Author Topic: G80(G85) VS A6300 (Read 7428 times)

smcbuki · « **on:** June 24, 2017, 10:43 »

Hi,
I'd like to start doing stock footage and I have this dilemma...
So, G80/85 vs A6300. Which one is better and what are pros and cons for each one.
In my country, G80/85 with 12-60 lens is the same price as a6300 body - 900 euros and that happens to be my entire budget for camera body.
I have a nice collection of vintage lenses and several adapters for NEX and EOS.
Also, do you think I should start with 1080p until I purchase my new camera? I have NEX 5, Sony HX300 and Canon 100d/SL1. Canon 100d has Cinestyle flat profile and it's really good for video (with good light).
Are you recording in 4k or in 1080p? Are 4k videos good sellers or do you make them just for future proofing?
Thanks!

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2017, 11:05 »

I'll talk a bit about 4k.

Does 4k sell much?

Not that much YET. HD still sells much more. But it gets more and more common and it's nice to give your footage a longer life. I mean, how many people would buy 720p footage today unless it's totally unique? No one.

Many times filming in 4k can also save footage. If you miss focus a little bit it can still look good enough downsized to HD.

Also, if you need to stabilize, you will still get a nice sharp HD clip from your 4k original.

You can also be flexible in post with reframing etc. This is very useful if you needed a 70 mm lens for example, but you only had a 35 mm. Zoom in 200% in post and deliver a nice HD clip from the 4k original.

Chichikov · « **Reply #2 on:** June 25, 2017, 04:03 »

G85 vs A6500 (Not A6300 but A6500)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytXt2OEli44

Chichikov · « **Reply #3 on:** June 25, 2017, 04:05 »

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** June 25, 2017, 11:39 »

I would go and look at both theses cameras. I think the G80/85 would be nicer to use for video but others might disagree. I doubt there's much between them technically and it's really down to a personal preference.

lbarn · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2017, 14:29 »

I shot video and travel stills with a GH4 for 1.5 years, but felt like the travel stills were lacking with the 4/3 sensor. I recently upgraded to a A6500 which records video in 6K and saves final output at 4K and I think it is better than the GH4 with the 4/3 sensor.

The only issues with the Sony 6xxx series are it eats batteries, so you need to have many more than a panasonic or canon, and the screen is almost impossible to use in bright sunlight with a hood.

Time will tell.....

smcbuki · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2017, 20:17 »

Thank you all for your opinions on this topic.
I have already watched many YouTube videos where these two are compared, but I still cannot decide. I guess I'm closer to choosing Sony...

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2017, 04:05 »

Sony: Bigger sensors = better high ISO performance and slightly creamier stills. Better autofocus. Slightly better dynamic range.

Panasonic: Better at everything else. No overheating. Much longer battery life. Better handling, better functions. Better screen (foldout screen is not to be understimated).

The Panasonics just work with very few problems.

The Sonys can yield slightly better image quality in challenging light situations (in good light the difference might not be visible at all) but they have lots of working problems with overheating and short battery life etc.

---

I should say I am currently a Panasonic user but have gone over the differences MANY times wondering if a switch to Sony is worth it. I really, really wanted the a7S II to be the perfect camera but it just isn't...

I film mostly out in nature, and I can think of many situations where better ISO performance would've saved shots. BUT, almost EVERY single shot is easier with a good screen, good battery life, no overheating in the tropics, and quick handling of useful settings etc.

The screen alone is a game changer for me. Very often I want the camera as low as possible in tricky spots filming animals, and without a good foldout screen I simply wouldn't even see where to focus.

Filming with my Canon 5D mk III is kind of a PITA even though it creates absolutely beautiful RAW HD footage. But it's just a pain to film with because of the fixed screen and clumsy handling.

---

I'm also buying a new camera now, and it will be the GH5. 4k 60p is a game changer as it means cinematic dolly and tracking shots with a gimbal. Being able to slow 4k down to 40% means that the camera move will be slow enough for that cinematic feel. No need for a slider/dolly/crane in many situations.

smcbuki · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2017, 17:08 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on June 26, 2017, 04:05

Sony: Bigger sensors = better high ISO performance and slightly creamier stills. Better autofocus. Slightly better dynamic range.

Panasonic: Better at everything else. No overheating. Much longer battery life. Better handling, better functions. Better screen (foldout screen is not to be understimated).

The Panasonics just work with very few problems.

The Sonys can yield slightly better image quality in challenging light situations (in good light the difference might not be visible at all) but they have lots of working problems with overheating and short battery life etc.

---

I should say I am currently a Panasonic user but have gone over the differences MANY times wondering if a switch to Sony is worth it. I really, really wanted the a7S II to be the perfect camera but it just isn't...

I film mostly out in nature, and I can think of many situations where better ISO performance would've saved shots. BUT, almost EVERY single shot is easier with a good screen, good battery life, no overheating in the tropics, and quick handling of useful settings etc.

The screen alone is a game changer for me. Very often I want the camera as low as possible in tricky spots filming animals, and without a good foldout screen I simply wouldn't even see where to focus.

Filming with my Canon 5D mk III is kind of a PITA even though it creates absolutely beautiful RAW HD footage. But it's just a pain to film with because of the fixed screen and clumsy handling.

---

I'm also buying a new camera now, and it will be the GH5. 4k 60p is a game changer as it means cinematic dolly and tracking shots with a gimbal. Being able to slow 4k down to 40% means that the camera move will be slow enough for that cinematic feel. No need for a slider/dolly/crane in many situations.

A6500 can do slow motion and G85 can't. I'm still not sure if I need it.

lbarn · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2017, 19:33 »

Have you researched the focus issues with the GH5, it seems to be a problem they can't get a handle on.....

Also meant to point out that they are finding out that all cameras don't overheat, and a recent firmware patch has made the overheating less of a problem. if I usually shoot max 30 second clips, I don't think the overheating will be an issue for me.

I really like you you can use auto iso and set what is an acceptable range by setting both low and high values. It has tons of setup features to control almost every aspect and now has in camera stabilization.

smcbuki · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2017, 00:51 »

I just wanted to check in and say I opted for GX80.

I got it for 580 euros with kit lens. Quite a bargain for excellent 4k camera.
Now, there's some cash left for those nice Leica lenses.

I bought GX80 because I didn't need weather sealing of G80 (950 euros, kit), nor did I need that fully articulating screen. Sony a6300 costs about 1200 euros, kit. Almost twice as much.
I'm really satisfied with this little camera.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: G80(G85) VS A6300 (Read 7428 times)

smcbuki

increasingdifficulty

Chichikov

Chichikov

sharpshot

lbarn

smcbuki

increasingdifficulty

smcbuki

lbarn

smcbuki

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors