Does anyone here do mostly movies/vids? I've been thinking

>>2837219

There's a thread called /vid/, post there.

>>2837220
ok

This was shot with that camera and it looks fuckin great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO-mEcsJ31k

>>2837219
Sony fanboy here. I'm trying to be objective though. The a6300 is a pretty good choice. It does 120fps at full HD 1080p, and 4k up to 30fps. Not to mention it offers slog 2 and slog 3, for good color grading. Although it might not offer a ton of native lenses, you can always adapt a wide variety of lenses to work with it.

If you want, you can ask me anything, I've been working professionally as a videographer for 5 years now.

>>2837265
I always thought shilling wasnt real

>>2837265
Not OP, but since the a6300's screen doesn't rotate, what's the cheapest and most compact monitor setup for self-recording?

>>2837269
Can you name another interchangable lens camera that does 4k with slog (or something similar)? Why would you think me talking positively about a camera is shilling?

Of course there are downfalls to the camera, but every camera has it's weakness.

>>2837274
I know you can use the internal wifi so you can actually use your smartphone sort of as a monitor.

>>2837219
>$1000
>not even 4k
a6300
g7
gx85
gx8
nx500

pick 1

>>2837265
do you pop up the lcd, strap a heatsink with a fan and use a dummy battery with external battery to offload the heat?
does it burn your hands?

>>2837265
>a6300
That looks really nice.

They look to be about the same price range as the BMPCC

is there any advantages the BMPCC has over the A6300?

>>2837288
No, I put my dick on it, so at least your mom can have a warm dinner

>>2837304
Yeah, there are a few. I believe the BMPCC has a native canon mount, the rolling shutter is not as bad, and the a6300 does have issues with overheating sometimes. Those are just things you'd have to think about, but it really is a great camera

>>2837219

I have one of these and it is awesome, however I wouldn't recommend it to beginners.

-in camera sound is useless
-batteries burn fast
-prores files need to be color corrected and graded in post
-you need lots of fast SD cards
-you need to be good at manual white balance
-even with focus peaking, the rear screen is tough to use in daylight

If you know how to deal with these issues, the camera makes beautiful shots and I love using it. If you don't want to deal with all the quirks, get any used dslr or mirrorless and be ready to run and gun right away.

>>2837219
>looked it up
14.3mm diagonal sensor size, 7mm total area. you can fit 4 of them in the space of an APS-C crop sensor. And a little Micro Four Thirds sensor is twice the area.

It's hilarious to me that it is smaller than Micro Four Thirds and they have to advertise you can use the center of the image of a MFT lens on their teeny weeny sensor.
That means the depth of field will be non-existent.
A F1.8 lens on that midget sensor gets the same DoF as a F5.44 on full frame and it gets substantially worse if you use any of the slower lenses on it.

>>2837240
>this looks great
>their demonstration of the video is ugly and in 720p and not even 1080p
Comedy gold.

>>2837286
>G7

>4k video
>full HD in 50fps
>still a good photocam
>just 700€
>technically a smaller, cheaper GH4
Yes, the Blackmagic sets itself to be a "cinema camera" but can only do 30 FPS, which is pathetic.
40-60fps just look better and IMHO provide a better jump in quality from 1080p 30fps than upping to 4K but remaining at 30fps
So few people yet have devices to view 4k but all have devices to view 30+fps. Only large screens like TVs even lend themselves to 4K or 8K simply because of the dpi.
I believe that 48fps cinema will come. Filmmakers will just have to adapt to it. Maybe a fantasy movie with lots of props and fightscenes wasn't the ideal ground to test the new format, because the choreography and prop-making has adapted only to the point that the shitty 24fps hides the flaws in their props, so those flaws get uncovered by 48fps
Youtube does 60fps. A modern camera should be able to too

I was initially enchanted by the BMPCC because of its sleek design and its marketing and its huge touchscreen, but there is no downside to just getting any other MFT DSLM
Both the GH4 and the GX8 are suitable substitutes. If you want a pricerange below, get the a6300 or the G7

>>2837731
didn't mean to put the a6300 in the same price category as the G7

File: 1449837301547.jpg (115KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x472px

>>2837731

>touchscreen

>>2837304
The BMPCC can shoot raw if I'm correct. On sony you're stuck with compressed MP4 with slog.

>>2837314
>>2837810
BMPCC doesn't have a native Canon mount but it has a M43 mount which makes it easy to adapt anything to it, A6300 is mirrorless so more of less the same thing. I feel the BMPCC has better color science and when shooting RAW it really allows manipulation of the colors. Dynamic range is much better than Sony

>>2837743
>implying touch screen is not useful

>>2837810
if you want raw video, just get an eos m.
not 1080p though for raw.

>>2837265
>and 4k up to 30fps

As opposed to 25fps? Pretty sure every other 4K camera on the market can do 30fps

>>2837265
no mention of rolling shutter, mushy, cropped 120fps, horrible color rendering, can barely record 4K before overheating

a6300 is a dope as fuck camera, don't get me wrong. But it's not as good as you think

File: C0002.00_00_11_01.Still001.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>2837856
Just clarifying, that's all. Some people need 30fps, its pretty common

>>2837865
I have the a6300 and I did mention the rolling shutter in one of the posts. Yeah, it's not a perfect camera, but it's great, especially for $1000. The color rendering is pretty irrelevant when you use slog or do any sort of color correction. Not sure what horrible color rendering you're talking about though.

Pic related is a freeze frame of slog 2 graded

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:05:11 18:52:55

File: C0009.MP4.01_43_44_03.Still001.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>2837884
Here's the before.

I made a custom LUT in photoshop and imported it to premier

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:05:11 18:53:58

>>2837884
>I've been thinking about getting a camera to start making vids.
>slog

Beginners should start with a camera that does good color rendering out of the box. So ... not Sony.

Overheating is also an issue for 4K and the mode that it can reliably record in, 1080p, is very mushy.

It's the best low-light camera for the money but it has some really serious shortcomings that tilt things in favor of Panasonic.

I don't know if OP needs 30fps. It's bog standard. 60fps 4K, now that would be worth talking about if it were in a camera this cheap.

>>2837907
Yeah, good point. I didn't even think about the slog not being needed for most people.

Very true, the panasonic is great, especially for people just getting into it. I'm just not sure how capable/incapable OP is

Cheapish "cinematic" cameras like the BMPCC, BMCC, A7S are great, but you'll still run into the same limitations of not shooting on a dedicated video camera.

You're better off working to the point that your 5D is no longer adequate and then spending the money on an FS7 or C300.

>>2837219
Don't "start" making videos on a Pocket Cinema Camera because you will hate it

Is the A6300 worth 2x the price of the A6000?

does the A6000 take shitty video?

>>2837219
Yes. And no. Because you'll spend much more than $1000 by the time you have a dozen batteries and chargers, a rig, and glass worth shooting video on.

For starters I'd get either a sony rx10 or fz1000

>>2838225
A6000 takes great footage.
The 2x price bump is hard to quantify truly. I would've thought around 800.

>>2838367
>>2838225
I think the a6000 is underpriced. It's a great camera, especially for like 500-600$. I think the price of the a6300 is justified

>>2837855
>ML raw
>Better than true cinemaDNG raw
The BMPCC is better for raw since it was actually meant to record it and doesn't output a format that requires stupid workflow workarounds.

>>2837283
Gh4?
It doesn't overheat and the batteries don't last 10minutes

>>2837855

the pocket camera doesn't have a touchscreen, anon

>>2839531
It doesn't have an slog type profile, and not to mention it's a micro 4/3s sensor, has worse image quality, and worse low light.

But it is a good camera, no doubt

Get an used mark 3 and install magic lantern for uncrompressed 14 bit video.

>>2839648
Does v-log not exist? Also, if you output to an external recorder, it gives you a better image than an a6k or a6.3k, not to mention the ProRes will hold up a lot better to harsh grading than Sony's Mp4 will. Also, unless you're doing doco, low light shouldn't be that big of a problem, since narrative is usually properly lit if you know what you're doing.

>>2839648
The IQ is worse in stills but in video they're the same or the gh4 even has the edge. The low light is worse, but it also has cheap 0.95 lenses.
>hurr what is vlog I've never shot video before

>>2837219
just get a GH4
I thought I could do better and it was a mistake

>>2837286
What about the x-t10?

>>2842089
>Fuji in the video thread
Nope. Fuji video is straight up bad. The best they have is the XPro2, and it's a major improvement over the rest of the line. The reviewers who bothered to check it out said "Well, it's not quite as bad as the other Fujis" which was about as nice as they could be.

Fuji bodies don't have the processing power to handle it, so they have really low bit rates, lots of compression artifacts, moire, etc.

Supposedly, the X-T2 will offer 4K, but if it has the same hardware as the XPro2, it won't compete. The only draw I've heard people mention is that you get the nice film profiles in the video, so it can get around time consuming grading if you don't feel like doing that.

>>2842096
It seems odd to me that most good video-DSLM/R-cameras are MFT
Is it because the depth-sharpness means you have shorter focus times?

>>2842285
I'm not sure if that's true, as there are many great video cams that are not MFT (and many MFT cams that are bad at video)

Generally, you don't judge a camera's video capabilities by their sharpness and focus times, you do it based on the bitrate of the footage, and the amount of information that ends up in the final image. Fuji cameras compress the footage heavily, and code it badly, because doing it better takes a lot more processing power, which the bodies don't have. Think of it like handwriting. The faster you try to write, the sloppier your writing gets. You make the sacrifice for the speed. Something like an A7s (which is very nice for video) would be like a guy who's really good at writing quickly, so his writing doesn't get as sloppy, and he's making less compromises.

>>2837935
Y