Sony EA50 vs NEX-5n

Richard Allen Crook

Richard Allen Crook

Well-known member
I want to use my Sony NEX-5n as a "b-cam" to my EA50. I decided to match picture profiles so they edit together seamlessly. First some of the differences between the two cameras.

1) Resolution. The resolution between the two cams is identical. I don't see any "extra processing" done in the EA50 over the 5n.
2) Noise. They both have the same bitrate (28mbps) and the artifacts and noise levels are identical (with matching profiles).
3) Field of View. The 5n has a wider field of view. Super 35mm vs APS-c.
4) Native ISO. The ISOs are identical in brightness.
5) Dynamic Range. It looks as though the 5n actually has about 1 stop MORE dynamic range. But this is ONLY BECAUSE we can adjust the gamma curve differently than on the EA50. When you go -3 on contrast on the 5n, you are flattening out the gamma curve, pulling more information off the sensor than you can on the EA50, which does not have this feature. You can adjust the top and low ends (knee and black gamma) but you can't actually flatten it out as much as the 5n, giving the 5n an edge in this area.
6) Record Times. The 5n OVERHEATS after only about 5-10 minutes of continuous video recording. I actually place a Radio Shack fan on the back of the camera and the problem went away. But even with the overheating problem solved, you still only get 30 minutes of continuous shooting before it stops recording.
7) Tools. The 5n does not have zebras. It really has just about all the other visual tools that the EA50 has - including peaking, histogram, focus assist. The 5n also has a meter that is common on still cameras which the EA50 does not.
8) Ergonomics. The ea50 wins all across the board. Actually it's better than the Red Epic, Sony Fs100/700, and F3/F5/F55. Perfect size/weight for run n gun shoots plus the eyepiece is in the right place without all the rigging necessary for other cameras.

MATCHING THE PROFILES:
I wanted a profile that requires some minor grading in post and also perfectly match the two cameras. Here are the profiles:

Sony NEX-5N
Profile: Standard
Contrast: -2
Saturation: -1
Sharpness: +1
Turn off HDR

Sony NEX-EA50
Black Level: 0
Gamma: ITU709
Black Gamma: Low, +7
Knee: Manual, 80%, -3
Color Mode: Standard, 8
Color Level: -1
Color Phase: 0
Color Depth, All 0
WB Shift: All 0
Detail: +3, Manual On, Type3, Limit 7
 
Last edited:
Interesting thing.

The two cameras share the same sensor.

As I had both of them, I never used them with detail/sharpness cranked up. In my opinion this makes the aliasing/moire even more pronounced.
I always kept it down at -2 to -5 depending on the post workflow.
 
Adding sharpening in camera is always preferred over adding it in post. Adding sharpening in post to a very compressed image will make noise, moire, and artifacts more pronounced. Adding it in-camera sharpens the image coming from the sensor before it is encoded into AVCHD.

Adding sharpening is very subjective but I found that a light bit of sharpening does wonders without it looking artificial. The main point I'm making is that if one would like to sharpen the image, it is best to do it in-camera.
 
Okay.

My experience is that sharpening in camera stresses the AVCHD codec even more because it has more details to code and pack into the 24MBit. Thats why I see less detailed footage gernerally cleaner than digitally oversharpened (which in my eyes most of the digital footage is).

Sharpening in post, which I rarely do, has much more options and processing power to do it exactly as I need it. For example architecture and landscape wides often need some extra sharpening, portraits or fast movements usually don't. When I want to sharpen up in post, I extract the luma from the chroma channel and sharpen up just the luma one. Np artifacts, no noise...
 
Changing the picture profiles doesn't do anything to the compression process QUALITY. If it added any sort of "stress" to the process, it would be the time it takes to process the AVCHD file. Adding ANY sort of color in-camera is very much less destructive (actually it isn't destructive at all because the image is processed before its written as an AVCHD file to the card) than coloring in post. This goes for sharpening as well.

If you increase the sharpening in post to a scene that has noise in the image, the noise will be considerably more noticiable. If you were to shoot the same scene but with sharpening increased in the camera, the noise will be considerably less noticeable.

Check out this video. This is something I shot out our window, quick and dirty, but the difference is obvious. (Starts with the image scales 400% and then ends with 600%):


To keep this thread on track, I'm perfectly aware that the sharpening/no sharpening (along with any other profile details) is very subjective and feel free to lower the detail level if you prefer. I just wanted to share how to match these two cameras in case anyone else out there has them both like me. The cool thing is that the 5n seems to be the perfect B-cam to the EA50, and they are relatively cheap cameras. :)
 
Last edited:
It really is. I sort of wish the EA50 had a "contrast" setting like the 5n does, because I love the look I get when the contrast it at -3 on the 5n.
 
Yes, the codec is exactly the same. Same bit rate as well. As far as grading I would say it's plagued with the same issues like banding and aliasing similar to the Canon DSLRs. AVCHD is unique in that it taxes the editing system a little more when you add the grading effects due to it being more compressed (but a more efficient compression).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top