@Mimirsan,

You are again correct. I currently use Final Cut Pro 7 for the .mts footage from the A6000 .I used Avid Media Composer 5.5 when I was editing my Panasonic GH1, Canon 7D, Nikon D7000 and D7100.

With the .mts files from My GH1(7), my workflow was to run them through "Cilpwrap" and then transcode the files in their new.mov wrappers into media composer as DNxHD 175X(10 bit). After I sold the GH1(7) to get another D7000( the D7000 that I previously owned I sold to get GH1), I imported the already .mov files into Media Composer transcoded as DNxHd 175X(10 bit).

Even though I used a comparable amount of very low in-camera sharpening in both the GH1(7) and the Nikons, I could always sharpen the the Nikons more and also more to my liking than the GH1(7) ,which I thought at sometimes looked too harsh, but I could never get the Nikon footage anywhere close to the sharpness of my GH1(7) footage.

Now that I am using Final cut Pro 7, I have imported footage from both the A6000 and D7100 using "Log and Transfer" and imported the .mov files from the D7100 by the "import" function. The footage from the D7100 that was "imported", under "clip Info" in now "H.264" in Final cut. However, the footage from the D7100 that was imported in using "log and Transfer", under "clip info" is "Prores 422" the same as my selected Sequence settings.

The .mov footage that was edited and processed of the D7100 that was imported as H.264 doesn't,IMHO, look as good as the .mov footage that was edited and processed of the D7100 that was imported as Prores 422. That simply due to different compression codecs in which they were imported into Final cut with.

Different NLE's, different sharpening, different import and export settings as well as different types of post processing work done can play a big difference in how a final image form any camera looks.

Mimirsan,

I also thought the A6000's he default in-camera sharpening of "0" was too sharp. I use either -1 or -2

@AlbertZ,

I didn't state that the A6000 was sharper than the D5200, what I stated was that the D5200 was not "much" sharper than the A6000. This was based on the fact that I own both the D7100 and the A6000 and compared the video from both. I don't own the D5200, just the D7100 like I mentioned earlier. If I have time later this week, I will try to do a short comparison between my D7100 and my A6000. I will have to unbox my D7100 which I was preparing to sell.

@Mimirsan,

The 50mm I think would be the best choice if I could only get one. The 35mm although it has very little distortion(from reviews I read) like the 50mm, I think the 50mm would be a better "Walk around" lens.

It seems like some reviews simply make early reviews just to get people at their blogs to promote themselves.

@AlbertZ,

I don't know where you read or have seen that the A6000 was much less sharp than the D5200. I have the D7100, which I am going to sell soon, and the A6000 is every bit, if not sharper than my D7100

I don't know if you are comparing the D5200 with some new "hack", which may make the d5200 slightly sharper, but the d5200 and my D7100 both suffered from FPN(Fixed pattern noise). I don't believe a hack wll get rid of this. The A6000 has no fixed pattern noise.

I believe there is only(presently) a 40mbit hack I've seen mentioned on the "Nikon Hacker". 40mbit won't be enough to significantly improve the sharpness of the D5200 or the FPN. Also, the D5200 had an "Anti-aliasing" filter, the D7100 does not , this made it slightly sharper than the d5200 at least in photo mode.

Though a6000 footage is much less sharp than the cheaper d5200 to my eyes, it has the advantage of the mirrorless mount..

I see some slight moire in the 3rd scene of this video that was not present in the original video. This could be due to the smaller viewer on this page or Vimeo compression.

However, on the vimeo page it's not present so it must be due to th e size of the viewer on this page. Please download the original for a better examination.

@BlackLegSanji

That makes a lot of since. Never thought of that before.

@Woolhats,

Thanks for the "Like" on Vimeo. I have about $750 to spend and I wanted at least one auto focus lens. I was trying to decide on both the 35 and the 50 or the 50mm and atomos ninja star. Like you, I think I will be going for 50mm 1.8 OSS and Ninja Star. Yes, Andrew seems to love something one review and the next review the same item is now subpar.

@bleach551 ..Go for the Sony E 50mm it is a nice lens.I had the camera for more than 1 month.and it is really a great camera! Read the review at eoshd but the eoshd guy seems to be in love with Panasonic (or paid by Panasonic)..

@bleach551 I recommend the 18-105mm PZ its big and there is some distortion but its nice to have a constant aperture parifocal type lens for video.

@Tinyrobot Flattest I can go is neutral -3-3-3 on sharpness,saturation & contrast...never used a Canon so wouldnt really know if it compares to cinestyle. I never bought the a6000 for grading.

@Mimirsan,

I love my A6000. I need to get a few autofocus lens for it, since now all I have are manual focusing lenses. I did a test with the Zhongyi lens turbo II that you can see here:

http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/10421/sony-a6000-with-zhongyi-lens-turbo-ii-and-nikon-105mm-f1.8#Item_3

Hit rate in typical properly executed burst sequences was roughly 50%. It's important to understand that number in context. A 50% hit rate at 11 frames-per-second works out to 5 or 6 sharp pictures per second. That's pretty good, and comparable or better than what most DSLR cameras in the A6000's price range can do.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A.HTM#SR2

http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2014/05/14/a-colourful-afternoon-hands-on-with-the-sony-a6000/

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-alpha-a6000--ilce-6000--full-review-24041