a6300 news

I haven't read the last couple of pages here but I'll post the RS numbers (macgregor sent me some pretty nice RS tests):

a7r II 1080p 24fps APS-C - 10.5 ms (11.0-10.0)
a7r II 4K 24fps APS-C - 33.3 ms (35.6-32.2-32.8-35.3-32.6-31.1)
a6300 1080p 24fps - 15.2ms (15.8-14.6)
a6300 4K 24fps - 39.0ms (39.2-38.9)

That's literally the slowest rolling shutter I've ever measured. I repeated every measurement twice very carefully because I just couldn't believe the numbers.

Also: I always try to shy away from measuring RS from random videos (i.e. anything that is not actually a rolling shutter test, shot properly and on sticks). Now you can see why: my preliminary measurement for the a6300 was "between 18 and 27 ms" or something like that. Way off, it turns out.
 
Last edited:
Too many pixels apparently. They should have made a 12mp camera. Now all we need is a proper camera combining a6300 AF, FS5 electronic ND and IBIS. :)
 
macgregor said:
Lets see if you guys can help me on this one.

With the sony alpha cameras the moment you format a card, the files structure gets reset. C0001.mp4 ... etc
Is there a way in these cameras to avoid having duplicate names on each card/camera? with long projects it's a mess.
And if there is nothing, do you know any free software for quickly renaming bulks of files?
thanks
Click to expand...
No idea if it will work on this one, but I've seen people do the following on older models: after you format the card, shoot a short video, put the card on a computer, and rename that file to 1000 or whatever you want. The next file went on counting from there.
 
So the two low lights are.

HD is somewhat soft.
Rolling Shutter is pretty bad

How's 120 FPS IQ. I think I was reading it was also a little soft?
 
Somebody here said: 1080p24 and 1080p60 slightly softer than expected but not horrible, 1080p120 just a bit softer than those.
 
After seeing the tests Macgregor put up regarding 1080p shooting and detail settings, I would say the 1080p from the camera with detail around 0 instead of the default -7 was plenty nice. The only downside for me is the RS in 4k. If one is not shooting handheld very often I would say it would be a non-issue. Which is kind of how I would be using the camera - a SDOF interview type camera to go with my Canon lenses via Metabones.
 
To each his/her own. I'm sure this will be a fantastic camera for many people, accomplishing exactly what they need. Speaking just for myself and nobody else, after looking at the videos, especially Macgregor's - I'm going to pass on this camera. I know it's only $1K, but I'd rather put this $1K toward something that matches my needs more closely, than spend it on a camera that "comes close but no cigar" (for me). As I wrote in another thread, I was super intrigued by the promise of the first real usable AutoFocus for video - I've always gone manual, as to me, for narrative work, the AF on all cameras that I have ever tried never even came close to being natural. Yet, people were saying "no, the AF on the a6300 is something else, it's totally the bomb, it really works in video". I was skeptical, but curios - skeptical, because all such promises wrt. AF in video have always fallen short. Anyhow, the tests uploaded by Macgregor have confirmed my skepticism - nope, AF in video is still not ready for prime time... maybe it's OK for Run'n'Gun, event, sports docus etc., but it's a far, FAR cry from adequate for sensitive narrative work. Now, I understand you can't expect miracles from 3rd party lenses or lenses that go through an adapter, but the tests show Sony lenses being just as bad in AF here. This simply won't do insofar as the time it takes to acquire focus - that would kill the shot in narrative work for me. Now, I'm willing to live with manual focus, but I was intrigued by the claims about the AF in the a6300 because if it really worked, I'd love to use it on a gimbal. As is it doesn't work for my purposes, so there is really no reason for me to get this cam - since the promised outstanding feature of AF is a bust (for me), and then you get to the real downside of RS and nothing really going for it like the IBIS or super low light performance of an A7Sii, and I have no need for this cam - I'd rather go for the A7Sii, which is $3K, true, but at least I'm not wasting $1K on something that doesn't cut it. Again, everyone's needs are different, but for me, the a6300 is a big pass.
 
I am okay with my Sony A6000 for stills.

I am trying to decide whether I am willing to give up my $500 Panasonic G7 (with faster and more lenses), and /or my $425 Samsung NX500 to buy an A6300 for video.

Not sure yet.....
 
Samuel H said:
I haven't read the last couple of pages here but I'll post the RS numbers (macgregor sent me some pretty nice RS tests):

a7r II 1080p 24fps APS-C - 10.5 ms (11.0-10.0)
a7r II 4K 24fps APS-C - 33.3 ms (35.6-32.2-32.8-35.3-32.6-31.1)
a6300 1080p 24fps - 15.2ms (15.8-14.6)
a6300 4K 24fps - 39.0ms (39.2-38.9)

That's literally the slowest rolling shutter I've ever measured. I repeated every measurement twice very carefully because I just couldn't believe the numbers.

Also: I always try to shy away from measuring RS from random videos (i.e. anything that is not actually a rolling shutter test, shot properly and on sticks). Now you can see why: my preliminary measurement for the a6300 was "between 18 and 27 ms" or something like that. Way off, it turns out.
Click to expand...
maybe this is why it doesnt overheat :\ wis theyd push it a bit more to acceptable RS
 
^ Exactly what I was going to say, as an answer to the question about improving RS with firmware: it can be done, either by using a crop (in this case, going from 1.5x to 2.25x would probably lead to a RS of 26ms) or by making the sensor work at a higher MHz (which isn't likely to create such big gains and will probably bring overheating back).
 
Always a tradeoff when you are pushing the limits.

On a side note - A question about Metabones adapters. I own Canon f4 zooms. Which is a better approach - Speedbooster with the f4 lenses or normal adapter and buy f2.8 lenses? I have never used a Speedbooster but this option is cheaper than buying lenses!

Any drawbacks to using the Speedbooster?

Thanks.
 
Regarding the Macgregor video, my conclusion is: if most of your shots involve a moving camera with tall pillars visible in every shot, this might not be the perfect camera for you. However, with an attractive model like this, we are probably the only people looking at the angle of the columns. For most of us (not all), this is a great little camera. And an excellent B camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top