time. Gh5 if you have time, patience and etc. (Ironic given it is way more fun ti use, but this is not avout you - hobbyist, well gh5 all the way).

Just my 2 cents worth.

Truth is you need 2 cameras. One dslr for image, one camcorder style camera for ease of use. 

This is my wisdom from 2 years on the scene. Take it or leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 4:42 PM, Secret Garden Films said:

I started filming weddings about a year ago using my GH3 which I recently sold.

I am looking to replace the GH3 with either a Sony A6500 or Panasonic GH5.  I am leaning towards the GH5 just because I am very familiar with this format and the spec on the GH5 looks amazing.

Obviously the A6500 will perform much better in low light than the GH5, however, I still feel I want to buy the GH5.

I am at a crossroads as I have sold my camera and glass, so I have an opportunity to either reinvest in the M43 system and buy the GH5 or change and to a new system such as the Sony A6500.

 

Here's a radical suggestion: Get a fullframe camera. Just save up for a used A7s or 5dmarkIII/iv. That extra look will give you the boost you need to really up your game instead of sidegrades (a bit more resolution, who cares?).

That does entail more work in learning a new camera, lenses and how to focus with them. But a fullframe will reward you more than pixel peeping 1:1.

Your doing weddings, they need to be BEAUTIFUL right? Especially portrait shots of people (as the sony colors can be a huge pain, that's why the canon is there as a suggestion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents. GH5 easily 

No overheating, screen doesn't dim when record, hardly noticeable rolling shutter, better body design, 10 bit, the list goes on. 

The auto focus is poor on the GH5 but I dont care. I make films, not family videos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...