Jacek

It is completely fake. They are posting such videos every time new camera is released. (They say they use Panasonic 12-35/2.8 lens on both cameras :D )

It's not that simple. They did it in GH4  - 200Mbit 2K. While the image is great, downsampled 100Mbit 4k is still better.
 
There is one more thing - these all are hybrid stills/video cameras. That means they just can't go lower than 8 megapixels in 16:9.
For 2k video the best sensor would have 2 megapixels - 1:1 full sensor readout with best DR you can get. But nobody would buy still camera with 2-3 megapixels :)..
 
So 4K video looks like natural resolution for hybrid stills/video cameras. Sony did a 12 megapixels A7S and it is the lowest limit for photographers I suppose. And GH4 example shows that it's better to output that native 4K image than try to downsample internally.

I have to disappoint you, but Rec.2020 is just a recommendation for UHD and has nothing to do with actual monitor colour gamut.
 
That Samsung is not bad (especially considering it's TN panel) and almost covers sRGB (similar to rec.709), but it is far far from rec.2020 colour gamut recommendation.
Don't know its colour accuracy (which is as important as color space coverage), but overall it is just avarage monitor (good for TN) in terms of colors.

Only one question:
Can you mount it on Panasonic LX100? :D

12-35mm f2.8 is made by Panasonic and LX100 has cheap Leica lens.. :blink: :lol:

Its here: http://m.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100/4

Just add 150 euro and you will have Leica badge also on the body (not only lens):
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Leica-D-Lux

Leica LX100 main difference in design is the lack of nice grip.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Blackmagic pocket - similar colors, different dof,
Sony a7s - different colors, same dof,
gh4 - different colors, different dof :P

Why not just a Windows machine? You will have more hardware choices and it will be simpler i suppose..
My advices:
- don't use Administrator account. Create restricted user for everyday work (you will have much more stable and secure system)
- don't install any software you don't trust.

The hardware:
Latest generation core i5 CPU (desktop CPU-s are much faster than mobile CPU-s. i5 desktop is like i7 mobile)
- get the cheapest from:
http://ark.intel.com/pl/products/family/75024/4th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors#@Desktop
1x16GB RAM (leave other banks for later upgrade)
Cheap motherboard and case (best would be ATX format, but if You like smaller cases: micro-ATX)
Well known brand (not no-name) but not expensive PSU
SSD Drive (note that bigger capacity means usually also faster speed, but you will be ok with 128GB+)
The best GPU you have the money for
(optional) If you use software like DaVinci Resolve, You would need second GPU just for UI (cheap card mounted in PCI-Express x1 slot)

without SpeedBooster - yes
with SpeedBooster - no

It's all subjective. For me, a7s is also similarly priced as gh4:
- gh4 nedds 400$ SpeedBooster to get closer with sensor size
Lens options look better and can be cheaper for a7s
- a7s native lenses are the same price as gh4 equivalent native lenses or little pricier, but better quality: 
35/2.8 FF Zeiss vs 12/2 m43 Olympus
50/1.8 FF Zeiss vs 25/0.95 m43 Voigtlander
24-70/4 FF Zeiss vs 12-35/2.8 m43 Panasonic
Not to mention lenses with adapters, even Speedbooster.. It is much easier and cheaper to get fast wide lens for a7s. And that what's important for me.
 
It's just my point of view. Everybody want something else from their camera.

So FFs have advantage here actually. Some of them have crop mode option in video (like Sony a7S) so you will get exactly what you want: 2 fov-s from 1 lens. But in opposite to smaller sensor + SB:
- you don't have to unmount lens and mount SB to change FOV. Just press a button.
- you don't have to pay for expensive SB (even worse if you want to use lenses with different mount-s).
- you get 2 fov-s even with native lenses (with their advantages: perfect fit, autofocus. IS, size, software in-camera corrections etc.)

first not fake GH4 vs a7S:

Doing lower light tests with the GH4+Voigtlander 25mm @F.95 and the A7S with Canon 50mm F1.4 @ F2 (fairly equivalent in terms of FOV and DOF), the A7S does much better with noise control vs. the GH4 (as expected), however the GH4 does surprisingly well. In lower light shooting, the GH4 noise does go from nice monochromatic to colored, similar to the A7S (which is much less and better controlled). The GH4 is looking more detailed (4K => 1080p) and clear in bright light. The A7S is clearly better in low light; shooting handheld is tricky as rolling shutter is 30.5ms (vs 20.5ms for GH4 in 4K (13.7ms in 1080p)): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue!

Quick Review A7S vs GH4
 
Where the  GH4 is better:
Build quality Viewfinder Flip out screen User interface (by a mile) Battery life (by a mile) Color science Skin tones Rolling shutter (by quite a bit) Detail (internal 4K and 4K to HD) Noise grain (mostly pleasing monochromatic) Built-in flash for stills When lens size is included, a much smaller package Can shoot best quality on < 64GB Class 10 UHS-1 cards (A7S requires >=64GB cards for XAVC-S) Price Where the A7S is better:
Low light (it's very good however the noise grain is colored and multi-spectral; not as pleasing as GH4's mostly monochromatic fine-grain noise) Shallow DOF (add a SpeedBooster/focal-reducer to the GH4 and this isn't much of an advantage) Audio (no buzz; not tested thoroughly yet though) If a 5D3/full-frame owner: can use existing lenses with a non-focal-reducer adapter (with similar DOF) Super 35 mode allows use of many NEX lenses (some aliasing) Auto ISO After having worked with 5D3 14-bit RAW and RED RAW, where the unmodified RAW looks pretty good straight from the camera, Slog2, Cinegammas, Cine-D/V, etc., start looking like gimmicks. None of those gamma curves are providing a real increase in dynamic range. In certain cases they may provide more information for 8-bit compression, however they can be tricky to use and must be exposed carefully. I've had the best luck shooting Natural with the GH4 (and no crazy curves), though iDynamic is helpful sometimes (appears to be local pixel group based processing vs. a simple curve. The A7S has a similar feature (disabled if any picture profile or effect is active, though)).
 
Rolling shutter is very challenging on the A7S in full frame mode (worse than the 5D3): not very usable for handheld without a lens with IS and/or a solid rig. The A7S menu and button system is a mess. The FS700 has a better design! (many folks find the FS700 non-intuitive to use).
 
Both cameras have aliasing and moire in slow motion. Perhaps similar to the FS700 in 240fps mode (not as bad as FS700 480+fps modes). I haven't done a direct comparison, however the FS700 120fps and less slow motion is better than the GH4 and A7S (all slow motion modes).
 
While the A7S isn't quite a one-trick-pony (low light), the GH4 is a much better all around camera. I haven't had the A7S as long as the GH4, so there may be other elements that make the A7S more compelling, yet to be discovered.

Thanks every for watching. I was one of the lucky ones to get it early. I uploaded a new Prores version

It is rather "GH4 SkinMakeup tones" ;)
 
... unless you don't look at the face..

Nah..
Full frame sensor from the Sony A7S 4K internal codec from the Panasonic GH4 2K RAW from Blackmagic Big EVF from Fuji and their lovely X-T1 5 axis in-body stabilisation from Olympus (working for video with any lens) Cine lenses by Sigma - their 35mm F1.4 and 50mm F1.4 are that good Bundled grading / editing software from Blackmagic - Resolve 11 free Blackmagic Resolve Light Ergonomic styling by Fuji

And it's funny that even size advantage of m43 system is getting weaker.. Just look at A7 + 35mm/2.8 Zeiss :).
Sony FF NEX is quite a revolution (at least in photography).

And just look at lenses:
- FF 50mm/1.8 is 10x cheaper than Voigtlander 25mm/0.95..
- FF different primes from 20/1.8 to 100/1.8 are sooo cheap (m43 equiv. 10/1 to 50/1) compared to many even weaker m43 lenses.

There is a lot of apparent disagreement here but not much actual disagreement, I think. Is this a fair summary?
 
If I am buying a camera BODY, there are some numbers that I should know:
        - sensor size
        - pixel count
Now all other things being equal more pixels is nice (up to a point), but as Andrew points out at the beginning of every camera report, more pixels on a smaller sensor probably means worse pixels all other things being equal. But bottom line is that, especially for video, we have more pixels than we need. Really, it is PIXEL SIZE, which is derived from the above two numbers (roughly - Andrew's point about global shutter circuitry and other technologies like backside illumination must be taken into account) that matters more.
 
However, all other things are almost never equal. So if we want to know how good the actual image is, everything is in the details. If I want to know the details, then I rely on review sites that take pictures under carefully controlled situations with the best possible lenses, look at how ISO 800 pics on different bodies compare, in terms of noise and resolution and so on. If there is a fudge factor in ISO, as the OP video claims, it will show up in the quality of the images at this point, so this does not concern me. Crop cameras should look worse by the factor he claims, and if so then... they will look worse, and we will all be able to tell.
 
Now what if I am buying camera LENSES?
 
First, we all know that there are enormous variations in lens quality - both in technical quality (MTF etc) and in aesthetic quality. Put that aside for a moment and assume all these things are equal. A lens can be described by three numbers (ignoring zoom, minimum focus, etc):
        - focal length
        - maximum aperture
        - image circle
 
If I have my camera body already, then I have to make sure I buy lenses with a big enough image circle. If I have a full-frame body and I buy APS-C only lenses, I am going to be really disappointed by what I see, and will be using crop mode all the time and might as well have bought an APS-C camera. But I can put a larger image circle lens on a smaller sensor body (assuming I can physically attach it) and it will work fine, giving me images (again, all other things being equal) equivalent to a crop of the larger sensor body the lens was intended for. Of course, because of the crop, I may need to reframe for the same image, and because of that, depth of field and perspective will not be the same. By multiplying the focal length by the crop factor, I know how much I need to reframe for the same image (or conversely, I know which (different focal length) lens to chose so I don't have to reframe).
 
Ok. Now let's talk about about what you get for your money. Suppose I am comparing two lenses that will render the same field of view on their native sensor size and roughly equivalent "quality" - say, a 50mm f/2.8 full-frame and a 25mm f/2.8 m43. While similar in many, many ways, the fundamental difference is that that the full-frame lens renders a larger image circle, which means that it is a more complex piece of engineering - it maintains an adequate image over a 4x larger area. That means more glass (and a heavier lens), tighter tolerances etc. It is much harder to keep that wide aperture and still resolve over that large image circle. Also, if shallow depth of field is your thing, you are not going to get as shallow with the m43 on native body.
 
If I put that full-frame lens on a crop body it will work fine, but I am wasting an awful lot of engineering by doing so, because much of the image circle is just being ignored. Also, as Andrew points out, I may lose an awful lot of the character of the lens, which comes from its fall-off, distortions, etc.. But this may not worry me.
 
The magic of the speedbooster is that it takes all the engineering, all the character, of the larger-format lens and squeezes it down to fit onto a smaller sensor, so you are not just throwing that away. It means you get the lens as it would be on the larger sensor.
 
Now here is the part where I agree with the video that started all this. If you look at the lenses and their prices, full-frame lenses look like much better value. That 50mm f2.8 FF and that 25mm f2.8 m43 cost close to the same, but if you think about the job they are doing, the full frame lens is way more impressive. (It is also way heavier (because of the job it is doing)). And on a native body, it will do things the other won't, like a shallower depth of field. If that is what matters to me, then yes, I need a 25mm f1.4 native m43 lens. If that doesn't matter to me, and if other things matter more (like size) then I may not care about the full frame comparison.
 
I'm looking at getting a new body and new lenses. And I am facing this issue every time I try to decide. I look at the GH4, and I look at the native lens selection and what you pay for them, and what they do compared to full-frame or APS-C lenses and what you pay for those, and the value seems off. I get much more for my money with the larger-format lenses. But I pay more for the body that handles those lenses, and the body may not be as good for video anyway. It is, after all, the combination of lenses-plus-body that produces the actual images.

@EOSHD Maybe instead of a thread, a real forum section.  I'd like to discuss specifics - Micro 4/3rds lenses, vintage lenses, full frame lenses, etc.  I'm just worried that specific topics would be lost in a single discussion thread.

* edited upon request:
 
This video has led to a debate between members questioning the accuracy and validity of the claims made in this video.
It has been reviewed as incorrect and confusing so be aware of that before watching.