Hi, I'd like to know your thoughts. Is the Canon R6 or Sony A7 IV more video roriented? I'd like to shoot at 4K 50p and I already know Canon R6 is better for it. BUT I don't want to know it, I'd like to know which of the two cameras is more video oriented.IAnyway I think Sony A7 IV can give better video quality (more detailed and better quality image) because it is newer. Canon is older. ;) What camera would you buy to make 4K documentaries? Thanks for your thoughts.

The Sony A7IV is better for video:
+ no record time limitations
+ never overheats
+ more lens choices, third party options
- crops 4k60

Canon R6
- 30min record limit
- over heating issues
- less lens choices and more expensive, no third party
+ no 4k60 crop

Sony A7IV vs Canon EOS R6 Comparison - YouTube

Hi, I'd like to know your thoughts. Is the Canon R6 or Sony A7 IV more video-oriented? I'd like to shoot at 4K 50p...

I ended up going with the a7iv as that's exactly what I want, a suitable 50p camera. A couple of 50p samples here in both HD and 4K 50p.

Chris Young

HD 50p
https://youtu.be/WNp0oMobHvY
https://youtu.be/za2Ep8sHI8k

4K50p
https://youtu.be/lRwdRFgd3jI
https://youtu.be/ILdoaKnPQP4

Hello Chris,
thank you so much for your message. i enjoyed watching your videos. Could I ask you some questions please?

Do you also like to shoot at 4K 50p? A lot of people are teasing me about it. jajajaaja To be honest I like to shoot at 50p rather than 25p for my videos.

I always go to hot countries to shoot documentaries. Do you think I will have some problems with the overheating of the camera?

I have a lot of old card that I used with the GH5 and now I no longer have it. Could you tell me if I can also use them with Sony A7 IV? Someone told me I could do it, but with a low bitrate. But do I have to shoot with such a low a bitrate that can degrade the quality of my clips? I DO NOT take photos but only videos in 4K.
I attach a pic of the Sony cards.
Thanks for your info!
https://i.postimg.cc/qMNp54DL/20220114-103916.jpg (https://postimg.cc/rKL6dXk0)

You'll want faster UHS II cards (300MB/s), if not CFxpress cards, especially if you want to shoot 4k/50p. You can always try one of your old 95MB/s cards, but unlikely they'll sustain the data rates for 4k/50p.

Do you also like to shoot at 4K 50p? A lot of people are teasing me about it. jajajaaja To be honest I like to shoot at 50p rather than 25p for my videos.

I prefer to shoot 50p in either HD or 4K as I can always bring it back to 25p. Plus if I need 50% slow-mo that is easily created from 50p.

I always go to hot countries to shoot documentaries. Do you think I will have some problems with the overheating of the camera?

So far I have run the a7iv without stopping for 3 hours and 22mins using an internal battery and with an external USB-C power supply connected. Using a dummy battery the camera runs cooler. The camera has never got to "hot". It gets warm but not uncomfortably warm to touch or hold. This 3 hour plus recording was at 22 degrees Celcius temperature. Never had a temperature warning but I do have the warning setting in the menu set to 'high'. I really don't think overheating would be an issue unless the camera is in direct sun and you are shooting at the highest bit rates. But then if I'm shooting like that with any type of camera the camera is shielded from the direct sun, broadcast or otherwise when running for a long time.

I have a lot of old card that I used with the GH5 and now I no longer have it. Could you tell me if I can also use them with Sony A7 IV? Someone told me I could do it, but with a low bitrate. But do I have to shoot with such a low a bitrate that can degrade the quality of my clips? I DO NOT take photos but only videos in 4K.
I attach a pic of the Sony cards.


All the videos you have watched, both HD and 4K were all shot using the XAVC-S 422 10-bit codec which is Sony's 200Mbps Long GOP codec. They were all shot on SanDisk Extreme 90MB/s U3 class 10 cards. Slightly lower rating than your Sony 95MB/s cards. At 200Mbps that's equivalent to 25MB/s so that's well inside the minimum continuous data rate of a high-quality brand name 95MB/s card. If you want to shoot XAVC-I at 500/600Mbps then you will need V90 rated cards. If you are going to use S&Q at up to 60p then you will need CFExpress cards as the bit rate there is up to 1200Mbps. It's all clearly outlined in the a7iv/a7Siii XAVC spec sheets.

For years I have worked in broadcast and the main production bit rate used nearly everywhere was 50Mbps. Do you ever watch F1 racing in Europe in 4K? That is generally coming from a 200Mbps video production pipeline and is broadcast live in most parts of the world at 35-40Mbps on DVB-T2 at 3840 × 2160p at 50 or 59.94 frame/s, HEVC encoded at (mostly) 8 bit/px or sometimes at10 bit/px. Does it look high quality? Yes, it does. High bit rates are only a part of maintaining picture quality. Don't get carried away by massive bit rates. I-Frame is easier to edit but has a much higher data load with its higher bit rates, therefore, necessitating faster cards. It will also chew up a lot more space. Your choice. The question is "Do I really need that high bit rate?". I don't think so. That's based on having shot doco series for TV at anywhere between 50 and 200Mbps.

Chris Young

Wonderful detailed reply. I thank you so much. You have reassured me in no small measure.
Let me ask you one last question since you are very experienced and use the Sony A7 IV. I have been using the Lumiza GH5 in recent times, but have now sold it, along with its kit. Now I should buy a new camera and I'm thinking of buying the Sony A7 IV. It seems like the perfect camera for me but I don't like 2 things about it:

1) I never use tripods or gimbals in my documentaries and never will. I shoot everything freehand. The Lumix GH5 gave me great reassurance of stability. Sony unfortunately doesn't perform as well as the GH5 and if you want good stability you have to deal with the clips in a rather cumbersome way in post production. I like more simple and immediate things. ;)
Do you think I can get on well with this Sony in terms of stabilisation.

2) Shooting in 4K 50P there is a "crop". Have you ever noticed a slight loss of image quality in the video? I already know about the focal length difference, but I don't mean that, just the quality. Although I will only have ONE zoom lens with me (Sony SEL 24-105mm f/4 G OSS), but that wouldn't be the problem.
Thanks again.

Adriano.

Shooting in 50/60p crop is still giving a 4.6K oversample. Comparing shooting in FF and crop means a difference in oversampling between 7K and 4.6K. Visually on a 60" screen, I cannot see any difference. If I have to struggle to see a difference between the crop and FF image it's of no concern to me. The 4.6 oversampled image is well ahead in image IQ of the following cameras I have owned and currently own and in some cases have worked with on various projects. They are the FS7, F5, F55, Varicam LT and Canon C300MkII. Effectively the 4.6 image is approx 14.6 megapixels. All the above cameras are effectively 11 Megapixel cameras in Super35 mode. When it comes to signal to noise ratio and just visual noise observations the a7iv is well ahead of all the cameras above. Also in direct comparison to the Sony a7Siii between 3200 ISO and 12800 ISO I have found the camera to have better fine detail resolution and a quieter image. Even in crop mode against the 12 Megapixel of the a7Siii. This is probably down to the 4.6 oversampling. Oversampling does reduce noise levels. All of the above cameras in S35 in 4K have no oversampling. The a7Siii, which was high on my list also has no oversampling.

Probably the biggest thing to be held against the a7iv is that it has a FF rolling shutter of 26.8 ms. The Canon R6 for example is running out at 30.6 ms. In crop mode, the a7iv is running out at 12.8 ms which is actually better than the Sony FS7 and F5. Anything below 14 ms has never been a problem for me shooting motorsport, football or dance. Do you hear a massive amount of talk about rolling shutter problems with the Canon R6 or the Panasonic S1 series? Not really. The a7iv is in the same category of rolling shutter as those cameras in FF mode.

When it comes to IS then yes the GH5 has been one of the benchmarks. In my experience, none of the FF cameras is as good as the Panasonic M4/3 sensor for stabilization. That being said if you use a Sony or Tamron lens with stabilization in conjunction with the in-body stabilization of the a7iv the camera is very useable handheld. The second video I listed is an all HD handheld example of the combined IS of both the camera body and the lens. Even with my non-IS manual lenses, I get pretty decent results using just the five-axis in-body IS. Good enough that no client or network has ever mentioned camera movement or stability.

Chris Young

Dear Chris,
you are a lot of experience and I'd like to ask 2 questions please:

1) You know that the smaller the sensor, the more the environment around you is in focus. Unlike a full frame which focuses mainly on the subject, leaving what's behind it out of focus.
For my 4K videos of documentation on the traditions and daily life of indigenous peoples in their villages, but also outside, in general would you prefer to shoot with a 4/3, an APS-C or a full frame camera? I know it's a matter of personal taste and how you want to manage your video. OK! But I would like to know your thoughts. If you were me, with which camera would you shoot the documentary?

2) If I were to decide to buy the Sony A7 IV, you told me that there are 2 lenses that have OIS, ie lens stabilization, the Sony 24-105mm but also Tamron. What precise Tamron model allows for this stabilization in conjunction with the camera's IBIS?
Is there a Tamron focal excursion similar to the Sony lens?
I have no experience with this but I believe that buying the Sony lens is a superior guarantee of the Tamron.
Thank you

I first started in this business in the '60s. First shooting film in 16mm and 35mm. Then shooting video with 1" then 2/3" tube cameras and then finally 2/3" CCD cameras and now 1/2", 2/3" and #35 and FF CMOS sensors.

I trained at the BBC in Bristol and worked with some of the best cameramen from the Natural History Unit which is world-renowned for the quality of its documentary productions. There is no perfect choice of camera for doco work. Depends on what you are shooting. Some of the best of the BBC's wildlife doco material has been shot on 2/3" sensors. Now a lot is shot on S35 sensors as it offers a good range of possibilities for shallow DOF with fast lenses. Plus it can utilise long lenses without them being insanely large and heavy as they would be for FF cameras. Mind you they can still be very large and heavy. For doco work, my choice is S35. Though FF works well in many situations. S35 for me because in my experience S35 has delivered the best overall balance of image quality, ease of use, equipment weight and size. Which are all equally important components of an overall production package for me. That's not to say I don't use FF, I do. That is why the a7iv suited me best as it offered me both FF and APSC (close to S35) in one small package. I'm always looking for smaller and lighter.

Don't write Tamron off. Don't forget that Sony has made a large financial investment into the Tamron group. That's why their lenses work very well on Sony cameras. Sony licenses a lot of Sony's own IP algorithms relating to AF IOS and IBIS with Tamron. For me, the new Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD is high on my list. It can be used on FF and will offer you even greater reach in APSC crop mode. But again, what are you really needing in a lens? For an all-around single-lens solution this Tamron 35-150mm offers a lot. It's considerably faster than the extremely good 24-105mm Sony you mentioned. It doesn't have OIS like the Sony 24-105 but it still works very well with Sony's IBIS. Check it out.

The lens I'm using most in APSC 4K 50p shooting is Tamron's 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 VC VXD which does have OIS and which works extremely well with the a7iv IBIS. Really good for handheld work and even close to macro work. It hardly leaves the camera. The Tamron 18-300 is the one I used a lot of in the videos I posted above.

When you say "Is there a Tamron focal excursion similar to the Sony lens?" I'm not sure what you are referring to?

Chris Young

Watch the videos on both lenses here:

This Lens Is INCREDIBLE! | Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Review - YouTube

Tamron 18-300mm Sony APSC Lens stills and autofocus review 4K - YouTube

Dear Chris,
your kindness and helpfulness are special and I don't really know how to thank you.
If I haven't bothered you yet, I'd like to ask you for another advice. no one else can give it to me with your experience and because you already own the Sony A7 IV.
I would like to attach my latest documentary, so that you can better understand what I am shooting. They are not a few minutes of the original documentary. They are just a few clips. The original one is totally different, even in the colors. ;) I don't use the camera for youtube.
Here is the link: https://youtu.be/n5mEALxt48c

I always travel alone because I am a lonely traveler, I always go to remote areas and I am not young, so my hands are not very steady, especially because the heat and primitive life is suffocating for me. So what interests me most are: video image quality (with a good zoom lens) and stability. For this reason I had considered the Sony 24-105mm f/4 which has OIS. I will only take one zoom lens with me. But then again, I like to be on the "field" and have little technical information. I would be very grateful if you could recommend a right zoom lens for me and with the right focal length (sorry for having written focal excursion), but also some other advice, for example by recommending a camera as good as the Sony A7 IV but lighter. .
1000 thanks

Like yourself, I work alone a lot of the time but if it is for a network I am usually shooting with a producer/presenter and a sound operator/assistant. When shooting on my own the kit has to be very small. I see you shoot a lot of close up material. If you do a lot of that I think you would be struggling with just a 24-105 type lens. A lens I wouldn't be using a lot in crop mode. If you aim to shoot FF 24/25/30p then that's a different story. If you want FF 50p then you really need to be looking at the a7siii.

My minimum 50p package is two zoom lenses for doco work. It keeps the weight down over primes when flying and I can carry everything on board in one smallish shoulder bag. This also includes my sound kit where I use the Rode Wireless Go II kit with two wired Sennheiser MKE2 lapel mics for interviews along with one short shotgun mic with a good windsock.

As I shoot 90% of my material 50p that means I'm shooting APSC on the a7iv. The two lenses I carry for APSC 50p are the Sony 10-18mm and the Tamron 18-300mm. Both are fully stabilised and work very well for handheld work on the a7iv in crop mode. Believe it or not, you can use the 10-18mm on an a7 when shooting full-frame, There are a couple of different 'tricks' in doing so. You may be interested to see how in the video below.

Another lens I would consider which doesn't have OIS, not that I find that super necessary on wide zooms is the Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 RXD. A very good F/2.8 package at a pretty good price.

You ask what is lighter than a Sony a7? Not much other than some of the Sonys like the APSC a6400/a6600 series for example but the trade-off there is a massive downgrade in video bit-rate and color space. Plus the fact that the Sony APSC cameras have pretty poor rolling shutter performance compared to any of the Sony FF cameras in crop mode.

Chris Young

"VERMILION" α7III (A7III) + E 10-18mm F4 OSS SEL1018 FULL (x1.2 crop) FRAME 4K30p VIDEO
"VERMILION" α7III (A7III) + E 10-18mm F4 OSS SEL1018 FULL (x1.2 crop) FRAME 4K30p VIDEO - YouTube

Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 RXD Review
Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 RXD Review - YouTube

You were very clear in your exposition of the concepts, thank you.
Only out of curiosity:
would you shoot my documentaries with the new Palasonic GH6 which will be out very soon?
Thanks again.

I don't know the end market for your productions so I don't know what would work best for you. For me? No, I wouldn't move from the Sony. One of the main reasons is the codec. The XAVC codec is now pretty well established amongst the broadcasters who I have as clients and who book me for certain productions. The fact that the same LOG workflow that works on all the 10-bit Sony S-LOG3 cameras from the Venice down to the FX and FS series and that is now available on the newer 422 10-bit Sony mirrorless cameras makes the current a7 series a very practical choice for inclusion into the production chain. The camera is only one link in the production chain. The smoother that integrates into the production workflow the easier that workflow is. For my own productions and non-broadcast clients, I shoot on three different Sony cameras. They that all shoot XAVC. They are all different for different types of shoot requirements. One is a three-sensor camera with a B4 lens, another is an S35 camera and the last is an a7. Mixing these three cameras together with all of them basically having the same codec and color science make the post-production process quicker and more efficient for me.

Cheers
Chris Young

Sorry, sorry, sorry!!!!
I forgot to mention that documentaries are just for me. I have never sold them and I would not want to sell them. They are all unpublished. ����
So my question had to be: if you were free from everything and everyone and if you traveled alone and had the same budget as the Sony A7 IV, with which camera would you make documentaries in me? Would you make them with a much smaller and less heavy GH6 (due to the zoom lens) or would you make them with the Sony A7 IV? For me the 2-3 conditional things are the video image quality, the AF, and also the stabilization which is to be kept in mind.
You've spent too much on your advice, so you are not obliged to answer this last question of mine. ��
Thanks again.

Again for me, I would stay with the Sonys for a number of reasons that work for me. All my lenses are interchangeable as they are all E-Mount. The 28-135 and 18-110 so-called "cine" type servo zoom lens that I use on an FS7 also work on the a7 cameras. These lenses have a much more manual type of operation. Like separate focus, zoom and iris rings. I'm very used to working manually with lenses and being able to use them across different cameras makes sense for me to stay with Sony.

If you want to really rely on AF I think you'll find the Panasonics not at the top of AF cameras compared to Canon and Sony. From an IBIS point of view, the GH5 (not S) has great stabilisation. These M4/3 cameras are used very successfully in doco and news coverage. Very often the favoured camera for travelling with small light camera kits. Have you seen the Sky News doco "The Real Chernobyl"? You should check it out. The bulk of that was shot under some very tough conditions using the Lumix GH5 cameras. A great looking production with some really nice images so if you want to work with Panasonic there is no reason in the world why you shouldn't. The camera after all is just a tool. How you use it to tell the story is the creative part that helps make any production watchable. So yes a GH6... when it becomes available could indeed be a good choice if you feel it will deliver the results you want. No reason it shouldn't!

Chris Young

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/06/26/the-real-chernobyl-from-commission-to-transmission-in-two-weeks/

The Real Chernobyl - YouTube

Your replies are so interesting, I thank you!
Why do you prefer S-Cinetone instead of S-Log3 in your videos?
According to your taste, what profile would you like for my documentaries if I will use Sony A/ IV?
Thanks

For a quick turnaround shoot and deliver job S-Cintone is pretty good.

If I'm shooting and editing the material myself I will generally shoot S-LOG if the budget and time allow for that. Depends on the client. If they specify LOG I'll shoot LOG. A lot of my clients wouldn't even know what LOG or RAW was with regard to video and photography. They just know that they want to be happy with the results. Most of my clients, some I've had for forty years just trust me from many years of collaborative experience and leave it up to me to make any technical decisions regarding their productions.

Also for lower dynamic range lower light shooting, like if the whole scene is around six to seven stops I prefer to use the newer S-Cinetone over LOG. Saves time in post and time is money. Previously I would shoot 709 for those sorts of jobs. If I'm doing an indoor shoot and have full control of the lighting I'll light my scenes/interviews to suit the range of 709. S-Cinetone is a 709 variant.

You have to decide what suits your subject matter best and a lot of that will depend on lighting and how you want to handle your footage in post. For maximum flexibility, RAW and LOG offer you the best in terms of future-proofing your material. That's why I have been shooting those test videos on the a7iv. To see what dynamic range and flexibility the various PPs give me with that new 33-megapixel sensor.

Then again if the delivery requirement was for an HDR deliverable I would 100% work in S-LOG as that can be conformed anywhere from 709 to HLG to HDR10 and anywhere from 4K to HD to SD.

A lot of people ask me "Why don't you shoot RAW?" Simple reason. For my work, I have never been asked it and for my own deliverables, there is no major advantage for me in doing so. I have worked in RAW but I don't "need" to. Alister Chapman wrote a fairly decent overview of LOG vs RAW production. Without a doubt the closer you are to the original sensor image output the more capability you have for image manipulation. But like many things in this business, it all comes down to the cost-benefit ratio in $$$s.

If you are interested you will find the pluses and minuses of S-Cinetone are pretty well explained in the Sony publication "S-Cinetone Whitepaper. Version 1".

https://pro.sony/s3/2020/03/24095333/S-Cinetone-whitepaper_v2.pdf

and for LOG

https://www.xdcam-user.com/2020/11/raw-isnt-magic-with-the-right-tools-log-does-it-too/

Chris Young