Looking for a new camera for Film

I should add that I have all the adobe toys like Premiere which I mostly edit on. I'll be using my PC for editing, but I dont own a 4k monitor

Hey man idk anyone on ns who has ever had 3k at one time so idk if you’ll get any helpful answers

In my eyes choosing between the a7sii and a gh5 comes down mostly to your film style and what you want to be filming. The Sony will be leaps above the GH5 in terms of low light quality and color depth, but the GH5 kicks the Sony's ass if you are someone who frequently uses/wants to shoot in 120p, and needs body stabilization. I never owned the GH5, but my personal experience with the GH4 was that it was so poor at shooting in bad lighting conditions that it felt like the camera was sabotaging me from shots that would normally be a walk in the park for a larger sensor. Many have told me that the GH5 was an improvement in that regard but I couldn't tell ya, a lot of people on here use that camera and can probably chime in.

I think you are looking in the right area given your budget, and good on ya for saving some money for the glass because that's really what matters. If you are the kind of guy to get a single lens and roll with it then maybe some more options can open up given your budget like the canon R6, BMPCC, or like an fs5 or something.

The gh5 is great, but if you have any sony lenses just get the a7.

eheathThe gh5 is great, but if you have any sony lenses just get the a7.

I don't have any great lenses for Sony. I mostly use a Metabones adapter + Tokina 11-16 for skiing and other nice canon glass for everything else. Wasn't sure what sony lenses would be ideal.

WPochI don't have any great lenses for Sony. I mostly use a Metabones adapter + Tokina 11-16 for skiing and other nice canon glass for everything else. Wasn't sure what sony lenses would be ideal.

Word well the gh5 is probably better for action, especially during the day. The a7 will be the best for low light. GH5 has a better LCD and battery life, im pretty sure both shoot 4k 60?

Sony is the future though in terms of what they have been putting out each year. Panasonic has the GH5 and SH1? And the gh5 is mad old lol. People will say that sony is not a filmaker camera but if you rig them up with a cage and handle it's fine, yeah lcd's kinda blow and batteries suck on apsc but get an external monitor and you'll be set. Sony's new A7C looks sweet too, in between the apsc and full frame body size. Sony checks the box in terms of native glass as well. Panasonic you'll want to invest in some canon glass and a metabones. Sony is the way in terms of upgrades too super easy. My opinion: Buy a used camera body like an A7SII and two really nice pieces of glass

isaacwrongSony is the future though in terms of what they have been putting out each year. Panasonic has the GH5 and SH1? And the gh5 is mad old lol. People will say that sony is not a filmaker camera but if you rig them up with a cage and handle it's fine, yeah lcd's kinda blow and batteries suck on apsc but get an external monitor and you'll be set. Sony's new A7C looks sweet too, in between the apsc and full frame body size. Sony checks the box in terms of native glass as well. Panasonic you'll want to invest in some canon glass and a metabones. Sony is the way in terms of upgrades too super easy. My opinion: Buy a used camera body like an A7SII and two really nice pieces of glass

I wouldn't say a camera has to be "new" to necessarily be good. The gh5 is still unmatched for the price IMO, 4k60 with sensor stablization is pretty great for anything involving skiing. The only real reason to get an a7 would if more then say 20-30% of your shots need good low light, then sony is a no brainer. The LCDs and batteries dont just suck, they're downright trash and not everyone wants to rig up a camera with a battery pack and monitor, which is why I think the gh5 outshines it in this fashion.

eheathI wouldn't say a camera has to be "new" to necessarily be good. The gh5 is still unmatched for the price IMO, 4k60 with sensor stablization is pretty great for anything involving skiing. The only real reason to get an a7 would if more then say 20-30% of your shots need good low light, then sony is a no brainer. The LCDs and batteries dont just suck, they're downright trash and not everyone wants to rig up a camera with a battery pack and monitor, which is why I think the gh5 outshines it in this fashion.

Tru tru...I guess imo just strictly looking at specs over function Sony outperforms in what they are able to squeeze into their bodies. GH5 is great but like you said low light is trash. Even the GH4/3 are complete bricks and produce insane sharpness in quality for the price. You look at the a6300/6500 though and specs out perform both of those, even though sharpness lacks at 1080 120 and some rolling shutter. I take Sony any day

isaacwrongTru tru...I guess imo just strictly looking at specs over function Sony outperforms in what they are able to squeeze into their bodies. GH5 is great but like you said low light is trash. Even the GH4/3 are complete bricks and produce insane sharpness in quality for the price. You look at the a6300/6500 though and specs out perform both of those, even though sharpness lacks at 1080 120 and some rolling shutter. I take Sony any day

I actually havent really checked out the a6xxx series much but I've heard great things, either way OP will have a good camera, it really comes down to what you're shooting.

I own a Gh5 with meta-bones speed adapter. I am not a fan of Sony, but definitely understand why some people like them. I've found the GH5 footage has more neutral colors than any sony camera I've used. Sony's have always had this look to them, the color shifts are very noticeable. I find that when matching RED and GH5 footage it is much easier than many other cameras.

So the first thing I like about the Gh5 is that it has more neutral colors. Especially the a7sii. Because the Gh5 has a bigger bit-depth. pretty sure the Sony a7sii can only do 4:2:0 8 Bit where the Gh5 does 4:2:2 10 Bit. Basically the Gh5 stores more information when recording. This makes you able to shoot in a flat profile like v-log so in post you can utilize the entire dynamic range from the camera. This is very simplified, but watch a video on youtube about bit rates and log if interested.

Also it's pretty sick that you can shoot 4k 60p on the Gh5, which would use the lower bit rate. 4:2:0 8-bit. Even when using this bit depth it is more neutral than the Sony. Using Cin-D color profile will give you a very neutral image on the Gh5. But you can get an external recorder, which is basically a monitor that has a computer in it that helps boost your camera. If you buy an Atomos recorder for the gh5 it can shoot 4k 60p at 4:2:2 10 bit. This is a crazy file and honestly is huge. the a7sii is not getting anywhere close technically.

Another part of the gh5 that can be nice is the lenses. If you have a speed adapter, it is making the censor size tec. bigger also giving you the option to use canon lenses. EF lenses are the most popular and abundant lenses in the market. Lenses are more important then your camera, they are where the real creativity comes in when filming. Sony lenses are sooooo expensive, they are really good, but many of the good sony lenses alone would be 2,500 to 3k. You can always get an adapter from sony to EF so it's really not that big of a deal.

The one thing to mention about the a7sii is its low light and that it is a full frame. The full-frame allows you to have more light, so better bokeh and depth of field. It also has super large pixals, which makes it so you can shoot super high ISO's. This is soooo useful and can honestly be a game-changer. I would love to have a sony a7sii in my camera bag just for shooting night stuff. But you can't have everything in the world so you got to make a choice...

Its not about the camera, its what you're pointing it at. Cinema cameras are not good in low light. Even the Arri's kinda sucks in low-light. You need to light your scene, lighting and bending light is what makes a good-looking image. If you boost your ISO to make the image brighter, you are now not using your native ISO and your shadows will suffer, your dynamic range gets crushed.

I think the Gh5 looks really neutral and has extremely competitive codecs that the a7sii does not have. You will have much more room in post to color correct, which would also give you a taste of what is to come with more complex CODECs like Red Raw.

Many film schools get Gh5's because they are very versatile and are far more professional video oriantated. The sony alpha series, are hybrids. The Gh5 is a video camera and you get the waveforms, anamorphic modes, zebras, so many preset buttons. Also the menu is super good. Sony has terrible and confusing menus.

That's my rant. Heavily bias. Sonys are dope don't get me wrong just do your research. There is a lot to cameras and every person needs a different type of tool.