Shield3

Just out (Nov 20, 2014).
 
Fixes various issues including some compatibility issues with the Sony A7S.
 
For the update and details see (Windows version):
http://www.metabones.com/article/of/MARK_IV_Firmware_Win
 
For the mac version, see:
http://www.metabones.com/article/of/MARK_IV_Firmware_Mac

The SEL18200 is indeed excellent, shot most of our SciFi short with it (FS700 kit lens). The SELP18200 (black, with power zoom) also works well (slow power zoom can be useful).
As an event lens on auto-everything (100% A7S with SEL18200): 

One thing I love about the a7s is the shallow DOF / Cinema look for video.  However, I threw the 18-200 original silver lens on it yesterday and shot my daughter's indoor gymnastics.  Full continuous AF, with a range equivalent to 27-300mm.
It worked out fantastically!  My 5 year old girl ran from one side of the gym up to our seats and it held focus very well (of course I was hard set at F/8, but still).  How cool is it that this camera bascially doubles as a run and gun / camcorder when you need it?
The OIS from that lens was simply...brilliant.  Highly recommended for any handheld video.
Face tracking works a treat, and so does object tracking.  Never even tried these before as it's my only Sony lens.
 
FYI
Shawn

One thing I love about the a7s is the shallow DOF / Cinema look for video.  However, I threw the 18-200 original silver lens on it yesterday and shot my daughter's indoor gymnastics.  Full continuous AF, with a range equivalent to 27-300mm.
It worked out fantastically!  My 5 year old girl ran from one side of the gym up to our seats and it held focus very well (of course I was hard set at F/8, but still).  How cool is it that this camera bascially doubles as a run and gun / camcorder when you need it?
The OIS from that lens was simply...brilliant.  Highly recommended for any handheld video.
Face tracking works a treat, and so does object tracking.  Never even tried these before as it's my only Sony lens.
 
FYI
Shawn

Also, I owned the 70D for a few months.  I shot it heavily alongside my 5d3 and even my Panasonic LX7.  The video IQ from the 70d was worse even than the little $300 Amazon special LX7.  It's that bad.

I am sorry to say that it seems to me that this review is somehow biased. Subjective qualities shouldn't be confused with objective ones.

There is a strong emphasis on the pros, which are undoubtably many and a trivialisation of the cons. Mainly noise and DR.

From the various videos posted, it is objectively evident that the GH4 performs very bad above ISO 1600. Many users say the wouldn't use it above 800. Also since most shoot 4k fot a better HD, i am focusing on HD. As another poster noted, and this is also not subjective, there is a huge DR difference between BMPCC (and obviously the A7s) and the GH4.

Personally i'd go further an add that the image from the BMPCC is miles better and it costs 4x -that is four times! less. Is it as crisp - no, is it 4K - no, but the quality is not just crispness as many have noted and to which I totally agree.

And also I don't understand why compression and small size is a good thing when comparing the GH4 to higher end cameras with higher bit rates and it is a bad thing when the A7s does it, compared to the 200mbps HD of the GH4.(which almost no one uses anyway as they shoot 4k which is HALF the data rate of the A7s. A 50mbps rate which is constantly under attack).

Again, I believe that the GH4 is a great overall camera from the many different reviews I have read/watched but a rounded review, if it wants to be unbiased, should point out- not hide, the cons. And to my opinion, and I believe to many others, these two points Dynamic Range and Noise are quite vital.

I might have misread the review, bu this is how it comes out to me.

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....

I watched this, and clearly the 5d3 walked circles around the "quarter size" sensor.  I see a dramatic difference at ISO 6400 - do you not?  Might also be "fair" to not use the speed booster as many people getting a GH4 won't be using one.  Just sayin'.  Yes, you can use fast glass and special adapters to get the micro four thirds sensor to look good at ISO 1600-3200 - but let's see some tests straight out of the camera with each 24-70 equivalent @ F/2.8.  The 5d3 will crush the gh4 in low light, period.  You have 4x the sensor size - how can you expect anything else?  It's physics...

I'm confused at the desire for the sharpest image...i think a balance needs to be struck...when watch cinema films if I was watching the level of sharpness most of the gh4 videos that have been posted exhibit I would feel like i was watching a home movie...however the reason ML Raw has been a smash is it takes an almost unusable level of sharpness in the h.264 codec of the 5d3 and adds enough sharpness to match the red that neumann posted...we should look at it as what is optimal vs. "the sharpest" I think a comparison showing human subjects is much more useful than static shots, I never understood that.  We shoot people much more than buildings and trees.  I think the 5d3 raw would be much more appealing to the masses (shooters and viewers) than gh4 image (camcorder sharp).  

The dynamic range just gets me on the GH4.  I preferred the 5d in every shot.  It jumps out at me in highlights mostly.  

Obviously I meant you made no mention in the article this thread is attached to - the one that compares the image of the 2 cameras overall. The 5D is superior in low light. I saw your low light comparison - the 5D has very noticeably superior colour, and it has the edge in DR.
I have a feeling the 5D will lend itself to bringing up the shadows a lot more too. There are very large areas of crushed blacks in your shots - especially the GH4. What about when you want to see into the shadows?

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. 

Respectfully, I disagree. Magic Lantern proves that DSLRs are not dead. They may appear dead because Canon dosn't push the envelope like BlackMagic or Panasonic.

For my particular needs, which is amateur film making, I find the look of GH3, GH4, A7S too sterile. You can add Sony's F range in there too. Now, I know we can pop these through something like FilmConvert at the end of the workflow, but I still find having it done in post doesn't quite beat done in acquisition.
 
Aside from Blackmagic, I've not seen a single camera that rivals the hacked GH2 in terms of what I deem mojo. Mojo being intra cadence and tight noise (grain like) structure. Oh it'll clip all right, so you have to be careful, and neither is it a low light monster. I tell a lie actually, the ML 5DIII RAW has the same look. But nothing else does.
 
So for me, there's only a few cameras on my list. Canon 5DIII, Panasonic GH2 and BMPC/BMCC.
 
I really want this A7S to be able to give us that look, but I think it's going to be sterile like the F5. Wonderful ground breaking technology, clean and accurate, but....ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz. At least full frame has an interesting look of its own. For me it makes great emotional cinema, with the subject completely knocked out of any clutter. For a whole movie though? No. Unless it's some kind of 2 hour dream sequence.
 
Sony. Gimme some mojo please :)