Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Surprise! Sony Alpha A6000 video mode huge improvement

Recommended Posts

just as a note ...the Hexanon 40mm at f1.8 is not the sharpest lens I own , , it is fast so nice narrow DOF , and it blooms at f1.8 so just take that into consideration

at f5.6 it sharpens up nicely

 

Panny lense are known to be very very sharp I do like them alot!!

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

Hi guys I'm in the market for one of these but I can get a NEX6 for about half the price of an a6000.  

 

I'm sure stills are great on both cameras but are there enough video improvements to make it worth the additional money? 

 

Regards

AndrewS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a NEX 6. It's a great little still camera but it's not up to snuff for anything other than home videos. Lots of moire and aliasing. There are much better options out there. I look forward to Andrew's complete review of the A6000 after his intriguing first look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks troilus910, its mostly is for home movies, I work in post so anything is going to look bad compared to what I normally get as rushes.    

 

I'm looking for a combo camera cheap because I want to buy ZF's and adapt them to it.  I've played with a BMPCC at the rental place next door and it looks amazing but I'm unsure I want to deal with the crop factor and the lensing requirements, also it doesn't shoot stills.  A BMPCC and a good used M4/3 stills would be about the same as a GH4 right?

 

So tough to make a decision!  A7s looks great but I couldn't afford any lenses! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is say the a6000 is definitely worth the extra money over the NEX 6. The better EVF and menu system make it a lot more usable (i actually ended up selling the nex 6 partly due the poor EVF and handling). Video quality I can confirm what people said above in that you can recover some highlights. However the detail in video is subpar compared to my Panasonic GX7. To be honest, in the end I would make your choice based on lenses. RAW image quality wise I would say they're pretty much even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you guys are saying, but sharpness differences from lenses should not be that significant on a 1080p image.

 

Nevertheless I just did another little test:

'>

This time the Sony is using a Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and DRO level 3. GX7 iDynamic Standard.

As you see from the picture, I had to underexpose by a stop to stop the highlights from clipping. But beyond that, there is a lot of fine detail around the tree and the fence that the Sony hasn't captured.

 

And for those doubting the sharpness of the Hexanon against the Panny: '>

 

Anyway, off to work now :) I will do another testing session tonight if you guys have any ideas.

From these screenshots it doesn't look like the A6000 is lacking in sharpness against the GX7. What it is lacking is dynamic range. If you look closely you'll notice that the A6000 shots only have fewer details in the dark areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both the A6000 and GX7, as well as a GM1. The GX7 bakes a little more sharpening in-camera. Once I apply an unsharp mask in FCP, I actually prefer the A6000. Detail is much the same, but the A6000 footage just looks more organic and shows less shimmer (looks more stable). In low light, it is superb and cleaner than the GX7. And for stills, the A6000 is considerably better in every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both the A6000 and GX7, as well as a GM1. The GX7 bakes a little more sharpening in-camera. Once I apply an unsharp mask in FCP, I actually prefer the A6000. Detail is much the same, but the A6000 footage just looks more organic and shows less shimmer (looks more stable). In low light, it is superb and cleaner than the GX7. And for stills, the A6000 is considerably better in every way.

 

Thanks for your input wobba, I was between the GM1 and A6000, and this is really helpful. I noticed in your past posts that you mention shooting landscape, and how the GM1 image breaks up into shimmer/moire in scenes with lots of foliage. 

 

This is the information I've been waiting for, as I am mostly interested in landscape shooting. 

 

If you have any footage posted online, test shots, screenshots, or anything, I would be very interested in seeing them.. Otherwise I'll just take your word for it!

 

A6000 here I come! woo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both the A6000 and GX7, as well as a GM1. The GX7 bakes a little more sharpening in-camera. Once I apply an unsharp mask in FCP, I actually prefer the A6000. Detail is much the same, but the A6000 footage just looks more organic and shows less shimmer (looks more stable). In low light, it is superb and cleaner than the GX7. And for stills, the A6000 is considerably better in every way.

This is really the complete opposite of my findings. A6000 bakes in more sharpening (especially noticeable around edges such as around the tree I posted earlier) whilst the GX7 shows nothing but organic detail. I also did another test last night and whilst the Sony again proved incredibly capable at AF-C in low light, the performance was worse. Bigger and more chromatic grain with more detail smudging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ran the test clip through 5DtoRGB using 601 (709 has no change) :

 

A6000%20Original%20vs%205DtoRGB%20601.jp

 

Nice highlight recovery. :)

 

Wow that turned out well. Good job.

 

Still I think the trick with this camera is to expose for the highlights as the shadows are very clean and can be lifted quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony states the following on the a6000 specifications page: "Color Space : Still: sRGB standard (with sYCC gamut), Adobe RGB Movie: xvYCC standard (x.v.Colorâ„¢ when connected via HDMI cable) Compatible with TRILUMINOSâ„¢ color"

 

And someone has this to say about xvYCC on dvinfo.net: "xvYCC requires higher bit depths. Since it describes a bigger range of colors, the spacing between each color is bigger / you have less precision. To make up for that, you need to move to a higher bit depth."

 

Does this imply a 10-bit HDMI output? EDIT: To answer my own question: no, it does not. :)

 

Still, the a6000 paired with a Atomos Ninja Star could be a good deal if the HDMI out is better than internal Full HD.

 

Could someone with an external recorder and the camera test the HDMI out please? Fingers crossed for at least 10-bit 4-2-2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... I downloaded the A6000 mts videos from Cameralabs review and the iso tests. Comparing to Nikon, to previous Sony NEX models and to Panasonic M43 cameras my conclusions are:

The A6000 does not show aliasing which is pretty good.
There is very small moire, not disturbing enough, possible to live with (I saw it in the beach shoot).
The noise in high iso does not show chroma noise which is great.
The noise in high iso is very fine and charming compared to previous NEX and to Panasonic.
The iso up to 1600 does not need denoise.
The iso 3200 is clean after denoise.
The iso 6400 is clean after denoise with small trembling in shadows, not disturbing.
The iso 12800 is not usable.
The resolution is a little gross compared to Panasonic, Panasonic is more cinematic, razor sharp.
If you want that razor sharp look which is desired to compete in tv broadcast and cinema theaters Panasonic M43 is the way to go, but the low light performance and E-mount with focal reducers allowing 1.16 crop factor is amazing on A6000.
The gross in A6000 resolution is more perceived in wide shots showing buildings, in low light it is not annoying, but still much better resolution than Canon APS cameras.
The resolution is on par with D5300 and I think A6000 is better because does not show halos in contrast edges. Low light is better than D5300.
The highlights are recorded above 100 IRE and can be recovered in post production and this is amazing. There are textures and tonal range hidden in the cliped highligts, something like 1 fstop of dynamic range can be recovered in post, something like HTP in Canon cameras.
The 5 levels of DRO to lift shadows combined with recovered highlights can deliver a great dynamic range.
With a RJ lens turbo to increase light by 1 fstop and reduce crop factor this camera will be a new low budget Queen for low light and for use all kind of lenses. The 1.16 crop factor with the lens turbo just avoids the soft and dark corners from the full frame lenses.
If you can record audio outside camera the A6000 is great for indie cinema. Also there is the option to buy the expensive bluetooth mic.
I hope Sony give us mic input in A7000 and maybe S-Log2 in the A7000 also.
The auto focus is accurate and smooth and does not show hunting, this is great.
I like the A6000 a lot!
I have the dream of Sony give us S-Log2 in the A7000 to increase dynamic range 1300%
That's it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first bit of testing over the weekend.  I'll do something a bit more scientific at some point.  I wanted to get a feel for how it compares to the hacked gh2.  Gh2 using nikon glass (sigma35mm f1.4m and tamron 70-300), a6000 using kit lenses 16-50 and 55-210 (all I have until adaptors arrive).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gethin!  Looks pretty good to me, seems like it held up in grade.    

 

I assume it doesn't have S-log but does it have a flat mode a la Cinestyle for the 5D?  I'm constantly amazed at how well that holds up in grade, it's nothing compared to real cameras and codecs, but it means you can do a little something before the picture implodes. 

 

Thanks again for posting this video!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew are you going to review this camera with a comparison video with other cameras for sharpness, low light performance etc..?

 

Anyway to me it doesn't look that sharp, I don't see the wow effect I get with the GH2 details 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first bit of testing over the weekend.  I'll do something a bit more scientific at some point.  I wanted to get a feel for how it compares to the hacked gh2.  Gh2 using nikon glass (sigma35mm f1.4m and tamron 70-300), a6000 using kit lenses 16-50 and 55-210 (all I have until adaptors arrive).

 

 

I am not sure if the detail is lost in the compressioin, but it looks pretty bad to me. Lot's of detail is lost in these shots. Then again the GH2 shots don't look that great either so maybe it got lost in the final render...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew are you going to review this camera with a comparison video with other cameras for sharpness, low light performance etc..?

 

Anyway to me it doesn't look that sharp, I don't see the wow effect I get with the GH2 details 

 

You're right on close inspection it does not quite have the resolving power of the GH2 in 1080p.

 

And yes there is still some moire.

 

But it has a raft of other nice stuff that the GH2 doesn't have.

 

Final review coming soon.

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...