jurgen

Have to imagine Panasonic just breathed a massive sigh of relief. No internal 4K on the A7S. That's pretty big, I think.

Please be $1999, please be $1999 ...

I've seen some people tossing around the notion that lower total pixel count (and the implied greater pixel pitch) doesn't necessarily improve low light performance. Is this true, or potentially true (not necessarily for this camera, but in general)? 

Why do people take any of Andrews words seriously?  

Andrew says "I also did some research on XAVC-S. It records in MP4 format but perhaps rather disturbingly it has a much lower bitrate than the GH4′s 4K codec. It is just 60Mbit/s vs 100Mbit/s on the GH4 in Ultra HD."  He did his research eh?.  

 

Then explain the Sony FDR-AX1's 150M/bit XAVC-S in which a 1 minute research would find and I quote, "In order to provide 4K video recording in a consumer model, Sony designed the FDR-AX1 to support the XAVC-S 4K/HD recording format which is usually reserved for professional applications. However, since the XAVC-S codec will save as an MP4 wrapper, you can still create web-friendly videos that can be easily shared on social media sites like YouTube. Another highlight of the XAVC-S recording format is its ability to record images at 150 Mbps in 4K".  

 

Seriously, do your homework Andrew.  

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. 

There's no need for petty sniping. Seriously. If you think someone made a mistake, and you feel like you can offer a correction, there are far more civil ways to open a dialogue, ways that might actually be of benefit to the discussion as a whole.

You need to chill out.

Poor Panasonic... They should have tried to release it earlier. Too much time between announcement and shipment. If Sony drops this bomb now (and releases it soon), this might seriously hurt GH4 sales...

Might, sure. But cost and implementation are two massive, impossible-to-overlook factors. If it comes in at $2999, is it really a direct competitor? What if it only offers UHD? What if the compression isn't as elegant as Panasonic? What if it's significantly larger? What if audio implementation is poor? Not saying any of these things are true, but there's a lot still undecided.

The other thing is the lack of FE glass. Super 35 lenses won't adapt to a full frame sensor as they would a M4/3, meaning you've got Sony's limited lens catalog to work with (at least for the time being). That's a big deal.

Not saying you're the one doing this, Julian, but this senseless brand partisanship that crops up in comment threads on every forum (even this one) is absurd. Why glorify one camera and denigrate another when you don't need to? I care about quality products at fair prices. Why would anyone vest so much stock in success/failure of a specific format?

Probably a stupid question, but - is all downscaling "created equal?" i.e., if I watch GH4 4K footage played back on my 1080 monitor, is that the "same" downscaling as if I went into Premiere and dropped in on a 1920x1080 timeline? Or is something different happening based on method of playback (for example, and this might be nonsense speak, is Premiere saving more color resolution because it has a "smarter" way of downsampling than just playing back a 4K YouTube video?)

I know it's not the typical purview of this site, but did either of you get a chance to crack off a few stills? If so, what did you think?

Looks iiiinnnncredibe. Wow. Fantastic job.

Something you can afford to lose, I suppose. Others have suggested the RX100 line, and I think that's a good idea. Maybe the GM1 is worth considering as well? The kit lens (while effectively AF only) is quite nice and easy to conceal in the event you need to duck out without incident. I would probably get one of these, as the sensor is quite nice and it's a great stills camera as well.

I guess I don't understand who this camera is supposed to appeal to. For $1199 it would make sense, with a bigger sensor it would make sense, with a faster zoom/interchangeable lens mount it might make sense, but for $2000? You've gotta really love the handycam form factor to pick this up, especially with the GH4 available for $300 less. It's nice and all, and I would take one if you gave it to me, but I don't get why you'd buy it.

Pre-ordered earlier today, very excited.

Also, I emailed Jordan from The Camera Store in Canada/TCSTV, who said:

"Panasonic was unable to get us the new UHS-3 cards, so we used Lexar Professional 90MBps [600X - jurgen] cards.  They allowed us to shoot any of the 100Mbps modes, but the 200Mbps recording stopped after a few seconds."

So, 4K to the top level Class 10 UHS-1 cards, it seems, or at least the Lexar ones, at least in Canada, at least on the pre-production models. Ordered a couple today as well, so I'll test them when I get everything together.

Thanks for your take! Very exciting time.

I've been using some Olympus primes lately to shoot video on my E-M1 (the 25 1.8 and the 45 1.8). Great, fast little primes, if a touch on the expensive side ($400 for a 50 1.8 equivalent? Aye!) You lose out on the IS which is incredibly important if you just want to go body+lens with a Panasonic camera, but if you're not averse to carrying a monopod or a basic shoulder rig I think the sub $500 primes from both companies are great. I quite like the 20 1.7 Mark ii from Panasonic as well; only went with the 25 because I prefer the focus ring on it.

My recommendations - absent a need for something like IS, of course, in which case buy an IS lens - would be:

- Oly 45 1.8
- Oly 25 1.8
- Oly 17 1.8
- Panasonic 20 1.7ii

(obviously not all of them, as some are redundant, but those would be the primes I'd choose from.)

Even the new Sigma A primes (19, 30, 60, all f/2.8) are quite nice, though the focus ring is totally smooth and requires a delicate tough. For $199 USD though they're hard to beat; sharp mostly from corner to corner with little distortion. I've been using the 19 (probably the worst of the bunch optically) for photography and have been quite pleased with the results.

Also, for a cheap IS lens, don't sleep on the Panasonic 14-42 mark II! (the all black one) Not a very fast aperture but quite sharp and under $200 brand new!

Thanks Andrew! Glad to get the official word.

May shipment will also give me time to save  :D

-edit- Also hoping this drives the price down a little on the GH3 - $849? Dad wants a camera, would love to get him one!

The em10 shares the same processor as the EM1. Does that mean it will have the same video quality? I would think so. Does anyone know? If so, this is a super cheap camera giving us everything we want in a cheaper package!!!

Same bitrate, same processor ... 3-axis v. 5-axis for IBIS but in all the videos I've seen of the two I can't really see a difference. Theoretically you should get the same video quality, all other factors being equal. You are giving up things like a more substantial grip for handheld, but that doesn't really directly impact quality.

Texas Media Systems posted this pricing page and has begun to take preorders.  It appears buying the YAGGAMAWAG with the GH4 lands you a $400 discount.

Good find! Thanks!

GH4 is the best contender for my next semi-pro video solution... but man I really wish that add-on brick was better designed! Ugly, bulky thing. And that's coming from a function-over-form guy! Oh well...

Interesting you say that - I kind of like it. Just looks like a big battery grip to me. I'm glad they didn't build it in and preserved the modularity of the stock body, and I'm also glad it isn't some massive, behemoth thing. Gonna be a long while before I get one (if at all - just a hobbyist), but I still kinda like it.

"Holdup" might be the wrong phrase. Just seems like an extraordinarily long time in this industry to wait between product announcement and price announcement.

I've been holding onto ~$1400ish waiting to hear on the GH4, but with no new information on price or release in a number of weeks I'm starting to look at other options. If it isn't for sale until late April, fine, but tell us! I'm content to wait if I can know how much I need and when I need it by.

Have I missed something? Has Panasonic said when they're announcing/what the holdup is? I've hear sometime around the 14th rumored on forums, but it just seems to be conjecture. Anyone have any insight?

24/25p and 36+Mpbs.

PLEASE.

Well, because they are a photographic company with no dedicated film division. You could ask yourself the same with Arri; why are they so allergic to photo cameras?

Arri doesn't include a stills photo mode on their cameras, and their top management isn't quoted in interviews as saying, "Stills were a major design focus on the Amira." Arri makes cinema cameras for a highly specific field of work. Nikon designed the D5300 as a "hybrid" camera aimed at a consumer market that values both stills and videos. It isn't simply a semantic difference.

I think in max two years nikon will be offering 4k fullframe with VFR, histogram, peaking, great DR and some sort of 10 bit 4:2:2 HDMI out. It will be interesting to see what the new D4s bring, it might say something about where they are going, but might also be a big dissapointment. I suspect the latter, and that D5 and D900 iterations will bring the progress.

You've got to be joking, right? You want to give them two years to catch up to what Panasonic is doing right now?

Two years is an impossibly vast amount amount of leeway. Think about how much has changed since February of 2012! Blackmagic hadn't even announced a camera yet, 5D Mark iii was a month away, no GH3, no E-M5, no D800, no X-Pro 1; most of these cameras wouldn't even be announced until well into spring! Two years would be an incomprehensibly long time to have to wait for Nikon to implement these features.

Surely you were kidding, right?
 

I think I might make it as far as 3:20, at which point I'd stand perfectly still until I died.

Perhaps if Andrew approached his review a bit less video-centric and recognized that many pros require a camera that can do both stills and video to acceptable stock photo standards, he might realize the humble little D5300 is, right now, about the best balance available on the market.

Is this really an appreciable percentage of the market? Professional photographers/videographers who need a sub-$800 camera with which they can reliably shoot stock quality stills and video?