themartist

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft.
For me the biggest issue I have with the kind of cameras I can afford is rolling shutter. Out of camera color, dynamic range, 4K is generally not an issue for me ... GH4, A7s or Canon Mark iii... I'm happy with all of the results I get. I've said it many times before... and I'll say it again. My talent has not caught up with available and affordable technology yet... so you won't hear complaints from me. 
For hobbyists to be able to easily afford a $6000 camera is a bit of a slap in the face to pros who are producing work on lesser cameras without complaining. Not calling Andrew a hobbyist by any mean, because he has done paid gigs and EOSHD has become his profession... so there is tremendous talent and time spent on his part. But the article is either a bit click bait or bipolar for my liking...

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft.
For me the biggest issue I have with the kind of cameras I can afford is rolling shutter. Out of camera color, dynamic range, 4K is generally not an issue for me ... GH4, A7s or Canon Mark iii... I'm happy with all of the results I get. I've said it many times before... and I'll say it again. My talent has not caught up with available and affordable technology yet... so you won't hear complaints from me. 
For hobbyists to be able to easily afford a $6000 camera is a bit of a slap in the face to pros who are producing work on lesser cameras without complaining. Not calling Andrew a hobbyist by any mean, because he has done paid gigs and EOSHD has become his profession... so there is tremendous talent and time spent on his part. But the article is either a bit click bait or bipolar for my liking...

No definitely not, however this blog was praised for being honest. Giving ideas & tips about how to shoot amazing videos with low budget ILCS and vintage lenses. Not to mention many technical posts.
Now having read this weird kinky shit about super expensive ancient zero innovation dinosaur of camera that produces flaterring color compared to another is just meh, because u feel that way, yeH that is just "meh"
Had you been praising canon all along i guess we'd be all still shotting with clumsy dlsrs and sony would still try to compete with their a mount line...

In all due respect, I think this is one of your weaker articles.
The comparison is weird (as the A7SII does look better) and this newish stance regarding Canon contradicts many other previous articles written on the site. 
I looked into the Canon 1DX II - although the entire package is nice, the file sizes are very large, you need a hotshoe monitor for serious work (exposure tools, tilt viewing angles etc), the highlight roll-off is steep, and finally we are back to the Franken-rig for steady hand held... so having a more video focused hybrid or a dedicated video camera will be a better option in a lot of cases. 
Plus, while Sony images are much harder to get a pleasing look - with skill, you can get some magnificent results. Many users are uploading very poorly graded S-log videos with horrendous white balance, exposure and lighting. Get it right, and you have lovely dynamic range, lovely colour and detailed image. No auto modes required! 
I can see the DPAF having huge value in many situations. I'm glad you are enjoying the benefits. However, I wouldn't throw out theta A7S II just yet, it serves a very different purpose and will be very useful. 

"Likewise when I invested – key word invested – in the A6300, had I known Sony would roll out the A6500 a few months later I would never have spent money on it. One should rarely wait to buy the tool you need, because there’s forever something newer round the corner, but it seems like every 6 months Sony make your last purchase a complete waste of money."

1) Oh COME ON. For two years you were yelling at Canon for not innovating. Now that they finally update your yelling at Sony for innovating to much with fast refresh cycles?
2) Cameras are not an investment in terms of resale value, camera's are in an investment into your art/business.

I've grown very tired of base Canon profiles ( C-log is excellent however). They are excessively warm, not true to life at all. Which is great if your shooting weddings all the time, but not all subjects are served with that type of color.

I find your comparison completely false. The Canon is using your custom profile GRADED and the Sony is using Standard, ungraded, and obviously underexposed!

But most of all, no mention of the IBIS and excellent viewfinders on the High-end Sony camera's?? I could never go back to only using the rear LCD, a non-tilting one at that!

The good things first :
1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.
2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.
the bad :
1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)
2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 
3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.
4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.
The awful:
5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)
6. No articulating screen
7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol
8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol
9. Codec
I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 
oh and i forgot , the ugly :
10. EF mount
Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 
mickey

I agree with DPC and Gerbert Floor. There is no commercial potential in this footage, as it is.

I kinda agree with DPC, that comparison is really weird. I agree that canon has great colors, but that profile with crushed blacks is pretty extreme. I mean, it's ok as a 'look' I guess, but not really something you can deliver to every client.
 
I'm also pretty curious about work or a reel, this site (especially the forum) is a great resource, but your opinions can be quite harsh and I don't see the actual knowledge and creative skills to back it up, except for a few music vids from a long time ago. This is not meant as a bash or to bully you, but I think it's too much spec talk and not enough filming.

Andrew, do you film professionally? It's just that you speak authoritatively but I don't think I've seen anything other than what you post here. To me the skin tones (especially on the train trip) look pretty awful. No client I have would ever approve that. The blacks are crushed to death and faces are red and over-saturated.

I don't think this is fair in the slightest. He gave very fair reasons as to what he didn't like about the A7s. Imagine if we have to start every post with a disclaimer like:
 
"Please note: This is just my opinion, I prefer not to generalize, everything is relative"
 
Obviously its just his opinion. But it's the opinion of a video professional that may or may not balance the enthusiasm shown by other video professionals. I see no lack of logic or "narrow sighted gadget nerd" tone in the post Eric did. I don't think thats called for. It was just some valid points for those who may be in his boat.
 
I'm a huge fan of the new A7s. will most likely buy it, and although not all of the "problems" mentioned are as important to me, Eric's review still made a load of sense to me.

Look guys. A blog is chronological. I will give you my objective opinion. I will inform. I will give you the facts. It is up to you to figure out what decisions to make based on your research of my site and of many others. The A7S wasn't available when I was reviewing the GH4. Everything positive and negative I pointed out about the GH4 has not changed. What has changed is that the competition has stepped up and offered something that is in many ways even more appealing. It will happen again, to the A7S. That's life! Enjoy your cameras. Enjoy shooting. And invest the most funds in lenses not cameras. There is always eBay for those who want to stay on the treadmill.

If people are buying a product based on a single person's perspective and then pissed after the original reviewer changed their mind thus infuriating the buyer of the said product, the buyer should see mental help ASAP. 
 
 
I enjoying asking questions, getting responses, and taking a long time to decide.  But if I went out and bought an a7s based on Andrew's video and commentary alongside whatever Philip Bloom says, and realize my 5d3 was a better choice for me due to aesthetics in the video I would not be pissed at them and use it as a learning experience.
 
Some of you give too much credit to individuals, it is scary.  Then again this is how masses follow religion :)

I agree with almost all of Erik's point in his blog, and some other points not... when will people realise on the internet that it's ok to differ! Different opinions do not need so much hatred attached.
 
Thanks Erik for coming on here and defending your views.
 
As Erik said in his article it wasn't a review but a look at the shortcomings and quirks. I have a similar article in the works as well.
 
It isn't a honeymoon period for me, the camera is delivering on the fundamentals in a big way, for my uses.
 
Agree on the battery life Erik. You really need the vertical grip to improve that. The ergonomics of that are quite nice but not ideal. The lenses are indeed too expensive and there are not enough fast primes. Sony seem to have compromised aperture size to get the size of the lenses down which is why there's no F2.8 zoom. They need to introduce one, and quick, and get the prices to a more reasonable level to compete with Sigma.
 
I have bought the Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 for when I need AF. It is true that the other glass on the camera is a manual focus only affair which suits me just fine for video but not so much for stills.
 
I am having the same problem as Erik with the Metabones adapter and blank screen occasionally, it is an incompatibility with the adapter and Metabones are working hard to fix it.
 
Don't share the same view of Erik who prefers S35 to full frame. I love the look of the larger sensor for almost everything, especially 24-50mm range of focal lengths. For me it is about shallow DOF yet, but not how extreme you can get it, but that you can get any control over it at all at wider focal lengths or when your subject is further away from the lens. To have a little bit of subject / background separation when they are 5m away is wonderful. I can't get that with a smaller sensor unless I use a longer focal length and that changes the rendering of the whole scene.
 
Obviously the low light is a big attraction for me as that's just how I work creatively. I love using minimal light and natural light sources. I am not a broadcast guy like Erik or a studio shooter. I can absolutely appreciate why some people would not need ISO 12,800!!
 
As Erik and I both said in our articles, grading S-LOG 2 is indeed rather tricky. But the camera has extensive pro FS700-like control over the image. Switching colour mode to ITU709 for instance with S-LOG gamma makes it easier to get the correct hue in post.
 
It's definitely a valid observation that auto white balance and the exposure meter aren't really to be trusted a whole lot when shooting S-LOG. Do it manually though and you will end up with a stronger image, at the expense of maybe working a bit slower, which to some will be a deal breaker, to others not. There's no ONE way is right here!
 
Disagree Erik actually about the 120fps. I am really enjoying it! Good bonus feature and creative. I was just shooting 120fps by candle light at 1/200, getting a usable S-LOG image at ISO 12,800. How many other cameras can you name that can do that let alone for $2500?

Ha! Thats pretty funny!
I'm not "narrow-sighted in the least. Maybe you should check out the rest of my blog eriknaso.com. I write more about other stuff than just cameras.
 
I wrote about what I felt are issues with the A7s for me and I'm finding that others do feel the same. Not everyone of course. The single biggest issue is the price. It's a hybrid camera so for me I want it to work as one. If it only becomes a video tool then I prefer other cameras to use. I actually want to keep it for it's strengths but to really get the most from the A7s I would have to spend a whole lot more on Sony lenses to take full advantage of auto focus for stills and maybe even video. I think I made that pretty clear in my article. 
 
A little about that "Erik guy." I'm a broadcast DP in San Diego. I work in local broadcast shooting commercials and news image promos. I use a lot of different cameras to get the job done. At work it's the C300 and C100. I just added the GH4 too. I have lots of lenses for it since I also used to shoot with the AF-100. 
 
My thinking in writing the article was a wake up call for myself. It's good to know the bad things too right? Good to know how much you need to invest to get the camera usable for you right? Thats pretty much it. Thanks for reading the article.

This is a dilemma for me.  I don't shoot professionally but have a 5d3 to make videos, which I enjoy very much.  I'm very tempted with the a7s because of the image quality.  The only reason I'm hesitant is that, Sony will probably release one in a year or so, with internal 4k and improved rolling shutter and I'm unfamiliar with the resale value of such a camera.  With canon, you know that the resale value of a camera won't take a huge hit because of the enormous customer base they have.  I'm not sure who you could sell the a7s to if a newer version with internal 4k comes out.  I don't think photographers will be looking to buy a 12mp camera, and videographers will surely want to move on to the newer version.  So what are your opinions on the resale value, do you think it could fall by 1k this time next year?

I played with the 12MP JPEG in ACR- highlights are clipped and not recoverable- DR looks similar to 5D3 in that shot. Noise cleaned up OK using ACR tools, however image then looked over-processed (Neat Video would work better along with temporal NR).
 
I shot a clip with the GH4 at ISO 1600 and lit it with a single LED (iPhone 5S). After Neat Video NR and bringing up the levels in post, it looks pretty good compared to the A7S examples so far. I would expect the A7S to do better in any case, however if Neat Video is needed in both cases and the final results look similar, the A7S's utility over the GH4 in low light would then be lessened. The FS700, especially with SpeedBooster is pretty good in low light, all the way up to ISO6400 (still needs NR in post at that level).
 
So far most of the A7S demo shots have been with locked off (tripod) or very low camera motion. It would be helpful to see typical handheld (with and without a rig) shots. While it would be nice to have a 5D3 replacement at 50Mbps (vs. 5D3 RAW at ~64GB per 12min), I almost pre-ordered the A7S but am holding off until it's released and actual end-user videos are posted. Also curious about the A7S XLR audio attachment (release date and cost).

Are you sure it's out of focus? Or just Canon 5d3 soft? After comparing gh4 to 5d3 footage... The 5d3 always looks "out of focus".

Absolutely love your music!!! Gives the feel of a very Basia/bossa nova sound... would definitely like to work with you on future projects. You've got a huge new fan here, would love it if you got in touch with me.

Looks more cinematic than the GH4. Though, idk if that is because of grading, cinematography, lighting. I have no horse in this race (I'm a Canon fanboy! :lol:). I can't believe people would sacrifice low light performance for less jello. Unless you specialize in filming trains, or out the window of a car I don't see how extreme rolling shutter is encountered on a frequent basis. And it can be mitigated in post. A low light monster has so much more artistic potential, jello or no jello.

Sometimes raising the shutter speed helps:
 
If you're going to rotoscope or remove a greenscreen, or you're generally capturing a video element for compositing If you wish to emphasise the violence of movement, such as in a fight scene or a chase, or for slow motion In both these examples, the less blurry, more distinct images can assist you. In general though, 180 degrees is good

A lot of people are viewing the GH4 4K material on 2.5K or 1080p displays and there's crude downscaling going on which results in an over-sharp image and even some heavy aliasing. A lot of the YouTube stuff looks thin and sharp because of compression and bad downscaling.
  First time I graded the GH4 files I was pretty happy and yet we've only realised half the camera's potential so far. Once we get the Atomos Shogun we will be getting uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 4K out of the HDMI port. DXOMark tested the raw output GX7's sensor (similar to the one in the GH4) and it rates for about 11.8 stops dynamic range, pretty much identical to the 5D Mark III.
 
The GH2 and 5D2 have been around for ages and the GH4 is a far bigger step up from the GH2 than the 5D3 is from the Mk II.
 
Michael - ignorance of the reason other people choose to shoot with the GH4 does not make a good debate. Also remember that the filmmaking world is small and you are using your real name on the forum, if you piss someone off, eventually it will come back round. There's no career advantage to behaving like a complete prat in front of half the digital filmmaking community.

topic locked.  

I will lighten up (not that im actually angry) when people stop making the same nonsensical/ill-informed arguments about why one camera is better than the other. My favourite is the "sharp = video" one, which makes no sense because I've never used a video camera that has been as sharp as DSLR footage. Unless we're talking about those ones that cost tens of thousands that are used in sports stadiums.

I liked this! I'm very much thinking of featuring the music on EOSHD. Cheers!

Hi Andrew and folks,
 
Be great if you could check out my music, did this a few years back but the genre to label it with still eludes me. My apologies in advance if self-recommendation is not allowed. Thanks for listening  :)
 
http://poplin.bandcamp.com/