HD Video Quality of a6300: Any Good???

[Off the Mark]

I've read some reviews that say the a6300 has BAD HD video quality (no matter what frame rate you choose), and that you must use 4K at the reduced sensor format and then downaample to 1080p to get good HD quality video.

 

Does anyone agree or disagree with that???

 

I primarily intend to shoot in HD (1080p 60fps or possibly 120fps) in the XAVC s codec at 100mbs.

 

Am I going to get sucky video if I do that???

 

do I have to shoot at 4k with a smaller area (i.e., more cropped) and then downsample?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Off the Mark]

Here is a quote about the HD quality from one review on cinema5d:

 

"Only the rolling shutter of this camera is below expectations and the HD quality is, for all intents and purposes, not recommended which makes the camera less suited for broadcast use."

 

https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-a6300-vs-sony-a7s-ii-how-good-is-it-really/

 

This has me worried.

[Snowfun]

Do you intend to use the camera for "broadcast use"?

If the answer to that is yes then I suspect that you have a particular niche in mind (why would anyone want to use an A6300 as an A camera in this context when there are clearly superior alternatives?) If it's more for hobby use then you need to ask yourself what are the alternatives? Yes, there are some but a lot depends on whether you want/need stills and all the specific features (your need for >30 fps rules out bmpcc or bmmcc for example).

 

I'd head over to eoshd.com search a6300 and read informed comparisons and comment. You'll also get insights into the alternatives. As a dedicated cinematography site with some "high end" users (not me!) it's a useful resource.

 

Remember (apologies if you know this and it's pitched wrong...) what might be considered bad for broadcast can look super for vimeo or family viewing on the TV...

[cinesheikh]

I made this short film with the Sony A6000 and Sony 18-105mm f4: