maxotics

The Canon EOS-M is a marvelous little camera that can shoot 720 24p RAW through ML.  It is a platform that can easily compete with the Sony NEX and now A series, but Canon isn't putting its weight behind it.  Canon and NIkon's business is just too spread out.  They're large, mostly stagnant corporations.  They're now in the business of protecting their bottom-line for as long as they can.  
 
If there's one thing Panasonic's GM1 proves, there will be no single perfect camera.  The kind of video you can get out of that thing, and silent-shutter stealthy shooting, is close to perfect.  For what it is, I would say it IS perfect.  If photography wasn't may main focus, I'd be GM1 this and GM1 that as bad as Andy!  In short, I don't know what anyone could do to improve on that little camera.
 
I've now been using the a7 for a few weeks.  So far, there is nothing major I don't like about the camera and I have a long history of Sony annoyances.  For small- full-frame shooting, it is close to perfect.
 
The Blackmagic cameras are not "sadly flawed" to me when I factor in what they can do for the price.  If you want professional-system RAW, at a consumer price, they are the only game in town.
 
I bet some executives at Panasonic, Blackmagic and Sony say, "Why is Andrew always complaining about what Canon and Nikon can't do."  If all you want to do is go out and shoot with the best camera available, who cares?  
 
Panasonic, Blackmagic and Sony (and a bit of Olympus and Fuji) are all on their way to building that perfect camera.  Who cares about your Dad's camera company that is beginning to smell like stale farts? ;)

Cameras are tools.
Like any craftsman/woman, you should have a range of tools,
Some tools are better at doing things than others.
Going out to a job with just one spanner doesn't always cut it.
 
I keep an old Vidicon tube camera at hand just for special use. It has a dreamy unreal look which is hard to do in post. I pump its output (remember BNC?) into an old DV walkman deck. I also keep my old Super8 gear although film processing is getting harder to do.

>> I prefermirrorless and looking to spend up to max ~800 euro for camera and lens.
 
Not sure why the RX100 III isn't in the running here. It includes the lens and the images it produces is fantastic. Small and portable, great for travel. 

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html
 
Fill ya boots ;)

get ya wallet out!!! you know you want one!! haha

for the OP.... :D
"People Attach More Value to Items that they Own
# Group 1: shown an assortment of random, trinket objects: rubber bands, paper clips, beer cozy, post-it notes, etc. They were asked to value each objectall were roughly valued the same. # Group 2: shown the same objects, but were told that they could keep the beer cozy after the experiment. The value of the cozy doubled for these respondents.

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor.  
 
With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart.  MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light.  
 
If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT?  
 
Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography.  Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video.  The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. 
 
You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor.  If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch.
 
I agree.  there is nothing "magical" about FF video.  Quite the opposite.  I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems.  The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs.  When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor.  
 
With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart.  MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light.  
 
If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT?  
 
Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography.  Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video.  The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. 
 
You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor.  If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch.
 
I agree.  there is nothing "magical" about FF video.  Quite the opposite.  I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems.  The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs.  When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.

And it's funny that even size advantage of m43 system is getting weaker.. Just look at A7 + 35mm/2.8 Zeiss :).
Sony FF NEX is quite a revolution (at least in photography).

The a6000 produces a lovely overall image, yes. But you really need to stop kidding yourself about the moire-lessness and the "clean" low-light. When he zooms in to the ISO 1600 image at 1:56 you can clearly see how dancy the noise is. And as far as im concerned, you can take DXO ratings with a pinch of salt because when you look on dpreview  at the Canon 6d vs other sony sensor'd full frames, you can clearly see the Canon produces less noise. And yet it's rated lower.

Exactly. I think it very neat, but to me IMAX is about negative size, not shallow DOF, so thought the original post a bit misleading.

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't see how this is any different than the DOF adapters, like Letus, made for camcorders before DSLRs.  You can get a beautiful, shallow DOF, but the image will be very soft.  Don't get me wrong, it will produce a stylized image not possible in post (because depth can't be ascertained from a 2D image).  Still, a one-trick pony.  Am I missing anything?

http://www.amazon.com/TASCAM-DR-05-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B004OU2IQG/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1400598106&sr=1-4&keywords=audio+recorder+tascam
 
When I researched this I think the Tascam was the only one that has a phantom power supply to external mic if needed, not that I use it.  It has a tripod socket.  Haven't used mine much, but this is what I bought after all my research.  The most important thing to remember in using any of these recorders is to make sure it is recording when you hit the record.  At first press it only shows levels!  I've lost audio because of this (wasn't recording when I thought it was). 

Andy, can you put some links up to any interesting footage shot with the lenses you recommend?  BTW, I now have a Canon 24mm TS-E II, which I hope to share some footage with the a7 shortly.

Andy, can you put some links up to any interesting footage shot with the lenses you recommend?  BTW, I now have a Canon 24mm TS-E II, which I hope to share some footage with the a7 shortly.

@EOSHD Maybe instead of a thread, a real forum section.  I'd like to discuss specifics - Micro 4/3rds lenses, vintage lenses, full frame lenses, etc.  I'm just worried that specific topics would be lost in a single discussion thread.

The more I use the a7 (for photography however) the more I like it.  I used to have perfect eye-sight.  In my late 40s I started needing reading glasses.  I can no longer look at an LCD up close without glasses.   If I try to look, back and forth, without glasses, between the LCD and what's in front of me, I get blurry eyed (and maybe a headache).  With the Sony a7 I can set the diopter and have no eye strain, going back and forth.  I believe Anyone who needs reading glasses, and uses an a7, will NEVER go back to a Canikon without an EVF.  I can't see that I ever will.  
 
The focus assist features, with the a7 and manual lenses is near perfect.  The EVF gives you a very good idea of what you're going to get in post. 
 
It's difficult to determine the fair price of something without com parables.   I believe Sony could sell a fair amount of a7s for $3,500.  There's no camera like it.  The 5d3 gets that much.  Why not?   As Ebrahim said, it makes sense in relation to their other cameras.
 
When these cameras come out, a lot of people buy them, play with them, and re-sell them back to Amazon.  Within a week you can probably get an a7s for around $2,100 with almost no wear and tear.  
 
@Michael, what camera would you use to shoot both high quality, shallow DOF photo and video in a low-light, indoor function?  If money is no object,  what camera can match what the a7s will offer?
 
Anyway, I'm with Ebrahim, though maybe a few weeks after it hits country stores ;)

The more I use the a7 (for photography however) the more I like it.  I used to have perfect eye-sight.  In my late 40s I started needing reading glasses.  I can no longer look at an LCD up close without glasses.   If I try to look, back and forth, without glasses, between the LCD and what's in front of me, I get blurry eyed (and maybe a headache).  With the Sony a7 I can set the diopter and have no eye strain, going back and forth.  I believe Anyone who needs reading glasses, and uses an a7, will NEVER go back to a Canikon without an EVF.  I can't see that I ever will.  
 
The focus assist features, with the a7 and manual lenses is near perfect.  The EVF gives you a very good idea of what you're going to get in post. 
 
It's difficult to determine the fair price of something without com parables.   I believe Sony could sell a fair amount of a7s for $3,500.  There's no camera like it.  The 5d3 gets that much.  Why not?   As Ebrahim said, it makes sense in relation to their other cameras.
 
When these cameras come out, a lot of people buy them, play with them, and re-sell them back to Amazon.  Within a week you can probably get an a7s for around $2,100 with almost no wear and tear.  
 
@Michael, what camera would you use to shoot both high quality, shallow DOF photo and video in a low-light, indoor function?  If money is no object,  what camera can match what the a7s will offer?
 
Anyway, I'm with Ebrahim, though maybe a few weeks after it hits country stores ;)

I really, really hope this camera lives up to its intention. I currently shoot wedding films as a primary gig, working on breaking in to commercial work, and just wrapped my first narrative short (36 min). On that short, we shot with the Sony F5. It was a dream, and I loved working with the extra range and PQ with the Slog2 and XAVC codec. 
 
During the beginning of the year, I almost pulled the trigger on 3 Canon C100s to replace my FS100s. I wanted log workflow for my primary job, but the price was just too high. 
 
Now enter the A7s, full frame capable (i think) of shooting in a super 35 format, XAVC S codec at 50mb/s, and the glorious sLog2 gamma. It's so much more than a "low light" camera (which many are already tagging it with) This just checks so many boxes for me, a premium event camera with advanced dynamic range and codec, and capable of being a great B cam for a BMPC 4k or URSA, or Sony F series.
 
I really need to see what shooters can get out of it, and the "S" after XAVC has me suspicious that this could really be "AVCHD 3.0". I do think many of you are expecting too much from this camera though. I'm okay with 4k external, the camera has true pro cinematography tools featured in Sony's pro lineup, and the body can only dissipate so much heat for well implemented internal 4k shooting.

I hope to post some video soon.  The a7 definitely succumbs to video moire.  However, I bought it mostly for photography.  It seemed obvious to me that Sony announced the a7s to take some wind out of Panasonic's sails.  My guess is the camera will come out fall/winter.
 
After a few days, I have not found anything I don't like about the a7.  Being able to set the diopter to my vision and chimp in viewfinder is more useful for me than the d600.  Focus zoom and peaking with manual lenses is extremely useful.  Really, a remarkable camera.  Sony keeps improving their firmware and ergonomics.  
 
However, the Sigma DP1M still takes a better photo than the a7 with a Nikon 24mm.  Most wouldn't see difference though.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a very good lens it was my standard lens on my 550d (its an aspc lens not a full frame lens),
I have shot about 10 pop videos with this lens and the Canon 50mm f1.4 which works well with it as a companion lens .
I still use the Sigma on my G6 as it is very sharp wide open for low light scenes and with the Lens Turbo EF to micro 4/3 adapter it is even sharper wider and now faster.....F1.0 and approx 21mm on the G6 ,which is great for all those Fincher style low light wide shots -
 
This just goes to show its not the camera its the person behind the camera that counts.

If I had to choose between both I would go with the Sony because it's better in image quality and video quality, and the autofocus looks pretty damn good.

lenses - 'cos all these cameras are useless without them....

i want to vote for both lenses and grading.... ^_^
but lenses is no 1, due to the lens lust 

Wow, this thread is fired up.  I really think the GH4 looks good, maybe surprisingly so, but then so does the GH3. Both cameras can hang with the 5D3R raw if you put them in the right setting and use them in the right way.  I see the GH4 as a nice improvement over the last generation, but it's lack of raw support means it's not for me.