Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
For video: GX7 vs A6000
  • Manu4VendettaManu4Vendetta

    we all know that Sony is actually the best manufacturer of sensors and has done wonderful work with the A6000 which provides a number of options that make it almost unbeatable in its price range, only the inclusion of a clean HDMI video output makes it a serious camera.

    On paper the specifications and level of A6000 seems better. However in my experience with the NEX-5N even consider Sony in color reproduction is some steps below respect to M4/3 (in FF is another story), the A6000 has greatly improved with colors, but I dont have seen a video that me is convincing in paragraph colorful as offering GX7, which seems a kind of mini GH4, si I do not understand that the manufacturer block the HDMI output when recording video.

    If you were to stay with one camera between these two, with which you stay?

  • 12 Replies sorted by
  • MimirsanMimirsan

    Ive had both. Both are great cameras for different reasons.

    GX7 has the edge on codec. The codec is quite poor on the a6000 (ive never seen my previous nex6 break up like the A6000 does when stressed) Lowlight is about the same. Skin tones better on GX7. Slightly yellowon the A6000 (reminds me of Nikon)

    AF is vastly superior on A6000 in video. Very fast and accurate even with the Zeiss. I wish panasonic will fix this...Gx7 is fast for photos but is slow when recording video. Ive recently tested a GH4 and found it to be the same story.

    Zebras & Peaking are better on a6000. Im confused by the amount of blowout looking videos of A6000 as there is lots of ways to keep it in check!

    Articulated evf on GX7 is great. Though not a fan of the evfs image. Screen is better on GX7. In cam mic on GX7 is poor. In cam mic on A6000 is good.

    A6000 HDMI is clean but only outputs 50i on a shuttle v2 I tried (firmware needs an update by BM) it does output progressive.

    I sold the GX7 long before selling the A6000. I like responsive AF and quick startup/ shutdown (the GX7 was painfully slow to start up sometimes?) and nippy drive speeds.

    I also preferred the ergonomics on the A6000. Once setting the custom buttons it had a good layout. The GX7's grip drove me nuts...I have long fingers.

    Battery life on both cameras are pants.

    For me the Sony had more going for it. The codecs iffyness got on my nerves in the end though!

  • rolyroly

    On a strictly technical image quality level, the A6000 is better. Particularly with the fact it can output uncompressed HDMI to (say) an Atomos device. The GX7 is no slouch though. I have one and when anyone sees the movies it does, they are all amazed.

    However, whilst pure image quality is a mantra amongst us forum nerds, there are many other considerations to be borne in mind. How do you like the ergonomics? What is the fit of each camera in you current/planned ecosystem? If you are planning to get a GH4 or a newly-cheap BMPCC, then the GX7 would be a better fit. What lenses do you have?

    Just a few thoughts you should bear in mind

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    @roly spot on!

  • Manu4VendettaManu4Vendetta

    Thanks boys.

    @roly, I have some lenses: 14mm 2.5, 20mm 1.7, PanaLeica 25mm 1.4, the kit lens 14-42, Rokkor 58mm 1.2 and anothers old lenses, with the NEX, I have the natives 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 30mm 2.8

    But I have purchased the GX7 this morning at ebay. Now Im thinking in BMPCC if they keep the offer in August or the GH4 for January.

  • rolyroly

    Dude. Take it easy with all the purchases. Are you single-handedly trying to reverse the world-wide decline in camera sales? Or perhaps you're independently wealthy. Also bear in mind that a BMPCC may well mean a new computer, storage, video card, whatever.

    Either of the cameras you now have makes great movies and takes fantastic stills. So there's that. What about investing in sound (it's half the movie-going experience, as they say). Lighting, tripods, etc.?

    And I realise that this may be heretical, but there's also stuff like, you know, vision, plot, pacing, characterisation, framing, mood… Some people actually use all this kit to make films/videos/corporate promos with a beginning, middle and end. Except for us geeks on the forums, NOBODY CARES what camera/lens/codec/bitrate/LUT you used. Incredible, but true!

    Hope that didn't come off as too "ranty", but I think it's something we should all (me included) bear in mind from time to time…

    Good luck!!

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    @roly Lenses are crack for cam enthusiasts ;-D

  • FitzyFitzy

    @mimirsan +1

  • adventsamadventsam

    A6000 is a nice cam, but it depends what you want it for, just movie or movie and stills, ie hybrid? If you need it for stills as well, think of this, the Sony e-mount lens selection is not great. The 18-105 I got with my A6000 was so frustrating and although you could zoom like a video cam and af is definitely better it was big and cumbersome and everytime it powered off it reset to wide, ahhh. After lots and lots and lots of comparisons with the gx7 and the fact they have nothing in the fast 2.8 zoom range I had to accept the Sony was a mistake, especially after I discovered the still images were far superior from the Gx7 to the Sony, mind I only had the kit, 18-105 f4, 50 1.8 and 55-210 but all seemed poor quality c/w lumix. Think of an alternative to the 35-100 2.8 in e-mount or the 100-300 or the 12-35 2.8 or even a compact 14-140 option, they don't exist! Try gx7 footage with resolve lite and output to UHD, impressive, works with native mp4 files too.

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    @adventsam The problem I felt with stills was the 20+mpx. I can see why a lot complained about the nex7. I has very sharp & clean photos with the Nex6 & Nex 5n before it...the a6000's were a bit smooshy and very noisy. It also brought out the lens imperfections.

    I disagree about the sony lens range...they have a good range now.

    I loved the 18-105mm f4...it is excellent for video. I wish panasonic would make a comparable lens for micro four thirds. A non retractable powerzoom with a good zoom range and constant aperture. I now have the 12-35mm & 35mm-100mm f2.8 with a GH3 (soon GH4) I do still miss the 18-105mm. I hate these sticky manual zooms for video! :-D

  • adventsamadventsam

    @Mimirsan, Well it might be nice to have a 14-70 f4 in-lens zoom for m43 but I think they will all complain its not fast enough and that was a problem for the 18-105 for me, suddenly f4 becomes rather limiting whatever platform and then you think well 140 is still a bit short for video cam, as that's what it feels like too with that lens. Overall, it may be sticky and zooming is difficult if at all but actually I like the 14-140 much more than the 18-105. I did think af in video for the a6k was impressive but its completely auto, you can't get it to pull focus, not really, you are back to MF and then that mf ring and evf, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhg, no Sony you need a touch screen better evf etc etc. Also, think of this, the 12-35-35-100 are really the most compact 2.8 constants around, they really are small/light there is nothing like it on any platform that I'm aware of and hence it is difficult to see aps-c cameras ever competing! Add in the fact the gx7/gh4 will easily head off the aps-c competition for flexibility and honestly its not really worth looking anywhere else as its just a compromise, Panasonic have it nailed, there is room for a flexible zoom though 14-100 f2.8-4 maybe ;)

  • Manu4VendettaManu4Vendetta

    Thanks to everyone.

    @roly, thanks for the advice.

    I understand your reflection and you're absolutely right.

    I'm not wealthy, I am poor and I am investing most of my salary In photo and video gear, giving priority over personal needs, Even I have soft loans with the bank.

    The problem is that I have two fronts; film and still photography, there is no single perfect camera. From GX7 I like your all in one; design, portability (important for me because I can carry the camera in a pocket and in my country gained crime in recent times and a DSLR camera is very noticeable), quality photo and video, the GH4 has the advantage of its 96fps I am a lover of slow motion and above is the 4K friendly uncia that lets you record to an SD card, A7S is a beast and my ideal would be for night shots in the street while the BMPCC offers RAW at prices economic (excluding the subject of investing in Goods Yard and editing equipment).

    When I buy the GH2 was the best 'economic' and best option for video, but today is overcome for some cameras, and in still isnt a great camera and so acquired the NEX-5N although ugly and optical sometimes unbalanced but its a great camera.

    So, I need somy lightning gear.

  • rolyroly

    @manu

    Glad you understood my mini-rant!

    Personally, if I were you I'd keep the GX7, but that's just me. You have more than enough lenses for it, and it takes great stills and videos. I've taken magazine published photos with an Olympus Pen (nd the GX7 is WAY better), and for videos, just check out the GX7 aka GX2 thread on this page. If you need video quality better than that. you need should be having paying jobs that will fund a the purchase of a better camera. The recent video from 16pads shows off the GX7's slomo capabilities. Look good to me.

    Sorry to hear about the crime rate, btw. Where do you live?

Add a Comment