These are notes I took in in April 2021 while researching the field, for purchase of a new camera.
I was (am) new to this entire field so if you spot any errors, let me know and I’ll be happy to fix them.
My requirements are, loosely:
- should last at least 5y
- using it for filming, only
- <£2k absolute total
N.B.: They shot Tangerine on an iPhone 5, so don’t worry too much about gear. (Or perhaps the lesson is to worry about anamorphic lenses??! :D)
Optimised for photography.
A camera optimised for photography, with a mirror in front of the sensor. You can see the real image coming into the lens, through the viewfinder. With your own eye. Directly.
This is utterly pointless for videos, but some people like it for photography.
Optimised for photography.
No mirror, so the image always directly hits the sensor. The viewfinder is an LCD screen (even the small one at eye height must be an LCD screen).
Its main advantage over DSLRs is size. Less mechanical clutter getting between the lens and the sensor.
People buy these with the intent to use them primarily for film, so they’ve become a bit dual purpose. It causes confusion of features, as photography and cinema have some fundamental differences in their use: photography wants small, compact, with grip on the side, camera in front of your face, etc. Cinema wants large, wide top and side grip, fully articulated viewfinder, etc.
Optimised for filming.
These are ergonomically ideal.
Seems pretty clearly a no.
- all the Specs you need for video
- no swappable lenses
- no swappable lenses :)
- no bokeh / dof
- lower quality
- smaller sensor -> poor low light performance, lower quality, etc
Very cool! I’m in love with these bad boys. Unfortunately, the good ones are expensive, and the cheap ones are shit. There is no “prosumer” category, only amateur and professional.
This is essentially the video equivalent of prosumer DSLR/mirrorless photo cameras, like the ɑ7iii etc.
- all the features you could want, and more. hot shoe, cold shoe, lens filters, xlr input, decent built-in mic, audio monitor, flip screens, record onto ssd drives, bare battery connector (meaning you can mount large ones), and on and on and on.
- good quality
- very good in-body stabilisation
- very limited offering for prosumers
- heavy, bulky
- the only good candidates are from 2010. this is getting too old now.
It seems like this category peaked in the early 2010s. Sony got out of the game, unfortunately! I am sorely disappointed. They made the perfect camcorder, with an e-mount (!).
This is the big stuff. The only remotely affordable cameras are old, out of date gear. Still a great option, and better than a new camera for the same price, it seems.
- All of the advantages of the swappable lens category, with even more features.
- insane picture quality. A 10yo cinema camera blows a new DSLR out of the water.
- Second hand old ones are affordable
- insanely bulky
- requires a lot of extra gear. Monitor, battery, mount, etc. You’re slowly building a real set.
- that makes the total price more expensive
- and even more bulky
- and unwieldy, because you have to manage it all
- and you don’t have any cool prosumer utility features, like AF or app or anything
This is not for self tapes or guerilla run & gun shooting. This is for a set. Cool, but know what you’re getting into.
Features to watch out for:
- autofocus (!) - noise & quality. (Also seems dependent on lens?)
- mic jack
- Continuous power
- unlimited runtime filming
- flip out screen
Don’t forget to check:
- connection type (?)
- doesn’t overheat
- clean HDMI, i.e. no diagnostics on the vid out (or do we have usbc vid out, now?)
For Continuous power: Sony models can use this fake battery: https://www.amazon.com/AC-PW20-Coupler-Replacement-NP-FW50-DSC-RX10/dp/B078ZW7DJ5/ to power continuously. Good for indoor shooting.
In-body stabilisation is unnecessary if you use a gimbal.
Electronic gimbals blow in-body stabilisation out of the water. They’re at least $400.
You also have mechanical stabilisers (steadycams) for around $40 which give v decent quality shots. Definitely worth it. They require more skill to operate.
YT: The School of Photography - Image Stabiliser vs Pro Gimbal (in-body vs gimbal) YT: NigelBarros - Cheap Stabilizer vs Gimbal (steadycam vs gimbal) YT: Andyax - Good & Affordable Steadicam (Yelangu s60t)
Conclusion: in-body stabilisation is not important to me.
Sony models in age:
Sony ɑ5100 no
- $313 in 2020 2nd hand
- overheats when internally recording
- no mic input
- it’s a classic for streamers
No: Too old, cheap, not good for internal recording.
Sony a7iii no
- full frame sensor
- no real time AF with eye tracking
- 30min limit
- only tilt screen, no flip at all (and does it work with a tripod?)
- larger body
No: too expensive, a7c is better.
Sony a7c no
- full frame sensor
- real time AF with eye tracking
- no recording limit
- flip out screen
- smaller body
No: too expensive
Fujifilm X-T4 no
- good AF
No: too expensive
Panasonic GH4 no
- andyax is a fan apparently
No: too old, poor autofocus.
Canon t8i no
- 4k sensor, 1.6x crop for 4k vid, causing poor AF
- APS-C sensor
- full flip touch screen, can see yourself
- 30min limit
No: crop, AF, 30min limit.
Canon M50 no
- better camera than the Canon SL3
- M mount for lenses which apparently isn’t great
No: canon AF, crop, M lens
Canon SL3 no
- “Beginner” camera
- poor dynamic range
- good autofocus, eye tracking
- 4k has 1.6x crop, apparently causing rolling shutter?
- £539 / $600
- “wouldn’t recommend to cinematic film maker”
- flip-out screen, good UI
- v small
- EF lenses, which apparently are plenty, good, cheap
No: Crop, not up to par with Sony AF
Sony ɑ6000 no
- very popular
- very good value for price (apparently)
No: old, superseded by newer models
Sony ɑ6600 no
Sony ɑ6400 YES
Sony ɑ6100 no
- late 2019
- APS-C sensor
- 1.5x crop, full sensor at 6k , downsampled to 4k, so better AF
- 180deg flip screen, but annoying when using mic
- unlimited rec
- realtime AF with eye tracking
- no in body stabilisation
- Shitty battery (NP FW 50)
- no flat picture profile
- mic, but no headphones
Mario So: Good choice for photographers.
No: superseded by the Sony ɑ6400 for video.
- YT: Think Media - Best CAMERAS for LIVE Streaming… (2020)
- YT: Mario So - Which SONY MIRRORLESS CAMERA To Buy in 2021? | Under $2000 (a6100, a6400, a6600, a7iii, a7c)
- YT: Arthur R - Sony A6000 vs A6300 vs A6400 vs A6500: A Buying Guide
- YT: Northrup - Things I HATE about the Sony a7S III
Honorary mention to this guy who is absolutely hilarious in how much he cares about a tiny thing: YT: MarkusPix - Why I Gave Away my Sony A6400 and keeping my 6300 (answer: it’s a 1sec blurry review picture).
Omfg… Ok here we go.
Focal length & Field of View
Focal length is the length of the lens. Field of View is the equivalent when scaled to a “Full Frame sensor”. IOW: On full frame sensors, Focal length = field of view. On e.g. Sony APS-C, you have a so-called “1.5x crop factor”, so Focal length × 1.5 = Field of View. IOW: A 35mm lens on a ɑ6400 looks like a 50mm on a ɑ7iii.
Fields of view:
- 15mm: very wide
- 24mm: wide
- 35mm: normal
- 80mm: zoom. Movement v hard w/o gimbal, just hard w gimbal.
- fixed focal length. Advantage: tends to have faster aperture.
- variable fl.
An APS-C sensor on Sony has 1.5 crop, so 35mm becomes 52.5mm, etc.
Note: 35mm here refers to the focal length. Do not confuse with a “35mm camera”, which refers to the size of the sensor. In that context, 35mm is the width of the film onto which the image is projected (including grip strips, so really more like 24mm), which later became the reference size for digital sensors. Full Frame is equivalent to this 35mm film (aka 24×36mm of light sensitive material). This has nothing to do with a lens with 35mm focal length. That’s pure coincidence.
f stops are a log scale (the values are geometric): every stop is ½ the light of the previous:
↑ shallow DOF, faster, large aperture
- f/0.7: Kubrick, NASA, dark side of the moon
- f/1.4: night - shallow DOF
- f/2.8: inside.
- f/5.6: Medium. Hollywood: “if in doubt, use 5.6” (according to Rando McYouTube)
- f/8.0: medium DOF
- f/16: landscape is fully in focus
- f/22: larger DOF
- f/32: very small aperture, lets in almost no light
↓ large DOF, slower, small aperture
(meaning of fractional notation: f/ = , i being the “stop”. Iow, . Hence 1, 1.4, 2, …)
Larger apertures (aka lower f numbers, because it’s a divisor) mean more light, which means shorter shutter speed. This is why they’re called “faster apertures”.
Reasons to go faster:
- bokeh (but this can get wanky real quick)
- easier to shoot at night
Reasons to go slower:
- get more of your scenery in focus (you chose the env for a reason, so show it)
- looks less wanky
- easier to focus on the subject
- less flare (flare is not just those light streaks, but also loss in contrast, which is not good)
The shallower your DOF, the more difficult it is to focus. The focus puller on Barry Lyndon had a v hard time.
“General rule of thumb: lenses have to be stopped down by 2 stops for best sharpness”, aka a 1.4 lens will be sharpest at 2.8. Tbh I wonder how much this matters to me, but it does explain the value of faster lenses.
If you go too far down, you lose sharpness again, because of diffraction. Again: not sure how important this is for me atm.
Aperture and Crop Size
Crop size affects Depth of Field, but not aperture. Much like it affects Field of View, but not Focal Length.
Specifically: the actual aperture is not, itself, affected by crop size, but the amount of light that eventually hits the sensor IS affected, therefore when comparing lenses you should correct for crop size, when comparing both focus length and aperture. Just like Focus Length vs Field of View. If you take a photo with a 80mm f/1.4 Full Frame, and you want to replicate it on a APS-C with 1.5 crop, bokeh and all, you’ll need: 53mm f/0.9 (± 50mm f/1). Fundamentally, this means that the smaller your sensor, the harder to get shallow DoF (because faster lenses are more expensive).
This is assuming that you correct for field of view by getting a lens with shorter focal length. Really, that’s the whole point: if you didn’t do that, you would technically keep the same DOF across sensor sizes, but you would have a different picture. Remember that if you keep the same lens and aperture and everything, a smaller sensor is just basically a crop. You might as well take a photo on a larger sensor body and crop in post. Would that change your DOF? Obviously not. The same goes for having a cropped sensor to begin with.
Open question: this affects bokeh, but how about light sensitivity? Does a f/1.4 on a APS-C also require an ISO equivalent to a f/2 on a Full Frame with equal amount of pixels? Since we are cropping, i.e. cutting out a chunk of the image, you’d think less light ends up hitting the sensor, so I assume that yes, I also need a higher ISO?
Peter Lindgren highly recommends 24-70, f/2.8. However, it’s not clear what size his sensor is—I assume full size, so on an APS-C it’d be “16-46mm f/1.8” ≈ 15-50 f/2.
He considered the 16mm on his APS-C too wide! That’s a 24mm equivalent.
Sticks to Sony lenses for AF, reliability, stabilisation, and smaller form factor.
Personal note: as soon as he gets to 50mm, f/1.8 on APS-C (so 75mm f/2.7) I lose interest. Is it because of the shallow DOF? Or because of the zoom? I am definitely noticing an upper limit of 50mm FoV.
- Sony 10-18mm, f/4 (on APS-C)
(15-27mm f/6 equivalent)
- wide, can crop to 1080p later
- safe when you’re not sure what will happen
- for run and gun guerilla journalist style
- low aperture so not great at night
- no bokeh
- Sony 35mm, f/1.8 (on APS-C)
(“52.5mm f/2.7” equivalent ≈ 50mm f/2.8)
- face recognition tracking AF with bokeh
- Sony 35mm, f/1.8 (on Full Frame)
Note the difference with putting this on an APS-C! That will turn it into a 50mm, f/2.8. The equivalent for an APS-C would be a 23mm, f/1.2, I guess? Can you even get that?
- Good balance
- Sony 16-50mm, f/3.5-5.6 (on APS-C)
- very small aperture, bad at low light
- “covers a lot of useful focal lenghts”
Personal: looks like a good run & gun outside wildcard lens
Mostly compared on photography (!)
Conclusion: equal. Size & price are the only thing that matters, the quality is practically equivalent. And obviously there’s an f-stop, that’s something.
Subtle but noticeable difference in quality of AF. Only noticeable because he showed me explicitly. Never in a million years would I have noticed without it.
Sony is buttery smooth tho.
- YT: Brandon Li - Sony Lenses for Video: Choose the Right Lens for Your Shot (2016)
- YT: Brandon Li - My favorite filmmaking lens! Sony 35mm f1.8 Handheld + Gimbal Tutorial (2019)
- YT: wolfcrow - What is the Best Aperture for Filmmaking? (it’s f2.8)
- YT: Sebazpictures - What’s the best Sony lens for FILMMAKING | Lens comparisson guide
- YT: Peter Lindgren - What Lenses Should You Buy For Video
- What is F-Stop and How Does it Work?
- YT: Tony & Chelsea Northrup - Crop Factor: Why you multiply the aperture by the crop factor when comparing lenses
- Bob Atkins - Digital Depth of Field (v good!)
Update: Final Purchase & Debrief
Update from 2 July.
I found an ɑ6600 on https://cameraworld.co.uk, discounted from £1400 to £1100. It’s… fine? I can only name things I don’t like about the interface. Tony Northrup was 100% correct about the menu and UI being shit.1 Just apalling. Apple needs to make CameraPlay or something. And the limited articulation of the flip screen is a pain.
I got just one lens: the E 16-55mm F2.8 G-master for just under £1000 (also at Cameraworld). That’s a fixed-aperture zoom lens. It is incredibly versatile, quite fast, and I honestly struggle to imagine what else I could possibly want. A faster lens for even lower light? The DOF is already amazing, the zoom covers everything I need (35mm equivalent: 24mm - 82.5mm. I’m never going wider or tighter than that.) I find the low light performance largely sufficient, especially at a 1/25 shutter speed. Sure, you’re shooting at a million ISO, but I don’t care about the grain. It’s fine.
Honestly the lens was probably the best part.