Sony a6300 vs Sony FS5 : Camera Shootout

In this episode, we are comparing the $900 Sony a6300 to its $5,000 big brother, the Sony FS5. How does it stack up?

Sony a6300:

Sony FS5:

Follow us on Social Media:

[slr]

Finally a good realistic comparison of two cameras, not some smartphone vs RED vs ARRI vs....etc.

[visualhubmx]

Now we're convinved we're getting some a6300 for the team... thumbs up for the video

[poman]

I bought the GH4 in 2014 because Sony first 4K video sucked. I bought the a6300 in 2016 because I was blown away by how good the Sony was compared to the GH4. The GH5 was a disappointment so I added the a6500 in 2017. The a6300/a6500 has brought semi-professional/indie filmaker tools within the reach of hobbyists like me! Thank you smartphones (iPhone, Android) for forcing Sony to move up its game by bringing quality into its consumer products.

[Turnaround_]

I use an FS5 in work and have just purchased a used 6300, thanks for the oddly specific comparison!

[AlvaroOrtizSanz]

Nice to see such a detailed comparison.

Just let me correct a little point: FS5 is capable of doing 240fps in Full HD resolution (at 7:05 you mention that it can only do 120 in 1080).

Regards, and here you have another follower from the house ;)

[MGalaxy]

Nicely made comparison. A lot of technical terms which I like. Thanks!

[legendp]

I think the a6300 and fs5 measure iso differently. setting zebras to 100% and exposing up to just below 100% on each would give a more accurate result (in my opinion). and keeping each camera at native iso (800 on a6300 and 2000 on fs5 in slog-3). looking at the a6300 clips the shadows do look brighter

[LoverOfTech]

I just got the A6300 used with lens for £560. Have to give Sony credit for not holding back such a compact camera against their cinema line

[Blockbuster]

This comparison doesn't really make that much sense since the a6300 is mostly aimed at prosumers that do photography and videography while the fs5 is aimed at entry-pros that only shoot video and is meant to be used at 1080p 10bit 4:2:2 or as a raw-camera with the upgrade. The fs5 has way better workflow and features like built in nd-filters that are really aimed for efficient (some call it run'n'gun) shooting.

[OpalImagesIncMesa]

I love doing these types of video good job

[CGerakis]

Thank you for your video, I have them both and you are so right.

[ScaramouchedaVinci]

Good work. But why nobody ist talking about the handling and the big different audio?

[SimpleSandalsMedia]

Great comparison.
This made me subscribe to your channel immediately :)

[FishingwithGarySenft]

Love the ads at the bottom of the frame how do you do that

[danielllobo]

Great video. Tough i would not discuss the 11 stops of the a6300 I do feel I get more dynamic range at iso 800 than at anything higher than 1600. Nothing scientific, just my feeling.

[HamedAlgabbani]

I would like part two of this video ASAP! can you include some footage of faces and probably some other test that you didn’t include for this video! I was always wondering how much potential did the a6300 have to show the world that this camera is actually a very good camera in every aspect and that it could compete against the high end Sony cameras..

[rong]

Whoooo - a DR test (3:33) where everything is at least over IRE20??? What do you want to show, that an "ETTR to the max" overexposed camera tends to clip ;-)?!
What happened to the gamma? Did you even modify any NOT TO USE S-LOG GAMMA with knee or other "tweaks"?
Is this even possible? I never saw a clip from my a6300/6500/a7M3 that shows banding OOC!

[markromero]

Thanks for the comparison. a6300 much more magenta than the fS5, which looked a lot more green.

[ghostnote]

Haha a6300 was pannned much more vigorously for the rolling shutter test :)

[incubafilms]

I bought a Sony Fs5 and I can say that was the best investment ever made...It's a camera for the war...a camera for photography also can be used to shoot video, but not documentaries or long shots in bad conditions, both are diferentes. It depends what you need....