Best Low-Mid Range Mirrorless Cameras?

[iovey]

So I've been looking into mirrorless systems lately, and they seem to match everything I want from a camera, but I'm having trouble deciding on one, but I've narrowed it down to 3 options. I want to do a pretty healthy mix of stills and video, although its important to note that the video stuff I want to do is short films and other cinematic stuff, and I don't really need things like 4k.

 

Sony a6000 
Seems to be the best all-around of the bunch. Good video, and good stills. APS-C sensor gives this the biggest edge for me personally, as the crop factor is less harsh, and it allows for a better lowlight and depth of field. It's also the smallest and lights. (Special note on this, I can get it refurbished with Sony's 18-55 & 55-200 OIS lenses for 699)
 

Olympus OM-D E-M10
This has the stills advantage definitely. Also, I do definitely appreciate the aesthetics of it, coming from shooting 35mm cameras. Biggest advantage is the 5-axis image stabilization which gives it a big bonus for handheld video and lowlight long exposure stills. I really can't find much on its video performance, sadly.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7
Video king. Takes 4K video, with a 100mbp/s bitrate (I would more than likely downscale it to 1080p). Stills seem to be pretty good, though I really can't find too much about them either. Biggest advantage is probably 4K video for downsampling/stabilizing in post, and the fully articulating screen.

I don't really have that much experience with digital cameras and whats really important for them, as I've learned about photography by shooting film, and so while I've managed to figure out, for the most part, the pro's and con's of each system, I don't really know what's going to be the most important thing to prioritize. I'm definitely looking into the Sony a6000, mostly because of the good deal on refurbished ones I can get, but I'd appreciate some input.
Thanks!

[cc143]

I believe the G7 is the one genrally recommended by most for video out of the 3, but I personally don't like m4/3 cameras due to the crop factor (which you've already mentioned). 

 

I actually own the a6000 and am happy with the body, but not with the lenses in the ecosystem, I am a canon shooter and find that lenses for canon are cheaper when new, and if you include used offerings, the value proposition is not that great for sony, the fact that when adapted AF is cumbersome at best is a big turndown. 

 

If you are going to invest in the sony ecosystem, I would steer away from the lenses you mentioned, the 16-50mm that came with mine is, in my opinion horrible, there are better lesnes available, although they tend to be much more expensive, but glass is much more important than the body in any case. 

 

If anything, I would hold off for a bit, the a6500 is due to be released soon, so prices for the a6300 and a6000 are bound to come down. 

 

I would also take a look at used a7's since they are quite close to the price of the a6000, if you are into that sort of thing. 

 

The a6300 is better with lens adapters, which is what I'd look for. 

[Rohime]

Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 is compact that i got as a low-mid ... gets good reviews and i love it.

[Nav1tech]

G7 for video is the general consensus. In your case id probably go with the a6000 since its superior in stills and no slouch for video.  I ditched the a6000 for a nx500, but its a solid camera with a big cummunity behind it.

[iovey]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

I believe the G7 is the one genrally recommended by most for video out of the 3, but I personally don't like m4/3 cameras due to the crop factor (which you've already mentioned). 

 

I actually own the a6000 and am happy with the body, but not with the lenses in the ecosystem, I am a canon shooter and find that lenses for canon are cheaper when new, and if you include used offerings, the value proposition is not that great for sony, the fact that when adapted AF is cumbersome at best is a big turndown. 

 

If you are going to invest in the sony ecosystem, I would steer away from the lenses you mentioned, the 16-50mm that came with mine is, in my opinion horrible, there are better lesnes available, although they tend to be much more expensive, but glass is much more important than the body in any case. 

 

If anything, I would hold off for a bit, the a6500 is due to be released soon, so prices for the a6300 and a6000 are bound to come down. 

 

I would also take a look at used a7's since they are quite close to the price of the a6000, if you are into that sort of thing. 

 

The a6300 is better with lens adapters, which is what I'd look for. 

from what I've researched, the 18-55 is generally a pretty good lens, so it seems like a pretty decent choice, and if it ends up not being very good, I can get a pretty cheap FD-E mount adapter and use my old stock of manual lenses pretty easily.

 

and I definitely am holding out for a bit, I certainly think its possible the a6300 could drop down to the g7's price point so that it would directly compete, and that would be ideal (since those two cameras are very often compared)

[AkiraDaarkst]

10 hours ago, cc143 said:

If anything, I would hold off for a bit, the a6500 is due to be released soon, so prices for the a6300 and a6000 are bound to come down. 

The A6500 has been announced with a price around $1400, $400 more than when the A6300 was launched.  So I doubt prices for the A6300 will drop that much.

[xQubeZx]

Personally I would get the A6000, actually personally saving up for one of those to replace my A5000. You have to accept that the prices of lenses are a bit higher than other systems though but nowadays there is a lot of options at least (if you are willing to pay, it exists some decent priced too of course).

 

I don't know if you have been able to check on any of the cameras in person? I personally have only held and used the A6000 out of the three but I can say its extremely light and easy to handle. The viewfinder is not super sharp but good enough and I was really impressed with the AF speed. If you get the A6000 I would advice you to get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to go along with it It's super sharp compared to the kit lens and the 55-210 and the bokeh at 1.4 is beautiful. But honestly a lot of people will bash the 16-50mm for being bad, its a bit soft but its a very good lens to start with and it works pretty good. The 55-210 has a certain range where its pretty sharp and then some where it isnt as sharp. At 210 its not very sharp but the colors are good. AF is decent on both of the Sony lenses but not amazing (thats on my a5000, they are faster on the A6000, was my experience at least) 

 

As others have said the A6500 just got released but that is in a total different price catagory. An A7 ii will be cheaper than the new A6500. 

[iovey]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Personally I would get the A6000, actually personally saving up for one of those to replace my A5000. You have to accept that the prices of lenses are a bit higher than other systems though but nowadays there is a lot of options at least (if you are willing to pay, it exists some decent priced too of course).

 

I don't know if you have been able to check on any of the cameras in person? I personally have only held and used the A6000 out of the three but I can say its extremely light and easy to handle. The viewfinder is not super sharp but good enough and I was really impressed with the AF speed. If you get the A6000 I would advice you to get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to go along with it It's super sharp compared to the kit lens and the 55-210 and the bokeh at 1.4 is beautiful. But honestly a lot of people will bash the 16-50mm for being bad, its a bit soft but its a very good lens to start with and it works pretty good. The 55-210 has a certain range where its pretty sharp and then some where it isnt as sharp. At 210 its not very sharp but the colors are good. AF is decent on both of the Sony lenses but not amazing (thats on my a5000, they are faster on the A6000, was my experience at least) 

 

As others have said the A6500 just got released but that is in a total different price catagory. An A7 ii will be cheaper than the new A6500. 

Sadly there aren't any camera stores in my area. The closest we have is Best Buy, although I might try and see if they have any cameras on display.
Also, is this the Sigma 30mm that you were talking about?

[AkiraDaarkst]

I just wanted to point something out.

Both the Sony E-mount and the MFT mount have some of the shortest flange distances on any camera system.  18mm and 19.25mm respectively.  However, at least in my view, Sony E-mount cameras having a tendency to either use APS-C or FF sensors there is a lesser need to use a telecompressor because the crop factor is lower if one wants to achieve wide angle shots without using ultra wide angle glass.

 

The weakness of both systems, they are also weaker than more robust lens mounts.  Yesterday I was helping a film crew set up their FS7 cameras with Canon 30-300mm cine lenses that weight about 6kg each.  The lenses use the ARRI PL mount system and we had to use lens adapters with support brackets because they were heavy.

 

The weight of the adapters and lenses would be supported by the cheese plate we had to connect on top of the cameras.

 

[xQubeZx]

Just now, iovey said:

Sadly there aren't any camera stores in my area. The closest we have is Best Buy, although I might try and see if they have any cameras on display.
Also, is this the Sigma 30mm that you were talking about?

Ah, and yes that is the Sigma I was talking about. It's amazing for portrait work and will have a 50mm equivilent on the A6000's APS-C sensor. It's one of the only f/1.4 lenses for Sony E that is not going to cost you an arm and a leg and it can produce really beautiful images. I would pick that one over the kit lens any day of the week even at the cost of losing the flexability of the 16-50mm. (and as a 30mm it is very useful almost anything and you can "zoom" with your legs. That can't be said of say a 100mm prime)

[iovey]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I just wanted to point something out.

Both the Sony E-mount and the MFT mount have some of the shortest flange distances on any camera system.  18mm and 19.25mm respectively.  However, at least in my view, Sony E-mount cameras having a tendency to either use APS-C or FF sensors there is a lesser need to use a telecompressor because the crop factor is lower if one wants to achieve wide angle shots without using ultra wide angle glass.

 

The weakness of both systems, they are also weaker than more robust lens mounts.  Yesterday I was helping a film crew set up their FS7 cameras with Canon 30-300mm cine lenses that weight about 6kg each.  The lenses use the ARRI PL mount system and we had to use lens adapters with support brackets because they were heavy.

 

The weight of the adapters and lenses would be supported by the cheese plate we had to connect on top of the cameras.

 

Yeah if I were to use heavier lenses I would make sure its properly supported. (Whenever I use my 80-300 I always mount the tripod to the lens, and if I'm feeling really cautious I'll borrow my friends GorillaPod to support the camera)

[iovey]

2 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Ah, and yes that is the Sigma I was talking about. It's amazing for portrait work and will have a 50mm equivilent on the A6000's APS-C sensor. It's one of the only f/1.4 lenses for Sony E that is not going to cost you an arm and a leg and it can produce really beautiful images. I would pick that one over the kit lens any day of the week even at the cost of losing the flexability of the 16-50mm. (and as a 30mm it is very useful almost anything and you can "zoom" with your legs. That can't be said of say a 100mm prime)

I'll put that on my list of lenses to get! Thank you!

[AkiraDaarkst]

Just now, iovey said:

I'll put that on my list of lenses to get! Thank you!

I know Sigma and Tokina are starting to manufacture or expanding their E-mount lens collection.  Rokinon/Samyang also produce E-mount glass, both for photography and cinematography.  No need to get the pricey Sony or Zeiss glass unless you really really want or need to.

 

Between the cameras you originally listed, I'm more in favor of the Sony A6000 or the Panasonic G7 though I think if you can afford the budget the A6300 might be worth the investment.  Even if you don't need 4K, those cameras you selected (the ones that record 4K) record something like 4:2:0 internally, so 4K scaled down to 1080 in post could get you 4:4:4.  I'm not certain every model mentioned here supports 10-bit via HDMI out though, and positive all of them are 8-bit internally.

 

In terms of what people consider image quality, I'm certain all the cameras are capable of producing fantastic image quality.  The work produced by the cameras depends on you and not the camera.  You can buy a $100000 camera if you want, but if your talent and skills are crap (I'm not saying you are) the camera will produce something that could've been done with a $100 camera.

[iovey]

6 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I know Sigma and Tokina are starting to manufacture or expanding their E-mount lens collection.  Rokinon/Samyang also produce E-mount glass, both for photography and cinematography.  No need to get the pricey Sony or Zeiss glass unless you really really want or need to.

 

Between the cameras you originally listed, I'm more in favor of the Sony A6000 or the Panasonic G7 though I think if you can afford the budget the A6300 might be worth the investment.  Even if you don't need 4K, those cameras you selected (the ones that record 4K) record something like 4:2:0 internally, so 4K scaled down to 1080 in post could get you 4:4:4.  I'm not certain every model mentioned here supports 10-bit via HDMI out though, and positive all of them are 8-bit internally.

 

In terms of what people consider image quality, I'm certain all the cameras are capable of producing fantastic image quality.  The work produced by the cameras depends on you and not the camera.  You can buy a $100000 camera if you want, but if your talent and skills are crap (I'm not saying you are) the camera will produce something that could've been done with a $100 camera.

Would the downsampled 4k of the G7 look better than the a6000's native 1080p in any sort of major way? I probably can't swing for an a6300, since I still need to get an audio recorder and such.

I've made sure to do a lot of research into proper film techniques and trying to learn about cinema and such, and I've been practicing stills with a Canon TX for a good while now, so I'd like to think I've reached a point skill-wise where I can take advantage of better equipment.

[AkiraDaarkst]

16 minutes ago, iovey said:

Would the downsampled 4k of the G7 look better than the a6000's native 1080p in any sort of major way? I probably can't swing for an a6300, since I still need to get an audio recorder and such.

I've made sure to do a lot of research into proper film techniques and trying to learn about cinema and such, and I've been practicing stills with a Canon TX for a good while now, so I'd like to think I've reached a point skill-wise where I can take advantage of better equipment.

It occurred to me after my last comment that I forgot to ask you about audio but I see you are already considering it.  Make sure the camera you choose has at least some way of adding audio from an external source.  While the camera may have an internal mic and you're the type of filmmaker that shoots beautiful scenery and adds audio in the form of music and narration in post it's always a good idea to have at least one port on the camera that you can connect an external mic or audio recorder.

 

4K downsampled from the G7 will give you more latitude during the post production process.  If you can nail the shot in-camera during the production stage it becomes less important in the post production stage.  But it never hurts to have that latitude available.  In my experience and something that my fellow DoPs , cinematographers, filmmakers, everyone agrees with is that while we should always try to get the scene set up and getting everything nailed as close to the final product as much as possible in the pre-production and production process, we just don't live in an ideal world. 4K also gives you a bit of room to reframe the scene in post and do some other effects like a dolly zoom using only a prime lens.

[iovey]

39 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

It occurred to me after my last comment that I forgot to ask you about audio but I see you are already considering it.  Make sure the camera you choose has at least some way of adding audio from an external source.  While the camera may have an internal mic and you're the type of filmmaker that shoots beautiful scenery and adds audio in the form of music and narration in post it's always a good idea to have at least one port on the camera that you can connect an external mic or audio recorder.

 

4K downsampled from the G7 will give you more latitude during the post production process.  If you can nail the shot in-camera during the production stage it becomes less important in the post production stage.  But it never hurts to have that latitude available.  In my experience and something that my fellow DoPs , cinematographers, filmmakers, everyone agrees with is that while we should always try to get the scene set up and getting everything nailed as close to the final product as much as possible in the pre-production and production process, we just don't live in an ideal world. 4K also gives you a bit of room to reframe the scene in post and do some other effects like a dolly zoom using only a prime lens.

The a6000 doesn't an audio input, but I don't really have an issue recording externally and syncing audio to the video using the scratch audio from the internal mics.

 

So downsampling simply gives more latitude during post production? Does zooming in post look as good as zooming optically?

[cc143]

8 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

The A6500 has been announced with a price around $1400, $400 more than when the A6300 was launched.  So I doubt prices for the A6300 will drop that much.

The price of the a6300 may not be reduced significantly enough, however, the a6000 will certainly see a substantial price cut. Also, looking at features, the a6500 provides some very important improvements over the a6300, which may prompt some owners to upgrade and look to get rid of their a6300, reducing the price in the used market significantly. 

 

I personally would only like one feature the a6300 has over the a6000, that being the support for non native lenses, which I am led to believe is significantly improved.  

4 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

As others have said the A6500 just got released but that is in a total different price catagory. An A7 ii will be cheaper than the new A6500. 

I think the price difference is because it got released too close to the a6300 and they need to keep it relevant for a little while longer while it is still widely available in retail. They will inevitably reduce supply of the a6300 to levels similar to those of the a6000 circa a6300 release, at which point the prices will become somewhat more logical. 

 

Also, to your point regarding the 16-50mm, objectively, when comparing to my old EFS 18-55mm mk1, it is not a great offering, even for a kit lens.  (That doesn't mean one should adapt a Canon kit lens, that's just stupid.) 

 

In regard to the audio input, I believe the a6000 has a multiinterface hotshoe which allows for microphones to be mounted on it, I think sony have some options in their website, although I can't be completely certain about this. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 hours ago, iovey said:

The a6000 doesn't an audio input, but I don't really have an issue recording externally and syncing audio to the video using the scratch audio from the internal mics.

 

So downsampling simply gives more latitude during post production? Does zooming in post look as good as zooming optically?

A 4K 4:2:0 down sampled to 1080p 4:4:4 has more latitude than 1080p 4:2:0.  But this is not simply done by taking 4K footage into a 1080p timeline and scaling the footage down to fit the window.  You need to transcode the footage.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/can-4k-4-2-0-8-bit-become-1080p-4-4-4-10-bit-does-it-matter/

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/02/discovery-4k-8bit-420-panasonic-gh4-converts-1080p-10bit-444/

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2015/10/08/when-420-8bit-becomes-444-10bit-from-barry-green/

 

Physically zooming the lens or moving the camera in 3D space vs zooming/scaling already recorded image/footage in post are of course completely different.  Whether the 'faking' the zoom method works or not depends on the scene.  It can look just as good or fail miserably.  This is something you will have to decide on for your productions or the productions you direct.  You have to consider factors like does the production budget have enough to rent a camera dolly or stabilizer to keep the camera steady with physical movement, buying/renting a long enough zoom lens, is there enough space in the location for the camera/lens movement to occur without interfering with other elements.  When it works, even though there may still be noticeable differences because you aren't moving the camera or zooming the lens in 3D space but instead scaling a flat 2D image, 99% of the audience will be so absorbed in other elements of the film that they will not notice those differences.  The primary differences are parallax and distortion of a fixed object in the scene as either the focal length of the lens changes or the focusing distance changes.

 

But my original comment about 4K being useful for creating a dolly zoom effect in post still requires physical camera movement.  I meant if you didn't have a zoom lens or didn't have the proper tools to setup a dolly zoom shot with a zoom lens, you can use a prime lens or keep the lens at a single focal length.  The 4K recorded footage then can be used to mimic the dolly zoom in post within a lower resolution, such as 1080p, timeline.  The dolly zoom effect essentially requires you to keep the composition and framing of the scene exactly the same throughout the zoom effect while changing the camera position and focal length of the lens.  But if you use a prime lens, you can't change the focal length.

 

[iovey]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

The price of the a6300 may not be reduced significantly enough, however, the a6000 will certainly see a substantial price cut. Also, looking at features, the a6500 provides some very important improvements over the a6300, which may prompt some owners to upgrade and look to get rid of their a6300, reducing the price in the used market significantly. 

 

I personally would only like one feature the a6300 has over the a6000, that being the support for non native lenses, which I am led to believe is significantly improved.  

I think the price difference is because it got released too close to the a6300 and they need to keep it relevant for a little while longer while it is still widely available in retail. They will inevitably reduce supply of the a6300 to levels similar to those of the a6000 circa a6300 release, at which point the prices will become somewhat more logical. 

 

Also, to your point regarding the 16-50mm, objectively, when comparing to my old EFS 18-55mm mk1, it is not a great offering, even for a kit lens.  (That doesn't mean one should adapt a Canon kit lens, that's just stupid.) 

 

In regard to the audio input, I believe the a6000 has a multiinterface hotshoe which allows for microphones to be mounted on it, I think sony have some options in their website, although I can't be completely certain about this. 

I've listened to some samples from the Multi-Interface mic's, and they're not that impressive sadly. There was some pretty noticeable noise to both of them.

[iovey]

2 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

A 4K 4:2:0 down sampled to 1080p 4:4:4 has more latitude than 1080p 4:2:0.  But this is not simply done by taking 4K footage into a 1080p timeline and scaling the footage down to fit the window.  You need to transcode the footage.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/can-4k-4-2-0-8-bit-become-1080p-4-4-4-10-bit-does-it-matter/

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/02/discovery-4k-8bit-420-panasonic-gh4-converts-1080p-10bit-444/

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2015/10/08/when-420-8bit-becomes-444-10bit-from-barry-green/

 

Physically zooming the lens or moving the camera in 3D space vs zooming/scaling already recorded image/footage in post are of course completely different.  Whether the 'faking' the zoom method works or not depends on the scene.  It can look just as good or fail miserably.  This is something you will have to decide on for your productions or the productions you direct.  You have to consider factors like does the production budget have enough to rent a camera dolly or stabilizer to keep the camera steady with physical movement, buying/renting a long enough zoom lens, is there enough space in the location for the camera/lens movement to occur without interfering with other elements.  When it works, even though there may still be noticeable differences because you aren't moving the camera or zooming the lens in 3D space but instead scaling a flat 2D image, 99% of the audience will be so absorbed in other elements of the film that they will not notice those differences.  The primary differences are parallax and distortion of a fixed object in the scene as either the focal length of the lens changes or the focusing distance changes.

 

But my original comment about 4K being useful for creating a dolly zoom effect in post still requires physical camera movement.  I meant if you didn't have a zoom lens or didn't have the proper tools to setup a dolly zoom shot with a zoom lens, you can use a prime lens or keep the lens at a single focal length.  The 4K recorded footage then can be used to mimic the dolly zoom in post within a lower resolution, such as 1080p, timeline.  The dolly zoom effect essentially requires you to keep the composition and framing of the scene exactly the same throughout the zoom effect while changing the camera position and focal length of the lens.  But if you use a prime lens, you can't change the focal length.

 

Thats super cool. Might be a little too complicated for me right now, but thats really cool.

Thank you! I think at this point I just need to decide whether stills or video is most important for me, since the a6000 seems to be the clear stills winner, and the G7 the clear video winner.

[thekillergazebo]

I would say get the Sony a6000. I have both the a6000 and a6300 and they have both been amazing cameras. If you can swing it I would buy the a6000 body an get the 18-105mm and sigma 30mm f1.4. With those two lenses your set. The 18-105mm is just has sharp as the ziess 16-70mm but has more reach and is great if you plan on doing video work because if it's zoom button along for smooth zooms. The sigma 30mm is the sharpest lens you can buy right now for sonys APS-C system. 

 

Now as for price I can almost guarantee that the a6000 and a6300 are not going down in price any time soon. They are making different crop sensor models to compete with canon and Nikon on their price tiers. The a6000 is now priced at the Nikon 5200 level and the a6300 is priced at the Nikon d7200 level. They needed something around the Nikon d500 level so they took the a6300 and add features people said in the reviews to give them something in a pro APS-C space of pricing. If there has been one thing I've learned from being in the Sony ecosystem is that Sony doesn't make things out of the blue because they feel they have made a mistake. They are making and pricing their products to compete with canon and Nikon and given that their new found sucses in mirorless has been taking off they are trying to build their ecosystem the best they can similar to Nikon and canon. Plus it would be bad business to release a camera like a6300 and then bring the a6500 out and drop the price ok the a6300. One it would make ur existing customers hate you and two it would make possible customers not trust you and make them not willing to buy into the premium system. Like I said Sony doesn't change their pricing much.

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 hours ago, iovey said:

I've listened to some samples from the Multi-Interface mic's, and they're not that impressive sadly. There was some pretty noticeable noise to both of them.

If you're talking about this interface, I've heard people complain about the same issues and that they needed to disable certain features in the camera such as the built in GPS. And it happens with not just these small cameras but also on the larger professional models.  But it's not that difficult to clean up noise in post though I wouldn't want to use this sort of problematic device when filming music videos where audio frequencies can be all over the map.  Dialogue recording is another matter.

 

 

It doesn't look like the A6000 has a mini jack port for a mic, looking at the photos.  The A6300 has one I think and the Panasonic G7 has one on the side.  If you only want to use one mic, use those ports.  But if you want multiple mics it is always better to use an external mixer/interface/recorder with multiple inputs and either feed the mixed audio into the camera or add them in post.

 

There is also the new Saramonic Mix-Mic Audio interface with a shotgun mic holder and dual XLR ports which feeds the audio to the camera via a mini jack cable.  I don't have one nor do I know anyone who has used one so I can't tell you anything about the quality.

http://www.saramonicusa.com/products/mixmic

 

 

7 hours ago, iovey said:

Thats super cool. Might be a little too complicated for me right now, but thats really cool.

Thank you! I think at this point I just need to decide whether stills or video is most important for me, since the a6000 seems to be the clear stills winner, and the G7 the clear video winner.

I'm not trying to push you one way or the other, just pointing out the possibilities. I focused on the video capability part because for stills photography all of the cameras mentioned are already capable in that regards and didn't think it needed saying.  For photography, the only question is which sensor size do you prefer.

[iovey]

13 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

If you're talking about this interface, I've heard people complain about the same issues and that they needed to disable certain features in the camera such as the built in GPS. And it happens with not just these small cameras but also on the larger professional models.  But it's not that difficult to clean up noise in post though I wouldn't want to use this sort of problematic device when filming music videos where audio frequencies can be all over the map.  Dialogue recording is another matter.

 

 

It doesn't look like the A6000 has a mini jack port for a mic, looking at the photos.  The A6300 has one I think and the Panasonic G7 has one on the side.  If you only want to use one mic, use those ports.  But if you want multiple mics it is always better to use an external mixer/interface/recorder with multiple inputs and either feed the mixed audio into the camera or add them in post.

 

There is also the new Saramonic Mix-Mic Audio interface with a shotgun mic holder and dual XLR ports which feeds the audio to the camera via a mini jack cable.  I don't have one nor do I know anyone who has used one so I can't tell you anything about the quality.

http://www.saramonicusa.com/products/mixmic

 

 

I'm not trying to push you one way or the other, just pointing out the possibilities. I focused on the video capability part because for stills photography all of the cameras mentioned are already capable in that regards and didn't think it needed saying.  For photography, the only question is which sensor size do you prefer.

I haven't looked at the interface unit much, just the Stereo mic that Sony sells (I can't really find much about the shotgun) (tests). The first Lav sounded okay but the rest didn't impress me much.

Also, I have a question about downscaling. I've heard that the G7/GX85 have kinda weak dynamic range, especially compared to the Sony's, but would downscaling the 8-bit 4k to 10-bit 1080p make the dynamic range and contrast better?

[iovey]

14 hours ago, thekillergazebo said:

I would say get the Sony a6000. I have both the a6000 and a6300 and they have both been amazing cameras. If you can swing it I would buy the a6000 body an get the 18-105mm and sigma 30mm f1.4. With those two lenses your set. The 18-105mm is just has sharp as the ziess 16-70mm but has more reach and is great if you plan on doing video work because if it's zoom button along for smooth zooms. The sigma 30mm is the sharpest lens you can buy right now for sonys APS-C system. 

 

Now as for price I can almost guarantee that the a6000 and a6300 are not going down in price any time soon. They are making different crop sensor models to compete with canon and Nikon on their price tiers. The a6000 is now priced at the Nikon 5200 level and the a6300 is priced at the Nikon d7200 level. They needed something around the Nikon d500 level so they took the a6300 and add features people said in the reviews to give them something in a pro APS-C space of pricing. If there has been one thing I've learned from being in the Sony ecosystem is that Sony doesn't make things out of the blue because they feel they have made a mistake. They are making and pricing their products to compete with canon and Nikon and given that their new found sucses in mirorless has been taking off they are trying to build their ecosystem the best they can similar to Nikon and canon. Plus it would be bad business to release a camera like a6300 and then bring the a6500 out and drop the price ok the a6300. One it would make ur existing customers hate you and two it would make possible customers not trust you and make them not willing to buy into the premium system. Like I said Sony doesn't change their pricing much.

That's a good point, damn. That 18-105 is a bit more than I can get right now, but the 30mm looks really good, especially for that price.

[AkiraDaarkst]

17 minutes ago, iovey said:

I haven't looked at the interface unit much, just the Stereo mic that Sony sells (I can't really find much about the shotgun) (tests). The first Lav sounded okay but the rest didn't impress me much.

Also, I have a question about downscaling. I've heard that the G7/GX85 have kinda weak dynamic range, especially compared to the Sony's, but would downscaling the 8-bit 4k to 10-bit 1080p make the dynamic range and contrast better?

I don't have any camera that records 8-bit 4K, mine natively records 4:2:2 10-bit already so can't tell you whether they improve dynamic range or contrast.  Frankly I doubt dynamic range would be improved and I usually record using LOG profiles so contrast is not a concern since I adjust it in post production.

 

Sony wireless lavs, along with Sennheiser and Lectrosonics' systems are amongst the most popular systems.  But that Sony interface can become noisy with certain features enabled in the camera.  I guess it's due to some sort of interference.