- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:04 pm
- Real Name: Tobias Wessely
I have the Sony a6400 which is pretty much the same as the s6600 minus the IBIS, and the a6600 has ~4 more stops of dynamic range. I also have the Ursa Mini Pro G2. I like the a6400 video, but comparatively, the end result is too much like a "home video". Too sharp, movement is abrupt and not as smooth, overall, just not as "cinematic" as the G2. This is of course my personal opinion.
As a newbie, it did take me a while to realize that the Sony is basically photograph quality (it is a still camera after all). To me, that's nice for photographs, but doesn't translate to a more film-like or cinema look. The more I film with the G2, the more I realize that.
As a side note, I also own the Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN lens. It's amazing for the price, but to me it's more of a photography/vlogging lens. Although we can shoot video with any lens we want, I personally find that dedicated cinema lenses make a big difference. As a point of reference, search the Official "Look what I shot!" Thread. There are some very talented folks that use the 4.6 Pro / 4.6 Pro G2 and you can get an idea of what can be achieved with those cameras' vs the Sony a6600.
Perhaps you like more of the sharp home movie look? There is nothing wrong with that. Simply a personal preference. Personally, I find it much easier to color (Davinci Resolve), BD RAW than Sony S-Log3. My BD Raw work always come across as more dimensional and "film-like".
Not sure if that helped, but that has been my overall experience so far as a newbie / hobbyist.