# I want to buy a 4k camera for video



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 2, 2016)

I am going to be setting up a new reef aquarium and I want to film the process to help people who are getting started in the hobby and I want a camera, I want to buy a camera to film in 4k inside my home with a tripod & slider, i want to do some up close shots of my aquarium and my fish swimming around. My budget is 600-1500$ I was considering the sony a6300 and the sony rx10 ii, but now that I think about it since Im not really going to use it outside portability and size aren't a real issue and thought a larger camera would be cheaper or I could find a better camera for the same price. What would you suggest? I really like being able to shoot in low light and to do closeups of small crustaceans living in my tank but they are 1-2 feet away so I think I would need a telephoto lens. Thanks.


----------



## fmw (Oct 2, 2016)

What you want is a video camera, not a still camera that can also shoot video.  The video camera will do a better job for you.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 2, 2016)

1-2 foot away, you might be hard-pressed to find a telephoto to focus that close.  I'd suggest a macro lens instead.

There's nothing wrong with the a6300.  Specially if you want to get into editing using sLog3 files.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 2, 2016)

480sparky said:


> 1-2 foot away, you might be hard-pressed to find a telephoto to focus that close.  I'd suggest a macro lens instead.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the a6300.  Specially if you want to get into editing using sLog3 files.



So a macro shouldn't have any trouble focusing on something that is 1-2feet away? What are sLog3 files? I plan to use final cut pro to color correct and to edit my videos.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 2, 2016)

fmw said:


> What you want is a video camera, not a still camera that can also shoot video.  The video camera will do a better job for you.



What is the difference? I want good quality video not gopro or camcorder quality.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 2, 2016)

sLog3 is to video what raw is to images. Macro lenses are designed to shoot up close.


----------



## fmw (Oct 2, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > What you want is a video camera, not a still camera that can also shoot video.  The video camera will do a better job for you.
> ...



The camcorder will outperform a still camera doing video.  It has the right kind of shutter to get the job done.  Go Pro is pointless because it only has a super wide angle lens.  Go camcorder shopping.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 2, 2016)

Sony - Handycam AX53 4K Flash Memory Camcorder - Black

Plus it doesn't have a 29 minute recording limit like all cameras do.


----------



## dennybeall (Oct 2, 2016)

Video cameras are physically better suited for taking video than a DSLR, even though a DSLR can take great video. Worst part for me is changing the zoom while shooting - a DSLR it's hard to do without wiggling the camera. A video camera just has a little switch to zoom easily. Another point is the DSLR has a limited time for each segment whereas a video camera will shoot until the memory is full.


----------



## Bebulamar (Oct 2, 2016)

I heard the people who use DSLR or Mirrorless still camera to shoot video say they want larger sensor for the narrow DOF. But many of these cameras don't use their full sensor for video any way so the sensor isn't all that large. Besides, for your particular project I don't think narrow DOF is a good thing.


----------



## KmH (Oct 2, 2016)

Does the Sony a6300 have a global or a rolling shutter?

The DPReview of the Sony a6300 Review doesn't say which.
Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 2, 2016)

I'm a big fan of DSLR and mirrorless video, and the looks of the large sensors (small depth of field). However, for your goal, small depth might be a little difficult because when you get up close with not too much light (esp. in the lower corners of your tank) you need to shoot wide open and therefore the focus area might be too shallow. On the other hand the larger sensors are better regarding noise. It's a tough decision. 
If you have friends who own a DSLR and a videocamera, ask whether you can borrow it and check the results in your aquarium store before you buy.

Regarding the slider: shooting aquarium glass from the side will give you blurry images (if I remember right, only when there is water in it). 90° is your preferred angle. Using the slider, you would have to rotate the head to keep objects that are so close within the frame, and that would result in shooting at an angle to the glass that is not going to produce good results. What I want to say is: you probably don't need a slider. Wow, did I just say that? I totally love sliders.

The 29 minute recording limit shouldn't be an issue for your kind of work, and the zoom shouldn't either. Hardly any Hollywood movie, documentation, sitcom, etc. ever uses zooming while recording.
What's much more of an issue is focus while recording. Your fish and critters move, and your focus should work really well unless you want to get familiar with follow focus devices. The a6300 does an amazing job, so do most videocameras. With DSLRs there are difficulties at times. 

Last but not least codec. Sonys XAVC-S codec is great compared to what most DSLRs offer.

And one more: if you think about talking in front of your camera, consider an external mic. You can record external, and synch in post, or have it easier and record into the cam. A lavalier mic on your shirt, or a shotgun mic above your head just out of the frame are good options. Rode has a nice lavallier for the iPhone in case you have one and that is probably the cheapest route.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

dennybeall said:


> Video cameras are physically better suited for taking video than a DSLR, even though a DSLR can take great video. Worst part for me is changing the zoom while shooting - a DSLR it's hard to do without wiggling the camera. A video camera just has a little switch to zoom easily. Another point is the DSLR has a limited time for each segment whereas a video camera will shoot until the memory is full.


What video camera would you recommend that films 4k video of similar or better quality than the sony a6300? Thanks


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

Bebulamar said:


> I heard the people who use DSLR or Mirrorless still camera to shoot video say they want larger sensor for the narrow DOF. But many of these cameras don't use their full sensor for video any way so the sensor isn't all that large. Besides, for your particular project I don't think narrow DOF is a good thing.


So what camera would you suggest?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 3, 2016)

Try looking back through all the posts in your thread.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

KmH said:


> Does the Sony a6300 have a global or a rolling shutter?
> 
> The DPReview of the Sony a6300 Review doesn't say which.
> Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review


I believe it's a rolling shutter.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Try looking back through all the posts in your thread.


Hahaha, I hadn't seen the links you added sorry.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Oct 3, 2016)

Would a go pro or an i phone 7 be any good I wonder no clue really


----------



## table1349 (Oct 3, 2016)

BananaRepublic said:


> Would a go pro or an i phone 7 be any good I wonder no clue really


No, the go pro is impossible to strap onto the head of such small fish and the fish can't answer the iPhone.  They can't even unlock it since they have no fingerprints.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Oct 3, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > Would a go pro or an i phone 7 be any good I wonder no clue really
> ...


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> I'm a big fan of DSLR and mirrorless video, and the looks of the large sensors (small depth of field). However, for your goal, small depth might be a little difficult because when you get up close with not too much light (esp. in the lower corners of your tank) you need to shoot wide open and therefore the focus area might be too shallow. On the other hand the larger sensors are better regarding noise. It's a tough decision.
> If you have friends who own a DSLR and a videocamera, ask whether you can borrow it and check the results in your aquarium store before you buy.
> 
> Regarding the slider: shooting aquarium glass from the side will give you blurry images (if I remember right, only when there is water in it). 90° is your preferred angle. Using the slider, you would have to rotate the head to keep objects that are so close within the frame, and that would result in shooting at an angle to the glass that is not going to produce good results. What I want to say is: you probably don't need a slider. Wow, did I just say that? I totally love sliders.
> ...



I am going to light the tank with strong lights so small depth of field shouldn't be as hard. I get what you mean about the slider and agree 100% but I can still use it to film the equipment I use and the process of making the rocks and so on, and yes it only happens when the tank is full of water. Yeah 29 minute continuous recording limit isn't a problem, I plan on making my videos 30mins long in total, and made basically with short clips. Yeah I plan to film the video and then add the audio later, I'm still not sure which microphone to buy but I do plan on buying one. Oh and I also want to film in low light and in 240fps for slow mo shots which the A6300 does have.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > Would a go pro or an i phone 7 be any good I wonder no clue really
> ...


My fish are trained to unlock the iPhone though. Hahaha


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 3, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a big fan of DSLR and mirrorless video, and the looks of the large sensors (small depth of field). However, for your goal, small depth might be a little difficult because when you get up close with not too much light (esp. in the lower corners of your tank) you need to shoot wide open and therefore the focus area might be too shallow. On the other hand the larger sensors are better regarding noise. It's a tough decision.
> ...



Hey there,
strong lights seem strong to our eyes, but not so much to the camera. Compared to flash, they are really dimm, even if you use 1000W, it´s not really that much (except for 1000W LED ).
Regarding mics, take a look at the Rode lineup, those are really nice mics for a reasonable price.
Unfortunately the a6300 doesn´t have 240fps, but usually the cams that do have it, only support 720p, so not even full HD. That´s not worth a lot. If you film most of your work in 4K and want to publish in 4K, you don´t want to film a lot in slowmo and mix it - you see the quality difference of one being 4K and the other in HD.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

BananaRepublic said:


> Would a go pro or an i phone 7 be any good I wonder no clue really


Im looking for better quality video.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 3, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...


My bad, I meant 120fps which is the maximum it does at 1080p. Well they are pretty bright lights, sps corals need lots of light, we try to simulate sun light and the par can reach 300 in some parts of the tank, if I ever want to film a particular corner or dark spot I'l probably move the lights to fit the scene. My main concern is autofocus for shots where I follow fast fish, and I'm not familiar with follow focus devices, any tips? Are they expensive??


----------



## KmH (Oct 3, 2016)

Ah! Rolling shutter.
Not good for fast moving subject matter.
A global shutter works best for that.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 3, 2016)

Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass.  Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 4, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> [URL='http://photo1x1.com']photo1x1.com[/URL] said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...


I know about marine tank lights. They were the reason why I sticked with freshwater . I lived in a top floor appartement these days, and the computers in my office already did a good job heating the room . 

Sorry, mentioning follow focus was meant as a joke, should have set a smiley . Follow focus is manual focussing with a big wheel placed beside your lens. You have to practise quite a bit to be able to focus a fast moving fish. There are people that do only that as a job.
But I guess the fish won't escape, so you have quite a few chances to get the shot. Wildlife filmmakers need to be patient from what I read . So doing it in a tank should be easier.
But I'd still say: try before you buy. Or maybe buy somewhere where you can return the camera.

Regarding rolling shutter: it can be a pain at times, but way more often it is not. It usually only is an issue when there are geometrical shapes in your frame, that might get distorted (but usually only professional audience would realize - regular people watching film won't). or when you have a lot of camera movement (plus shake) involved, like when skiing with a camera. But that has nothing to do with what you plan. I´ve shot weddings with lots of movement, corporate videos and have been skiing with different cameras. The only point where rolling shutter was an issue is when the piste got too bumpy. But then the footage was most of the time unusable anyway. The only occasion when I go back and film with a videocamera is when I need to record a show, etc. when there is the need for long takes (30mins plus) and the camera needs to run all the time because you need a final video of the complete show. Then you need to consider battery life, overheating, reliability, shallow focus etc.. For the rest I use mirrorless Sonys only.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 4, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass.  Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.



If you have the chance to control the light, I would go without an additional filter. A tank is rather small and placing the lights accordingly, and using flags of dark cloth to keep the light from spilling wouldn´t leave any reflections.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 4, 2016)

KmH said:


> Ah! Rolling shutter.
> Not good for fast moving subject matter.
> A global shutter works best for that.


I didn't know whay rolling shutter meant so I watched a few youtube videos, the one you shared was the first I found haha.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 4, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass.  Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.


Oh great thanks, hadn't thought of that.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 4, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass.  Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.
> ...


How would you place the cloth? Because I would still be in the shot and so would the camera, or am I not understanding correctly? Do you know any videos I can watch?

Thanks for all the help btw.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 5, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > AlanKlein said:
> ...


You are welcome .
Here is a draft.

Make sure your room is dark (night?)

Bring the lights as close to your tank as possible. That will light the tank so much brighter than the reflections of your room, that the inverse square law (twice the distance, half as bright) will make the reflections invisible (except you have a very tiny room)
Place the lights in an angle so that the reflection of the light will not be visible in the camera. As an alternative you can also light from the top only, that would make things easier. Just cover the area from the tank up to your lights with a neutral colored cardboard to prevent light spill.

Put one piece of black cloth (you may also try black paper) 90° to the front glass on each side of the camera, so that it is in some sort of corridor - place it well behind the opening, but of course don´t forget about the viewing angle - you want the tank in the footage, not the cloth . Black cloth still reflects, but since it is 90° to the tank, it won't. That should already do the trick. If not, cut a hole for the lens into another piece of cloth and place it in front of the camera.
Then check whether there are still reflections visible in the glass (in the video, not with your eye). If there are, you need to keep the light from hitting the room with cardboard, etc.
I hope I didn´t forget anything. There once was a japanese photographer who took amazing images of his freshwater tanks. His name was Takashi Amano. I was googleing some behind the scenes pictures, but couldn´t find some.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 5, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...


awesome thanks.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 6, 2016)




----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 6, 2016)

480sparky said:


>


A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. Other advantages of CMOS sensor cameras with rolling shutter, like low light capabilities and shallow depth are way more often used and needed. I wouldn´t want to sacrifice that for these rarely used special occasions when you film oscillations. 
More often you see effects like lightning that do make the rolling shutter more visible, but again that is not everyday use and I prefer the rest of my footage to have that "DSLR-Look" instead.

But that is my preference and I think it is great you raise those issues so that people can decide what is important for them.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 6, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........



How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 6, 2016)

480sparky said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........
> ...


Let me check:

first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.

two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)

fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.

fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.
On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):





The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison *videocamera* vs *DSLR*. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) *vs* DSLRs crop and fullframe *vs* mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:





Edited for formatting


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 7, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


I agree, it's a really good example but probably won't be an issue for my videos.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 7, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Just because you don't plan on videoing guitar strings doesn't mean a rolling shutter won't be an issue.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 7, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



All these videos helped me choose, by good quality video I meant DSLR, I want the video to look professional and I want to be able to change the depth of field and make a more cinematic look. Thanks.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 7, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...




This is the type of video I want to make.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 7, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Cool, I like it. Quite a few closeups though - if you want to get that close, you need a macro lens.
I think the sony a6000 is really a great camera for that - compared to other DSLRs, or mirrorless it has a really fast continuous autofocus for filming, I am not so sure about autofocus on macro lenses though. The video you show has quite a lot of out of focus moments, where the focus didn´t work as intended.
And one more thing: regarding tripods: you get what you pay for. If you want to track a fish that close you need one with a good fluid head. These are rather expensive though. Maybe you´d be better off with a brushless gimbal - you can combine slider and tripod in one device - it needs some practice though. But then again that video you posted is not extremely smooth.
Whatever you choose - take your time for filming and enjoy the process. And in the end only take your best footage to combine it to a movie. You´d better spend a few more hours filming than creating a movie everyone else could too .


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 7, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



I agree completely, yeah the video is out of focus some times and changes focus back and forth trying to focus on the fish, I would do the same but cut out the parts where im trying to get the camera to focus. I would love a brushless gimbal but aren't they even more expensive than the tripod and the fluid head??


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 7, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



I'm afraid a good tripod/fluid head easily costs 600 bucks. Well, and you don't want a bad one, trust me. It's the fluid motion that makes all the difference. Especially for what you plan. I learned the hard way and so did friends. But maybe you can go the rental route. I'd recommend sachtler, despite their rather high prices, they are still the cheapest really usable fluid heads that I know. I need to admit though, that my last intensive search for video tripods was three years ago. But that's not the area with the most innovation, so I guess there wasn't much change.
There are nice workarounds like using rubberbands with bad videoheads to make movement fluid, but there is always a deadband - I don't think that will work with your fish.
Well, and then add the slider to those 600 and you get veeeeery close to a gimbal.

Taking another look at the video you posted, I don't think they use other lights, than the tank lights from the top. If you avoid the light to spill out into the room, you might not need any cloth if your camera doesn't get too close. Avoid to wear bright clothes though. Black is your friend .


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



The cheapest Sachtler tripod and fluid head I found was the 1001 Ace M with the Ace M fluid head and it's 600$,that might be overkill for a camera worth 1000-1200$ with lenses, Il look around see what I can find, I hope to findo something around 400$ but if I can't find anything then Il probably save up for the Sachtler. And which slider would you recommend?


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...








Would I need a slider and a foto tripod head to put on top??


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

Yeah I was planning on using the sony A6300 but the A6500 just came out so I have to check what is new and see which of the two I prefer.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



I´m afraid those are the weird things in photography and filmmaking. Other people would ask you how can thousands of $ on flash, if there are cameras that only cost a fraction of it. But to get really fluid motion, the cheaper tripods in my experience don´t really do the job. Following a swimming fish that has no movement pattern is probably one of the most difficult things to film in motion. You don´t know where he is going next, and he may turn around all of a sudden and when you want to turn with him, it has to be smooth, and not abrupt. If you want to save money here, I suggest filming sequences where the fish only goes in one direction with about the same speed and doesn´t stop. With patience I think you can do that. Just film take after take after take and eventually you will have one usable piece of footage. 
In case you live anywhere near New York City (I don´t), I suggest visiting B&H and try the fluid heads with your own camera. I´ve been there once and it is a photographers heaven (especially compared to what I get here). Maybe there are newer tripods, that do the trick. 
Regarding sliders I´m afraid I can´t tell you much. I´m almost exclusively using an edelkrone slider plus. It is not perfect, but I love it for its size and the ability of dollying into a scene, pointing the camera in the direction you slide. With other sliders you´d have the slider in the frame for most of the time. But it is not the cheapest one and I think for your needs it doesn´t make much sense either. There are soooo many different sliders out there, I just have lost track at one point. I´d suggest to watch reviews on youtube and read them on the various vendors pages. But in the end a slider is a slider is a slider , even though there are smoother ones, but you wouldn´t realize it nearly as much as you would a bad fluid head.
For the photo head for your slider: well, that depends. I´d only say yes, if you want to create some kind of jib shots, but I don´t see the need for your project.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> davidlawson said:
> 
> 
> > The 4K camera ,we recommend you use  sony a6300,and if you need 4K field monitor,then we recommend
> ...


IIIIf you consider buying the a6500, you might even be able to go without tripod - didn´t know that you´d consider spending so much money on the camera only. It hast the same internal stabilizer than the A7II series, and these are nothing but fantastic. I´ve just recently shot some videos handheld over the head with a 55mm lens, and you wouldn´t believe how smooth that is. It sounds weird, but I just yesterday wanted to suggest getting the A7II and skipping tripod and maybe even slider. Then I deleted the text again, thinking that is too much money for your pockets for camera only. And now the a6500 is out. Yay!


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



If I did jib like shots it would be to film equipment that Im going to add to the tank or to film a package of food or something. No unfortunately I don't live near New York, in fact I'm in a different continent haha. I live in Spain but Im going to move next year.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > davidlawson said:
> ...



Yeah I've watched a few videos and the internal stabilization is supposed to be great, but can it really replace the fluid head? Or can it make an average tripod good enough?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...





> If I did jib like shots it would be to film equipment that Im going to add to the tank or to film a package of food or something. No unfortunately I don't live near New York, in fact I'm in a different continent haha. I live in Spain but Im going to move next year.



You know, there´s always something more you can do, but there´s always a point where you have to start. I totally understand your situation, and I am just like you. My goal is to make everything perfect. I guess it sometimes is better to just start out than to think what else you could use to make the 95% reach the 100%. The last 5% are the most costly and time consuming ones .
So we are just a few 1.000km apart - I´m in Austria, I already wondered about your timely answers .

Regarding the internal stabilization - it is outstanding. It can replace a fluid head for quite a lot of shots, but it can not make an average tripod good enough - sounds weird, but it can eliminate or heavily reduce very tiny shakes (like the one of your hands when holding it). What it can not do is eliminate rather big movement like those of bad tripod heads. So handheld probably yes, if you take care how to hold the camera - bad tripod: no.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> Yeah I've watched a few videos and the internal stabilization is supposed to be great, but can it really replace the fluid head? Or can it make an average tripod good enough?



Are you set in stone for_ producing_ 4k video?  If you're willing to drop your final output resolution, you can edit a 4k video down to 2.7 or 2k and use software to simulate IS. I do this quite routinely.... shoot 4k and output at 1080p.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

480sparky said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I've watched a few videos and the internal stabilization is supposed to be great, but can it really replace the fluid head? Or can it make an average tripod good enough?
> ...


I might do that for some shots too, but I still want a slider and tropod.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



Im probably going to get the A6500 and a macro lens to start with, and I'll see how the and held video looks, then I'l decide wether or not to buy a tripod with a good fluid head or a cheaper one just to use with  the slider. What other gear would you recommend? Oh I'm also going to get a microphone to narrate the video when it's done and I'l use final cut pro x to edit my video.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 8, 2016)

I have one of these: 
*Sony PXW-FS7 4K XDCAM*
and am very happy with the results I get with it.
There is also 
*Panasonic AG-DVX200*
That has fewer features, but is still a capable camera and is less expensive.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



Do you have an idea how the room in which you are going to film that will be? What background, size of the room, what else beside the tank will be in there, etc? You said you were going to film yourself narrating, right?


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> I have one of these:
> *Sony PXW-FS7 4K XDCAM*
> and am very happy with the results I get with it.
> There is also
> ...



Must be really nice, but I prefer to spend the extra 5k on the aquarium itself hahah. Otherwise I won't have anything amazing to film.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 8, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



Im not sure if I'l film myself,but I will add narration with audio for sure. The room is long and I the tank will be in the same direction as the room, the opposite side of the aquarium is all window but I can close the shades and make it 100% dark except for the aquarium itself. Apart from the aquarium Il have a desk and a bed, and in the future a terrarium with monitors in it (monitor as in the reptile not an actual monitor).


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I have one of these:
> ...


lol good point.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 8, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



So if you don't film yourself, you may not need lights at the beginning. And you don't need to think about a teleprompter either. You could think about a black backgrund, or you can keep the wall as is - that depends on your preferences. 
What kind of lights are you going to get and will the tank be open, or closed?
How are you going to present the equipment you've been talking about?

I don't know how big the tank is, but if it's possible to put in on wheels somehow, that might give you nice options later on. The desk might help you with the slider btw, in case you decide to get one.

Plus: consider some sort of timelapse. Therfore you'd need a place where the camera can be placed equally every single day, better 2-3 times a day. The difficult thing is: it will not have the same framing as soon as you touch the camera and I'm not sure if autoalign will work in post production when the content of the tank changes. But you could try it.

A very important thing is a storybook and a structure. Have your text and the structure of your videos ready way  before you start the work on your tank.


----------



## SuzukiGS750EZ (Oct 9, 2016)

How about a gopro? Then you could even put it into the water.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 9, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



The background of the tank is most likely going to be black, it will be open top and Im going to use LEDs and T5s for lighting, for the equipment I'm probably going to put it on the floor or a desk and film it with the slider or with a static tripod to show specific parts. I'm not sure abut the size of the tank but probably 120gallons or larger which will weigh about 500kg or more with the stand so adding wheels won't be possible haha.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 9, 2016)

SuzukiGS750EZ said:


> How about a gopro? Then you could even put it into the water.



I want good quality video and I was really disappointed with the quality of video that the gopro shoots, I will be getting the next iphone when it comes out so I will use that for underwater shots.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 9, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



Cooooooool 120 gallons . I'll definitely subscribe to your channel in case you create one!
Then I'd say you need some lighting for the non-tank shots. Well, and that I'd say depends on how much you really plan to cover. 
You can get really good quality video with cheap 500w lights from the hardware store, if you are a little creative and don't want to spend too much money. It's all a question of light formers. But these too can be DIY, using gels and creating a frame of wood.
Buying expensive lighting equipment only pays off if you use it regularely, then you pay for convenience and ease of use. But light usually is light, that can be formed and color corrected to your needs (beside cheap LEDs and fluorescents). If you have the tank and the equipment in the frame at the same time, you need to color balance the light so that they both have the same color temperature. That's similar to white balance and can be done with gel filters. If not, you just white balance in camera for the kind of light you use.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 9, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



I'm going to try to make the videos into a series explaining how to set up your own reef tank and what equipment to choose for your specific situation, I'm planning on starting with a 40gallon aquarium because it's what most people start with and after a year I'l get the 120gallon and show the process of upgrading to a bigger tank and I'l turn the 40gallon into a quarantine/breeding tank. I'l also show how to breed and feed many different live foods. The whole focus is on making the tanks as natural and simple as possible. I'm not going to start it this year because I'm going to move so I want to wait until im settled in, in fact I might move to Australia, if I do I'l try to go diving with the camera and film to give people inspiration for aquascaping a more natural looking aquarium. I will be getting the camera soon and I'l probably upload a few videos of my clownfish, my reptiles and my abyssinian cat, when I do I'll send you the link.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 9, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...


I do own reptiles and I use UVB bulbs for them to bask on but apart from that I need lights to light the terrarium so I could use those lights to illuminate the equipment when I film it.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 9, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



If your lights are not too purple (I think I've seen purple ones for reptiles) and bright enough, that should work. That sounds like a cool plan, looking forward to the results .


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 9, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



Won't be too purple haha, I really care about making setups look as natural as posible and I wouln't have purple light haha.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 9, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



And what about lenses, should I get a macro and the lens that comes with the camera or should I just buy the body and the macro and another lens?  Also, how do I choose how many mm long it is?


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 9, 2016)

I'd use a telephoto before a macro for aquarium animals. Macros are great when you can get in close, but with glass and several inches (or even feet) between the lens and the subject a tele will work better.

This is more about photographs, but it can be applied to video as well.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 9, 2016)

What settings to eliminate the soap opera look?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 9, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



I have to slightly disagree with advanced photo and with the article. Using these techniques from the article in a public aquarium should work pretty well. While your 120 gallon tank is huge, public aquariums are massive sometimes, so they give you other options. Plus: at home you can control light and reflections and there is nothing wrong wearing a ninja outfit . 
Getting so close to the tank that you use a lens hood for removing reflections won't work too well for video, because you can't track the fish. Even slight rotation to left or right will result in aweful fringing. Same with wideangle lenses. Getting close to the tank will blur the corners of your frame, while shooting from a distance keeps those angles smaller and with it refraction. 
Lens choice is difficult and depends on  how far away you can get from your tank - if you can't, a tele won't work because they typically have a minimum focus distance of 1m+. And if you can't get far away from your tank, you dont need a lens that pulls it closer.
The longer the lens, the better your tripod fluid head has to be, and the less likely handheld will work for tracking a fish.
So a macro is key to some of the shots from the video you posted. Sony just introduced a new 50mm macro. The downside usually is, that they don't focus quick. I don't know about the newer ones though.
In my opinion 50mm is the perfect focal length for full frame sensors. Unfortunately there is no wider macro option for crop sensots to give you the same field of view. But that too should work pretty well. So I'd start out with that in mind.
BTW: try it. With amazon you can usually do that. If you don't like it you can send it back.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 9, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> What settings to eliminate the soap opera look?


Alan, are you referring to the fringing/refraction-blur?
I'm afraid no internal camera setting can reduce that because what you do when stopping down to increase sharpness in the corners of your images only affects your camera/lens combination. The glass outside your lens is not affected. All you can do is shoot as straight at the front glass as you possibly can. 
I know from shrimp photographers, that they use tiny tanks with thin, white glass to reduce fringing as much as they can. But with a bigger tank you have to think safety first .


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 10, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> I'd use a telephoto before a macro for aquarium animals. Macros are great when you can get in close, but with glass and several inches (or even feet) between the lens and the subject a tele will work better.
> 
> This is more about photographs, but it can be applied to video as well.



Thanks, and what about wide angle lenses, what are they useful for?


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 10, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...


I didn't know you could send lenses back, so would this lens and the one that comes standard with the camera be ok? https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50M2...TF8&qid=1476132340&sr=1-3&keywords=sony+macro

Would a prime lens be a bad idea? Does it mean you cant zoom but can still focus on things that are at different distances??


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 10, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



I just read that the lens in the link I shared actually focuses at 16cm, considering my rocks will be at a minimum of 30cm away from the glass I think it won't do the job, but I really like that lens haha, I might get it for other stuff anyway, but not at the start for economical reasons haha, its 500$$$.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 11, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



That is the minimum focus distance - so everything from 16cm to infinity - that´s just perfect. Prime lenses usually have the best quality. That´s correct - you can´t zoom, but you can focus from the minimum distance all the way to infinity. Check with amazon.com - in Europe it works, don´t know whether US ro Australia have different terms, but I don´t think so.
BTW: you could theoretically buy the camera without lens, those kit lenses are usually a good deal though. Not the best quality, but rather inexpensive and you get a discount if you buy the kit.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 14, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



Oh great, that's perfect then, I can't find the camera with the kit lens, if I buy it without lens and then get that macro should that be enough? Or would you recoment getting another lens too?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 14, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > bernyneedshelp said:
> ...



I´m afraid I can´t tell you that much about the macro lens - I want to buy it myself, but wait until it is readily available. One issue macro lenses often have as I said though is rather slow focus. If it focusses fast enough, it might be OK to go with this lens only. But it also depends on your room - perhaps you need a wideangle lens for some shots to be able to get everything in the frame that you want to show. If you can walk a step back instead because the room is big enough, that wouldn´t be necessary.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 14, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > What settings to eliminate the soap opera look?
> ...



By the soap opera effect, I'm referring to that unreal look that appears that everything is live, but phony, something you don't get with film.  What settings or other things can you do when shooting digital video to eliminate that effect?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 14, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > AlanKlein said:
> ...



Sorry, I didn't get that. 
The so called film-look has the following characteristics:

first and foremost: shallow depth, blurred background. Videocameras use pretty small sensors, and they physically create an image where everything is sharp, from front to back and the main object doesn't stand out. That is the reason why I so vehemently opposed against the suggestions for videocameras in this thread. Other factors for shallow depth are the use of large apertures and where possible long focal lengths.
high contrast. Reduce the contrast settings and you get more film look
the right shutter speed which should ideally be 1/2xfps while fps stands for your framerate (25 in pal countries and 30 in ntsc countries). that would result in 1/50sec or 1/60 sec. That makes the footage look more fluid.
There are several other factors, like for example how soaps are lit, slight vignetting, some even add grain in post to create a filmlook, but those are minor things in my opinion. Get the three mentioned right will totally change the look of your footage.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 15, 2016)

So I'm videoing with a 1 inch sensor on my P&S.  So I could switch to manual and set shutter for 1/60, 30 frames per second and largest aperture opening.   Just to decrease DOF.  Then the Auto ISO would have to adjust for correct for exposure.  Does this make sense? Contrast
;  I believe you meant to say "increase" the settings to increase contrast.  Yes?

Would 24fps be better than 30f?  (Then set shutter for 1/50 rather than 1/60)??


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 15, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> So I'm videoing with a 1 inch sensor on my P&S.  So I could switch to manual and set shutter for 1/60, 30 frames per second and largest aperture opening.   Just to decrease DOF.  Then the Auto ISO would have to adjust for correct for exposure.  Does this make sense? Contrast
> ;  I believe you meant to say "increase" the settings to increase contrast.  Yes?
> 
> Would 24fps be better than 30f?  (Then set shutter for 1/50 rather than 1/60)??



That´s generally speaking correct. Even tough you can´t expect wonders from a 1 inch sensor I´m afraid. 
But for outdoor shootings an open aperture and 1/60th (or 1/50th for 24fps - which is better in regard to film look, yes) lets quite a lot of light in. Too much to compensate with ISO only. That´s where an ND filter comes in handy. It reduces the light in order not to overexpose the footage. 
Does that make sense?

And regarding contrast: it really means decreasing to get a more soft, flat look. Sounds weird, but movies usually have less contrast. That gives you a better dynamic range too and it´s easier to capture highlights as well as shadows.

And finally don´t forget about focal length. The further you zoom in, the more shallow the depth.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 17, 2016)

That would really be a drag if you could only focus on things precisely 16 cm away...
I don't think they would sell a lot of those.


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 23, 2016)

davidlawson said:


> bernyneedshelp said:
> 
> 
> > photo1x1.com said:
> ...



Right now I don't own a camera or any camera equipment, I want to get the a6500 and a tripod, my question is weather i need a good fluid head for my videos or if hand holding it and moving it myself will look good with the new stabilization in the a6500.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 23, 2016)

Get the good tripod with a dedicated video head.  You will not regret it.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 24, 2016)

This should solve all your problems.  Filmmaking


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Oct 29, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This should solve all your problems.  Filmmaking


It's equipment for iphones and ipads, the only camera equipment is the audio.


----------



## Causapscal (Oct 29, 2016)

Sony A7S II, maybe...


----------



## bernyneedshelp (Nov 5, 2016)

Causapscal said:


> Sony A7S II, maybe...


I really like it but it's 3000$ compared to 1400$ for the A6500, but the A7 ii is 1700, that is the other camera I am contemplating.


----------



## Causapscal (Nov 5, 2016)

bernyneedshelp said:


> Causapscal said:
> 
> 
> > Sony A7S II, maybe...
> ...



It' true, 3k$... But the model A7S is les expensive.

I bought the A7ii maybe two monts ago and I love it !!!

You can de-lock the aperture ring for movies. After, the ring Works In continue, without click.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 5, 2016)

The a7s is 12mp and the a7r is 42mp. That's a huge difference. I like using the a7r  and like the results, but the batteries don't last at all, carry several spares, and the ergonomics just plain suck on it. The Nikon D5 is a nicer feel but lowe pixel count and the Canon 1Dx mk2 is also decent quality.
For a mirrorless consumer model the a6300 Sony is a good little camera.
If you dont like any of those the Panasonic HC-X1000 is a decent low cost camcorder.


----------



## Causapscal (Nov 5, 2016)

Pixels of the 7aS are bigger. I saw the samples and it's impressive !


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 5, 2016)

I have a built in ND filter that I have to try out.  Not sure what filter factor it is.  Thanks for the info.



photo1x1.com said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm videoing with a 1 inch sensor on my P&S.  So I could switch to manual and set shutter for 1/60, 30 frames per second and largest aperture opening.   Just to decrease DOF.  Then the Auto ISO would have to adjust for correct for exposure.  Does this make sense? Contrast
> ...


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 5, 2016)

Causapscal said:


> Pixels of the 7aS are bigger. I saw the samples and it's impressive !


At what size enlargement?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Nov 6, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> I have a built in ND filter that I have to try out.  Not sure what filter factor it is.  Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That´s one of the biggest advantages of camcorders vs. DSLRs and mirrorless. No need to carry and change all those screw on ND-filters. It´s only for outdoor use though, so bernyneedshelp won´t make any use of it (just to answer the question before it is asked ).


----------



## photo1x1.com (Nov 6, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Causapscal said:
> 
> 
> > Pixels of the 7aS are bigger. I saw the samples and it's impressive !
> ...



True, I work with both A7SII and A7RII, and I need to admit that I prefer the A7RII even for most videowork. Yes, the sensitivity of the A7SII is better, but when you compare the image quality at the same size (resize the bigger to match the smaller), much of the advantages are gone. The A7RII has the far superior autofocus - that alone would make me jump the R. Even for my tutorial videos in the studio I use the A7RII on autofocus, because when I move forward and back, it will track. That is not possible with the A7SII. Filmpeople are used to manual focussing, but there sometimes is a big advantage of having a decent continuous autofocus. If you want to watch the videos: they are shot in 4k at ISO 1250. I don´t think you´ll see much grain on the A7RII footage.


----------



## Causapscal (Nov 6, 2016)

Always compromise...and needs. A camcorder is for movies, a camera for pictures


----------



## Causapscal (Jun 23, 2017)

Advanced Photo said:


> Causapscal said:
> 
> 
> > Pixels of the 7aS are bigger. I saw the samples and it's impressive !
> ...




Sorry, I told «pixel» but I mean « photosite»


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2017)

After 10 months does it really matter???


----------



## goodguy (Jun 23, 2017)

Causapscal said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Causapscal said:
> ...


Yet again someone finds the need to wake up the sleeping dead, let this sleep man its OLDDDDDDDDD


----------



## Causapscal (Jun 23, 2017)

Bizare forum....Just received an email about this post...

Amazing !


----------

