Need help picking a camera

[Inkz]

My budget was originally $1500, but I can stretch a few hundred dollars if I need to. I am looking for an all purpose camera; stills and video. For photography I will use it as a multipurpose, landscapes, portraits, etc. For video I always wanted a proper camera for videos. I also wanted to try some Casey Neistat like vlogging as an experiment this summer when I go on a trip to Germany as part of a class. 

 

For the two cameras that I seem to be considering the most are the Canon 80d and Sony A6500. This has been such a tough call for me, I even made a thread comparing the 80d and a6300 (6500 was not out then) a while back.  

 

For the 80d what I really wanted from it was:

 

-Great selection of cheap lenses

-The most consistent and reliable AF

- Touch to focus that works well

- Fully articulating screen, this is the most important part for me.

 

From the a6500 I like the 

 

-Sharp 4k video

-Slog for expanded DR

-120FPS video for awesome slow motion

- In body image stabilization 

-Awesome low light performance

-In general I love the color of the photos and video more on default, but those can always be changed. Just a convenience thing.

 

The small size difference between these two does not bother me. For whatever camera I want a decent zoom lens, a prime 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, and a macro or wide angle lens. I can get some of my lenses later, but I don't want super expensive lenses (like plus $500 USD per lens). Also later I plan on getting a decent mic (around $150 or less) and a Jobi gorilla tripod. From what I have seen the 80d is so much nicer to work with. The touch screen, af, and articulating screen seems like it would make me more likely to use it. I feel like if I use a a6500 it would be frustrating to work with (I have seen videos of the touch screen being very hit and miss). While I feel like the 80d would be so much more fun to work with, I don't know if I am comfortable buying such an expensive thing knowing there is a similarly priced thing that does almost everything spec wised better. I feel like sometimes I might not even go to the trouble of recording of a a6500 because the 80d works so much better.  If I could get a 80d with 4k and less noise I would take it, but that doesn't exist. Is there anyway to mount a screen like a phone to use as a front facing or articulating touch screen? I have heard of some cages being used, but I also heard that you have to use the Sony app and it disconnects a lot.  

[Hackentosher]

Why not go full frame like a 6D?

[Inkz]

5 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

Why not go full frame like a 6D?

Because it has even worse DR than 80d, has way worse AF,  doesn't have have a touch screen, doesn't have any sort of artiluation of the screen, and it is just really old in general. I know the 6d is long over due for an upgrade, hoping to see it this year. If the new 6d mark II or whatever they call it has 4k video and a touch articulating touch screen with C-Log, then I will buy it.

[cc143]

ok, so I'm going to declare my bias from the get go, I have been a Canon shooter for over 10 years at this point, I love Canon, I also mostly take stills, so another point for Canon there. 

 

Now, the lens part is sort of moot since pretty cheap at $500 is often not that applicable. Glass is the most important thing, I can;t stress this enough. I find that Sony lenses are often overpriced, especially considering their equivalents in other systems. Canon lenses are cheaper new and more available used. So a point for Canon there. 

 

The rest of the choice in my mind is simple, how much do you value 4k shooting? Can you live with 1080p? Is 4k shooting essential or impotant? if so, how much? What is the purpose of shooting video to you? the a6500 improves in the in video AF over its predecessors, quite a lot, even Neistat, the most prolific vlogger, switched from an 80d to an a6500 and seems to be fine with it using it. 

 

Now, after that the two options trade blows a lot. The a6500 is easier to carry around, that however is offset by improved ergonomics on the 80d. The 80d has immesnly better battery life, however, the a6500 allows you to shoot while charging off a usb battery bank. The 80d has a better and cheaper lens collection available, while the a6500 allows you to adapt any glass you find, often though at the cost of AF performance or AF capability altogether. 

 

As far as a 6d2 with 4k and c-log, forget about it. Canon won't release one anytime soon. (I hope they prove me wrong, but past experience suggests they won't.) 

 

Personally, the superior AF and ergonomics (including touchscreen capability) are worth more than the 4k capability of the a6500 (to me). On the other hand, the size of the a6500 allows you to use it more, a dslr is much more difficult to carry around than a csc, even though, on the sony side, weight is more similar than you might expect and with an equivalent lens attached, the body is the only thing that's smaller. 

 

If I, with none or limited video requirements had to choose today, I would go for the fuji x-t20 with 3-4 lenses, simply because they weigh less than my 5d3 and 24-105 altogether and travelling with 10kg of camera and glass is ridiculous. (just something to consider as well as the sony.) 

 

However, in your position, I'd go for the 80d, or even perhaps the 800d for the proper price. Its essentially the same camera, if it costs 200-300$ less, its a much better deal. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, Inkz said:

For video I always wanted a proper camera for videos.

And here you are looking at DSLRs...

 

4 hours ago, Inkz said:

wanted to try some Casey Neistat like vlogging as an experiment

Have you considered something like a Sony RX model something?

 

4 hours ago, Inkz said:

Slog for expanded DR

Don't be too excited about this until you've worked with LOG profiles before.  It requires a bit of post processing.

 

 

Do you really need 4K?

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

ok, so I'm going to declare my bias from the get go, I have been a Canon shooter for over 20 years at this point, I love Canon, I also mostly take stills, so another point for Canon there. 

 

Now, the lens part is sort of moot since pretty cheap at $500 is often not that applicable. Glass is the most important thing, I can;t stress this enough. I find that Sony lenses are often overpriced, especially considering their equivalents in other systems. Canon lenses are cheaper new and more available used. So a point for Canon there. 

 

The rest of the choice in my mind is simple, how much do you value 4k shooting? Can you live with 1080p? Is 4k shooting essential or impotant? if so, how much? What is the purpose of shooting video to you? the a6500 improves in the in video AF over its predecessors, quite a lot, even Neistat, the most prolific vlogger, switched from an 80d to an a6500 and seems to be fine with it using it. 

 

Now, after that the two options trade blows a lot. The a6500 is easier to carry around, that however is offset by improved ergonomics on the 80d. The 80d has immesnly better battery life, however, the a6500 allows you to shoot while charging off a usb battery bank. The 80d has a better and cheaper lens collection available, while the a6500 allows you to adapt any glass you find, often though at the cost of AF performance or AF capability altogether. 

 

As far as a 6d2 with 4k and c-log, forget about it. Canon won't release one anytime soon. (I hope they prove me wrong, but past experience suggests they won't.) 

 

Personally, the superior AF and ergonomics (including touchscreen capability) are worth more than the 4k capability of the a6500 (to me). On the other hand, the size of the a6500 allows you to use it more, a dslr is much more difficult to carry around than a csc, even though, on the sony side, weight is more similar than you might expect and with an equivalent lens attached, the body is the only thing that's smaller. 

 

If I, with none or limited video requirements had to choose today, I would go for the fuji x-t20 with 3-4 lenses, simply because they weigh less than my 5d3 and 24-105 altogether and travelling with 10kg of camera and glass is ridiculous. (just something to consider as well as the sony.) 

 

However, in your position, I'd go for the 80d, or even perhaps the 800d for the proper price. Its essentially the same camera, if it costs 200-300$ less, its a much better deal. 

This.

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

And here you are looking at DSLRs...

 

Have you considered something like a Sony RX model something?

 

Don't be too excited about this until you've worked with LOG profiles before.  It requires a bit of post processing.

 

 

Do you really need 4K?

This.

I agree with this and what @cc143 said. 

 

You asked about a monitor, yes you can attatch one but they cost some and adds a lot of bulk. Imo the 80D seems easier to work with straight out of the box while the A6500 seems more suited for higher production quality with a lot more thought behind shots (especially so you can reduce the "jelloeffect"/rolling shutter the sony sensor sadly has) and a lot of more accessories like external recorders, batteries, mics, follow focus, cine lenses and so on. 

 

And if you don't want to spend more than 500 on each lens, you should not look at sony. The cheapest lens Sony makes that is a 1.4 goes for 1500US ish. Sigma has one though for 400US. 

[Inkz]

On 4/9/2017 at 9:05 PM, cc143 said:

ok, so I'm going to declare my bias from the get go, I have been a Canon shooter for over 10 years at this point, I love Canon, I also mostly take stills, so another point for Canon there. 

 

Now, the lens part is sort of moot since pretty cheap at $500 is often not that applicable. Glass is the most important thing, I can;t stress this enough. I find that Sony lenses are often overpriced, especially considering their equivalents in other systems. Canon lenses are cheaper new and more available used. So a point for Canon there. 

 

The rest of the choice in my mind is simple, how much do you value 4k shooting? Can you live with 1080p? Is 4k shooting essential or impotant? if so, how much? What is the purpose of shooting video to you? the a6500 improves in the in video AF over its predecessors, quite a lot, even Neistat, the most prolific vlogger, switched from an 80d to an a6500 and seems to be fine with it using it. 

 

Now, after that the two options trade blows a lot. The a6500 is easier to carry around, that however is offset by improved ergonomics on the 80d. The 80d has immesnly better battery life, however, the a6500 allows you to shoot while charging off a usb battery bank. The 80d has a better and cheaper lens collection available, while the a6500 allows you to adapt any glass you find, often though at the cost of AF performance or AF capability altogether. 

 

As far as a 6d2 with 4k and c-log, forget about it. Canon won't release one anytime soon. (I hope they prove me wrong, but past experience suggests they won't.) 

 

Personally, the superior AF and ergonomics (including touchscreen capability) are worth more than the 4k capability of the a6500 (to me). On the other hand, the size of the a6500 allows you to use it more, a dslr is much more difficult to carry around than a csc, even though, on the sony side, weight is more similar than you might expect and with an equivalent lens attached, the body is the only thing that's smaller. 

 

If I, with none or limited video requirements had to choose today, I would go for the fuji x-t20 with 3-4 lenses, simply because they weigh less than my 5d3 and 24-105 altogether and travelling with 10kg of camera and glass is ridiculous. (just something to consider as well as the sony.) 

 

However, in your position, I'd go for the 80d, or even perhaps the 800d for the proper price. Its essentially the same camera, if it costs 200-300$ less, its a much better deal. 

First of all sorry for the really late reply everyone, I got busy with finals and neglected to return to this thread.  Since was posted Canon did offer an option send in upgrade for 5D4 to get C-log, so maybe not completely out of the question. I still really doubt it though.

 

The size difference does not matter to me, you still need a bag for the A6500 unless you have a pancake lens or something. Thanks for your input.

 

Please read the other responses since they pertain to everyone, thanks.

 

On 4/10/2017 at 1:12 AM, AkiraDaarkst said:

And here you are looking at DSLRs...

 

Have you considered something like a Sony RX model something?

 

Don't be too excited about this until you've worked with LOG profiles before.  It requires a bit of post processing.

 

Do you really need 4K?

This.

1. I initially wanted something that could do both, plus even a DSLR would be better than what I am shooting with now.

 

2. I have, in fact at some point I plan to get one in addition. I wanted the advanced features, better low light, higher resolution, and to get interchangable lenses. But I do plan to have one since it is just about the best portable camera you can fit in you pocket. So say if I go to a place I didn't expect to need my gear then I would still be able to get a shot. Since I have a class that is taking me international in about a month I decided I wanted to get my larger camera first. And I do really want to use a 80d at some point, but I feel like it would bother me that my little RX camera is way sharper than my primary camera (for video at least). Maybe I can rent each camera for a couple days to test them?

3. I understand that Log right out of camera looks bad and needs heavy editing. I am willing to learn it if I need to, do you know of any good resources to learn it?

 

4. I don't need 4k, I don't need 1080p, I don't even need 360p, I want them. I am buying mostly for personal/ hobby use at the moment and technically I can shoot with a potato, but I like sharp images. 

 

Please read the other responses since they pertain to everyone, thanks.

On 4/10/2017 at 2:38 AM, xQubeZx said:

I agree with this and what @cc143 said. 

 

You asked about a monitor, yes you can attatch one but they cost some and adds a lot of bulk. Imo the 80D seems easier to work with straight out of the box while the A6500 seems more suited for higher production quality with a lot more thought behind shots (especially so you can reduce the "jelloeffect"/rolling shutter the sony sensor sadly has) and a lot of more accessories like external recorders, batteries, mics, follow focus, cine lenses and so on. 

 

And if you don't want to spend more than 500 on each lens, you should not look at sony. The cheapest lens Sony makes that is a 1.4 goes for 1500US ish. Sigma has one though for 400US. 

Most native Sony lenses do look expensive. I have been looking at lenses for a while, do you know how well a Sigma 18-35 F1.8 would work on the A6500? (I also heard Sigma has policy that lets you switch versions of the same lens if you want to switch companies). I know that it doesn't have IS, but the A6500 does have IBIS. I would also would like to find a decently sharp zoom lens that doesn't break the bank. I am going to be taking some pictures of some friends graduating in a couple weeks. I will be sitting in stadium bleachers and they will be in the center of a football field, about how far of a reach would I need? I want to take a mix of video for speeches and still for diplomas and walking. What lens for the A6500 do you think would work the best in this scenario that is somewhat reasonable( or tell me a Canon equivalent if you guys really think I should stay Canon). If I go Sony eventually I would probably buy the Small HD mini touch monitor.  I can add in a few more hundred dollars since I initially posted this.  And can pick up that Sigma lens later since it is a little expensive ( if I got the 80d I could afford it, but with very little money left over).  Thanks guys for all the help.

Please read the other responses since they pertain to everyone, thanks.