I wish for comparisons like this that there would also be a round where each image is made to look as good as possible with color correction, etc. This is helpful as is, but if you’re watching vids like this you’re probably not the type that would just set things on auto, so it would be nice. Of course this was addressed briefly in the video, but it would be especially helpful to actually see the extent to which software can improve each image. But again, this was still very informative and helpful as always!
You can also multiply the aperture by 2 to get the same amount of background blur. Also, fun fact: the light that gets through the lens is measured in t-stops, and not in f-sops. I got the camera one right, but with the webcam one I was harder, because dynamic range also (partly) depends on sensor size. But I guessed right :) Great video, keep it up!
Great video comparing these options. As a photographer I would opt for the 500 dollar camera and spend a load of money on lighting when you’re starting out
Hey Harris. Love your videos. You talk about the background blur being more pronounced because of the full frame sensor. This is actually a common misconception. If you were to set the f/stop on the APS-C camera to an f/4, to get the same amount of background blur on the full frame, you'd have to set the Sony to an f/6.3. It's the same concept as getting the same field of view on the full frame compared to the APS-C. You have to times the f/stop by 1.5 as well as the focal length.
I love how the cheaper was the better looking at least to me. I recently swapped from webcam to a GoPro and I'm happier than if I bought a DSLR currently
I got them both right, for pretty much the reasons you explained. In both cases, the "flatter" image has more detail and more room for the user to set up the colors how they want. It's not too dissimilar to a microphone in an XLR interface that supports a higher sample rate and bit depth. Yeah, that USB mic is gonna give maybe a more "finished" sound right out of the box, but capturing more audio detail gives you a lot more room to tweak it exactly how you want while still sounding relatively clean and smooth and not over processed.
I got both correct. I notice that the more you know, the more your tastes reflect that knowledge. It's like coffee, or wine. People with less experience tend to prefer sweeter coffees and wines... whereas people who have worked on their palette are seeking different things in the image. High Contrast in cameras is kind of like the sugar in coffees and wines. It's there to cover up the taste and be more appealing to a more general user.
One thing to note as well, is that Aperture F numbers are not equivalent between Full-Frame and Cropped- Sensor (ie. f/10 on FF = F/6.7 on a Nikon Cropped sensor).
I liked this comparison. my guesses where completely wrong, but after your explanation of the different webcams, I knew which camera was which. Also nice magic trick there at 6:45, the force is strong with you.
As someone who originally used a Canon 6D for years, I moved to a Canon M200 during the lockdown, because there was no real need for a heavy camera during this time. I've been extremely impressed by it, and haven't touched my 6D in 12 months. I even took my M200 away on Holiday in place of the 6D, when hiking and really don't miss the bigger, more expensive camera. The M200 has done an amazing job for photos and videos.
Yo Harris! Im editing a video right now and I needed some music. Ive gotten a copyright claim before on one of my videos but then I remembered STREAMBEATS! Thank you and everyone who created music for stream beats for giving content creators a way to have non copyrightable music!
As a complete novice in the area, both times I would have picked the cheaper camera because of the more depth of color. But after you took the time to show us the little discrepancy's, and with post recording processing like color correction and contrast, the more expensive camera's will look even better. So by going cheap we get quicker better video but cannot do to much to make it look better. If we go more expensive, we will get a more boring video from the start but can do a lot to it to make it look even better than the cheap camera.
Strange that the canon doesn't seem to have the "canon colour" its more expensive siblings are renouned for... But I was able to tell both sets of cameras apart. I think once you start recording and editing, you quickly gain an appreciation for dynamic range and usuable colour grades. Still i thoroughly enjoyed a look into the comparison... I now shoot on the Sony A6400, but still find myself picking up my old Canon 600d from time to time. Just because a camera can give better quality, doesn't always take away from the enjoyment of shooting a different style. And my faithful A5100 remains mounted as my stream camera, because its perfect. (
Okay, paused the video to give my opinion: I think the cheap webcam is brighter as it has burnt out some of the highlights, where the other one hasn't. Similarly with the DSLRs, I think the cheaper camera is brighter. Will now watch the rest of the video. Result: Well, I was right about the webcams but wrong with the DSLRs. Interesting, I thought the more expensive camera would have given the warmer skintones. Didn't even notice the detailing. Thank you for this Harris, great video.
Dynamic Range is a dead giveaway, especially between the ceiling beams and in other dark areas. In both cases the cheap cameras showed a flat “black” while the better options noticeably preserved detail in the shadows.
I totally forgot that we were talking about out of the box settings and got it wrong for the webcam round. But indeed, the AverMedia does look the part. The differences in compression and colour science on the mirrorless cameras made that comparison super easy, though. What would be fun would be to give us full-screen images of the 513 vs the Sony A7S3 after colour correction/applying a LUT. That would be very interesting indeed.
What is happening with your T zone!!! You've got lovely green circles on your ballin lenses and your pink. I hope you get better, you sound stuffy. Loved this vid! Tyvm!
I am not a fan of the term "cropped sensor" as it gives the impression that there is a standard size and anything smaller than that has been cut down. If I am a Hasselblad or PhaseOne shooter I might say that anything smaller, like a 35mm, is cropped. This also holds true to the term "full frame", which gets used a lot. Most people are referring to the standard 35mm frame size when the use these terms but that is just one standard that gained a lot of popularity as most people are were most familiar with this format than with any other. The real point of this test is that any time you can use a larger sensor you will undoubtedly end up with better results. The more pixels you pack into a space, the more you are sacrificing image data for sheer pixels. A 24MP 35mm sensor is going to provide more image data and dynamic range than a 24MP APS-C sensor. Bigger is not always better, but usually it is.
I strongly agree with you, but most people don’t know, won’t understand it and even cared about this, too technical for streamers than only wants a DSLR camera just because someone told them is more “pro”. I personally hate when these streamers who doesn’t know anything about cameras or photography, call DSLR cameras “professional” cameras, and NOT all DSLR cameras are actually “professional”. Worse thing is, when they stream with one of those “pro” DSLRs and their stream looks way worse than mine, which I stream with a BRIO, a C920 and a GoPro Hero 7 as my main camera!
For the Cameras, I originally thought the more saturated camera was going to be the more expensive one, but when I paused it I noticed the definition in focus and in details. The bland camera had better focus on its subject and had even have more definitions in the strands on your head. After noticing that I had to change my mine and say that the saturated color camera was the cheaper one. I guess I thought it was the expensive one at first because the saturation gave the illusion of high def.
So a couple comments here. Lenses do matter, the quality of glass makes a huge impact on sharpness and image quality. Second, the lighting being used here was actually negatively affecting the c920. I have a c920 and have tricked people into think it's a high end camera by using a dollar store light, a shower curtain (also a dollar) and a heat lamp reflector which was 15 dollars bouncing the light off my ceiling to give me a warm glow. Typically cheaper camera systems will have software enhancement put into them to make adjustments automatically because most people that purchase then are looking for ease of use. I'd suggest making a video of how people can utilize cheap hardware to achieve a better result without much extra work. And please remember, lens choice does matter :)
Bud, would you say that Lumix G80 is a good camera for streams nad sitting-in-front-of-camera vlogs in low-light? If you were to get one for free. Would you?
I have a few Panasonic cameras myself. sadly mine are all old and dont have clean HDMI outputs The G80 does have a clean HDMI output though so should be awesome for streaming and other vlog stuff (has built in body image stabiliser too so combine that with a lens that has IS and you get a very stable handheld image) Just got to remember that the Panasonic auto focus is still kind of basic compared to Sony/Canon. Never bothered me over the past 5 years of owning Panasonic cameras
@@Kaftannn I own a G80. I don't stream, I just make videos with it. I'd say it's not the best in low light due to Micro 4/3rds sensor so I would recommend you to get at least one lighting for your face. Going above ISO 1600 with this camera introduces a lot of noise. So I usually can't go above ISO 1600 in low light. Getting a lens for that camera that let's a lot of light in would help I guess. I own a 3.5-5.6f 14-42mm lens but I would recommend Rokinon 12mm F2 for wide angle or Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 for midrange. So yeah in conclusion, if you get the camera for free, put some money into buying one lighting (doesn't have to be anything expensive :D). Hope that was helpful.
Yes you can, higher end cameras allow for more control in post by letting you shoot in better codecs and flatter picture profiles. Don’t forget 10 bit color which is something that is exclusive to higher end cameras allows for more flexibility with color grading.
Both camera 1 are the affordable ones, and both camera 2 are the expensive ones. 😁 Edit: Both affordable cams where punchier in contrast and color and made me feel had a better image. But in closer inspection the flatter image does have more detail and can be tweaked to look better. In BOTH cases the deciding factor to me was the flatness of the image because I had the bias of "better picture out of the box". But if I had thought about it, I've seen RED raw footage and it looks grey AF... And that's not for "AUTO FOCUS". 😂 Great video! Love the Content!!!
i could see the possibility for the canon camera compared to the other, the canon is almost a feel to like a "setup and go" camera compared to the otherone where i get the "RAW" feels to it which is nicer to have on editing or controlling the colour/contrast envoirment more. great vid!
I thought the camera one was super easy to tell the difference between. Again for the same reason you pointed out. The flatter look because it is capturing more detail up front for you to play with in post.
I might be a little obsessed in camera stuff but to me the pro cam section was very noticeable right from the start, maybe because I saw how blue the light from the window looks?
So funny. A year ago I would have been happy with my c920. Ignorance is bliss. Now it’s a backup webcam. Even an entry level mirrorless cameras looks so much better.
Got both right because of the color accuracy. In both cases it felt like the cheaper one was a lower quality image with software alterations to make it look better.
As a professional photographer it was pretty easy to tell the camera differences one is full frame the other isn’t so the crop stands out pretty significantly
I could tell the expensive cameras by their flat color profiles - especially the mirrorless. Low-end mirrorless cameras are set up to look "good" for beginners right out of the gate, so you have to go out of your way to get a flat color profile for them.
The shallower depth of field is the giveaway with the mirrorless cameras (larger a7iii sensor has shallower dof), but both of those have great image quality. It's really a matter of production technique and content quality that make any real difference here. Are you getting people to watch to the end? Thanks for the video guys 🙂👍🏼
Got the camera one right but never would've guessed the C920 could look that good. Guess I'm just too much of a bonehead with color correction to fix my filters lol
This was by far the most interesting post from Harris that I have seen. My guesses were correct, but I'm afraid that he might be comparing the right Sony camera with the wrong Canon camera.
Even an a6400 would be fine, focus on what lenses you want. Right after deciding what frame rate/resolution you want to record at. Most cameras in this range can do the same thing and what you pull out of it depends on how you use it, specifically how you light your subject/foreground/background or compose your scene.
On the lower price range of cameras lighting will be your biggest adversary. I'd recommend looking at Peter McKinnon or similar TH-cam channels for how to setup your lighting properly to make your footage better. Lenses and lighting are two extremely important parts to good video
Don't be, his picture profile of the sony camera was not color graded properly. The default Canon picture profile has better skin tone out of the box, but Sony is completely capable of presenting the same color.
For the webcams my initial thought was that the c920 was the second camera because of the streaks in the light due to that plastic sheet over the lens but the contrast psyched me out in the end so I got that wrong. The actual cameras portion was way easier because of the not so great auto white balance of the m200 that makes the image pinker overall. Also, the thing to remember with cameras is as long as you can control the functions of the body, the lense is the biggest contributer to almost any shot, so comparing just the bodies can be a little tricky.
I got both right. Webcam was obv and camera I picked because of more artefacts on the APSC, the bokeh was more pleasant on the higher end, and I expected the more expensive to have a way more flat profile
Webcam one is C920, webcam 2 is Avermedia. Camera 1 is Sony, and Camera 2 is Cannon. Also, all of the talking head shots (other than the intro) were shot with the cannon.
What picture profile were you using on the Sony? Kind of easy giveaway with the Canon skintone for any Canon shooters, but maybe use a more finished picture profile on the Sony, would make the comparison more difficult? Nice video though, gets the point across.
Have you had any issues with overheating? I suppose I still have to do a lot of tweaking and stuff before I can actually give my opinion on the m200 (bought one too), but yeah it turned off pretty quick from overheating (using a dummy battery in it of course) let me know your experience!
Guesses: Webcam 1, Camera 1 Reasons: Flatter look (wider dynamic range) on both picks, as well as shallower DOF on Camera 1. Camera 2 had pleasant colors out of the box tho. Reaction: Oh wow, I was pretty confident but didn't expect my reasons to be the points addressed. Most people just look towards sharpness. I guess this is why you're killing it!
I guessed both correct. Between the webcams was easy simply because I own the AverMedia webcam and recognized the look. Between the cameras I used the logic you said about the more expensive camera is supposed to look dull untuned. But I didn’t really know, it was an educated guess.
I could tell that with the mirrorless cameras the canon was number 2 due to the saturation in the skintones and added sharpness. How I knew the A7sIII was the first one and a dead giveaway for me was that the colors seemed a little "flat". With cameras like the A7sIII its made to be able to shoot in things like HLG-3/SLog3 so that post production retains all of the detail. Also even though the colors weren't popping, something with the detail in your hair seemed sharp in a smooth way and maybe thats the lens and full frame (could be placebo, lol)? Id love to see you push the A7sIII to 4k60 and color grade it in post. However In this case, i know it wouldve been a big giveaway if you did do that. Great Comparisons either way.
I’ve just spent too much time with my Sony a7siii to not see a difference with the mirrorless bois. The webcams were a bit tougher but the “high exposure” look from the c920 gave it away for me
I got both right. In the first pair is easy to notice that the Logitech was way whiter, but with the cameras I just guessed that the less red one was more expensive.
I honestly didn't pay attention to the Webcam portion but I got the "big" cameras right. Not because of the blur or anything but cause of the color profile. Using sonys, it easy to see their log type files or a more greyish color tone, which in turn you edit in post or in the case of streaming, in color correction. That made the two stand out drastically. However in the case of a small Webcam box on a stream, the Canon would do just fine.
The dead give away on the camera Was the skin tone difference. When you were explaining the video Your skin tones very light And because you showed the cameras you were filming on a Sony So when you did the differences between the 2 cameras One picture quality was still the same while the other 1 changed drastically with your skin And I knew that 1 was the Canon. I'm definitely no photographer nor do I have any high encameras. Good video if ever allows to be a Blogger/photographer I can live with the cannon for the price but the goal will definitely be the Sony
Oddly enough, I got the more obvious first set absolutely wrong and got the second one right. It’s probably because I’ve watched so many filmmaking videos talking about the wonders of background blur, haha. But oh my gosh, I need to learn more about webcams, I was so confidently incorrect, haha.
The webcam I didn't get mostly because of the first camera looking blurry, but the DSLRs I did because of the background blur. You can notice that the Sony just has more even at the same f4 just because the full frame vs crop sensor differences in bokeh. I think you need a crop sensor f2.8 to match the bokeh of a full frame f4. I personally use a M50 and find it hard to get good lenses for it that works well in low light and still give me the auto focus I need. This is why when I purchased another camera I choose the ZV-1. I think it is the total package and very good for new streamers. At the f1.8 to f2.8 you get a very good low light camera that is very small and easy to mount almost anywhere. This would also be a good long term camera because as you build out your kit and replace your main with a $7000 camera you can easily reuse the zv1 anywhere else in your set (overhead, side, rear, bathroom, front door, etc). I think this is such an overlooked camera that just works out of the box including the built in audio.
I got the Webcam one wrong. I think it’s because the contrast was so low on the Aver Media that the blown out whites were more pronounced. For the Camera body ones I got that right. I just knew from taking a lot of photos and dealing with media a lot where the detail gain was. I was looking at the overall balance of colors.
I think you should also close aperture on sony just a little bit just to remove that background blur, because of that you can easily guess which camera have biger sensor, but overall good comparison.
Great video! As always. Got both of them right. The camera comparison was easy, the canon has lot of contrast. It was really the same in your 3 budget camera comparison, where m200 was a lot more purple, compared to a5100 that you used. I feel a5100 or a6100 would have been a lot more indistinguishable because of similar colour science from sony. In webcams, I think logitech has a really cool(blueish) tint to it, compared to avermedia.
I got the webcams wrong but cameras right, can see the artificial sharpening in the m200, when it’s shrank down though it’s harder to see which would be what you have for streaming. Cool comparison though!
I knew the c920 was the cool image one (prefer the 513 out of the box) but for mods the c920 is better (there's thousands of videos on it) omg the canon is freaking dope, really great for streams huh. other recommendation (new 5r,no HDMI output but crop it, no canon utility buy a cheap one on AliExpress)
I actually got both correct, on the webcam I owned 3 of the c920 around the house for my kids. On the mirrorless camera, for some reason all Canon cameras always tend to shift to the orange look on skin tones.
I guess that the webcam one is the avermedia, it has more natural skin, less over sharpening, more dynamic range and less lens flaring. I also guess that camera one is the A7sIII as it has a more natural profile along with more tame sharpening whilst keeping more important detail.
Guesses before answers. Webcams: 1 Is the avermedia 2 is the logitech. Owning a c920 has taught me what it's colors look like. Cameras: 1 I'd say cam 1 is the Sony and 2 is the Canon. Idk if this is just me, but canon usually makes skin tones look really pink, so that's what the give is.
On the webcam comparison I guessed wrong, the image looked a bit blurred for me on the AverMedia so I guess that gave me the impression it was cheaper. I guessed right on the mirrorless cameras though, the colors on your forehead and arms looked a bit off and inconsistent, almost like a shadow was being cast over your body but they looked natural and life-like on the expensive one.
I ended up with both right. So that was fun. I owned a C920 for a long while as a stream camera so it's shortcomings with white balance were painfully obvious immediately. Aver media had better colour no contest. I also used an m200 as an upgrade camera for a while. it definitely adds a telltale digital sharpness to stuff. I ended up replacing it because of a few headaches. One being the colour being way less accurate than it should be for a mirrorless. But the eye tracking auto-focus on the m200 is really terrible. It would routinely lose focus on me, and grab a hat or a pillow in the background that had a slightly brighter white than my eyes. I think it isn't actual eye auto-focus but a narrow contrast based one. If you have the budget and the decision is between an m200 and a Sony a6000/6100, go with the Sony. The A7s III is a champ of a camera it's nice seeing that and the FX3 being used in your productions. It's especially incredible in low-light scenarios. For those who don't know the FX3 is the exact same camera as the A7s III in a different body that is aimed more at videographers rather than photographers. More mounting points, active cooling, no viewfinder. Same picture quality, features, and sensor.
I'm guessing the blurry webcam (1) is definitely not the C920. I own the C920 and it definitely does better than that even in low light. I'm calling 1 the Avermedia and 2 the C920. The expensive one is probably camera 2 - it seems to have a better dynamic range, although it looks like it might be slightly out of focus on the sample footage so I don't know if the softness is due to the lens/sensor or the focus itself. On that note, why is it so hard to find a camera that just does autofocus well? Either the camera hunts every 3-5 seconds which is jarring AF, or it's seemingly never properly in focus. There's no middle ground. I've struggled with it on my X-T3 as well so I've taken to just blasting the set with as much light as possible and running the camera on manual focus with the aperture stopped down to like f/14 so I have a wider focus depth to accommodate any movement. EDIT: Looks like I was wrong about the camera. Guess I got fooled by the dullness of the higher quality camera. I probably should have known that seeing as I have the same thing with my camera vs the cheaper one I used to use. Oops lol.
I think the only thing I noticed is that a flat colour profile looks worse. Shame you limited the aperture (I understand why) because that's what you pay the big bucks for on a lens.
I guessed Cam 1 for the larger cameras was the Sony*, because the full-frame cameras usually have a dull image so that you have more room to color grade in post.
I’m assuming camera 1 on the canon vs Sony is the Sony judging by the flat picture style, to allow for easier color correction in post. Camera 2 has a very strong contrast
I thought both webcams were terrible but to be honest I thought for $194 your face would at least be in focus, it was blurry the whole time despite the dynamic range being better. I’d rather have less DR and actually be in focus The easiest part of the test was a7siii vs the canon. Imo the cannon colors always look awful and have a weird skin smoothing effect. The Sony was a bit flatter but the colors were more natural, although both need correction. The background had a tad more bokeh due to the sensor size (btw there’s also a f stop factor, 2.8 on full frame is not equal to 2.8 on m4/3) The canon also had over sharpening artifacting, which is kinda famous for them to do to pretend they have a sharper image than they actually do. 3 months ago I wouldn’t have had a clue but I’ve done a bunch of research for my first camera and watching all the videos about them made me recognize traits of the canon and how bad it always looks to me. I settled on a Sony A6400 and I got the kit lens for the small size, and stabilization for vlogs, and I got the 30mm sigma 1.4 for tripod at my desk videos/streams. It’s not the best setup but it’s the best I can afford and does everything I want. It’ll probably be a long time before I feel the need to upgrade anything other than getting new lenses for different effects in videos Also you said “more background blur because I had to zoom in more” While zooming in more does result in more bokeh, both lenses had the same zoom factor. The difference was full frame. It’s not the zoom in this case but the fact you didn’t multiply the f stop factor for the sensor sizes. M4/3 2.8 has about the same blur as full frame f3.5 or 4. Something to do with how much wider the out of focus light gets scattered onto the larger sensor than a smaller one I think but I’m not entirely sure.
Had the same exact thoughts as you and got both right. The cheaper cameras looked like they had a lot of post-processing including color, extra contrast, and added sharpness. An expensive camera is likely to look worse right out of the box. You have to know how to use your expensive tools to get the most out of them. The flat image you get out of the box gives you more flexibility., So many people are used to their iPhones doing a ton of post-processing to capture a good-looking image, they don't realize what the image looks like without all that stuff.
I didn't write the comments before hand but I did get both right, the webcams were tougher for me but as a photographer/cinematographer, the cameras were instant, the over sharpened micro four thirds look with the orange skin tones and extra contrast had to be the cheaper camera, Also the green hue on skin tones is a Sony trademark, dead giveaway.
Got both wrong and that means I need to study about cameras more. I feel ashamed because the contrast alone made me judge so easily while forgetting about the dynamic range and other details.
What gave it away for me was the coloring and sharpness didn't look as good on camera two. It looked blurry or something because it was so contrasted as where camera 1 was sharper but wasn't overly sharp or contrasted. Also the flat more natural look of camera 1 vs over saturated look of camera 2 in the first shot.
Nailed both of them =))) cannon was more grainy so clearly looked cheaper and the webcams, the avermedia has better color corection out of the box... and yeah.. the dynamic range... And also when we talk dslr or mirrorless, there is no "cheap" option... I have a Nikon d3500 (entry level) and trust me it wasn't cheap either... but the quality it has over a webcam, if I were to turn back time, i'd still make the same decision... also I use the stock lens 18-22mm at f4.5 and with some ambient light it's absolutely awesome because you won't even know it runs at 3400 iso due to the amazing software they have on them right now :D
Dang I thought the webcam choices were flipped with 1 being the c920 for being cheaper but that’s crazy how the AverMedia was more $$ but a really bad image. But I got the mirrorless cameras correct since I have a canon m200 and know it very well.
As a canon user I can recognize that canon look that sharpened look that I have to work with for like 4-5 years ( but with different canon camera) and I like it camera 2 is definitely canon 200 but I actually think that with nice audio this is perfect camera for beginners and even not beginners ! For the webcams I don't know .
Webcam 1 is the c920 I'm pretty confident in that answer. For the camera I think 2 has a warmer feel into it which I think it makes it look way better in the scene... but I think more expensive cameras are designed to be as neutral looking as possible to then be color corrected later on. So Final answer camera 2 is the $500 one!
I must have done a lot of work with my own c920 in the software because it looks so much closer to the other webcam in this video! And yay got the two cameras right and my logical reasoning was right too! Funny how I thought my unprofessionally trained eye liked the "cheaper" camera
blind comparison of the epos streaming mic that just came out vs some xlr mics, also do a cheap xlr amazon mic vid, some of those neewer mics are actually pretty good
What should we do this with next? Mics? Lights? Overlays? Any other suggestions?
hi will you answer
what about a widget the shows even your music you play in the background + all the subs, follows, dono's and all the lovely stuff as a streamer
Mics sounds good. Or another overlay coding tutorial.
Definitely natural lighting vs cheap lighting vs expensive lighting
Microphones
After watching so many videos about cameras on this channel... That was easy.
Same
agree
Harris: Testing the video quality of a $500 and $7000 camera
Me: Using the camera on my DS
I'm using a Samsung S10 with $5 Iriun software :-p Works perfectly :)
Uhhh.. where can I subscribe?
Me realizing the DS had a camera.....
I have to use a iPad mini 3 cam
I wish for comparisons like this that there would also be a round where each image is made to look as good as possible with color correction, etc. This is helpful as is, but if you’re watching vids like this you’re probably not the type that would just set things on auto, so it would be nice. Of course this was addressed briefly in the video, but it would be especially helpful to actually see the extent to which software can improve each image. But again, this was still very informative and helpful as always!
You can also multiply the aperture by 2 to get the same amount of background blur. Also, fun fact: the light that gets through the lens is measured in t-stops, and not in f-sops.
I got the camera one right, but with the webcam one I was harder, because dynamic range also (partly) depends on sensor size. But I guessed right :)
Great video, keep it up!
Great video comparing these options. As a photographer I would opt for the 500 dollar camera and spend a load of money on lighting when you’re starting out
Hey Harris. Love your videos. You talk about the background blur being more pronounced because of the full frame sensor. This is actually a common misconception. If you were to set the f/stop on the APS-C camera to an f/4, to get the same amount of background blur on the full frame, you'd have to set the Sony to an f/6.3. It's the same concept as getting the same field of view on the full frame compared to the APS-C. You have to times the f/stop by 1.5 as well as the focal length.
I love how the cheaper was the better looking at least to me. I recently swapped from webcam to a GoPro and I'm happier than if I bought a DSLR currently
I got them both right, for pretty much the reasons you explained. In both cases, the "flatter" image has more detail and more room for the user to set up the colors how they want.
It's not too dissimilar to a microphone in an XLR interface that supports a higher sample rate and bit depth. Yeah, that USB mic is gonna give maybe a more "finished" sound right out of the box, but capturing more audio detail gives you a lot more room to tweak it exactly how you want while still sounding relatively clean and smooth and not over processed.
I got both correct. I notice that the more you know, the more your tastes reflect that knowledge. It's like coffee, or wine. People with less experience tend to prefer sweeter coffees and wines... whereas people who have worked on their palette are seeking different things in the image. High Contrast in cameras is kind of like the sugar in coffees and wines. It's there to cover up the taste and be more appealing to a more general user.
I instantly knew which was the Canon by the saturated colours
Yeah, I kinda like the saturation on that. It gives a nice tanned, lively feel to the video.
@@_._shinonome_._ I'm not a fan of that look, to saturated and contrasty out the gate for my liking
@@_._shinonome_._ it looks over sharpened I don't think its over saturated, its probably just the white balance
One thing to note as well, is that Aperture F numbers are not equivalent between Full-Frame and Cropped- Sensor (ie. f/10 on FF = F/6.7 on a Nikon Cropped sensor).
I liked this comparison. my guesses where completely wrong, but after your explanation of the different webcams, I knew which camera was which. Also nice magic trick there at 6:45, the force is strong with you.
As someone who originally used a Canon 6D for years, I moved to a Canon M200 during the lockdown, because there was no real need for a heavy camera during this time. I've been extremely impressed by it, and haven't touched my 6D in 12 months. I even took my M200 away on Holiday in place of the 6D, when hiking and really don't miss the bigger, more expensive camera. The M200 has done an amazing job for photos and videos.
Yo Harris! Im editing a video right now and I needed some music. Ive gotten a copyright claim before on one of my videos but then I remembered STREAMBEATS! Thank you and everyone who created music for stream beats for giving content creators a way to have non copyrightable music!
0:01 correction: ''we now shoot all of our videos in my new house''
As a complete novice in the area, both times I would have picked the cheaper camera because of the more depth of color. But after you took the time to show us the little discrepancy's, and with post recording processing like color correction and contrast, the more expensive camera's will look even better. So by going cheap we get quicker better video but cannot do to much to make it look better. If we go more expensive, we will get a more boring video from the start but can do a lot to it to make it look even better than the cheap camera.
Strange that the canon doesn't seem to have the "canon colour" its more expensive siblings are renouned for... But I was able to tell both sets of cameras apart. I think once you start recording and editing, you quickly gain an appreciation for dynamic range and usuable colour grades. Still i thoroughly enjoyed a look into the comparison...
I now shoot on the Sony A6400, but still find myself picking up my old Canon 600d from time to time. Just because a camera can give better quality, doesn't always take away from the enjoyment of shooting a different style. And my faithful A5100 remains mounted as my stream camera, because its perfect. (
As a photographer, I knew those red tones were from the Canon.
Okay, paused the video to give my opinion: I think the cheap webcam is brighter as it has burnt out some of the highlights, where the other one hasn't. Similarly with the DSLRs, I think the cheaper camera is brighter. Will now watch the rest of the video.
Result: Well, I was right about the webcams but wrong with the DSLRs. Interesting, I thought the more expensive camera would have given the warmer skintones. Didn't even notice the detailing.
Thank you for this Harris, great video.
Dynamic Range is a dead giveaway, especially between the ceiling beams and in other dark areas. In both cases the cheap cameras showed a flat “black” while the better options noticeably preserved detail in the shadows.
My guesses:
Webcam 1: C920
Webcam 2: AVerMedia
Camera 1: Expensive
Camera 2: Cheap
Edit: Damn I got the webcams wrong.
I got both wrong... Am I an idiot or what?
@@ThePhantomCoder haha no your not... did you watch some camera reviews already?
@@official_igrizzly Some webcam comparisons
Same guesses here. But if he had tweaked both of the webcams, this might have been easy. The AVerMedia looked pretty bad...
Yeah I guessed the same, i guessed the webcam wrong because the avermedia seemed softer and less sharp than the c920
I totally forgot that we were talking about out of the box settings and got it wrong for the webcam round. But indeed, the AverMedia does look the part.
The differences in compression and colour science on the mirrorless cameras made that comparison super easy, though.
What would be fun would be to give us full-screen images of the 513 vs the Sony A7S3 after colour correction/applying a LUT. That would be very interesting indeed.
I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend not rebranding 90% of the time it flops, just rejuvenate the current branding
What is happening with your T zone!!! You've got lovely green circles on your ballin lenses and your pink. I hope you get better, you sound stuffy. Loved this vid! Tyvm!
I am not a fan of the term "cropped sensor" as it gives the impression that there is a standard size and anything smaller than that has been cut down. If I am a Hasselblad or PhaseOne shooter I might say that anything smaller, like a 35mm, is cropped. This also holds true to the term "full frame", which gets used a lot. Most people are referring to the standard 35mm frame size when the use these terms but that is just one standard that gained a lot of popularity as most people are were most familiar with this format than with any other. The real point of this test is that any time you can use a larger sensor you will undoubtedly end up with better results. The more pixels you pack into a space, the more you are sacrificing image data for sheer pixels. A 24MP 35mm sensor is going to provide more image data and dynamic range than a 24MP APS-C sensor. Bigger is not always better, but usually it is.
I strongly agree with you, but most people don’t know, won’t understand it and even cared about this, too technical for streamers than only wants a DSLR camera just because someone told them is more “pro”. I personally hate when these streamers who doesn’t know anything about cameras or photography, call DSLR cameras “professional” cameras, and NOT all DSLR cameras are actually “professional”. Worse thing is, when they stream with one of those “pro” DSLRs and their stream looks way worse than mine, which I stream with a BRIO, a C920 and a GoPro Hero 7 as my main camera!
I am glad to see you are still able to dodge the game bullets IRL in your old age Harris.
For the Cameras, I originally thought the more saturated camera was going to be the more expensive one, but when I paused it I noticed the definition in focus and in details. The bland camera had better focus on its subject and had even have more definitions in the strands on your head. After noticing that I had to change my mine and say that the saturated color camera was the cheaper one. I guess I thought it was the expensive one at first because the saturation gave the illusion of high def.
So a couple comments here. Lenses do matter, the quality of glass makes a huge impact on sharpness and image quality. Second, the lighting being used here was actually negatively affecting the c920. I have a c920 and have tricked people into think it's a high end camera by using a dollar store light, a shower curtain (also a dollar) and a heat lamp reflector which was 15 dollars bouncing the light off my ceiling to give me a warm glow. Typically cheaper camera systems will have software enhancement put into them to make adjustments automatically because most people that purchase then are looking for ease of use. I'd suggest making a video of how people can utilize cheap hardware to achieve a better result without much extra work. And please remember, lens choice does matter :)
Bud, would you say that Lumix G80 is a good camera for streams nad sitting-in-front-of-camera vlogs in low-light? If you were to get one for free. Would you?
Free is Free
I have a few Panasonic cameras myself. sadly mine are all old and dont have clean HDMI outputs
The G80 does have a clean HDMI output though so should be awesome for streaming and other vlog stuff (has built in body image stabiliser too so combine that with a lens that has IS and you get a very stable handheld image)
Just got to remember that the Panasonic auto focus is still kind of basic compared to Sony/Canon. Never bothered me over the past 5 years of owning Panasonic cameras
@@VisualCody Thanks, Cody! I'll keep that in mind! Thanks a lot, buddy! Have a wonderful day!
@@Kaftannn I own a G80. I don't stream, I just make videos with it. I'd say it's not the best in low light due to Micro 4/3rds sensor so I would recommend you to get at least one lighting for your face. Going above ISO 1600 with this camera introduces a lot of noise. So I usually can't go above ISO 1600 in low light. Getting a lens for that camera that let's a lot of light in would help I guess. I own a 3.5-5.6f 14-42mm lens but I would recommend Rokinon 12mm F2 for wide angle or Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 for midrange. So yeah in conclusion, if you get the camera for free, put some money into buying one lighting (doesn't have to be anything expensive :D). Hope that was helpful.
@@torshhn2605 I was about to say
Yes you can, higher end cameras allow for more control in post by letting you shoot in better codecs and flatter picture profiles. Don’t forget 10 bit color which is something that is exclusive to higher end cameras allows for more flexibility with color grading.
Both camera 1 are the affordable ones, and both camera 2 are the expensive ones. 😁
Edit: Both affordable cams where punchier in contrast and color and made me feel had a better image. But in closer inspection the flatter image does have more detail and can be tweaked to look better. In BOTH cases the deciding factor to me was the flatness of the image because I had the bias of "better picture out of the box". But if I had thought about it, I've seen RED raw footage and it looks grey AF... And that's not for "AUTO FOCUS". 😂 Great video! Love the Content!!!
i could see the possibility for the canon camera compared to the other, the canon is almost a feel to like a "setup and go" camera compared to the otherone where i get the "RAW" feels to it which is nicer to have on editing or controlling the colour/contrast envoirment more. great vid!
Excellent video as always
I use a 1923 Leica 0. It’s a completely unique setup that is absurdly expensive but massively scuffed
I thought the camera one was super easy to tell the difference between. Again for the same reason you pointed out. The flatter look because it is capturing more detail up front for you to play with in post.
I might be a little obsessed in camera stuff but to me the pro cam section was very noticeable right from the start, maybe because I saw how blue the light from the window looks?
So funny. A year ago I would have been happy with my c920. Ignorance is bliss. Now it’s a backup webcam. Even an entry level mirrorless cameras looks so much better.
Got both right because of the color accuracy. In both cases it felt like the cheaper one was a lower quality image with software alterations to make it look better.
As a professional photographer it was pretty easy to tell the camera differences one is full frame the other isn’t so the crop stands out pretty significantly
I could tell the expensive cameras by their flat color profiles - especially the mirrorless. Low-end mirrorless cameras are set up to look "good" for beginners right out of the gate, so you have to go out of your way to get a flat color profile for them.
The shallower depth of field is the giveaway with the mirrorless cameras (larger a7iii sensor has shallower dof), but both of those have great image quality. It's really a matter of production technique and content quality that make any real difference here. Are you getting people to watch to the end?
Thanks for the video guys 🙂👍🏼
Got the camera one right but never would've guessed the C920 could look that good. Guess I'm just too much of a bonehead with color correction to fix my filters lol
Great video Harris! Thank you for streambeats! Also you have made judging stream set ups in the past, can you make a video of judging TH-cam channels?
I liked the cheaper webcam and then the more expensive camera. Lol
Same, I guess cheap webcams come more prepared with post-processing out of the box and pro cameras tend to set everything to a middle tone maybe
that Sony M200 performed way, way better than I thought it would. way better. excellent video.
This was by far the most interesting post from Harris that I have seen. My guesses were correct, but I'm afraid that he might be comparing the right Sony camera with the wrong Canon camera.
Planning on buying the a6600... Kinda scared of buying a wrong camera for my channel :/
Even an a6400 would be fine, focus on what lenses you want.
Right after deciding what frame rate/resolution you want to record at. Most cameras in this range can do the same thing and what you pull out of it depends on how you use it, specifically how you light your subject/foreground/background or compose your scene.
Thats the camera I use for my stream and videos and I think it looks pretty good :)
@@milkandhenny agree
On the lower price range of cameras lighting will be your biggest adversary. I'd recommend looking at Peter McKinnon or similar TH-cam channels for how to setup your lighting properly to make your footage better. Lenses and lighting are two extremely important parts to good video
Don't be, his picture profile of the sony camera was not color graded properly. The default Canon picture profile has better skin tone out of the box, but Sony is completely capable of presenting the same color.
Never expected this sponsorship in a million years
For the webcams my initial thought was that the c920 was the second camera because of the streaks in the light due to that plastic sheet over the lens but the contrast psyched me out in the end so I got that wrong. The actual cameras portion was way easier because of the not so great auto white balance of the m200 that makes the image pinker overall. Also, the thing to remember with cameras is as long as you can control the functions of the body, the lense is the biggest contributer to almost any shot, so comparing just the bodies can be a little tricky.
Really liked this content. More blind tests please
8:00 why does this shot have a blur added to it when talking about sharpness? Maybe I lost some context somewhere?
Why am I up at 12:17am watching Camera comparison 🥴😴 love your vids man
I definitely got that one wrong
I got both right.
Webcam was obv and camera I picked because of more artefacts on the APSC, the bokeh was more pleasant on the higher end, and I expected the more expensive to have a way more flat profile
Webcam one is C920, webcam 2 is Avermedia. Camera 1 is Sony, and Camera 2 is Cannon. Also, all of the talking head shots (other than the intro) were shot with the cannon.
What picture profile were you using on the Sony? Kind of easy giveaway with the Canon skintone for any Canon shooters, but maybe use a more finished picture profile on the Sony, would make the comparison more difficult? Nice video though, gets the point across.
Just goes to show how much more knowing your gear matters over the gear itself.
Challenge : Tweak the cheaper cameras to look as good as they can by correcting the colors and brightness and then compare again.
Even then you would still see a difference because its the range that you can't make up for.
I recently upgraded my stock lens to a sigma 16mm and have really enjoyed the bokeh it gives for being considered a budget lens.
Oh wow, I literally just bought the M200 for streaming. I love it!
Have you had any issues with overheating? I suppose I still have to do a lot of tweaking and stuff before I can actually give my opinion on the m200 (bought one too), but yeah it turned off pretty quick from overheating (using a dummy battery in it of course) let me know your experience!
@@ChessDoctorsOrigins Yes and no... I actually posted a whole video about that just a few days ago if you want some more info.
Guesses: Webcam 1, Camera 1
Reasons: Flatter look (wider dynamic range) on both picks, as well as shallower DOF on Camera 1. Camera 2 had pleasant colors out of the box tho.
Reaction: Oh wow, I was pretty confident but didn't expect my reasons to be the points addressed. Most people just look towards sharpness. I guess this is why you're killing it!
I guessed both correct. Between the webcams was easy simply because I own the AverMedia webcam and recognized the look. Between the cameras I used the logic you said about the more expensive camera is supposed to look dull untuned. But I didn’t really know, it was an educated guess.
I could tell that with the mirrorless cameras the canon was number 2 due to the saturation in the skintones and added sharpness. How I knew the A7sIII was the first one and a dead giveaway for me was that the colors seemed a little "flat". With cameras like the A7sIII its made to be able to shoot in things like HLG-3/SLog3 so that post production retains all of the detail. Also even though the colors weren't popping, something with the detail in your hair seemed sharp in a smooth way and maybe thats the lens and full frame (could be placebo, lol)? Id love to see you push the A7sIII to 4k60 and color grade it in post. However In this case, i know it wouldve been a big giveaway if you did do that. Great Comparisons either way.
I’ve just spent too much time with my Sony a7siii to not see a difference with the mirrorless bois. The webcams were a bit tougher but the “high exposure” look from the c920 gave it away for me
I got both right. In the first pair is easy to notice that the Logitech was way whiter, but with the cameras I just guessed that the less red one was more expensive.
I honestly didn't pay attention to the Webcam portion but I got the "big" cameras right. Not because of the blur or anything but cause of the color profile. Using sonys, it easy to see their log type files or a more greyish color tone, which in turn you edit in post or in the case of streaming, in color correction. That made the two stand out drastically. However in the case of a small Webcam box on a stream, the Canon would do just fine.
The dead give away on the camera Was the skin tone difference. When you were explaining the video Your skin tones very light And because you showed the cameras you were filming on a Sony So when you did the differences between the 2 cameras One picture quality was still the same while the other 1 changed drastically with your skin And I knew that 1 was the Canon. I'm definitely no photographer nor do I have any high encameras. Good video if ever allows to be a Blogger/photographer I can live with the cannon for the price but the goal will definitely be the Sony
Oddly enough, I got the more obvious first set absolutely wrong and got the second one right. It’s probably because I’ve watched so many filmmaking videos talking about the wonders of background blur, haha. But oh my gosh, I need to learn more about webcams, I was so confidently incorrect, haha.
The webcam I didn't get mostly because of the first camera looking blurry, but the DSLRs I did because of the background blur. You can notice that the Sony just has more even at the same f4 just because the full frame vs crop sensor differences in bokeh. I think you need a crop sensor f2.8 to match the bokeh of a full frame f4.
I personally use a M50 and find it hard to get good lenses for it that works well in low light and still give me the auto focus I need. This is why when I purchased another camera I choose the ZV-1. I think it is the total package and very good for new streamers. At the f1.8 to f2.8 you get a very good low light camera that is very small and easy to mount almost anywhere. This would also be a good long term camera because as you build out your kit and replace your main with a $7000 camera you can easily reuse the zv1 anywhere else in your set (overhead, side, rear, bathroom, front door, etc). I think this is such an overlooked camera that just works out of the box including the built in audio.
I got the Webcam one wrong. I think it’s because the contrast was so low on the Aver Media that the blown out whites were more pronounced. For the Camera body ones I got that right. I just knew from taking a lot of photos and dealing with media a lot where the detail gain was. I was looking at the overall balance of colors.
I think you should also close aperture on sony just a little bit just to remove that background blur, because of that you can easily guess which camera have biger sensor, but overall good comparison.
Great video! As always. Got both of them right. The camera comparison was easy, the canon has lot of contrast. It was really the same in your 3 budget camera comparison, where m200 was a lot more purple, compared to a5100 that you used. I feel a5100 or a6100 would have been a lot more indistinguishable because of similar colour science from sony. In webcams, I think logitech has a really cool(blueish) tint to it, compared to avermedia.
I got the webcams wrong but cameras right, can see the artificial sharpening in the m200, when it’s shrank down though it’s harder to see which would be what you have for streaming.
Cool comparison though!
Harris's look with those glasses is *chef kiss*
I knew the c920 was the cool image one (prefer the 513 out of the box) but for mods the c920 is better (there's thousands of videos on it)
omg the canon is freaking dope, really great for streams huh. other recommendation (new 5r,no HDMI output but crop it, no canon utility buy a cheap one on AliExpress)
I actually got both correct, on the webcam I owned 3 of the c920 around the house for my kids. On the mirrorless camera, for some reason all Canon cameras always tend to shift to the orange look on skin tones.
the canon is more magenta, Sony its more green and nikon are blue thats sometimes a key to know what brand some ppl shoot
I guess that the webcam one is the avermedia, it has more natural skin, less over sharpening, more dynamic range and less lens flaring. I also guess that camera one is the A7sIII as it has a more natural profile along with more tame sharpening whilst keeping more important detail.
Guesses before answers.
Webcams: 1 Is the avermedia 2 is the logitech. Owning a c920 has taught me what it's colors look like.
Cameras: 1 I'd say cam 1 is the Sony and 2 is the Canon. Idk if this is just me, but canon usually makes skin tones look really pink, so that's what the give is.
Wow! I didn't expect to be right for these!
Who else saw the video where he recorded entirely with his phone... That was scary
Which video was that
On the webcam comparison I guessed wrong, the image looked a bit blurred for me on the AverMedia so I guess that gave me the impression it was cheaper. I guessed right on the mirrorless cameras though, the colors on your forehead and arms looked a bit off and inconsistent, almost like a shadow was being cast over your body but they looked natural and life-like on the expensive one.
I ended up with both right. So that was fun.
I owned a C920 for a long while as a stream camera so it's shortcomings with white balance were painfully obvious immediately. Aver media had better colour no contest.
I also used an m200 as an upgrade camera for a while. it definitely adds a telltale digital sharpness to stuff. I ended up replacing it because of a few headaches. One being the colour being way less accurate than it should be for a mirrorless. But the eye tracking auto-focus on the m200 is really terrible. It would routinely lose focus on me, and grab a hat or a pillow in the background that had a slightly brighter white than my eyes. I think it isn't actual eye auto-focus but a narrow contrast based one. If you have the budget and the decision is between an m200 and a Sony a6000/6100, go with the Sony.
The A7s III is a champ of a camera it's nice seeing that and the FX3 being used in your productions. It's especially incredible in low-light scenarios. For those who don't know the FX3 is the exact same camera as the A7s III in a different body that is aimed more at videographers rather than photographers. More mounting points, active cooling, no viewfinder. Same picture quality, features, and sensor.
I'm guessing the blurry webcam (1) is definitely not the C920. I own the C920 and it definitely does better than that even in low light. I'm calling 1 the Avermedia and 2 the C920. The expensive one is probably camera 2 - it seems to have a better dynamic range, although it looks like it might be slightly out of focus on the sample footage so I don't know if the softness is due to the lens/sensor or the focus itself.
On that note, why is it so hard to find a camera that just does autofocus well? Either the camera hunts every 3-5 seconds which is jarring AF, or it's seemingly never properly in focus. There's no middle ground. I've struggled with it on my X-T3 as well so I've taken to just blasting the set with as much light as possible and running the camera on manual focus with the aperture stopped down to like f/14 so I have a wider focus depth to accommodate any movement.
EDIT: Looks like I was wrong about the camera. Guess I got fooled by the dullness of the higher quality camera. I probably should have known that seeing as I have the same thing with my camera vs the cheaper one I used to use. Oops lol.
I think the only thing I noticed is that a flat colour profile looks worse. Shame you limited the aperture (I understand why) because that's what you pay the big bucks for on a lens.
I guessed Cam 1 for the larger cameras was the Sony*, because the full-frame cameras usually have a dull image so that you have more room to color grade in post.
I’m assuming camera 1 on the canon vs Sony is the Sony judging by the flat picture style, to allow for easier color correction in post. Camera 2 has a very strong contrast
Gg I got camera setup 2 right. I only knew because I setup custom picture profiles on my M50🤣
Honestly this was easy for me, the webcams is the contrast, for the mirror less cameras was the colours, especially the skin
I thought both webcams were terrible but to be honest I thought for $194 your face would at least be in focus, it was blurry the whole time despite the dynamic range being better. I’d rather have less DR and actually be in focus
The easiest part of the test was a7siii vs the canon. Imo the cannon colors always look awful and have a weird skin smoothing effect. The Sony was a bit flatter but the colors were more natural, although both need correction. The background had a tad more bokeh due to the sensor size (btw there’s also a f stop factor, 2.8 on full frame is not equal to 2.8 on m4/3) The canon also had over sharpening artifacting, which is kinda famous for them to do to pretend they have a sharper image than they actually do.
3 months ago I wouldn’t have had a clue but I’ve done a bunch of research for my first camera and watching all the videos about them made me recognize traits of the canon and how bad it always looks to me. I settled on a Sony A6400 and I got the kit lens for the small size, and stabilization for vlogs, and I got the 30mm sigma 1.4 for tripod at my desk videos/streams. It’s not the best setup but it’s the best I can afford and does everything I want. It’ll probably be a long time before I feel the need to upgrade anything other than getting new lenses for different effects in videos
Also you said “more background blur because I had to zoom in more”
While zooming in more does result in more bokeh, both lenses had the same zoom factor. The difference was full frame. It’s not the zoom in this case but the fact you didn’t multiply the f stop factor for the sensor sizes. M4/3 2.8 has about the same blur as full frame f3.5 or 4. Something to do with how much wider the out of focus light gets scattered onto the larger sensor than a smaller one I think but I’m not entirely sure.
I’ll be honest, I preferred option 2 both times…but what do I know.
I agree
Had the same exact thoughts as you and got both right. The cheaper cameras looked like they had a lot of post-processing including color, extra contrast, and added sharpness. An expensive camera is likely to look worse right out of the box. You have to know how to use your expensive tools to get the most out of them. The flat image you get out of the box gives you more flexibility., So many people are used to their iPhones doing a ton of post-processing to capture a good-looking image, they don't realize what the image looks like without all that stuff.
I didn't write the comments before hand but I did get both right, the webcams were tougher for me but as a photographer/cinematographer, the cameras were instant, the over sharpened micro four thirds look with the orange skin tones and extra contrast had to be the cheaper camera, Also the green hue on skin tones is a Sony trademark, dead giveaway.
Why does it look like the background of Senpai HQ is a greenscreen'd image? That's some good light separating if it's not.
Got both wrong and that means I need to study about cameras more. I feel ashamed because the contrast alone made me judge so easily while forgetting about the dynamic range and other details.
I dig the glasses, Harris. I see you.
What gave it away for me was the coloring and sharpness didn't look as good on camera two. It looked blurry or something because it was so contrasted as where camera 1 was sharper but wasn't overly sharp or contrasted. Also the flat more natural look of camera 1 vs over saturated look of camera 2 in the first shot.
Nailed both of them =))) cannon was more grainy so clearly looked cheaper and the webcams, the avermedia has better color corection out of the box... and yeah.. the dynamic range...
And also when we talk dslr or mirrorless, there is no "cheap" option... I have a Nikon d3500 (entry level) and trust me it wasn't cheap either... but the quality it has over a webcam, if I were to turn back time, i'd still make the same decision... also I use the stock lens 18-22mm at f4.5 and with some ambient light it's absolutely awesome because you won't even know it runs at 3400 iso due to the amazing software they have on them right now :D
Dang I thought the webcam choices were flipped with 1 being the c920 for being cheaper but that’s crazy how the AverMedia was more $$ but a really bad image. But I got the mirrorless cameras correct since I have a canon m200 and know it very well.
As a canon user I can recognize that canon look that sharpened look that I have to work with for like 4-5 years ( but with different canon camera) and I like it camera 2 is definitely canon 200 but I actually think that with nice audio this is perfect camera for beginners and even not beginners ! For the webcams I don't know .
Heck yeah, Medal sponsorship!
Webcam 1 is the c920 I'm pretty confident in that answer. For the camera I think 2 has a warmer feel into it which I think it makes it look way better in the scene... but I think more expensive cameras are designed to be as neutral looking as possible to then be color corrected later on. So Final answer camera 2 is the $500 one!
I must have done a lot of work with my own c920 in the software because it looks so much closer to the other webcam in this video! And yay got the two cameras right and my logical reasoning was right too! Funny how I thought my unprofessionally trained eye liked the "cheaper" camera
blind comparison of the epos streaming mic that just came out vs some xlr mics, also do a cheap xlr amazon mic vid, some of those neewer mics are actually pretty good