D5300 or A6000 - low light performance

<p>Hi<br /><br />I'm wondering of anyone on this forum knows which is better in low light in terms of noise and AF accuracy, the D5300 or the Sony A6000?<br>

I know this is the Nikon forum and I have shot the brand for years hence my post here.<br>

Here's the background:</p>

 

My company asked if I would be interested in shooting some video and stills of their tours. We offer Extreme Sports tours (Spelunking, Rock Climbing, Bungee, Rappelling, Water Sports etc) to tourists visiting Israel. <br /><br />Looking at the content at my work I need a camera that:

 

<ul>

<li>shoots video and stills in low light (caves & bars), from about 24mm to 35mm (DX equivalent) and; </li>

<li>shoots video and stills, wide to telephoto, in bright middle-eastern light</li>

<li>Allows me to shoot & reproduce paintings for prints and website use (<strong>completely separate project</strong> but it's something I get asked to do from time to time so macro capabilities are important)</li>

</ul>

 

These will be used on our website and for emails to promo extreme sports tours to prospective customers on sites like Vimeo, Youtube and Facebook. So we are not talking Red Bull quality here!

 

I realise to get pro results you need pro gear, including the necessary lighting, but they are not paying me for this (I earn an hourly min wage to write emails to customers and suppliers, seo and social media marketing) but I will do what I can to raise my skill levels and add to my portfolio and then apply for a decent job. And yes, I have gear lust and money coming in via a tax return so this purchase will also benefit me.

<br /> I already own:<br />

<ul>

<li>Sony Nex 7, Sig 30 and charger/ car charger.</li>

<li>Nikon 35G, 18-55 VR II <strong>(sold my D300, flash and lenses months ago to cover my rent when I was between jobs ...)</strong></li>

<li>Canon G9<strong><br /></strong></li>

</ul>

 

 

<p>Price-wise the most I can afford is around 5000 shekels ($1250) and for that I can get:</p>

<ul>

<li>D5300, 18-55 kit (the new lens - its optimised for video, right?) and maybe another lens</li>

<li>Sony A6000, 16-50, 55-210</li>

<li>Sony RX10 which is absurdly overpriced but maybe it's really worth it?</li>

<li>Canon 7D Mk i body only ...</li>

</ul>

<p>Also I need to consider a tripod, microphone and headphones, extra media cards...<br /><br />On a personal level I anticipate using my kit for travel, street, portraits, repro and gig (bar bands) photography. <br /><br />Thanks for any advice. I hope I made myself clear. Any questions, please please ask. <br /><br />Eyal</p>

<p>Regarding some of the indoor bar band photos here are some samples:</p><div></div>

<p>Edited</p><div></div>

<p>Pic two:</p><div></div>

<p>And Edited</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry, I seem to have made a mess of uploading the pics. And FYI I use my English name (Not Eyal) on the watermarks</p>

<p>Sorry, ANOTHER FYI, these photos were taken with a Fuji X100 (sold) that wasn't very good when it came to low light AF. I posted these here to give you an idea as to how 'low light' it can get, albeit not in a cave...</p>

<p>So... with a massive disclaimer that I don't own either of these cameras... For stills, the D5300 is likely pretty competitive. I've heard good things about the A6000, but generally speaking the off-sensor phase detect autofocus system on a DSLR still has an advantage, especially on a moving subject in low light. The D5300 has Nikon's second-best autofocus system (give or take minor revisions), shared with the D7000, the D6x0 and the Df. You also get a larger lens range (at least, working properly) than the Sony.<br />

<br />

But. A DSLR's phase-detect autofocus system only works when you've got the mirror down. Video only works with the mirror up, meaning you'll get contrast-detect (poor, but accurate) autofocus performance from the D5300 when you're shooting video. Many would argue that you don't want autofocus for video anyway - especially something that hunts around for focus - but for documentary reasons it's better to have it than not.<br />

<br />

So if you care about autofocus in video, I'd go with the A6000. If you mostly care about stills, the D5300 might have the edge. (Yes, go with the video company for video and the photographic company for photos.) I'm assuming the Sony A7S is outside your budget, since this would give you exceptional low light image quality and video - although not so much autofocus.<br />

<br />

I'm sure those with more direct experience of the cameras in question can tell you more, but I hope that helps. I'd not rule out the lens consideration factor, but also the A6000 is likely more portable for your travels. Finally, I'd see whether you specifically need a D5300 or whether you could save a lot by going for a D5200 or similar. Good luck!</p>

<p>What is wrong with the NEX-7? I realise the AF on the newer mirrorless models is better, but is insufficient for your needs? I would give it a shot, rather invest more in lenses than yet another camera...<br>

Either way, I would invest into a single system if funds are (relatively) tight, and for the needs you describe, I can see the smaller size and better video implementation of the Sony system could be pretty big advantages, but my experience is as Andrew's (none) and basically I quite agree with what he already wrote.</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew. Yes, the A7 is out of budget, not to mention the A7s, D7100, 7d ii... <br /><br />I am a stills guy. Never done video before, so I don't know if AF is an issue or not. And if the camera sensor is good enough, can a F3/5 aperture be sufficient in low light? I have no idea. <br>

Lens-wise, yeah, Sony do not have it together. Some gems, but I can get those for less if I shoot the Nikon equivalent. <br>

But I can see there is a need for video shooters (esp in Israel, particularly in news there's a dearth of cameramen) so why not?<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Hi Wouter. I love the NEX 7! When it comes to handling and all round ability (cept low light) it's very useful.</p>

<p>I am attaching a suitable NEX7 image to give you an idea as to what I use it for<br /><br /><br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>hi Eyal,</p>

<p>just off-top, the performance you are wanting will have a lot to do with the lenses you get to go with it. Nikon has less-expensive fast DX primes, which is what you ideally want in that situation, as well as inexpensive 3rd-party options like the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. you will also pay a lot more for a Sony E-mount 2.8 zoom, or you would if a OEM version existed -- looks like there's a 16-70/4 but not a 2.8.</p>

<p>i wouldnt expect a significant difference in low-light performance from two 24mp APS-C cameras, which may use the same sensor. that said, nikon has historically been a little bit better at high-ISO with the same sensor but that gap may have closed with the A6000. DXOmark should let you compare the two head to head.</p>

<p>whether the nikon is better for stills depends on how comfortable you are with mirrorless cameras and how much action you will be shooting. in general, i'd say that DSLRs still have an advantage with fast-moving subjects, but the A6k is at of near the top of the mirrorless class in that regard. i think it has faster fps than the nikon but no idea how good it is at focus tracking. </p>

<p>The A6000 looks to be a better camera for video, based on Sony's own background. so if you are planning on doing extensive video shooting, that would be a point in Sony's favor. For occasional video, the Nikon should be ok.</p>

<p>if i were you, i'd spend as little on the body as possible and save the rest of your budget for lenses.</p>