Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mark Romero 2

Is a7R II in Super 35 Better than a6500 / a6300?

Recommended Posts

Anyone spend much time comparing an a7R II (not the mark 3, but the mark 2) in Super 35 mode to the a6500 / a6300 cameras?

I would be particularly interested in (in order of importance to me):

Dynamic range differences

Low Light / High ISO differences

Highlight clipping / rolloff differences

1080p differences (1080p on the a6500 / a6300 is pretty brutal)

Usability (does the screen dim as much on the a7R II as it does on the a6300 / a6500)

Rolling shutter

Overheating

Gradability

Resolution

Autofocus

Battery life

Colors (I would use EOSHD Procolor / Prolog / GFilmLike / Custom Brew of my own concoction so that is why color is at the bottom).

Thanks in advance.

I bought the a6300 / a6500 because I thought that sheer resolution was most important. Turns out for what I like to shoot, it isn't as important as I thought (and the 1080p quality is really a bummer).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I know the Rolling shutter is better, but what is interesting is Philip  Bloom put a Speedbootster on the A7r mk II in the s35 crop mode, and that pushed it back up to FF, and the Rolling shutter was almost gone.

And the Overheating issue is Way better than the A6500.

About the resolution in s35 mode. No clue what the A6500 is in  APSC . But below is the info on the A7 mk II.

"The camera also offers a cropped Super 35mm mode, while still capturing a higher-resolution 5168 x 2912 (5K) frame and condensing it into the 8MP-equivalent 4K video size." From Imaging Resource.

I am pretty sure AF is a Lot better. When it came out they touted it could focus a Canon lens on it faster than a Canon body can!

ISO wins by a ton,  A6500 tops out at 51,600, A7r mk II is 50 - 102,400

Dynamic Range, it wins by a mile in FF, s35 crop I have no clue what it is?

I mean these is really no way you can compare the 2. I know the 1080p is better on the A7r mk II also. The A7r mk II until the new mk III just came out was about the best camera in the world for stills and video. Christ it is a beast compared to a A6300!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I know the Rolling shutter is better, but what is interesting is Philip  Bloom put a Speedbootster on the A7r mk II in the s35 crop mode, and that pushed it back up to FF, and the Rolling shutter was almost gone.

What is the influence of the speedbooster on the rolling shutter in S35? I don't see how it can alter the rolling shutter as the rolling shutter is linked to the reading out speed of the sensor... right or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, byuri734 said:

What is the influence of the speedbooster on the rolling shutter in S35? I don't how it can alter the rolling shutter as the rolling shutter is linked to the reading out speed of the sensor... right or am I missing something?

I have no clue LoL, I will try and find the video. I guess it is still in the s35 mode so it doesn't know it is actually shooting FF?? The smaller the sensor area the faster it can read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Dynamic range differences

Low Light / High ISO differences

Highlight clipping / rolloff differences

Resolution

1

Even if they are differences they should be fairly minimal. 

Quote

1080p differences (1080p on the a6500 / a6300 is pretty brutal)

 

FF 1080p with A7rII in terms of resolution. 

Quote

Usability (does the screen dim as much on the a7R II as it does on the a6300 / a6500)

 

Same

Quote

Rolling shutter --> A6300 is significantly worse cause it does not have the IBIS

Overheating

 

A7rII is better. Additionally, with good light, you can use the FF 4K mode which has very good rolling shutter performance. 

Quote

Autofocus

Gradability

 

Maybe A6500 is a tiny bit better? I am not sure. A6500 I think also adds sgammut3.cine which imo is the best space to work with. 

Quote

Battery life

I am not sure there is a significant difference here either. It should be about an hour or recording for both. 

 

As far as PB test goes, the only thing that changed with the speedbooster was the angle of view, which made the rolling shutter appear smaller. But essentially it should be exactly the same as without the speedbooster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

 

As far as PB test goes, the only thing that changed with the speedbooster was the angle of view, which made the rolling shutter appear smaller. But essentially it should be exactly the same as without the speedbooster. 

I would think the Speedbooster when it goes back to FF would make it appear Larger not smaller? What ever lens you have is going to have a Wider FOV in FF compared to the crop mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of  differences.

DR is very slightly better on a7r II.

Body is better: viewfinder (I would never go away from this), grip, balance, card slot placement, etc.

FF 1080 on the A7rII is good, Super 35 is unfortunately pretty bad.

Most importantly, you have the full frame option available to you :)

Biggest losses: Image preview in S-log and the loss of Sgamut3.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I know the Rolling shutter is better, but what is interesting is Philip  Bloom put a Speedbootster on the A7r mk II in the s35 crop mode, and that pushed it back up to FF, and the Rolling shutter was almost gone.

And the Overheating issue is Way better than the A6500.

About the resolution in s35 mode. No clue what the A6500 is in  APSC . But below is the info on the A7 mk II.

"The camera also offers a cropped Super 35mm mode, while still capturing a higher-resolution 5168 x 2912 (5K) frame and condensing it into the 8MP-equivalent 4K video size." From Imaging Resource.

I am pretty sure AF is a Lot better. When it came out they touted it could focus a Canon lens on it faster than a Canon body can!

ISO wins by a ton,  A6500 tops out at 51,600, A7r mk II is 50 - 102,400

Dynamic Range, it wins by a mile in FF, s35 crop I have no clue what it is?

I mean these is really no way you can compare the 2. I know the 1080p is better on the A7r mk II also. The A7r mk II until the new mk III just came out was about the best camera in the world for stills and video. Christ it is a beast compared to a A6300!!

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.

I know that the a6500 when shot at 24p has a 6K to 4K downsampling.

 

1 hour ago, Don Kotlos said:

Even if they are differences they should be fairly minimal. 

FF 1080p with A7rII in terms of resolution. 

Same

A7rII is better. Additionally, with good light, you can use the FF 4K mode which has very good rolling shutter performance. 

Maybe A6500 is a tiny bit better? I am not sure. A6500 I think also adds sgammut3.cine which imo is the best space to work with. 

I am not sure there is a significant difference here either. It should be about an hour or recording for both. 

 

As far as PB test goes, the only thing that changed with the speedbooster was the angle of view, which made the rolling shutter appear smaller. But essentially it should be exactly the same as without the speedbooster. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

So it looks like it would be moving more sideways than moving up.

Plus I would have to invest in full frame lenses as well... My plan was to use my 10-18 crop lens on it as well (I understand that for STILLS they would be shot at 18MP, but I am fine with that.)

37 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Couple of  differences.

DR is very slightly better on a7r II.

Body is better: viewfinder (I would never go away from this), grip, balance, card slot placement, etc.

FF 1080 on the A7rII is good, Super 35 is unfortunately pretty bad.

Most importantly, you have the full frame option available to you :)

Biggest losses: Image preview in S-log and the loss of Sgamut3.
 

Thanks so much.

Ok, so no built in luts for previewing slog. That is a bit of a strike against (although i normally avoid slog if I can.)

Loss of Sgamut3 could be a bummer... although again I don't normally shoot in profiles that require Sgamut3

FF 1080p is better than a6500, but that means  I will have to invest in full frame lenses (instead of using my APS-C lenses).

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mark,

Thought I'd chip in. From what I've seen, a6500 and a7rii at S35 footage look, in practice, Here's a pretty detailed IQ test that might help:

 

My a6500 is actually up on ebay at the moment. It's a good little camera, but whilst I thought I'd be able to get over the awkward ergonomics, I never truly did. It took all the fun out of using it, and when I got a decent shot it felt more like pot-luck that I got the setting right, rather than capable of being confident that it was doing what I wanted!

Plus, as someone who shoots with their left eye to the viewfinder, I really came to be frustrated with the off-centre EVT, and ended up sometimes changing focus region with my nose. Would much rather their APS-C bodies had the same shape as their full-frame ones.

Share this post


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

Is it too late to add a bonus question?

How does the 1080p of the a7R II (either  FF or super 35) compare to that of the D750?

From, I don't want to post his name. He sort of got banned not long after this post for selling stuff that sort of ehh. :blush: But it has some interesting info in it.

Report post

Posted January 21, 2016

Lets make a list for FF lovers. I am one. It's a GORGEOUS look for beauty shooting and epic modern narrative work.

(Keeping it under 5000$ish bracket)

First we have to classify them into two:

-Full frame size sensor camera
-Mirrorless S35 camera can take Metabones Speedbooster EF converter 

1- Full frame cameras

-Sony A7s and A7sII 

-Sony A7rII

-Canon 5D MKIII (ML)

-Nikon D750 and D810 

-Canon 1DC (1.25x crop)

2- S35 mirrorless cameras

-Sony A6000 + SB 

-Sony A5100 + SB

-Sony A7rII (explanation later!) + SB

 

1- First the FF cameras. 

 

Sony:

The A7s series have a 12 megapixel FF sensor, with 1:1 native 4K crop and easy 1080p downsample

A7rII has a 42 megapixel sensor, so has to o a lot of pixel-binning/line-skipping to reach 4K or HD. In S35 mode, it uses a 15mp portion of the sensor and thus easily makes a 4K downsample. 

What does that mean: 

A7s has an extremely clean non-binned FF image (HD on the A7s and 4K on the A7sII)

A7rII has worse binned slightly aliased FF image (4K&HD), BUT has a very clean s35 cop mode (4K), That's the reason the A7rII is included in the second s35 SB segment, because you treat it as a s35 4K camera + SB and get a very clean EF-mount FF camera. 

How does an A7rII + SB-EF image compare to A7SII FF + dummy EF mount using sme lens? 

Pretty close. A7sII having an advantage in super high ISOs, and has S-Log3 mode + can get the FF look with e-mount or any lenses not just the mounts that come with a SB. 

Conclusion, best Sony in A7 series for FF shooting is A7s/A7sII.   But A7rII can shoot a bit compromised FF too if one needs its 42mp stills.

 

Canon:  

5D MKIII (raw) has a 21mp sensor that does a very clean HD binning-downsample, reserving resoution similar to A7s HD (pretty sharp HD), The advantage with the 5D is that it's a 14bit uncompressed raw colour data vs heavily compressd 8bit 4:2:0 with hugely better colour appeal and thickness in the image. It's an overally better FF HD than the A7 series can achieve EXCEPT: it's not as clean at high ISOs. Doesn't have an EVF (need a loup), bigger/heavier files and a fixed LCD. But has a better UI, buttons, menus, video aids, ruggedness etc.

 

1DC: while not a FFF (full full-frame) i's pretty close in aesthetic to FF (just 1.25x crop). Vs the 5D it has higher resolution 4K, smaller files that are still not very compressed, C-log gamma encoding and a leaner/sharper 1.2x HD HDMI output. It's also fully resistant to the world. The 5D still has thicker colours, better kin and gradients at HD raw. Plus smaller and lower cost.

 

Nikon:

D810 and D750 both have a solid FF HD image. Slightly lower resolution than a7s/5D HD but very close and with post sharpening pretty similar. Ther's no alisaing/moire, much less rolling shutter than a7s/1DC FF, pretty colours straight off the card that need minimal grading and still yet remarkeably small files and solid high ISO performce. Great ergonomics/buttons/UI/speed. Compared to a7s it loses the EVF (need a loup), ISO performance and 4K capability, ability to adapt to all glass (but gets a more solid/ronomic ody, better/easier colours, large lens lineup with VR/AF native). The D750 is the best no-fuss FF aesthetic camera on the list. No haking/raw data, no Davinci grading wars/overheating/rolling shutter), just easy good enough FF HD. Solid.

D810 loses tilty screen and adds 36mp stills and slightly stronger body and a good non-aliased s35 mode. 

 

 2- S35 Cameras with SB

-The A7rII S35 4K + SB has een discussed earlier. 

-A6000 is the main contender here: if you want the cheapest best FF video camera, A6000 + EF-SB is that. It has a good 1080p image (good resolution), an EVF, small size, and with FF EF/Nikon/m42 glass it's a FF HD camera. Yes not as high of IQ as the higher-end models especially in ISO perormnce (a7s) or Colour (5D), but it's a lot cheaper and offers that good clean, FF HD image at lowest cost. 

-A5100 is even cheaper with no EVF

 

recap Q&A

 

-Only need HD FF looking for absolute best image and can handle any downsides?

5DIII

 

-Need 4K FF looking for absolute best image and can handle any downsides?

1DC

 

-Only need HD image and don't want to deal with many downsides (loup/raw data/size) and still get a pretty good similar-ish results to the best (5D raw)?

A7s original if you value EVF and amazing high ISO and 4K HDMI,

D750 if you value easily graded colours/ergonomics/battery life/stills/rolling shutter/ruggedness

 

-Need 4K image and don't want to deal with many downsides (loup/1dccost/largefiles/size) and still get a pretty good similar-ish results to the best (1DC)?

A7sII. (A7rII + SB only if 42mp stills are needed)

 

-Only need HD FF and don't want to pay a lot?

A6000 + EF-SB 

Quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

From, I don't want to post his name. He sort of got banned not long after this post for selling stuff that sort of ehh. :blush: But it has some interesting info in it...

Thank you for posting this. I remember seeing it a while back but it was SO MUCH info to digest (especially to someone who was newish to video and had only shot footage on a D7000... yuck). So I appreciate you looking for it and bringing it out of the catacombs. Makes a lot more sens now to me.

When he said best HD image = Canon 5D III, I am assuming he meant shooting in RAW, right??? (He mentioned "dealing with the downsides" so I guess that must be dealing with the RAW workflow.)

1 hour ago, Don Kotlos said:

I find the FF HD from A7rII much better than D750 as far as resolution goes. The Sony is almost as good as the oversampled image from A7sII in HD.

24/30 I haven't seen any difference but haven't used the 30p much. 

5a9490943e800_ScreenShot2018-02-26at4_55_23PM.png.33c239a27644d8e27992fc6b00c0161c.png

Thanks for posting this. Yeah the D750 isn't particularly sharp and I think the reason that it doesn't have too much noise is because there is a pretty strong noise reduction as you crank up the ISO in video, and it gets even softer. If memory serves, there was a time when I was shooting at about ISO 3200 and I kept checking focus because it so soft - even softer than my a6000 at 3200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the A7rII has the heavier duty (all metal) E-Mount as found on the FS7(mk1), FS5 and A7S( andA7sII). I'm unsure whether the 6xxx series share this mount.The E Mount used to have plastic parts under the flange face which meant the mount wasn't as strong. Around the time when they released the original A7S they changed the mount to an all metal construction. I know for a fact that the lower end E mount cameras still use the part plastic mount and the A6xxx range might fall into the bracket of lower end mounts since they may not be seen to be used regularly with the heavier full frame lenses. The solidness of the actual lens mount plays a large role in the video usability. If you're planning on using a metabones adaptor and cage with the ability to lock the adaptor to the cage this is less of an issue but with a stripped down rig it's surprising how important a solid all metal mount really is.

 

edit.  A6500 has all metal mount for sure.  I can't find info about the A6300. 

See here for info: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Commlite-Metal-Copper-E-Mount-Replacement-for-Sony-A7RII-A7R-A6300-A6000-A7-NEX-/201997401875

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:05 AM, Don Kotlos said:

Even if they are differences they should be fairly minimal. 

FF 1080p with A7rII in terms of resolution. 

Same

A7rII is better. Additionally, with good light, you can use the FF 4K mode which has very good rolling shutter performance. 

Maybe A6500 is a tiny bit better? I am not sure. A6500 I think also adds sgammut3.cine which imo is the best space to work with. 

I am not sure there is a significant difference here either. It should be about an hour or recording for both. 

 

As far as PB test goes, the only thing that changed with the speedbooster was the angle of view, which made the rolling shutter appear smaller. But essentially it should be exactly the same as without the speedbooster. 

Probably referring to rolling shutter in FF mode as opposed to crop mode.

If you put a speedbooster on crop mode, you get a FF equivalent, but with the crop mode rolling shutter characteristics, hence better than in the proper FF mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 1:30 PM, Don Kotlos said:

Yes, wider FOV makes the rolling shutter appear smaller for the same angular speed of the camera. 

Well I found that video I was talking about less Rolling Shutter with a Speedbooster on a FF camera. The Sony A7s to be specific. It starts right around 28:00 into the video. It is a definite Big change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I found that video I was talking about less Rolling Shutter with a Speedbooster on a FF camera. The Sony A7s to be specific. It starts right around 28:00 into the video. It is a definite Big change.

 

That's true because in FF the A7s oversamples from the full sensor to give you pin sharp 1080p.

In crop mode the oversampling area is about 3K, so of course the RS will be better. You also win 1 stop light with the booster and lose 1 stop in iso performance due to the lower amount of information in sensor reading.

From your post earlier: with external recorder you "only" get 8 bit 4:2:2 4K, not 10bit.

I think you will love the camera at first place, the image is very detailed, the dynamic range is awesome, the codec is good.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...