A6300 vs C100 - newb questions

G

Geoffc

New member
HI. I'm primarily an architectural photographer but I do shoot occasional video. I use my Nikon D810 as needed for video, but a few years back I rented a C100 for a couple videos and absolutely loved the quality. To my eyes, it looked just so much sharper than any dslr, and didn't have that dslr 'plasticky' feel to the video. Now, for my architectural videos, I'm looking for a clean look with regular saturation, besides limited DOF shots, not very cinematic, more documentary if that makes sense.

Anyway, I've been in the market for a new video camera and had my eyes on the A6300. I tried the GH4 awhile back, and it just felt too oversharpened, or 'dslr-ish' compared the the C100 footage IMHO. Again, I'm primarily a stills shooter so forgive my descriptions.

Here's my question: will the A6300 4k image, downsampled then to 1080p look as clean as the C100 footage? Or do you need to jump up to dedicated video cameras to get that feel in general? I ask because the C100's can now be had for $2k used, and I can use my Nikon glass on them (and all I need is 1080 for my projects). An A6300 + WA lens will cost me nearly as much, but will be super compact and of course new.
 
I have used both and if you plan on never taking photos get the C100. It's a video camera so you get the features of a video camera. Unless you need a small camera or 120fps video or an extra stop or 2 of DR, get the C100.
 
I have the a6300 it's great on a gimbal or locked down for short runs. I would advise against utilizing it as a general purpose video camera.
 
Thanks for the replies, C100 it is then!

I definitely don't need 120fps for my paid work. Alex, out of curiosity, you said that the A6300 might have extra DR, is this because of the S-LOG or just newer Sony sensor design? I just remember when I first used the C100 I found a lot of comparison videos between it and the 5D MKIII (II?) and they were showing how much better the C100 handled highlights, especially at night.
Thanks for the input!
 
if its anything like the A7 cameras it won't have more dr than the c100. I would go with c100 too for many reasons - and the a6300 has too many drawbacks especially in 4k - rolling shutter is awful, it overheats and the screen goes dark so you cant see what you're filming without an external monitor. And the 1080 is softer than the older a6000
 
I would consider the XC10. Even if only to write if off.

I'd say the small sensor can be an advantage: crisp images with no DOF issues for establishing shots at 27mm f2.8 (pretty wide, but no distortion). You've got lot's of picture profiles, including Canon Log and it's 4k with a great codec. Very convenient time-lapse feature too.

If you want to fly it through a house it's small and light. Kind of tucks into your normal gear bag too.
 
Blue Bomber said:
Eh, the XC10 is pretty horrible as far as 4K quality goes. Looks more like like upscaled 1080p with some weird stuff going on…
Click to expand...

So I take it you own it as well then—speaking from experience?

------------

Alan Roberts—EBU said:
The headline specifications of Sony’s tiny a6300 make great reading: S35 sensor, internal 4K recording, internal HD recording at 50 Mbps, S-Log 2 and 3 gammas, plus the option of adding a XLR audio adapter to use professional audio equipment. Specs are one thing – but just how good an image is it possible to get out of a $1000 camera?
…

Regular readers will be aware of Alan’s camera tests – they inform the EBU’s influential system of camera ‘tiers’ and are widely viewed in the television industry as the gold standard when assessing the quality of a camera’s output
.
…

The EBU groups cameras into specific tiers for both UHD and HD.In HD there are four Tiers with several subdivisions. A Tier 1 camera can be used for any HD production and the Canon C300 mkII and XC10 recently made this grade
.…

Dan Chung’s summary:

Although there have been a lot of very positive things said of the a6300 – including by us – Alan’s findings were rather sobering, to say the least.And although the camera is a great feat of miniaturisation, the results aren’t great if you want to use the a6300 for broadcast. The principal barriers are the high levels of aliasing, rolling shutter and noise (at 50% grey).The issues are visible whether shooting in UHD or HD and, interestingly, Alan suggests an external recorder doesn’t improve picture quality greatly as the camera output is only 8-bit – although it does, of course, bring workflow and monitoring enhancements.The results are likely to be comforting to owners of more expensive cameras like the C300mkII or Amira. The a6300 still has a long way to go to catch the higher end models. However, it is not a simple case of getting what you pay for. Canon’s XC10, which is not much more expensive, qualified for Tier 1 HD production,and although it didn’t meet the 4K standards due to the hardware, its noise performance did meet the criteria for both EBU Tiers of UHD.
Click to expand...

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/03/...not-suitable-for-use-in-general-broadcasting/
 
Last edited:
I would go with the C100 if what you care about most is ergonomics.
And also if you don't like Sony colors, which seems to happen to many people.

Personally, I don't mind the small-stills-camera ergonomics, and I actually like the Sony colors I get with my very specific settings. Also, I think 4K on these cameras is giving more detail than the C100 or any other 1080p camera. It's not just perfect-sharpness 1080p, it's also perfect-sharpness-1080p even after reframing a bit. The DR advantage over the C100 is clear if you're using slog2, measurable if you're using cine4, and not a big deal if you use the more standard gamma curves.

This is the kind of detail I get from my little toy RX100 IV, which should be very close to the a6300 at low ISO (it's also doing a full-sensor readout with proper downsampling). And this is the kind of image I get straight out of the camera (that's an a7S but I get the same results from the RX100 iV; the a6300 can use those settings too, but it also has sgamut3.cine which should be even better) (just add these curves to that and you get a finished image).
 
Samuel H said:
I would go with the C100 if what you care about most is ergonomics.
And also if you don't like Sony colors, which seems to happen to many people.

Personally, I don't mind the small-stills-camera ergonomics, and I actually like the Sony colors I get with my very specific settings. Also, I think 4K on these cameras is giving more detail than the C100 or any other 1080p camera. It's not just perfect-sharpness 1080p, it's also perfect-sharpness-1080p even after reframing a bit. The DR advantage over the C100 is clear if you're using slog2, measurable if you're using cine4, and not a big deal if you use the more standard gamma curves.

This is the kind of detail I get from my little toy RX100 IV, which should be very close to the a6300 at low ISO (it's also doing a full-sensor readout with proper downsampling). And this is the kind of image I get straight out of the camera (that's an a7S but I get the same results from the RX100 iV; the a6300 can use those settings too, but it also has sgamut3.cine which should be even better) (just add these curves to that and you get a finished image).
Click to expand...

Very interesting thoughts Samuel, now I'm thinking of simply renting both for an upcoming project this week in lieu of buying a used C100.

I'm not concerned with ergonomics for the most part, all of my work is slow deliberate movements on a tripod or slider. I actually had high hopes for the A6300 even as a stills shooter when it was first announced; although the level of clarity and detail on the Nikons' still images are mostly unmatched by other cameras, I do tire of carrying a full frame camera around with large lenses for quick, lower paid shoots. I once had a GH2 years back for video work, but abhorred its still images. I also had hopes of using the A6300 for drone work on the upcoming Pro-Drone Byrd, but if the rolling shutter issues are that bad, I don't see how I could use it for flying architectural videos.
 
Its funny this thread popped up, I just sold my C100 and picked up a 6300 to go with my Raven. I loved the ergonomics but the lack of high frame rates and 4K had me getting rid of it. I also have access to a C100 so it just made sense to grab a B-cam that can do 4K and if you add in an external recorder 4K prores.
 
Geoffc said:
Thanks for the replies, C100 it is then!

I definitely don't need 120fps for my paid work. Alex, out of curiosity, you said that the A6300 might have extra DR, is this because of the S-LOG or just newer Sony sensor design? I just remember when I first used the C100 I found a lot of comparison videos between it and the 5D MKIII (II?) and they were showing how much better the C100 handled highlights, especially at night.
Thanks for the input!
Click to expand...

On paper the C100 claims 12 stops and the A6300 claims 14, but I don't think you will notice much difference.

As others have said, the 4K out of this camera is amazing. It's actually captured at 6K then squeezed into 4K. It seems like overkill but it looks great.
 
Blue Bomber said:
Eh, the XC10 is pretty horrible as far as 4K quality goes. Looks more like like upscaled 1080p with some weird stuff going on:
Click to expand...

If there is any movement the A6300 will come up worse. The codec will destroy all that fine detail that looks great in still shots. The XC10 maintains it's detail level well with motion because the codec has way more bitrate and robustness, especially with colors.
 
You can use an external recorder if that worries you too much, but really, I'd have to see a side-by-side test because I'm not convinced (XAVC-S is much better tech, it may do just as well with lower bitrate).
 
The two cameras are very different. The a6300 as a main camera with the overheating issue makes it unreliable. Hopefully Sony can fix this in an update.

The C100 evf is the worst. I struggled with mine and used a external monitor for it but shooting outside was always scary.

Might be better to save some more cash and get the c100 mkii or Sony FS5. You will be much better off.
 
Last edited:
C100 with the alphatron or other equivalent evf is the better pairing. The a6300 will probably be able to handle your needs as your images will usually be of stagnate items, but you never know if you could benefit from having a proper film camera in the future. Once word gets out you now do video it could bring more money or interested parties. Even if you don't, it has the ability to direct in audio (even if it is through an odd handle) you never know when having a camera that does film and audio will come in handy. Think awesome, brother/cousin/dad to the rescue and help me in the clutch on this project/idea.

As with all things, dont forget proper lenses and especially lights.

Btw, unrelated really but the 5D3 with ml raw really does sound like a winner to fit your particular needs. It really does output some glorious stuff, but at the same or similar cost as a c100.
 
I'm sure these small cameras are far from fitting the needs of a lot of users, but don't forget about price either. The alphatron costs about as much as an a6300.
 
Geoffc said:
Very interesting thoughts Samuel, now I'm thinking of simply renting both for an upcoming project this week in lieu of buying a used C100.

I'm not concerned with ergonomics for the most part, all of my work is slow deliberate movements on a tripod or slider. I actually had high hopes for the A6300 even as a stills shooter when it was first announced; although the level of clarity and detail on the Nikons' still images are mostly unmatched by other cameras, I do tire of carrying a full frame camera around with large lenses for quick, lower paid shoots. I once had a GH2 years back for video work, but abhorred its still images. I also had hopes of using the A6300 for drone work on the upcoming Pro-Drone Byrd, but if the rolling shutter issues are that bad, I don't see how I could use it for flying architectural videos.
Click to expand...

If you'll be doing lots of slider shots (or gimbal shots) then the smaller size of the A6300 (especially with a nice pancake lens! Such as the Sony 20mm f2.8 which I own) will be a big advantage over the C100.

Only get the C100 if you really really REALLY want XLR inputs & internal ND filters, otherwise the C100 is a bit of a sh*t camera which is overpriced vs the Sony, BMD, Samsung, or Panasonic options.

The other option is just buy yourself a Nikon D750 (or even D5500/D7200/D500) for video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLPiXmi7wOE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QnyKZSUcL8
(the fact he compares its dynamic range with the Blackmagic cameras, which are right up there with the very best dynamic range, is very impressive)


make sure you watch this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMM17DZyrQA

http://www.gunpowdervideo.com/2015/12/28/nikon-d750-first-impressions-evolving-review/

I like Andrew Reid's blog, but remember this is just a first impressions from when it was announced before he got to actually use it properly:
http://www.eoshd.com/2014/09/nikon-d750-video-quality-step-forward-much-one/

More detailed review:
http://www.eoshd.com/2014/09/nikon-...eal-world-footage-ladies-gentleman-contender/
 
Last edited:
for some time i don't follow this thing of new camera new sensor much.
Architecture seems tricky. I mostly don't care...any camera is good enough these days
But architecture, you know better than me, is more sensitive to little shortcomings
Rent and check the troublesome bits, if that's good enough , a small camera is a bless ...i assume it will have some shortcomings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top