Robert

Both are interesting in their own ways. But the advantage of the A7S is when you don't want a shallow DOF, you can bump the ISO up.

4k is nice, but both are 8bit for most people who aren't going to shell out for a recorder. To me, FF and low light has a greater narrative advantage.

For as much as the BMCC is an incomplete product, neither can do what it does.

I don't know, there are always factual errors in every one of Andrew's posts. Like the one about the GH4 being 'the first 4K camera for $2000'... Uhm, nah. 

I'm all for fact checking, but you're acting like he's the New York Times or something. Give the dude a little slack.

Crop, zoom, pan, tilt a 4k file with zero loss of quality in your 1080 Edit.     Plenty of reasons 4k is good for a 1080 or Web Edit. 

Not disqualifying the importance of resolution, just that it isn't as important as the other things listed. And 2.5k does give you some play. Maybe not to pan much (with I rarely do digitally anyway) but it helps in a pinch when you need to warp stabilize a shot. 

I am surprised as anyone at the gradability of the 4K files. I'm a big fan of raw!!

That's reassuring. However, the advantages of 4k vs. 2.5k seem like a wash, especially when delivering for the web. The flexibility of RAW, including more DR and less banding when pushed, is something that the non-pixel peeper will certainly notice. The ergonomics of the BMCC suck, the battery life is crap, yes -- but the flexibility in post is something I have a death grip on.

I certainly want to be convinced otherwise, but I think I have PTSD from years of attempting to grade 550D files.  :)

Skin tones look great in my opinion:

 

>

The skateboard footage looks sharp. I think the funfair has the whites shouldered too much, but maybe that's from trying to fight the bright lights of a fair and the darkness of night. All of it sends me back to "Where's my BMCC?" :)

I'm ready to be done with messing with 8-bit muddy Canon footage. Bleh.