themartist

But it is not filmic enough!

At the end of the day both the 5D3 and the GH4 represent the best of what is an incredibly privileged time for tiny budget filmmakers. For money that almost any working person could save within a year or so, you can buy a camera that offers a genuinely superb cinematic image. It's insane. 
 
5D RAW is a pain in the neck to shoot with and the GH4 has some image limitations compared to larger sensor cameras - but which one is "best' is a completely moot point. It just comes down to your specific needs and tastes. Employed correctly, each will deliver images that 10 years ago you would have to have been either stupendously rich or a successful filmmaker to even get close to. Now almost anyone can create genuinely stunning cinematic images.
 
It seems almost ungracious to argue over the two cameras - like spoiled children wanting each others toys. We're all brothers here - "soldiers of cinema" as Werner Herzog puts it. It makes sense to take some time to decide which camera one likes best, but no one is going to be right or wrong. No need to argue. 
 
But the 5D is better in low light.  ;)

I think even in 4 years the 5D still shines as an amazing stills camera, build quality and full frame retains more value - even though in 4 years it might be a bit outdated in the video realm. On the other hand, GH4 would probably be much cheaper in 4 years.
 
 
I think anyone who feels so strongly that either camera smashes the other is blinded by being too emotionally involved. My eyes don't see such a dramatic difference, I think it boils down to being a matter of preference . I'd prefer go full frame - but if I had a collection of m43 lenses I'd be delighted with the GH4. 

Yep.  Also keep in mind he graded this in Resolve; I've used Resolve and Adobe After effects with the ACR.  The latter does a much better job IMO with the raw dng files.  Then once you factor in how much better the 5d3 is for shooting sports with the 61 pt AI Servo AF, and also the fact there's no speed booster for EF glass - it's a no brainer if you already have the 5d3 + EF lenses.  If you're starting with nothing, it's not as easy of a choice.  But I like wide and full frame, so make mine Canon for now....

Nope. I hear these "video" comments when discussing cameras so often and they're really bizarrely off base. Please show me a camcorder that shoots your home videos at that resolution. Theres nothing "home video" about the GH4. The type of camcorder home videos you're thinking of have less resolution, more in focus, blown out highlights. Not remotely similar. The extra resolution is amazing. Its not a bad thing, not a video thing. You can always tone down detail through a whole array of techniques, however you cannot add resolution where there wasn't any. Where you see people using stock lenses on autofocus, without tripods or steadicams and without careful compositions - that is the shaky ugly home video you're seeing. It has nothing to do with the GH4 at all.
 
The tests to show off resolution show what is possible, they're not meant to be film-like. If you have an aerial shot of dolphins in a clear ocean you want that resolution. If you need to greenscreen, you need that resolution. Too much resolution? You simply soften in post. Its that simple, resolution is awesome and the Gh4 is amazing. The reason a focus on people hasn't been used in these tests is because character shots are normally shot wide open, which doesn't get to emphasize the resolution as well as bricks, trees and scenery does. 
 
Is the GH4 better than the 5D with raw? They're really close. Each have pro's and cons according to your workflow and depend perhaps on which lenses you own. Your 5DMK3 is a powerhouse. Seriously, time to put that bad boy to work. Have you tried ML raw yet? I know you mentioned before that you were hesitant to try it, but its worthwhile knowing if you can handle the extra hassle for the extra DR. At the end of the day editing is a huge part as well. The biggest advantage the 5D has over the GH4 is full frame, thats about it... but to me thats a big one. I direct commercials and do documentary work. If I was to be given a gift of a choice between the 5D and the GH4 - It would be a tough decision. I travel a lot, so a compact kit is important to me... but so is full frame, low light and top end stills. Decisions, decisions. I don't need a new camera immediately so I might wait for the A7s to decide. But if I owned a 5D, I wouldn't be pondering whether I made a good purchase or not.
 
You on the other hand, have mentioned that you're a school teacher and you've just bought the 5D in order to start doing documentary projects and are still new to both cameras and film. Honestly, you need to forget this obsession about which camera to get and the whole ML raw vs GH4 thing. Its really misdirected, as you have more than enough firepower to win an oscar. Rather buy some interesting lenses, a steadicam, follow focus, anamorphics... stuff like that to play around with. And then upload work for people to critique. Please be careful not to get too carried away at these comparisons at the cost of going out and filming.
 

I've always been of the opinion that hd, then 4k, then 8k etc have been quantifiable numbers which happen to be marketing friendly and that it didn't really matter.  I'm not getting a gh4 since I want full frame, but this test really does show how really great that extra resolution is.  If you want it lower res, mis focus slightly or whack a gaussian blur of 2pixels over the image and you have good old 1080p.  the issue is that a lot of users won't consider or implement all of the factors that make up a true cinema experience and the added resolution will only serve to multiply the obviousness of the failings and the pointlessness of the users decision to shoot 4k (who will likely be a consumer under the impression they are a professional, rather than a professional moving with the current trend).  It'll be when Andrew does a creative piece with the camera and his cookes or someone like Hugo Goudsward takes the camera and makes it work for him that we'll see the jump where the resolution really takes it up a notch.  
 
just to clarify I completely disregarded the term 4k within a consumer camera, and the term gh4 (due to my dislike of anything smaller than full frame:)- until this test.  8 months ago the 5d3 raw hack turned everything on its head and now there is the little gh4 which doesnt need 10gb/min worth of cards to shoot with it.  superb IMO

In a couple of days we'll know for sure, but for now rumors point to a competitive price:
 
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sony-a7s-priced-at-1800
 
If it's in the ballpark of that amount, or simply under 2000$, the GH4 is going to have some nice competition... and it would seem logical.

Are you referring specifically to cinema lenses, generally old lenses or just stating that there are some very sharp old lenses?
 
I agree with the logic that less contrasty is not less sharp but everyone seems to agree that for example many canon FD's are a little soft and Leica M's often have that glow... with every lens having a "personality". It seems to me that most of the "personality" in older lenses on digital bodies is ultimately some sort of reduction of that digital sharpness in some way or another.
 
What do you think?

Anamorphics will surely shine on the GH4. Maybe more so than any other camera I'd assume. The crop factor probably works in its favor.
 
On a side note, showed a photographer / filmmaker friend of mine your site to hold off on buying the BMCC, as your reviews added some new insight he wasn't aware of. As a Nikon owner he hadn't heard of the ML hack (or the Nikon hack for that matter) but was convinced that the name EOSHD made you particularly biased to Canon. I had to run him through quite a few of your various older posts until he was convinced that the site name was entirely incidental and that this is all 100% unbiased pixel peeping and lens porn.

A low contrast look is not superior. You can make the GH4 and 5D raw look as flat as a pancake if you want to. Question is what is the benefit? If your monitor had a low contrast look you'd return it to the shop! I don't know why people think a flat look is superior. For grading raw has no look. It isn't flat. It is raw data straight off the sensor that describes colours, whites and blacks. Why compress all that into the mids and get grey? I blame stuff like CineStyle for the confusion.

I stay off that forum, it's a total abject waste of my time to be involved in defending cameras. Defend a country! Defend a person. But not a bloody camera :)

Funny how *sharpness* elicits oohs and aahs from certain people who then put 40 or 50 year old (sometimes uncoated) lenses on these cameras. 
 
Nobody wants to see ultra sharp footage of people's faces, especially when the skin tones are produced by a GH series camera. 

Looks great!
 
A bit of constructive feedback:
 
In my opinion there's too many effects added to the video. I find that they take away focus from the information presented in the video, as well as taking focus from the beautiful shots. Had it been up to me - I would have cut down a bit on the use of effects in the video, but certainly not all of them.
 
I hope you understand that this is *minor* critique - I think it could still be improved on a tiny bit, although the video is excellent and can't be improved on by much.
 
Cheers! :)

This isn't a centre piece for Panasonic's promotion of the GH4, it is just what Nick Driftwood wants you to believe. Because he presumably thinks there's some kind of career reward in being nice to big companies. The thing is there really isn't. Panasonic just want to sell cameras and make money, they're not really in the best position to be picking sensitive artists to give demo units to. I just walked past a DPReview gold badge on a GH3 box today, just randomly on a store shelf. I realised if it wasn't for me writing the GH3 video page in that review and putting my argument across to the editor that it deserved a gold reward because of the video capabilities (DPR felt it merited a silver, because as a stills camera it lacked any real outstanding spark) that badge wouldn't exist. I felt a bit sad that in some ways my review and my views were being commercialised to sell cameras, without any reward for me, and nor should there be as it would cause bias. That's why I prefer to get minimally involved with stunts like this and marketing. If I make a short film with the GH4 it will be because the camera suits the material, not because I want to score attention with Panasonic, because like I say, there's no real reward for doing so and it is not really what I want. I want attention from other filmmakers and the audience instead. You have to question Nick's motives for making this to be honest and trying to pass it off as a wannabe Panasonic promo video.

It means just forget the hype, ignore the whiny enginerds and wait for the real thing with the final firmware to arrive. Then, and only then draw any far-reaching conclusions. All conclusions drawn before that are just meaningless nerdy-nam-nam. 
 
As for the literal meaning of that one sentence, surely you don't want to fall into the pedantic mode. He just made a slight typo, and he was simply referring to the 5D3 sensor being larger in megapixels than the A7r one, and thus it's slower to read and process all the pixels on the sensor. I believe the rest of Noob's comment was pretty clear.
 
In other words,  just hang on and wait for the final product. Meanwhile, get off the internet, grab your existing camera, and go out and shoot something. I think that one single "test" video has got way more attention that it actually deserves.

I think Filmbrute is misunderstood here.
 
From what he wrote, I think he's saying that professionals are making great work on cameras that may not be the best... however they're pushed to their limits to achieve awesome results. Some hobbyists may never use features that cost thousands of dollars, yet complain bitterly how these camera are inadequate. Its a true irony that in no way is done to offend hobbyists. Most of the time the enthusiastic hobbyists become professionals, or at least produce work of a pro quality.
 
Its more of a comment on this materialist trend in consumerism to always have the best, regardless of whether its worth it, needed or even used at all. It becomes more an industry of appearances than actual artistry. This is evident by many clients who see the smaller gh2 or gh3 and assume that the filmmaker is not as pro as one who uses the 5D Mark ii. 
 
I don't think its anything to get too defensive about. If you test cars, travel or have a beautiful family, you have incredible inspiration for some amazing footage. However sometimes purchasing the best camera with all of the bells and whistles starts to become the inspiration, which is sad.

FimBrute quote is hilarious : ) I had a good laugh. Time to update my signature straight away... LOL ;-)

And also incredibly true, unfortunately.

If the prosumer camera footage I watch on vimeo is indicative, 99% of the people who will buy this camera won't rack focus, let alone pan the camera. I'm pretty sure non professionals who buy multi thousand dollar cameras just buy stuff to produce test footage. In other words  the A7s will be just fine for filming bridges, people walking, and sunsets.  :P

i suspect the combination of lens/bokeh, colour grade and nice back lighting is whats most apealing to your visual sense rather than the camera itself.. 

Lol, I am pretty sure Sony has NO CLUE what the price will be. For sure in term of production cost it is similar to a classic A7. Now it is only about marketing. 
As andrew said, video pros will prefer the GH4 if they are on a budget, or a real video camera if they have money. This A7S is perfect for people like me who do stills and videos and want great quality of both. But we are consumers and not willing to pay more than 2K. I saw many many post (SAR comments, forums..) of people saying they pay it under 2K, and not if more. 2K is the limit, so the price of this camera should be 1999 maximum (ideally 1699 to match GH4) otherwise Sony FAILS and I F*** them

This explains all the slow moving and locked down shots in all that beautiful footage we've seen so far.  I guess they didn't want to let the cat outta the bag too early.   I can't help feeling this is nothing more than a bridge camera to something far better coming soon from Sony. It's not really 4k, but it is,... it's great in low light, but it's processing power isn't good enough to control the rolling shutter.   Maybe next year though.   

I think an important factor to add in is, how good will the A7s be for stills. If you have a smaller Canon Mark 3 equivalent - you're enjoying the best quality stills camera with the best quality video camera. I think the GH4 could be lacking in that department a bit.

I think an important factor to add in is, how good will the A7s be for stills. If you have a smaller Canon Mark 3 equivalent - you're enjoying the best quality stills camera with the best quality video camera. I think the GH4 could be lacking in that department a bit.

hmmm - this camera is suddenly very attractive.