GH4 GH4 vs A6300 vs BMCC

[sgttom]

Considering the price difference between the GH4 and the Sony, you could also afford some fast lenses, or some new lighting. So I'm still thinking low light capability should probably not be a factor for your type of work.

Where you need that most is event work, where you have no control over lighting.

Yes and I don't do event work. Both cameras are around the same price, GH4 seems to be a bit more at most places.

I've found that max iso really depends on the scene and profile you're shooting in. I have used iso 2250 with success when the whole scene is lit and you can use it to get the histogram to bump to the right of center. If your scene is very dark and the histogram is all to the left of center, 400 iso is max.

On a secondary note, cineV profile helps a lot with super dark scenes. If the subject is lit but the bulk of the scene is dark, it will crush to black all the dark area and allocate most of the cams resources to the well lit part of the scene. I use cineV, iso 1600 1/30th of a second shutter and a lens with an f/1.4 or f/1.7 aperture all the time in dark scenes with great results.

Thirdly, the GH4 requires super fast lenses when shooting in 4K mode to get shallow enough depth of field. It has a heavy 2.49x crop in 4K UHD mode and for my taste it requires a max aperture of f/1.7 to get separation and what I consider a pleasing cinematic image. I pretty much shoot everything with three lenses now a days. The 15mm f/1.7 on a stabilizer and for wide shots. The 42.5mm f/1.7 for portrait head shot type work and a 100-300 to bring in the wildlife action I most often shoot.

Just some of my thoughts on how to get the best out of the GH4

Cheers,
Pete

Really good advice man! Especially the advice on using CineV. I always shoot with a speedbooster to get a shallower DOF. I try to keep the F-stop as low as possible.

Have you considered buying a good light kit and not worrying about low light as much? If you are doing more scripted type of productions you really should be using lights anyway. At that point the whole low light thing becomes not as necessary of a feature and the GH4 moves way ahead to the front of the pack. The price of the a6300 can buy a pretty decent light kit.

Some cinema cameras are actually horrible in low light even though they may have a super 35mm sensor. RED for example is not all that great compared to a GH4.

Low light is of course important for certain types of projects but no amount of sensor sensitivity can make up for good lighting to give a scene depth and make the colors and contrast pop. Honestly I would take a GH4 with a solid professional light kit over a a6300 with no lights any day for productions where you have the ability and time to light. Run&gun is a different story but even then as others have pointed out the rolling shutter is so bad on the a6300 that you may not want to use it for that type of work anyway.

weddings (indoor with no chance to use lights)- a6300
weddings (outdoor or using an on-camera light) - GH4
documentaries (heavy candid location based) - a6300
documentaries (interview based) - GH4
Cinematic productions - GH4
Corporate videos - GH4
Lectures, seminars - a6300 (because a slower zoom lens will benefit from the faster sensor. Zooms are where the GH4 suffers)

Basically my rule of thumb is if you can shoot with just primes and use lights then the GH4 all the way. If you can't help but use zooms and have restrictions of not being able to use lights then a larger sensor camera could handle the situation a bit better. I'm not talking just choosing not to use lights but a real restriction from the client or location to not be able to use lights. I have even used lights in a bar to shoot a band. The only time I cringe using a GH4 is for a lecture type video from the back of a room where I have to use a super zoom lens. That is where the GH4 really hurts.

I think I am going to go with the GH4. I do have some light to work with. I've spent about $1000 if not more on lighting stuff so far.

I guess the appeal of the A6300 is doing outside night shooting, where lighting can be more difficult to pull off, especially if its in a more open area, or a rural area.

It depends on the glass used, but if I'm using the Sigma 18-35 with speedbooster, I max out at ISO 1600 with V-Log and a low key scene. Using portrait, I can go up to ISO 2000.

I've never actually used portrait before, always shoot on CineD.

 

[Jim Simon]

GH4 seems to be a bit more at most places.

Sorry, I was thinking A7s for some reason. (Which is about double the GH4.)

 

[sgttom]

Sorry, I was thinking A7s for some reason. (Which is about double the GH4.)

I'd probably get an A7II if I could afford it. Rolling shutter is worse then the GH4 but its not as bad as the A6300.

 

[stabwound]

when people say they don't find rolling shutter a problem, because they don't do a lot of Swish Panning, they miss out one important aspect of rolling shutter head aches:

Vibration induced shimmer in the image.... especially with long telephotos.

At first I thought the shimmer was due to hot atmospheric air that is apparent when using telephotos. But I realized the shimmering was caused by my hand held jitter. I was using the Gh2 with manual lenses at that time, which had no stabilizers.

Even when the camera was on a tripod, vibrations from passing cars or wind will cause a small jello effect.

I am currently using the Samsung NX1 (which is rated near the bottom for Rolling Shutter for 4K) right now with the stablized 50-150 S zoom lens, so the problem is minimized.

My next purchase is probably an internally stabilized Gh5, or a a6300 that is stabilized, as I have a whole bunch of legacy lenses.

 

[sgttom]

when people say they don't find rolling shutter a problem, because they don't do a lot of Swish Panning, they miss out one important aspect of rolling shutter head aches:

Vibration induced shimmer in the image.... especially with long telephotos.

At first I thought the shimmer was due to hot atmospheric air that is apparent when using telephotos. But I realized the shimmering was caused by my hand held jitter. I was using the Gh2 with manual lenses at that time, which had no stabilizers.

Even when the camera was on a tripod, vibrations from passing cars or wind will cause a small jello effect.

I am currently using the Samsung NX1 (which is rated near the bottom for Rolling Shutter for 4K) right now with the stablized 50-150 S zoom lens, so the problem is minimized.

My next purchase is probably an internally stabilized Gh5, or a a6300 that is stabilized, as I have a whole bunch of legacy lenses.

Wait does the A6300 have internal stabilization?

I always shoot with non stabilized lenses. Though I never do handheld.