Help me decide, Nikon 1 J5 or Sony A5100 for inline skater

Hello.

I will post this thread to both forums. My brother is going to buy a camera today i need to decide quick.

I need to advise my brother abot a camera he intends to take along to inline skating rides and events. He needs portability, low weight and capable AF system and decent video.

I have narrowed down to Nikon 1 J5 or Sony A5100, i can't really find anything else with small size, good AF, fps and video around that price. Can't go much higher with price then those. If there is something in 4/3 park, please let me know.

Both will be bought as KIT at start and maybe 1.8 normal angle prime later.

I am myself Nikon FX user and in theory using FX G lenses on Nikon 1 is tempting

I understand that in Favor of Nikon ill get lighter weight and form, also more fps and maybe better fps, also Nikon 1 can take Pictures while recording video(not screen grabs)

In Favor of A5100 is picture quality, well bigger sensor, is bigger. But it will weight more and lenses are heavier. Also touchscreen not fully functional on A5100?

1.8 aperture Normal Prime for Nikon 1 is 200EUR here and for Sony its 400EUR

Any help and comments much appreciated

Tharaphita said:

Hello.

I will post this thread to both forums. My brother is going to buy a camera today i need to decide quick.

I need to advise my brother abot a camera he intends to take along to inline skating rides and events. He needs portability, low weight and capable AF system and decent video.

I have narrowed down to Nikon 1 J5 or Sony A5100, i can't really find anything else with small size, good AF, fps and video around that price. Can't go much higher with price then those. If there is something in 4/3 park, please let me know.

Both will be bought as KIT at start and maybe 1.8 normal angle prime later.

I am myself Nikon FX user and in theory using FX G lenses on Nikon 1 is tempting

I understand that in Favor of Nikon ill get lighter weight and form, also more fps and maybe better fps, also Nikon 1 can take Pictures while recording video(not screen grabs)

In Favor of A5100 is picture quality, well bigger sensor, is bigger. But it will weight more and lenses are heavier. Also touchscreen not fully functional on A5100?

1.8 aperture Normal Prime for Nikon 1 is 200EUR here and for Sony its 400EUR

Any help and comments much appreciated

Click to expand...

Well, the Sony will be undoubtly better in lower light, situations that require bigger IQ. IF you plan to stick with the kit lenses only for a while though, the Sony kit lens is pretty awful. Not useless but... let's say I saw it as an F5.6 fixed aperture lens in sunlight

The Nikon kit lens included with the J5 is not the best lens ever but I wouldn't call it a bad lens, just not as sharp as some of the other Nikon 1 lenses.

If you value utmost size, and you want easy wifi transfer to phone/shoot from camera that is reliable (the Sony sometimes doesn't quite work and you have to re-try to connect)... go for the J5.

If you value more DR/image quality/higher ISO and you think you will buy something like the Sony SEL35 1.8 lens down the line, then the Sony may be better.

If you see yourself shooting in high ISO a lot that would bias for the Sony. The 5100 can also do great AF.

I think the Nikon can take decent 1080p. The Sony can also, probably a notch better but the Nikon is surprisingly good - except for the stabilization which is so so.

My final advice is- need ultimate high ISO performance? Go Sony. Shooting landscapes with a lot of DR / contrast? Probably go Sony.

Prefer ultimate small or shooting in ISO 160-1600 and in a pinch 3200? Go Nikon.

Keep in mind for the Sony you need to buy a good lens to make that sensor shine or you wasted your money. Sony does have a couple/few, but you have to chose carefully as they also have duds.

My own experience is not directly comparable, but I think could be relevant. I have V2 (V3 coming) and Sony a6000.

Whilst the a6000 undoubtedly has better IQ for stationery subjects (even with the 16/50 kit) I find it just does not focus quickly/reliably enough for my shots of sailing boats, and I assume it would be the same for in line skaters (except that as well as a moving subject, I have a moving shooting position which adds to the problem) Part of that may be down to me, the focusing options on a6000 are pretty complex, and even if you look at advice on the forums, it is totally inconsistent. By contrast, the V2 almost always gets it right, and that with the longer 30-110.

Now for the 16/50 kit, it delivers much better IQ than the 10-30 old version on the V2. It gets hammered because it has lots of distortion at 16mm (24mm equiv), but 16mm is a bit of a bonus, considering that the 10-30 doesn't even start until 27mm equiv, and the Sony is fine if you zoom in a bit. I also have the 16/70 on the sony, which is much better, but bigger and obviously expensive as well. The point of a mirrorless is to be small, and most of the longer sony lenses defeat that objective. Also don't forget you are comparing 24Mp with 20.8 and have the possibility of viewing the Sony at about 80% in comparisons.

However it's not much good having great IQ if it is OOF!

For me, the best package I have for my style of shooting is the V2 with 30-110. I can imagine it would be good for skaters, depending on how close you can get to them. I also have 70-300cx but don't use it for sailing shots as it is too long. The results from 30-110 frequently have a wow factor which I seldom get with other set ups.

I do find that the sony is much more fun to use, as the ergonomics are much better than V2. J5 also does not have much in the way of direct button control (just one F button I think) and I am not sure how the 5100 compares. With a6000 I have everything I could want to adjust available with one click, also histogram on screen when shooting, and a few other advantages. Just something to think about and research. I have just bought a cheap V3 to see if the extra function keys will make a difference....I really don't need two systems.

Frankly I could not use either J5 or 5100 as they don't have a viewfinder...but that is your choice

Sorry to ramble on a bit

tom

Thank you for the input so far.

There are two known issues with the Sony axxxx cameras.

1. Bluish cast to everything especially skin tones.

2. When using burst mode it cannot focus accurately on objects moving toward/away from the camera.

Issue #1 is enough for many to avoid choosing the Sony.

As you can begin to see from posts on both forums there are folks with entrenched opinions, and I guess would not want to admit that another camera could be better for the purpose than theirs.

I don't use JPEG and don't notice a blue cast on my a6000 images. I don't really see anyone else suggesting this is a problem. However I am not here to defend Sony, but just to help you get the camera that is best for you.

There are some posts which suggest that burst images by the axxxx don't always give good results, but there are others which are fine. As I said, the focus of a6000 is a bit of an enigma to me, but some people are very happy with it.

There is no possible dispute about the quality of an image taken at even low iso, and with stationary subject, though, the sony is far better. Of course at high iso the bigger sensor wins.

Let's see what others, who hopefully can also comment from actual experience with both cameras, have to say

tom

"small size, good AF, fps and video"

Those are the key features of the Nikon 1 system. In decent lighting anyway. Not much has a better burst rate or buffer size for raw. While other cameras in the same class has AF just as fast for static subjects I don't believe any yet out performs it for tracking AF which will be key for action shots of skaters.

Indoors or night/dusk other cameras do better since the Nikon 1s drop out of PDAF and other CDAF implementations are now better IMHO.

Thank you for the replay. As for color cast, those things can be solved with tweaking WB i believe or shooting RAW.

tomhongkong said:

As you can begin to see from posts on both forums there are folks with entrenched opinions, and I guess would not want to admit that another camera could be better for the purpose than theirs.

I don't use JPEG and don't notice a blue cast on my a6000 images. I don't really see anyone else suggesting this is a problem. However I am not here to defend Sony, but just to help you get the camera that is best for you.

There are some posts which suggest that burst images by the axxxx don't always give good results, but there are others which are fine. As I said, the focus of a6000 is a bit of an enigma to me, but some people are very happy with it.

There is no possible dispute about the quality of an image taken at even low iso, and with stationary subject, though, the sony is far better. Of course at high iso the bigger sensor wins.

Let's see what others, who hopefully can also comment from actual experience with both cameras, have to say

tom

Click to expand...

Here's an example, not from the axxxx but all of Sony's cameras have the same bad blue cast issue. Look at the model's skin tone and look at the ground...lol.


We sell cars with flat tires...BUT it comes with a spare!!!! FACEPALM...


I love it when cameras make you look like you're a dead person...out of the box...correction out of the casket...lol.

PaPeRo said:

tomhongkong said:

As you can begin to see from posts on both forums there are folks with entrenched opinions, and I guess would not want to admit that another camera could be better for the purpose than theirs.

I don't use JPEG and don't notice a blue cast on my a6000 images. I don't really see anyone else suggesting this is a problem. However I am not here to defend Sony, but just to help you get the camera that is best for you.

There are some posts which suggest that burst images by the axxxx don't always give good results, but there are others which are fine. As I said, the focus of a6000 is a bit of an enigma to me, but some people are very happy with it.

There is no possible dispute about the quality of an image taken at even low iso, and with stationary subject, though, the sony is far better. Of course at high iso the bigger sensor wins.

Let's see what others, who hopefully can also comment from actual experience with both cameras, have to say

tom

Click to expand...

Here's an example, not from the axxxx but all of Sony's cameras have the same bad blue cast issue. Look at the model's skin tone and look at the ground...lol.

https://flic.kr/p/puKZBk

We sell cars with flat tires...BUT it comes with a spare!!!! FACEPALM...

https://flic.kr/p/pdgdGs

I love it when cameras make you look like you're a dead person...out of the box...correction out of the casket...lol.

Click to expand...

This is AWB issue and i'ts correctable easily 1 time in camera so after that all images will look warmer. Or not?

An interesting comparison here:

tomhongkong said:

As you can begin to see from posts on both forums there are folks with entrenched opinions, and I guess would not want to admit that another camera could be better for the purpose than theirs.

I don't use JPEG and don't notice a blue cast on my a6000 images. I don't really see anyone else suggesting this is a problem. However I am not here to defend Sony, but just to help you get the camera that is best for you.

There are some posts which suggest that burst images by the axxxx don't always give good results, but there are others which are fine. As I said, the focus of a6000 is a bit of an enigma to me, but some people are very happy with it.

There is no possible dispute about the quality of an image taken at even low iso, and with stationary subject, though, the sony is far better. Of course at high iso the bigger sensor wins.

Let's see what others, who hopefully can also comment from actual experience with both cameras, have to say

tom

Click to expand...

Tom,

There are few domains where the Nikon 1 beats the Axxx series. Reach (birding) and daylight action are two. Pretty much everything else the Sony wins except compatibility with Nikon glass.

There's a world of difference between 20 FPS and 20 buffer and 6 FPS and 25 buffer (raw) when capturing the setup, trick and landing. 6 FPS will likely miss some of the best parts of the sequence. The 11 FPS on the A6000 is probably fast enough that it's not enough to tip in favor of the Nikon 1 but IMHO 6 FPS would be a big degrade if I wanted a camera to shoot skaters doing tricks.

The ability to do virtually unlimited 8MP JPEG @ 15 FPS could also be useful to him. Or 4K 15 FPS sped up to 30 or 60 FPS for action time lapse. Or 720p/120 FPS for slow mo.

One thing negative about the J5 is I recall that some reviews reported slow shot to shot time.

Never had that as an issue except on the v1 with its cursed image review.

Tharaphita said:

This is AWB issue and i'ts correctable easily 1 time in camera so after that all images will look warmer. Or not?

Click to expand...

Yes, AWB on the A5100 is easily correctible. and its not that its bluish, its that it's not overly reddish like some Camera makers default to.

I normally find Sony colors realistic and neutral (which is easily tweakable in post) , the opposite of Fuji which has defined contrast and vivid colors, I personally prefer Fuji because it really pops OOC.

Nikon 1 has 2 main advantages over the Sony.

- Speed

- Range , 2.7 crop + Nikon F mount

The Sony will have

better iso performance, DR, IQ

better native lens selection, Nikon 1 selection is lacking

You can use your F mount lens on the Sony, although in full manual mode with an adapter.

Neither of them can fit in a pocket so whatever size difference there is, is negligible.

I recently sold my a6000 after doing direct comparisons with the J5. The autofocus of the a6000 is not as fast nor as accurate as the J5. In burst mode I did a challenging test of my son on a swing at the park going towards and away from the camera. The a6000's continuous autofocus did not perform well at this test. The J5 was able to grab focus much more often...especially when I tried it on a swing that was in the shadow of a tree.

The shot to shot speed is in favor of the a6000. This does not affect the burst speed itself, but doing one burst, stopping, then doing another you will have to wait a couple seconds on the J5. The a6000 has no delay. Something weird though is that when you go to turn off the camera, you will sometimes find yourself waiting for the a6000 to finish writing to the card before it collapses the kit zoom. The J5 collapses first and finishes writing in the background.

I also did not like the cool skin tones of the a6000. The J5 has warmer tones. Could just be a white balance thing, but I prefer the overall color (and noise reduction techniques for that matter) of Nikon's JPEGs to Sony's.

In terms of size, the J5 can fit into a Lowepro Dashpoint 20 with the kit lens. This is a VERY small case that is aimed at point and shoot cameras. The a5100 is also small, but with its larger lens I don't know if it would fit in as small a case. The a6000 was definitely far too big for it. I had to buy a larger case for it which was not as neat and tidy to walk around with. I like to have something really inconspicuous.

I have never tried the a5100, but I do know the LCD screen is limited. The J5 works like a smartphone in every way in terms of usability. The a5100 is only touch to focus...it does nothing else. You can't use it to review photos or select anything in the menus.

Whatever you end up selecting I have found a lightweight monopod to be useful...as long as he manages not to impale himself with it somehow.

The N1 advantage its speed and reach.

If N1 were a boxer he would score very high in these categories.

The ft-1 adapter is something I love so much about my N1 system, I have two of them. To be honest, I wouldn't be nearly as enthusiastic about the N1 system without this adapter. It's build quality is top notch and I always use two of my V1's with the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 mounted to them via ft-1, of course.

The most compact and versatile 135mm 1.8 set up, in my opinion, is the V1/ft-1/50mm 1.8 combo.

For action I think you should go for the J5 all the way.

...if you advise him to buy a camera without a viewfinder. There is no excuse for a camera without one unless you don't mind missing pictures because the LCD is washed out or dark because of ambient light.

win39 said:

...if you advise him to buy a camera without a viewfinder. There is no excuse for a camera without one unless you don't mind missing pictures because the LCD is washed out or dark because of ambient light.

Click to expand...

I've never had any problem seeing an LCD screen once the brightness is adjusted. I used an a6000 in the bright Florida sun with sunglasses on and had zero problems. In fact, I was so excited about using the viewfinder since I never had a camera with one before, but found that it was almost useless for me because I had to remove my sunglasses to use it...what a hassle. I just went back to using the LCD.

Buy Sony. In the future if you want to upgrade the body you will be able to without having to get a lens that is similar or the same as one you already have. I have a V1 and was looking to upgrade just the body and have not seen any of the cameras offered as body only on B&H for quite sometime.

Personally I plan on selling my V1, lenses and flash and just go to MFT. Pretty much just as compact and much better bang for the buck. You can get an EM10 with kit lens and 75-300 for less than a V3.