wobba

Yes it does, in theory. MFT is 2x crop over fullframe. That means you get 2x the dof, but since the sensor is smaller, you can also say the low light performance is 2 stops worse. So ISO 6400 on fullframe gives the same results as ISO 1600 on a MFT sensor.

 

With raw photo files this theory is pretty much reality. You can compare this at dpreview.com. For example:

 

 

When shooting compressed movie files results might be different because of all the image processing going on vs raw files, but fullframe will always have an advantage when it comes to noise. I think the A7S will hold up at ISO 6400 vs ISO 1600 on the GH4.

 

So in a way neither camera/system has a dof advantage or disadvantage.

 

The 2.0x crop only applies if you're shooting at default aspect ratios (A7S at 3:2 & GH4 at 4:3).  

 

When you crop to 16:9 the difference is far greater since you're applying a 16% crop to 3:2 vs a 25% crop to 4:3.

Found a video with amazing autofocus, really useful in documentary shoot, for example.

>

I think GH cameras can look beautiful, but it doesnt come as easily to them as to others.. Im thinking about A7S as a replacement for my GH3 and starting to believe that a cameras personality is as important as specs on paper. With Nikon and Sony alphas, even looking at video uploads by people without much skill, using cheap or kit lenses or bad lighting, they have something that just looks naturally pleasing to the eye out of the box, which I think comes harder for the GH's.. 

 

Totally unscientific and subjective comment of course!

 

I find the GH cameras often produce a hard, glassy look.  This may be due to the combination of small sensor and high inherent sharpness.  I haven't seen any footage from the GH4 (yet) that looks more appealing than what J SPRUILL posted a few days ago, simply shot with an A6000 without any fancy lighting:

 

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

I own both the A6000 and GX7, as well as a GM1. The GX7 bakes a little more sharpening in-camera. Once I apply an unsharp mask in FCP, I actually prefer the A6000. Detail is much the same, but the A6000 footage just looks more organic and shows less shimmer (looks more stable). In low light, it is superb and cleaner than the GX7. And for stills, the A6000 is considerably better in every way.

Yes, the video quality is identical.  The only difference is that the GX7 can shoot 50/60P.

Recently, I've been shooting with both the GM1 and A7R and the GM1 seems to produce more moire/aliasing than the A7R.  The A7R puts out a slightly softer image but it sharpens very nicely in post (FCP).  This was quite a shock, given the way both have been assessed on this site.  I'm finding the A7R holds up much better in general and particularly when shooting landscapes while panning.  The GM1 produces lots of shimmer/moire with fine foliage while the A7R is very clean.

 

I would be interested to know whether these cameras were actually assessed by EOSHD outdoors, in good light and while panning.  The footage I have seen which accompanies the reviews seem to be shot in low light, on tripod (no panning) and with subjects lacking in lots of fine detail.  

I'm not overly ambitious. A couple of PAL appropriate frame rates will suffice. 5 years has passed since the E-P1 was released ... with just a 30P frame rate. And it's been that way ever since.

I've re-written the review based on ScreensPro's suggestion:
 
***
 
The undoubted highlight of the camera is the Baby Photo Mode which produces optimised, colourful JPEGs of your children for uploading to Facebook, though one major downside of the camera is the inability to make calls on it and upload directly to Facebook, it does include WiFi. Of less interest is 1080/60p, which is good for that 'smooth home movie look' but is really designed for slow-mo. Unfortunately slow-mo requires very expensive and complicated editing software like Adobe Premiere. The D5300 benefits from not having 10bit 4:2:2 or ProRes because you can store a year's worth of heavily compressed footage on mum's iMac from 2008 with a 120GB hard disk.
 
*12 pages of in-depth scene mode coverage*
 
Conclusion...
 
The D5300 is perfectly suited to making shitty home movies with because it lacks any kind of innovation whatsoever.
 
The Super 35mm Toshiba sensor is completely wasted on a low-end camera, but it shouldn't bother THE FAMILY MARKET, the main target of this camera, and therefore top marks 10/10.

According to Chipworks, the D5300 deploys a Sony sensor:

http://chipworks.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=NIK-D5300_Pri-Camera

For homevideos that's perfectly fine if not better than 24p. Any television plays 30p and you certainly won't broadcast over PAL TV your fathers golden wedding or your sisters birthday -homevideos-

Sure, but with so many good cameras to choose from nowadays, I'm not going to limit myself to shooting with a camera from a manufacturer that can't be bothered to offer more than one shitty frame rate. Olympus have been building m4/3rds cameras for 5 years. Surely, by now, they can do better than just 30P.

I've re-written the review based on ScreensPro's suggestion:
 
***
 
The undoubted highlight of the camera is the Baby Photo Mode which produces optimised, colourful JPEGs of your children for uploading to Facebook, though one major downside of the camera is the inability to make calls on it and upload directly to Facebook, it does include WiFi. Of less interest is 1080/60p, which is good for that 'smooth home movie look' but is really designed for slow-mo. Unfortunately slow-mo requires very expensive and complicated editing software like Adobe Premiere. The D5300 benefits from not having 10bit 4:2:2 or ProRes because you can store a year's worth of heavily compressed footage on mum's iMac from 2008 with a 120GB hard disk.
 
*12 pages of in-depth scene mode coverage*
 
Conclusion...
 
The D5300 is perfectly suited to making shitty home movies with because it lacks any kind of innovation whatsoever.
 
The Super 35mm Toshiba sensor is completely wasted on a low-end camera, but it shouldn't bother THE FAMILY MARKET, the main target of this camera, and therefore top marks 10/10.

Fisher Price should sell this camera rebadged and in hot pink. It's got to better than Mattel's Barbie cam (as shot by Philip Bloom recently).

The only cameras suited for home movies are the olympus with 5axis stabilisation. In fact, the olympus are better suited for stills than any camera out there (except for FullFrames), the stabilisation is not only great for video and it surpasses the speed advantage of aps-c. Things like this make DSLRs look old, not some video mode only a few need.Consumer 4K will come soon enogh, with horrible compression ofcourse.

Are you referring to the camera with just a single, shitty 30P frame rate?

I have zero interest in this camera, but this is the most thoroughly enjoyable/hilarious review I have ever read.  

 

These hollow, plastic DSLR's are akin to Fisher-Price kiddies cameras in terms of haptics. Perhaps this is the reason the D5300 features a Baby mode.

The sensor in the GH3 is a generation behind the sensor in the GX7 and GM1. The GM1, as noted in your review, does not line skip.

How does the E-M1 stack up, in terms of video, against the GM1?

Hi Andrew. Super review. I was interested to read your comments on the RX100 being sharper than the NEX7. The reason I ask is that the NEX7 and RX100 were reviewed by camcorderinfo.com and the the NEX7 sharpness measured higher than the RX100. e.g. NEX7 = horizontal 700 lw/ph vs 550 for the RX100. I own both and my impression is that the NEX7 is sharper, even with the kit lens. I also compared both to the TM700 and it is in a different league for clarity/sharpness. The NEX7 comes close to the TM700 with a good prime, but unless I have a substandard RX100 sample, I'm finding that video (shot at 1080/50P) looks a little dull, especially at the wide end of the zoom range.