Surprise! Sony Alpha A6000 video mode huge improvement

[hmcindie]

That effect is only due to them from the kit lens which is very poor in quality.

 

I don't know how old you are but a lot of the things you say make no sense. For example that. The kit lens doesn't cause any of those issues.

[WDHX]

Thanks a lot iag01 , that looks quite impressive , I mean considering the low price of that cam , the diversity of lenses that u can use and the praised low light possibilities it makes a good low budget docu cam . The fast AF in video mode is also a great feature , but it want propably work that fast with EF lenses on a speedbooster .

[WDHX]

[Inazuma]

The a6000 produces a lovely overall image, yes. But you really need to stop kidding yourself about the moire-lessness and the "clean" low-light. When he zooms in to the ISO 1600 image at 1:56 you can clearly see how dancy the noise is. And as far as im concerned, you can take DXO ratings with a pinch of salt because when you look on dpreview  at the Canon 6d vs other sony sensor'd full frames, you can clearly see the Canon produces less noise. And yet it's rated lower.

[Kwstas Poulios]

 Canon produces less noise for sure in higher Iso , speaking of the higher end models with full frame sensor (6d, 5dmkIII) , which cost a lot more than a6000. The 6d which I used has lot more moire than the a6000, 5dmkIII is the only Canon dslr which is moire free, but costs 3 times more!!! And speaking of dynamic range in video, none of the Canon's has so much dynamic range in video , except for 5dMkIII ! All the cropped sensor series that I used from Canon, have the exact same sensor for the last 5 years, with much moire, 2 stops less dynamic range, , much more noise in higher Iso , and crappy detail.... 

[Inazuma]

Please dont misunderstand me. Im not saying Canons are better for video. Far from it.

[WDHX]

As for me I am not kidding myselfe . You have to take the relation between the quality and the price . That thing costs about 600 $ . I have a big collection of canon lenses , and as a documentary shooter this cam gives a lot of possibilities even with its shortcomings . There is moire but it is not so big that it would make the shot unusable . The low light sensitivity is not the same as with the 5d3 but it is not much worser . Using the speedbooster will get you one stop more which makes it compareable to the 5d , and makes my 24 -105 L work together with the satbilization , which for me shooting documentaries is important . The Image holds up well when doing a slight gradeing which once again for documentary stuff or for me is enough . Not to mention such things that it is small and has the sony typical screen , both things allow for me to create the intimate atmosphere or shoot in difficult or forbidden places , or perhaps throw it away or or smash it on somebodys head ( 600 $ ))) . All the controled enviroment shots I can do with my 5d3 ML RAW . But it is once again the question what You need it for , I would not start shooting commercials on it or my first indie feature, there you are right and in that case this is a tiny ugly avchd cam . But in the end it is all theory until I have not put my thingers on it as You did . Would you mind to post two iso 3200 and iso 1600 shots a wide angle shot and a medium shot in a naturally lit enviroment ( kitchen , living room , gas or metro station ) ?

[nilssanders]

 I would not start shooting commercials on it or my first indie feature, there you are right and in that case this is a tiny ugly avchd cam

 

I never saw a camera cheaper than a c300/dragon/alexa on a „real“ commercial set but why not using it for the first little indie feature?

[Inazuma]

@WDHX: Again, my comments weren't aimed at you (people who already have expensive canon lenses who are looking to get into mirrorless cameras). They're more aimed at people who already have very capable mirrorless cameras but are still looking for something "better" (ie. iag with his gx7).

 

Tbh i'm not sure why i have become invested in this thread. It really shouldnt matter this much. I think I just don't want people to do what I have done for a long time, which is "upgrade" to the next "better" thing constantly.

 

Anyway, here are some RAW shots from when I had the the a6000. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1094036/a6000/raw/raw.zip

They're side by side comparissons with the GX7. Some at ISO400, 1600 and 3200. If you put them in lightroom, you will see how their dynamic range and noise levels are almost exactly the same. In fact I prefer the GX7 at high ISO because the noise is less chroma and you don't get purple casting when lifting the shadows.

[Viet Bach Bui]

@Inazuma: you're probably foaming a little at the mouth, too (a very offensive thing to say, btw) from all the praises that you don't think the A6000 deserve. I get it, you think the A6000 is inferior to your GX7, and have said so repeatedly. You don't have to pop in every time someone says the A6000 is great.

 

As for me, I'm not swaying to one side or another until I see a well controlled test comparing the A6000 with the others.

[Inazuma]

Yeh I am foaming at the mouth a little :D I'm not saying the a6k is outright inferior, because clearly it produces great pictures. I really have no affinity to any camera or manufacturer; I've been through four different cameras in the past year. I just want people to be fair to their equipment (ie. give it a chance). Also, I guess I am a little miffed at some people disregarding my tests because Philip Bloom took some videos of his cat and pronounced it as one of the best video images in a mirrorless camera ever. I'm not even sure if iag has made proper use of his current camera? I've used all mine in various settings (from nightclub promos to amateur mountain shots) and so have a pretty good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

 

PS. Why is "foaming a the mouth" offensive? Its a common phrase,. At least where I come from.

[WDHX]

Also, I guess I am a little miffed at some people disregarding my tests because Philip Bloom took some videos of his cat and pronounced it as one of the best video images in a mirrorless camera ever.

:D  

 

Thanks for the upload ! Would You mind to upload some video files ?

[WDHX]

I never saw a camera cheaper than a c300/dragon/alexa on a „real“ commercial set

 

thats what I was talking about

 

but why not using it for the first little indie feature?

 

GH4 , 5D Raw , BMCC , BMCPC

[Viet Bach Bui]

Yeh I am foaming at the mouth a little :D I'm not saying the a6k is outright inferior, because clearly it produces great pictures. I really have no affinity to any camera or manufacturer; I've been through four different cameras in the past year. I just want people to be fair to their equipment (ie. give it a chance). Also, I guess I am a little miffed at some people disregarding my tests because Philip Bloom took some videos of his cat and pronounced it as one of the best video images in a mirrorless camera ever. I'm not even sure if iag has made proper use of his current camera? I've used all mine in various settings (from nightclub promos to amateur mountain shots) and so have a pretty good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

 

PS. Why is "foaming a the mouth" offensive? Its a common phrase,. At least where I come from.

To be honest I think you haven't given your A6000 enough time yet. Some cameras only unleash their full power after a few tweaks here and a few settings there. So far you only gave us snap shots, not full videos to look at, and even with those snap shots I am not reaching the same conclusions as you did. On the other hand, I don't find some of the A6000 videos as great as others say (the Avene one, for example).

 

"Foaming at the mouth" seems offensive to me because it conjures up an image of a batshit crazy person with a mouthful of frothing saliva or worse, of a rabid animal. But then again I'm not a native English speaker so I made have taken it a little too literally haha.

[EyeSoul]

The A6000 is great, it proved to me it is, I'm now a believer! Submit to it's greatness and you to will become a believer. It even told me if my content is good it will surely benefit the both of us, I thought for a second then nodded in complete agreement. I got to stop drinking, I'm hearing camera voices and seeing visions of Phillip Bloom's over sharpened cat.

[Andrew Reid]

These are two video samples from cameralabs regarding GM1 (same sensor and same GX7 video quality) and A6000. These video are recorded quicly and in standard profile in both cameras and both with kit lenses.

 

GM1

>

 

A6000

>

 

The A6000 image in more and more organic and clean with realistic cinema softness and moire free (look the panoramic wheel no alias). Imagine a portrait or neutral style dialed all down in A6000 what can do... A6000 is a step up against  GX7 in terms of video quality, dynamic range and sensor scores.

 

Nah, it really isn't.

 

With all due respect to Cameralabs they're not video guys and thus clearly do not know how to shoot video. The GX7 clip is a write-off car crash of a shot because it is interlaced. 1080i selected by mistake. Oops!

 

Also the focal length for the most part is completely different between the two shots and the depth of field looks like F11 or something, making it very hard to judge the effect of the different sensor sizes, indeed even the difference in overall image quality properly.

 

The GX7 is superior for video. Better codec, less moire, finer noise texture, better high ISO performance in video mode. I've been shooting with the pair of them for about a month now :) See the latest blog post.

 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/12822/best-small-camera-108060p-panasonic-gx7-a6000-review

 

You just can't compare the two Cameralabs shots, but feel free to pick a better example where both cameras are shooting the same shot and both handled optimally.

 

I'm not saying the A6000 cannot shoot nice stuff. It can.

 

I am saying the GX7 is better overall... more detail, better low light, better codec.

[Glenn Thomas]

I'm hearing camera voices and seeing visions of Phillip Bloom's over sharpened cat.

Haha, yes, I noticed that too. From memory though, he had the sharpening set to -1. And if he's gone and added additional sharpening in post, well yes, I can see why the poor cat looks like that.

I am saying the GX7 is better overall... more detail, better low light, better codec.

But as always, it's not the tools, but what you can do with them that matters :) Either camera with a good lens attached should provide a better looking image than the early HD cinema cameras used to shoot Star Wars episodes 1, 2 and 3, and a bunch of other feature films.

[wobba]

Nah, it really isn't.

 

With all due respect to Cameralabs they're not video guys and thus clearly do not know how to shoot video. The GX7 clip is a write-off car crash of a shot because it is interlaced. 1080i selected by mistake. Oops!

 

Also the focal length for the most part is completely different between the two shots and the depth of field looks like F11 or something, making it very hard to judge the effect of the different sensor sizes, indeed even the difference in overall image quality properly.

 

The GX7 is superior for video. Better codec, less moire, finer noise texture, better high ISO performance in video mode. I've been shooting with the pair of them for about a month now :) See the latest blog post.

 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/12822/best-small-camera-108060p-panasonic-gx7-a6000-review

 

You just can't compare the two Cameralabs shots, but feel free to pick a better example where both cameras are shooting the same shot and both handled optimally.

 

I'm not saying the A6000 cannot shoot nice stuff. It can.

 

I am saying the GX7 is better overall... more detail, better low light, better codec.

 

It would be helpful if you could post comparison videos shot with both the GX7 and A6000.

 

I've not seen anything to date which demonstrates that the GX7 is that much better than the A6000.

[Kwstas Poulios]

 After lots of testing for overheating of the a6000 in video mode, I've come to this conclusion. When I use the Sony lens on it (the 16-50 sel) after the first overheating wich comes in about 20-30 minutes, if I change the lens to a manual Nikon lens with an adapter, it keeps recording without any overheating problems. When I put back the Sony lens, the problem arises again. So if you put manual lenses , this maybe the solution for continuous long recordings. ;)

[A2T2]

As an owner of both gx7 and a6k, am actually liking the gx7 much better than the a6k, which has surprised me. Especially in stills the gx7 is pretty incredible and holds its own against the a6k which is plagued by some serious issues with banding and artifacts in deep shadows. You can pull aprox 1 stop of underexposed shadows on the a6k, that's all. The gx7 is pretty impressive and you can pull 3-4 with very good results. For stills too the af of the Sony might be decent now in terms of performance but it still feels and looks a little hit and miss in accuracy. I was blind to this initially with my new a6k toy, but bit by bit the wheels are falling off it. The lack of touch, pin-point af and of course complete silent shutter and the fabulous build and swivel evf puts the gx7 in a higher class overall, it also has a level of ibis for non is lens in still mode offering an extra stop to stop and half too. On the surface a6k is great but after a month am back to gx7 and feel like a6k is unreliable trash, sorry! 24p is native to gx7 so you don't have to swap around ntsc/pal and the mics are better too, overall gx7 is still well and truly better.