Rui Soares

I have to totally agree 100% with this!! Thats how it came across to me too.
I appreciate the efforts Andrew puts into his reviews...there is some great information and he does a good job.
I have the GH4 but I certainly didn't buy it on Andrews recommendation tho.
However the mood of this article came across to me as being a little bit fickle.
The GH4 was the best thing that happened only a month or so ago, and suddenly its now the Beginning of the end for that camera...wow!! OK
Maybe he could have waited a few more weeks LOL!!
We know the GH4 has some flaws and weaknesses and so does the A7S...as many have pointed out..
But after reading his article, it does read a little bit like "New Toy" and as you said that will definitely piss people off that bought the GH4 based, or part based on his previous enthusiasm...just a matter of weeks ago.
The end result? People will be suspicious that his views are highly changeable and a bit fickle at best.
I know Andrew loves Full Frame Cameras and all that, and I know technology moves fast, and I am sure the Sony fits the scope of his work very well, but the radical switching of opinion and the "Beginning of the End" stuff is really not necessary.

I think your exuberance with the A7s needs to be a little more balanced between personal preferences and real facts. Not because I deny anyone personal preference choices, but because there are people who follow your writings and respect your expertise and sometimes depend on your personal interpretations as vital information. Knocking off a camera from your personal likes doesn't make the guy who put his hard earned dime on the camera feeling very well. That same thing can be done using just results without deflating the follower of your site.
 
Saying you want the Sony A7s because you have "full frame lenses" is not a factor in any decision making process at all. Those lenses will fit on many body styles and give different results on each. The guy that is in love with extreme shallow depth of field would certainly go for a camera that specializes in that. However, the truth is there is certainly a reason on the flip side to want the light gathering performance of an f/1.4 lens but have the buffer of an f/2.8 in the process. Saying it is the beginning of the end of a camera like the GH4 you have been heralding really puts a nice taste in the mouth of people who used your exuberance with that camera to put money down to purchase it.
 
What is in the market now is a much wider choice than ever before and one does not cancel out the other. The GH4 gives you added light gathering abilities and the advantage of a wider depth of field, while the A7s gives the opposite with a very narrow DOF and cannot match what the GH4 does. The GH4 however can certainly give a very narrow DOF for people with the skill set to do it.
 
So my objection really is very simple, there are a lot of people who read these articles and opinions standing there holding a camera they bought with their money that suddenly gets trashed for reasons no greater than personal preferences. I think that just ain't so hot :)
 
There is really a ton of facts that come through a web site like this, and for me it is very appreciated. A little more respect for the guy "holding the bag" for a sharp turn of preferences would be nice. Exuberance of why a camera is earth shattering is lots of fun and exciting, but there are lots of people who already hold one of the other bodies that are suddenly on a poo poo list that can be done a lot smoother than this is being done. My 2 cents.
 
Peter

I agree with Quirky on a lot of his points. I'm not sure why 5D RAW comes into this at all... It's a massively different kettle of fish. Although I think it's ok to show how cameras such as the a7S can match it in perceived performance.

I'm very close to ordering an a7S because I want a different look and toolset compared with my GH3. Rolling shutter, weird record button, odd skin tones on a7S.... Doesn't faze me. There will be work arounds... Love to learn and just shoot.

I'll be renting the a7S first though. Don't know why more people don't try before they buy. Did this with the GH3. Loved it, bought it. Tried the BMCC, thought it was ok, didn't buy it. Same goes for pretty much everything.

Also... You can't judge a camera just by watching a few Vimeo clips and tests, as this depends on skill and creativity. It's cool to see it's capabilities in the right hands, but to write it off just because someone had filmed something with bad rolling shutter or yellow skin is a little silly. Love camera and what they can do.... I'm just more interested in the subject of the filming :)

Really? 
 
His piece, especially the first half of it makes no logic sense. It makes him sound like yet another narrow-sighted gadget nerd. I agree with him about two pretty obvious things, though, that the piece is only his opinion, and that the A7s and himself aren't a good match. 
 
That's not the fault of the camera, though. It's merely tells us that the A7s is absolutely the wrong camera for him and for the likes of him. Which is fine, no camera is perfect, no camera can be a perfect fit for everyone, and there are plenty of other nice cameras around. 
 
 
 
I can't help feeling that it's a matter of how you read the stories, and what your own inner wiring diagram looks like. He may or may not be in a honeymoon stage, but that's irrelevant. It's quite possible that Part 2 will have a different tone, but the relevant part about that is why and how.
 
If you read his entire piece with a pragmatic (enough) mindset, it was quite informative. The message that comes through is that in the 'right' (capable) hands the A7s is indeed capable of delivering fine and pleasant results, even pleasantly 'cinematic' even under lower light.
But that needs some work, as always, including getting familiar with the features of the camera and understanding how it works. And also trying to work around the quirks of the camera. And doing the necessary work both during shooting and after it. Which should be common practise with any camera, shouldn't it. 
 
You can create pretty pleasant looking footage with some other cameras, too, if you know what you're doing, but that's not the answer people are looking for, is it? 
 
I can't help but feeling that one of the issues people have with Andrew's story is that they read his piece with a typical enginerdy, I/O, either-or kind of mindset, which only want to see product X being either the best or crap, either better or worse than product Y, because choosing between X and Y will dictate the fate of one's cinematography. Automagically with a press of a button, of course.
 
Then, the moment they see Andrew considering the A7s being perhaps nicer a tool than the 5D3, or even the GH4 in certain areas, that's all they choose to see, and then they get blinded by that throughout the rest of the story. 
I also can't help but feeling that what peeks out of some of the comments is that questioning the authority of the Holy 5D3, that's blasphemy!  :)
 
But you shouldn't really worry, because the A7s is not likely to become a big mainstream hit. Mostly because it's not a Canikon, and because it "only" has 12 megapixels. No self-respecting pixel peeper is going to openly admit that he owns a FF camera with less than 36 megapixels. 
 
BTW, there is no such thing as "5D3 RAW." The RAW part is a 3rd party hack, not provided, authorised or endorsed by Canon. A regular 5D3 is another product. If you wish to participate in a length-peeing contest, doping your instrument won't take you to the podium. It only takes you on the top of the dunghill.
Just saying.  ;)

fanboy alert.

When did I specifically pointed out your "positive evaluation" as "hype"? theres a lot of press about this camera out there and thats what i mean by "hype" not your comments. As you pointed out, most of your readers here are usually lower budget, therefore I made what you called "warnings". I said this because some of us can't afford to be switching lenses and bodies all the time, because we usually lose money, time, and energy doing swaps. So we need to be more careful when we make our choices. I also, still don't understand why you are being kind harsh towards me specially since I've apologize to you.. is it not ok to express my opinion here? I don't meant to offend anyone really, specially you. 

I think an important factor to add in is, how good will the A7s be for stills. If you have a smaller Canon Mark 3 equivalent - you're enjoying the best quality stills camera with the best quality video camera. I think the GH4 could be lacking in that department a bit.

another pro that the @admin seems to have missed is the option to choose the autofocus transition speed, you can make the af transitions slow like the canon 70d, or really fast and snappy for sports.  It´s a really good feature to have in video.