New to making video media, good budget, need advice

[iamMINT]

On 9/16/2016 at 3:52 AM, ShadowCaptain said:

The facts are
-he A6300 has a superior sensor (MFT is SHIT in low light) 
-the 4k image is arguably sharper than the A7S2, due to sony downsampling from a 6k image source to 4k - its probably the sharpest 4k until you get to like Ursa money

-the a6300 has less of a crop factor

 

Also times AF is very important in filming, have you watch the wonder list by philip bloom? sometimes he used AF on his cameras because he just didnt have 14 hands to control things, when you are running and gunning sometimes it has to be relied on

Uh- did you really even read what I said earlier? Your Sony sensors are good for lowlight, yes. But for Sony to be able to do this their base level ISO's are higher and they basically have to destroy your lower gain. Anything below something like +10db is going to be crap compared to a GH4 due to that. Most people were complaining about the same thing on the Nikon D5 for stills. How it could get to a whopping three million ISO, but anything that was below a few thousand ISO was just a total mess because of that. The Sony's no different, and while it's great for things like broadcast and specialized things, if you want a better quality gain structure the GH4 still has it. 

 

On the note of image res and crop factor, the 4k on the GH4 is arguably better. Here and here are some examples of that. Like I said earlier, the GH4 is actually recording at a higher resolution entirely than the Sony does, and does it have better bitrate output because of it. And while a crop factor can be annoying from time to time, the GH4's sensor is way better than anything you could ever get with a Sony camera at that price point. 

 

And no, AF is never important in film. It's just not needed, and should be completely avoided at any possible cost. People just need to learn how to focus a camera, once you get to a point where you're half decent at it it can prove to be even faster and easier than AF. 

[ALwin]

2 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

On the note of image res and crop factor, the 4k on the GH4 is arguably better....

 

And no, AF is never important in film. It's just not needed, and should be completely avoided at any possible cost. People just need to learn how to focus a camera, once you get to a point where you're half decent at it it can prove to be even faster and easier than AF. 

So a camera with a MFT sensor has a better crop factor than one with an APS-C sensor?  How is 2x crop factor better than 1.5x?

 

Also, whether to use AF depends on the user and the scenario.  There's a lot of cases where using AF will help.  Saying AF is not needed or avoided at all cost is completely lame.  On some cameras, relying on MF is is just not possible or harder than relying on AF which can produce faster and more accurate results.  It is better have the possibility to use AF and not need it than not have it and realize it's necessary.

 

Not every user of a video camera or a camera that can record video uses it to film a movie.

 

You're first photo example, what the fuck is it showing?  What lenses were used, what settings were used?  The A6300 with the larger sensor should be showing a wider field of view.

 

As for this one, two different lenses were used.  But both cameras were using their own LOG (Sony Slog 3 and Panasonic V-Log).  Aside from the colors being different due to the differences in log mod and the slight variations in image crop, both images appear identical in terms of sharpness and noise level.  In fact, I think the A6300 side may have a slightly better dynamic range in this flat looking image.

[ALwin]

Here's a sort of an Q&A with filmmaker Joe Simon who used the GH4.  Keep in mind this was done in 2014 when the GH4 first came out and there weren't that many 4K video capable cameras under $2000.  Now he doesn't say that the camera is bad, which is fine because I also don't think the GH4 is a bad camera.  But he does mention the two points that I mention about the GH4, it's low light capability and sensor size causing it to have a higher crop factor (which he mentions that it's also harder to get a very shallow DoF shot if someone wants that kind of style).

http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/05/07/would-you-recommend-the-panasonic-lumix-gh4-filmmaker-joe-simon-gives-us-the-low-down/

 

By the way, whether the GH4 or the A6300 or any other camera is better is not the point.  Both the GH4 and A6300 are capable of producing good enough quality footage that can be edited to produce something fantastic.  It's a matter of which is more suitable to use (taking into consideration how one kits it up).

 

Do you think I spent $7000 on the Sony FS7 because it produced better image than a cheaper camera?  No.  I bought it because it was more convenient to carry around and met my criteria.  I could probably still work off a DSLR like camera, but then I'd have to carry more accessories:

• camera + lenses, always a given
• external audio recorder
• shotgun mic mount
• XLR cable to connect the mic to the recorder
• TRS cables if I wanted to feed the audio from the recorder to the camera
• various accessories for rigging
• different batteries for all the camera, the external recorder, and any other device that needs batteries
• takes me a few minutes to assemble the kit every time I get to a location

With a camera like the FS7:

• camera + lenses, always a given
• shotgun mic
• XLR cable to connect mic to the camera
• one single battery is enough to power the camera and mic
• can keep the entire thing assembled in the bag and be ready to shoot in under 1 minute

 

So yes, a camera like the A6300 with the Sony18-105 f/4 power zoom lens is a great simple kit that can be taken out of the bag and used within seconds.  The 18-105mm focal range (in an APS-C crop it is roughly 27-157mm) is a single lens that covers a fairly nice range for video whether one wants to shoot a bit wide angle or a bit of telephoto or just shoot at one single focal length without changing zoom whatsoever.  Being a native Sony lens also means one can use AF, IS and the power zoom feature (with a switch on the side) if one wants to.  That power zoom switch is actually more useful than manually turning the zoom ring on a zoom lens (without the use of a follow focus mounted on rails).  Manually turning the zoom ring with your hands on a lens while filming can introduce camera shake.  With a power zoom switch all one needs to do is apply a bit of pressure to that switch.

 

A GH4 with various prime lenses and lens adapters just becomes a larger kit to carry around.  Manually focusing a lens (without the use of a follow focus system) risks introducing shake into the footage when filming.

[geomi neun babo]

8 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

And no, AF is never important in film. It's just not needed, and should be completely avoided at any possible cost. People just need to learn how to focus a camera, once you get to a point where you're half decent at it it can prove to be even faster and easier than AF. 

There are many people who use video cameras for filming things that are not movies or television shows.  ENG shooters can benefit from using autofocus and it can save them a lot of time and even their jobs perhaps.  I rely on it sometimes and it gets the job done, but I understand that it's not perfect or smart enough to figure out what needs to be in focus for certain scenes.

 

Also I don't really know whether the GH4 or the Sony A6300 has a better sensor but I do know which one will perform better in low light conditions.  If the GH4 cannot provide me with a clean enough footage when using something like ISO 1600 but a camera like the Sony can then I know which camera I would prefer.  I don't always carry bright enough video lights.

[ShadowCaptain]

On 17/09/2016 at 4:10 PM, JohnBRoark said:

Uh- did you really even read what I said earlier? Your Sony sensors are good for lowlight, yes. But for Sony to be able to do this their base level ISO's are higher and they basically have to destroy your lower gain.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/11

 

You can compare the two here directly at all different ISOs, 400iso, A6300 looks better to me, as it does at every single ISO level

 

in fact the GH4 on 100, and A6300 on 400 look quite similar, 

ALSO they are both base 100 ISO, I have no idea what you are talking about, you are completely wrong and sound like some hardcore fanboy not able to look at objective facts

[Mihle]

This topic turned from one man asking for advice to discussion between people than can, or at least for me seem to can a lot about cameras.

 

But the video ALwin posted, Why was there a -7 on detail on the Sony?

[ALwin]

57 minutes ago, Mihle Gaming said:

This topic turned from one man asking for advice to discussion between people than can, or at least for me seem to can a lot about cameras.

 

But the video ALwin posted, Why was there a -7 on detail on the Sony?

Not exactly sure but I think they were just setting up the Picture Profile to suit their taste.  I have similar profile settings on the FS7 and what they allow me to do is try to customize the camera to get the most latitude as possible for a given location being shot.  But these are also based on preferences of individual camera operators.

 

I took a look at a video made by someone showing how they set up the Picture Profiles on the A6300 for their needs, and it looks like Sony may have brought in some menu items from their video camera line.  Since in the A6300 they're letting you use stuff like CineGamma, Rec.709, S-Log2/3 and other options like adjusting Knee.

 

 

[geomi neun babo]

14 hours ago, ALwin said:

 stuff like CineGamma, Rec.709, S-Log2/3 and other options like adjusting Knee.

I'm still learning how to set these up even after already using the FS7 for a few weeks.

[iamMINT]

On 9/19/2016 at 1:53 PM, Mihle Gaming said:

This topic turned from one man asking for advice to discussion between people than can, or at least for me seem to can a lot about cameras.

 

But the video ALwin posted, Why was there a -7 on detail on the Sony?

Because there isn't as much detail on the sony.

 

To be honest, I still don't understand why you're all complaining so much about the crop sensor. Just get a speedbooster or something, it honestly doesn't make a difference. Whilst a GH4 might be a 2x crop to SMALL FORMAT 35mm 'full frame' sensors, an APS-C or APS-H size sensor is 1.5x crop. That honestly makes about zero difference. Now micro 4/3rds against medium and large format cameras, there is a huge difference. Though, the sensor crop there is negligible. Here's a good video explaining that.

 

Also, like I said before- if it bothers you that much, just get a speedbooster. Honestly. They're pretty cheap now and they'll eliminate that crop factor everyone complains about. Some will even speed up your lenses, though the difference there is also negligible. 

 

Anyway, in closing here, I just wanna say that there's really no competition between the two. You can try and post raw competitions and speculation between the two- but if you've seen the amazing stuff people have captured with GH4's everywhere, compared to the stuff you see out captured on a a6300? It's crazy the difference you see. The spec sheet doesn't really matter, in all honesty. Even though the GH4 does have technically 'higher' specs.

 

Here's an example. While this is just a random clip I found on youtube, there are probably more. Hell, I know of guys using GH4's to go and shoot straight up TV shows, do international broadcasts, make advertisements and shoot films for large companies and production studios. I mean, these things are everywhere. And, there's a reason for it. 

[ALwin]

7 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

I know of guys using GH4's to go and shoot straight up TV shows, do international broadcasts, make advertisements and shoot films for large companies and production studios.

And there are a ton of people who use Sony, Canon, and even somewhat Nikon cameras to do the same thing.

 

7 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

To be honest, I still don't understand why you're all complaining so much about the crop sensor. Just get a speedbooster or something, it honestly doesn't make a difference. Whilst a GH4 might be a 2x crop to SMALL FORMAT 35mm 'full frame' sensors, an APS-C or APS-H size sensor is 1.5x crop. That honestly makes about zero difference. Now micro 4/3rds against medium and large format cameras, there is a huge difference. Though, the sensor crop there is negligible. Here's a good video explaining that.

 

Also, like I said before- if it bothers you that much, just get a speedbooster. Honestly. They're pretty cheap now and they'll eliminate that crop factor everyone complains about. Some will even speed up your lenses, though the difference there is also negligible. 

Yes, crop factor and sensor size does matter, if someone wants to film with a very shallow DoF.  It all depends on the kind of story they want to create and until someone actually actually creates a consumer budget level medium or large format digital camera for video, 35mm is is the largest sensor size that's within the range of some users with APS-C/Super35 being the next closest thing and readily available to a lot of consumers.  Of course, this doesn't mean MFT is crap, it just isn't for everyone.

 

So you're saying that someone who wants to carry less gear or spend less money should invest in a speedbooster?

[ALwin]

On 9/19/2016 at 10:06 AM, ShadowCaptain said:

I have no idea what you are talking about, you are completely wrong and sound like some hardcore fanboy not able to look at objective facts

100% agreed with you on this.  Obsessed with the GH4 and 105mm AIS lens.

[iamMINT]

8 hours ago, ALwin said:

And there are a ton of people who use Sony, Canon, and even somewhat Nikon cameras to do the same thing.

 

Yes, crop factor and sensor size does matter, if someone wants to film with a very shallow DoF.  It all depends on the kind of story they want to create and until someone actually actually creates a consumer budget level medium or large format digital camera for video, 35mm is is the largest sensor size that's within the range of some users with APS-C/Super35 being the next closest thing and readily available to a lot of consumers.  Of course, this doesn't mean MFT is crap, it just isn't for everyone.

 

So you're saying that someone who wants to carry less gear or spend less money should invest in a speedbooster?

Well, here's the thing man. I'm at least reading what you're telling me, though you don't seem to be doing the same to my posts.

 

Do you understand even what I said about the difference between the APS-C and 4/3rd sensors? It's about nothing. And with a decent lens you'll never have a problem with DoF. Though, if you're wanting something like it, I'd just reccomend getting a good tele prime isnstead, as those are going to give you that super nice out of focus background, though still have decent compression. That's what most will do in things like fashion and portraiture, as you still get loads of subject isolation and decent compression on your subject.

 

I've used all the brands you've stated above, and then some. That's the reason why I like the GH4 and the older Nikon lenses so much. I've put my hands on quite a few different cameras out there now and I can tell you from my experience, and for my needs, that I belive that the GH4 is the better video camera for the money.

 

Yes, the speedbooster is just such a HUGE addition to a bag. It's not like if it's just tiny and fits right onto the mount or anything.