historicalpoultry

I am not sure if you'll be any happier with "better" gear. I'm just wondering if you're actually having trouble with the different process of using a camera instead of a smartphone.
I've had a couple of a6000s in my hands over time and there is a reason why it was only recently discontiued. Yes, it's menus are pretty cluttered but one can defnitely get used to it to a point where one isn't held back by it. No, it is absolutely not a pro level camera. However, exposure works exactly the same wether you have an a6000 or a Canon 1dx in your hand. I have friends who still use the a6000 and produce great results. Yes, the sensor isn't up to par anymore with what is out today but they know how their gear work and therefore know how to overcome potential challenges. 
 
Personally, I'd gladly use an a6000 over any of the current smartphones in any case for photography, simply because I have proper control over my exposure. Smartphones simply don't allow you to fully do that. Yes, there are apps that let you adjust ISO and shutter speed but it's normally not possible to adjust aperture properly on a smartphone lens (is the S9 the one which does have a stop-down feature in the lens?). 
 
Anyways, to come back to my first sentence, I'd suggest you learn to use the a6000 before you spend any money on a better system. Should you find that you just simply prefer the ease of use of a smartphone and cumbersome UIs hold you back in your photography, maybe you should stick to smartphones. Because as people above have stated also, every system has it's quirks and every system feels somewhat ancient compared to the UI of smartphone (with maybe Leica being the closest to a "modern" UI). 
 
Hope this helps

I am not sure if you'll be any happier with "better" gear. I'm just wondering if you're actually having trouble with the different process of using a camera instead of a smartphone.
I've had a couple of a6000s in my hands over time and there is a reason why it was only recently discontiued. Yes, it's menus are pretty cluttered but one can defnitely get used to it to a point where one isn't held back by it. No, it is absolutely not a pro level camera. However, exposure works exactly the same wether you have an a6000 or a Canon 1dx in your hand. I have friends who still use the a6000 and produce great results. Yes, the sensor isn't up to par anymore with what is out today but they know how their gear work and therefore know how to overcome potential challenges. 
 
Personally, I'd gladly use an a6000 over any of the current smartphones in any case for photography, simply because I have proper control over my exposure. Smartphones simply don't allow you to fully do that. Yes, there are apps that let you adjust ISO and shutter speed but it's normally not possible to adjust aperture properly on a smartphone lens (is the S9 the one which does have a stop-down feature in the lens?). 
 
Anyways, to come back to my first sentence, I'd suggest you learn to use the a6000 before you spend any money on a better system. Should you find that you just simply prefer the ease of use of a smartphone and cumbersome UIs hold you back in your photography, maybe you should stick to smartphones. Because as people above have stated also, every system has it's quirks and every system feels somewhat ancient compared to the UI of smartphone (with maybe Leica being the closest to a "modern" UI). 
 
Hope this helps

A couple of years ago I picked up a cheap ($5) surplus achromat lens. I've used it a few times, thought I'd share some examples. Sometimes you don't need the latest and greatest to make nice photos... 

just as an update, I am actually working on this.
Just finished up the text from the first picture and I cut up the different pieces of illustration to clean up.
 

I would recommend something like ReelSteady for AfterEffects, that's about as good as you can get on a budget. 
The best you can do would be a purpose-made head camera harness that properly fits your doggo, companies like Mohoc and GoPro make them. Depending on how your dog moves it still will not give you a perfect image but it's a step in the right direction, the dog's neck will act like a gimbal and cut some of the resonant motion of walking.

wile all of this is good advice, to be completely honest I thing the A7III is your best option. mostly because your already familiar with it and you have one already witch means that if you need to run a 2 camera set up in future for any, unknown reason, you can do that without worrying about mating the images in post. And you already have lenses for it (id assume) witch might come in handy... all of these should be major pluses in my humble opinion. so bare that in mind as well as debating technical specs of a pile of different cameras that are all really good in there own ways.

Yeah I'd also just enable PBO, check what kinds of temperatures you are getting, then limit the power limits for PBO until you are happy with the temperature. At least on my board the PBO basically removes the limits and pushes everything it can offer without melting
 
For now I disabled PBO from mine because the temperature, voltages and current seemed crazy. I plan on enabling it once I have time to update my BIOS from Zen2 launch BIOS for my board, but before that I have some critical projects I need to finish first, can't risk a failed BIOS update right now.

I would just leave the CPU running with PBO really.. I would mainly look at overclocking that ram for sure. Should be some decent guides around now for overclocking RAM with the new AMD CPUs. 

I often see posts here, there, and everywhere about wanting a "real" camera to upgrade from a smartphone on a limited budget.

For the vast majority of you, I say this: Don't bother. Your smartphone is good enough for most people and most applications.
 
For the rest of you, here's the deal. It's... complicated. In no particular order:
 
1) First off, don't buy a point-and-shoot. That'll give you results that are, at best, marginally better than your smartphone. There's the Sony RX-100 line, but that's well over the $300.
 
2) Forget about buying new. Nothing new in that price range isn't worth it over your smartphone.
 
3) What's your application? Why do you want a "real" camera? Ask yourself, "What is it about my smartphone that is inadequate?" Examples where having a "real" camera makes sense include: making large prints, shooting in very low light, sports, and wildlife. If you're just posting photos online, then a smartphone will do the job well most of the time.
 
4) Check the used market. What are you looking for? Any of the following would be alright:
 
-Canon Rebel T3, T3i, T4, T4i, T5, T5i, SL1, SL2 (these are the names used in North America. Many of these will go by different names in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere). They should come with an 18-55mm lens. Anything lower than a T3 is certainly available, but you're getting pretty old by that point.
 
-Nikon D3100, D3200, D3300, D3400 D5100, D5200.
 
-Olympus OM-D E M5
 
-Sony A5000, 5100, A6000, A6300
 
(this list is very much non-exhaustive)
 
5) Read reviews. What did the reviewer like? What did the reviewer not like? If the review has comments, check the comments to see what others like or don't like about the camera.
 
6) Newer is not necessarily always better. Sometimes, newer models don't offer much improvement over older models.
 
7) What features are important to you? Things you should consider are:
-autofocus speed/accuracy/consistency
 
-autofocus points (more is generally better)
 
-size and weight of the body and lenses
 
-sensor size (most cameras in your price range will be APS-C, but Olympus and Panasonic offer Micro FourThirds (MFT). This means that APS-C cameras (like the Nikon, Canon, or Sony) will have sensors that are bigger than MFT. The benefits of MFT are smaller and lighter cameras, but they usually don't perform as well in low-light.
 
-optical viewfinder vs EVF/backscreen (DSLRs like Canon and Nikon use optical viewfinders, which means there's a mirror that bounces light up to the viewfinder so you are looking through the lens. They generally have fewer autofocus points but, in this price range, may offer faster, more accurate, and more consistent autofocus. Mirrorless cameras let you see what's coming off the sensor and, in this price range, autofocus may be slower, less accurate, or less consistent. DSLRs will also offer "live view" where it will let you see what's coming off the sensor using the back screen. Either way, the live view of what the sensor sees allows you to see your exposure before you take the picture. If you use the optical viewfinder of a DSLR, you'll have to "chimp," (ie, look at the back screen to see how it turned out).
 
-lens selection (lenses are described using focal length in mm and aperture in 1:x. Focal length describes how "zoomed in" or "zoomed out" you are. For example, 24mm is considered wide, 50mm is considered "standard," and 100mm and on is telephoto. Wide means you are "zoomed out" and can see lots of the scene, but things further away will appear smaller. Telephoto means you are "zoomed in" and can are focused on a much smaller part of the scene. Landscapes typically use wide lengths, portraiture typically use standard focal lengths, and wildlife/sports typically use telephoto (or "longer") focal lengths. Aperture describes the opening at the back of the lens. All lenses can "stop down" their apertures (means less light is let in, but your depth of field (amount of the picture that's in focus) is increased, and can help increase sharpness to an extent) or "open up" their apertures (means more light gets in, but your depth of field decreases, background and foreground will be out of focus (ie, blurry), and may result in a slight loss of image quality. Good lenses for sports and wildlife are super expensive since indoor sporting arenas are usually poorly lit requiring long lenses with big apertures. A big aperture is 1:1.2 (or just f/1.2) whereas a small aperture is 1:16 (or just f/16). The smaller the number (like 1.2) means the bigger the aperture can open up. The larger the number (like 5.6) means it can't open up as much and let in as much light. Portraits are usually shot at wide apertures and landscapes are often shot at smaller apertures. Different lenses for different applications and different levels of image quality.
 
-video features (if you want to shoot video. Good things to consider are: video autofocus, mic jack, headphone jack, articulating screen, and so on (I don't shoot video)
 
 
It is important to know that while some cameras/lenses are better suited to some applications than others, there is no "perfect" camera or lens. A lot of it will come down to what you shoot, how you shoot, your budget, what you value in a camera (ie, what you want vs what you don't want vs what you don't care about), and what you like shooting. I recommend going to a camera shop and spending a few minutes playing around with one. 
 
 If you're torn between buying a camera and just using your phone, then you should probably just use your phone.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Did you just get this camera, or have you had this camera for awhile and the issue didn't exist/wasn't noticed before? Have you used the camera in such low loght conditions befpre? What is your processing pipeline? Do you shoot jpeg or raw, do you process your photos? There are a number of potential ways that unexpected noise can crop up, whether the camera was simply never push hard before and so escaped notice, or if there is a legitimate problem with the sensor.
 
The Bayer filter is tuned to allow more green to pass through than either red or blue. When heavily underexposed, the sensor is probably detecting portions of the underexposed area as a subtle green. Running the ISO higher amplifies the noise naturally.
 
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-g85-g80/8
 
If you look to the jpeg photo, you'll notice some green in the image. If you're not already, I would probably recommend shooting RAW and processing ths images separate.

Appears to be color noise there. What are the exposure settings being used? Are you using the auto mode?

At least 1440p but the highest you can afford. Though color accuracy and at least 99% sRGB coverage (after calibration) over 4k. Personally I don't see the point in AdobeRGB capable monitors: mostly everything else looks funny (especially on the web) and you will end up with a smaller color space in the end after all. The internet is still sRGB and most people don't have calibrated displays.

I would go for a 4k monitor.  I have one.  Not many problems for me but I did have to scale down the resolution because of the small text.  If you want to future proof your setup then get a 4k monitor. 

I'm using the Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS. Basically the default kit lens on the X-T3 (and the "premium" option on the lower end models). I might have exhibited a bit of OCD when it came to maintaining it (I think I worry way too much about keeping the front element shiny when I never actually needed to xD) but I feel that the SEBC coating on it should be very robust (first used in broadcast glass), so it shouldn't really be much of an issue.
 
I actually did check the Fujifilm-X website for photos submitted by photographers with this lens and in similar types of shots (where there is a strong light source shining in the composition window), these artifacts do indeed appear. Also seems to be a thing with most other cameras, like that Canon EOS DSLR in the link. 
 
Haha, you bet.
 
99% of my shots tend to be street, cityscapes, and a bit of food plus portraits. Very rarely do I shoot with a very strong light source shining through and even then, I would adjust my composition and exposure to minimize flaring and other artifacts. Also worth pointing out that proper focus and exposure makes this artifact wayyyy less obvious. You will still see them if you overexpose a ton in post, but we're not here to find artifacts that most people likely won't even know exists if it's exposed properly, eh?
Pretty much this.

Yeah that is what I have been doing latley. I have noticed that decreasing my mic gain and just upping it when editing makes a fair difference

If you're not happy with the audio quality and there's no option to increase the bitrate, I'd suggest using another software to record your audio. Audacitiy maybe? 

Well, Sony recently released the a6400, which has a 180 degree flip out screen (i.e. "selfie screen"). All other Sony a6000-series cameras have a rotating screen that does not articulate the full 180 degrees, but rather about 45 degrees downwards and slightly more than 90 degrees upwards

Well if you are looking for an overall good piece of kit for this sort of thing, a Panasonic G7 coupled with a fast standard prime should be good enough for interviews. Maybe a go pro for a different angle, and a 24-120 equivalent for estabishing shots etc. I think you'd be ok with that, but it will require work on your part with lighting and focus etc. 
 
Now, there are other options, For instance a used a7sii might be a better option, coupled with their cheap 50mm 1.8, but overall it would cost more than the panasonic. 
 
The best you can do probably is a fuji xt3 with the kit lens and a 35mm f/2 or just get a cheap manual focus prime like a 50/85/100mm and adapt it. Another possible option is a used 60mm f/2.4 Macro, which will be great for interviews and maybe shots of stuff of his etc. 

There are no commonly available or viable options to achieve a true anamorphic look via a screw on filter in front of mainstream consumer lenses. There are however anamorphic look filters which aim to imitate the flaring and bokeh of anamorphic video though none deliver true stretched image anamorphic. 

Gonna be honest, if you're using that kind of high end camera hardware to stream you should be spending the money on a dedicated camera capture card. Use a webcam, no one will give a fuck. Big streamers have used stuff like the c920 for a long time. Mic and game capture is leagues more important than camera. 

Maybe another option for aps-c E-mount users would be the samyang 14mm 2.8 adapted via a speedbooster / focal reducer. I use the Nikon version with a Viltrox focal reducer and get great results for the price. I unfortunately don't have much time anymore to shoot the stars, but I managed the get this during the summer. This is probably the best shot I've taken of the milky way.
 

Update.
 
One of my dad's friends has the SEL18135. I currently have it on my a6000 as we speak.
 
It's a pretty good performer. It's versatile and pictures are definitely sharper compared to the SELP1650. The 24-100mm range is where it seems to be happiest, with best results around the 77mm mark. There is significant barrel distortion and heavy vignetting at 18mm however, if left uncorrected. Capture One's profiles corrected it nicely, but you also lose a portion of the image at the widest end.
 
It's not something that I would pay $600 for in terms of overall IQ. It's a good versatile lens but obviously, they have had to compromise somewhere to make it so compact whilst having a large zoom range. With all that said, I found a white box version for $450. Ordered it and I'm going to put my kit lens on sale for around $100 or slightly less. 

I've had the 18-105 G for about three quarters of a year and sold it for the 16-70 f4. Not something that I would recommend since there is huge variance in the quality of the 16-70 and the price is very high. I got mine for around 550 and was extremely lucky to get a version with good enough quality. 
 
I wasn't such a huge fan of the 18-105, not because of it's site but because of it's image quality. In my opinion, this is only partially suited for photography. I found contrast fairly low and sharpness at f4 lacking. 
 
I've never handled the 18-135 so I can't say anything about that lens form experience but I think it's a fairly good lens accoridng to what I've seen.
 
Best thing for you to do would be to try them out a camera store and see for yourself. 
 
Cheers

Hi There!

I dont really know a good store in Amsterdam... But you can try your luck at www.marktplaats.nl. Its the Ebay from the Netherlands :)

I really like ^^^ the photo. Great contrast, good lighting and detail. My only critique is the front claw being out of frame and the eye is out of focus. Great job!