yiomo

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.

Ok. this is my last post for this thread cause I am tired of this dispute. I see many people here who are being so defensive like everyone is attacking their families or their belief system. To those I say that they should "pixel peep" more their philosophy in life and communication abilities and leave the technology for a later time.
 
Andrew, I find your post at least arrogant and at worst disrespectful. I could have easily asked if you are getting payed by Panasonic in order not to emphasise the negative sides of the camera. Is this the level of debate you want to maintain in the forum that you have created? I don't believe so but I could be wrong.
 
And last thing regarding objectivity, there are many people who support you cannot end up with 10bit data out of 8bit. I am not expert in that, but I do know there is another opinion on that matter. So I wouldn't call that very objective. 
 
Looking forward to the moment when human beings will be more interested about the way they communicate than the technological advancements of plastic or metallic boxes. :)

I have seen some externally recorded A7S footage which is secret for now. The friend can't publish yet.
 
I have to say I am absolutely blown away by it.
 
The low light performance and dynamic range transformed the image... the shadows when graded were silky smooth with a fine noise grain, but it had latitude to catch the illumination realistically... and when the light source bounced against the shadows it looked like film... very nice. I believe it was shot externally to an Atomos Ninja... no signs of moire or aliasing and detail was good...a little soft and filmic but not exactly lacking in fine details and would sharpen nicely.

Nice review Andrew! The GH4 deserves the positive feedback after Panasonic listened to filmmakers and delivered what was asked for at a reasonable price!
 
I've been looking for a camera to supplement or replace the 5D3 for video for a long time. The first attempt was the FS700 + SpeedBooster. The idea was find a camera which has true 1920x1080 resolution and full frame compatibility with my Canon lenses. At the time I had not studied the math and physics and wanted to maintain the mystical and oft-hyped FF "look". You mentioned "
5D Mark II and III raw from full frame sensor a formidable cinematic look vs the smaller sensor in the GH4".  The "formidable cinematic look" is a myth. Perhaps a better way to say is that the full frame format has more affordable and flexible options for shallow depth of field- as that is all it really offers in absolute terms of sensor size. Canon's color science is still a formidable challenge. In low light, the GH4 has a nicer noise pattern. 5D3 RAW has some fixed pattern noise and the general noise itself gets downright ugly in low light. The newer GH4 does a better job with noise once it shows up. If I find the time I'll post tests comparing the 5D3 RAW with the Canon 50mm 1.4 at F2 to the GH4 with a Voigtlander 25mm F.95 at .95 (same as the 5D3 at 50mm F1.9 per the math here (which isn't anything new; I finally took a look at it after the Northrup video was posted on EOSHD: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ).
 
The GH4 looks fantastic straight out of the camera when set up and lit correctly. This is something I find valuable and useful. 14-bit 5D3 RAW offers far more options in post, especially when using ACR vs. the comparatively fragile GH4. The RAW workflow might be called "Really Awful Workflow" due to the extra time and storage requirements. That said, for some shots and projects, the extra work is worth it.
 
Regarding GH4 10-bit luma and 444 for 4K scaled to 1080p: the 444 is real, the 10-bit luma is not in practice. 10-bit color processing doesn't take place in the GH4 unless 10-bit 422 is enabled for HDMI output, otherwise processing for video is 8-bit.  In order for the 10-bit luma to be real, we'd have to do special encoding in the camera which we could then recover in post (while reducing luma resolution 4x). Otherwise we're just getting a nice, useful, low-pass filtered, noise reduced luma in the same way as the C100/C300.
 
When comparing to the Sony A7S- the example A7S videos appear to produce excellent, detailed, color accurate, high-dynamic range footage straight from the camera. The bitrate is only 50Mbit/s, however as we've seen with 100Mbit/s GH4 4K, which is 4x the pixel data(!), these bitrates are OK as long as motion is smooth. Even the 24Mbit/s FS700 footage compares very well when the motion is smooth. As many of us have noted, even with large, cheap storage, efficiency is important in the long haul.
 
As I'm sure future tests will show, 50Mbit/s A7S in-camera 1080p will compare very well to the GH4 4K scaled to 1080p in post. The A7S appears to have a dynamic range advantage, and the color science so far is very competitive, even against 5D3 RAW. The GH4 with fast micro 4/3 lenses has a size/portability/stealth advantage. In the event 4K material is needed (vs. 1080p scaled in post), the GH4 has the advantage (including reframing in post). Neither camera 'wins'- they have complementary features. The A7S compared to the 5D3 RAW- that's another matter: the A7S will best 5D3 RAW in resolution, detail, dynamic range, and workflow. What remains to be seen is final color science (rolling shutter will likely be a wash between the two).

If you pause the test I posted when it gets to 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 you can compare..
 
It also covers the reformatting of 4k 8bit to 2k 10bit myth (I'm taking it into float space actually but it's got all the overhead you need to test the theory). You won't see a noticeable difference in "workability" of the 4k after it has been reformatted to 2k HD in float space. 
 
I think a lot of the confusion is really coming from the camera companies that sometimes give you the pertinent info, and other times they leave it out while hyping things like pixel count. I've noticed they also are guilty of mixing terms, like "log" and "dynamic range" in their specs.
 
i.e. You can't have "log" gamma in integer 8bit space, so calling your gamma profile sLog is a little confusing. Another good one, they seem to have propagated the belief that dynamic range is the "min" and "max" luma values, at least I've heard it described that way on blogs.. which would mean 0 black to 3 (which would be pure white) in a 2bit file is wide dynamic range.
 
I got one more! They also have convinced people that low contrast is the "film look", whatever that means. This is the most confusing one. Movies don't look low contrast when projected (movies like Transformers, LOTR are over saturated and high contrast).. it's a pipeline issue only to preserve film gamma and it really requires 10bit log to equal film print density, everything else is just low contrast, so they should call it that.

I think people tend to forgot DR. We can discuss this forever, but resolution and but depth isn't everything. IMHO the most difficult thing to correct/change is DR ergo is should be the highest priority. To me that gives the nicest images and is why the A7s looks so much nicer.
And that's talking from a professional point of view.

I think it might be that people can not really tell the difference but those who's job it is to look and use computer equipment to do so can.

http://pro.sony-asia.com/pressrelease/asset/570730/section/broadcastreleases (states 8-bit XAVC-S is 420; 10-bit is 422).
http://***URL removed***/news/2014/04/06/sony-announces-alpha-7-series-full-frame-mirrorless-with-4-2-2-4k-video-output (420 for internal 8-bit 1080p recording)

A7S does 420 internally: 422 externally.

I think I read the Sigma has a 24 -105mm which is on par with the Canon, maybe it has various mounts?

We have to get these realistic professionals off this forum :) :)   Fun suckerers ;)

Nope! I just ordered a C100 :)

Fantastic 1080p, super easy workflow and turnaround time. Great image, sound, and NDs. If by some off chance I do ever need 4K I'll probably give the A7S a rental

You know that some Nikons (D600, for example) have Sony sensors, right? I agree that the first NEX cameras looked more videoy than the Canons and Nikons of that generation, but if the dynamic range of the A7S is as they claim, it's going to be a very cinematic FF sensor...
 
Neither the GH4 nor the A7S will have "professional" codecs, but I think that's something we have learnt to live with. H.264 and its many variants were supposed to be delivery codecs, not acquisition or editing ones, but the truth is that nowadays that line is very blurry... the C100 and the FS700 use AVCHD and are professional cameras.
 
I'm with Aaron here, in doubt between GH4 and A7S -sorry, the BMPC is an unreliable beta product to me-. Guess it will be a question of waiting for both cameras to be thoroughly tested and available.
 
Right now I can live without 4K and simply rent a recorder whenever the project requires it, and the extra DR is very attractive. On the other hand, the availability of lenses for the GH4, the slo-mo modes and probably cheaper price make it very appealing...

According to metabones, the Canon 24-105mm F4 is manual only on the Smart Adapter III, i have the Zeiss and is not better than the Canon optically speaking and have focus by wire, but have a fast autofocus, OIS and smaller, this is something to consider. If you do not mind using the lens manually and only for video the Canon is a better option.

Thanks for the different perspectives.  It is a good idea not to hurry before NAB, but then again there will always be a next exhibition show and if a manufacturer has something so good why not to market it a bit earlier? (well ok, that's for another discussion).  
 
Need and want are two very difficult beasts I know, but if we start getting too philosophical about it, which is no a bad thing per se, we'd perhaps arrive to the conclusion that we don't really need anything more than a mini dv camcorder..  ( I am speaking about independent production).
 
To shed some light, I'd like to add that I am working on a new documentary project and while I have finished development and some preproduction, I don't have someone over me to press me to start. I could start shooting in a week or in 5 weeks. Of course, the sooner, the better. This whole "which system to jump into" discussion is only feeding my procrastination demons.  
 
The ML raw thing, would be probably be a nice thing to play with on my free time (which I now mostly use in order to decide about my new system), but it looks to troublesome for a new production, in terms of logistics, workflow, possible bugs, etc.
 
The truth is, that other than a good field monitor I don't really need something additional to begin this production. Perhaps I am being to consumeristic, drawn into the flow of technology. But, I am trying to be a realist besides being an idealist. The fact is, and I believe most of you agree on that, that a 5d mkii, as great as it might be for stills, it is a dying dinosaur. The whole debate started in my mind as to not loose the resale dynamic that it now has. I have a dvx100a which I did not sell when it was the proper time and now no one would buy it. I don't want this to happen with my last investment. Perhaps for some of you this is a trivial thing but for me spending 3-4 thousand for a new system is something worth considering very seriously.
 
So besides the ML thing, which otherwise looks great, and staying with my current camera, the question is where to in terms of video. I must admit that I did bite into the "travel light" bullet but it might have been a wrong thing to do and is something I am reconsidering. However many of you have said that the best way is to go double system. And this is what I am considering now.
 
I might just begin this doc with my 5d, which I can keep just for stills until it dies. (i don't need or want more photographic power) and then look into the best image quality- as I understand it- that I can get from a video only or hybrid camera.
 
Thanks again for your input and time.

Nope. Because...
 
 
That's good enough a reason, isn't it.
 
Other than that, yes, it probably is a good idea to sell the 5Dm2. 
As long as the video side of things is concerned, it would make sense to sell the 5mk2 soon, as long as you still might get decent money off it. That won't last for too long now, though. 
 
To which system to jump into, if changing to another one in the first place, is another matter. I believe that right now, of all times, before NAB, before Photokina, before a number of anticipated new releases, one may not want to be in a hurry. Unless you really need a new camera.
 
If that's the case, none of this speculation really matter. You need a new camera and you want a new camera - two very different things.
 
 
 
 
It sort of depends, but in general yes. So called full frame glass will work with full frame, APS-C/S35, mFT, 1-inch and S16. It doesn't quite work the other way around. The full frame glass is less likely to go obsolete, for that reason. Even though you can get along without it, too.
Other than that, it's a matter of taste and your personal preferences. What you like, what you're willing to carry around and so on.
So whatever fancies you but please...
 
  Please, it's 2014, stop propagating the silly idea that mirrorless equals micro four thirds.  That is simply not the case, and the smaller size of the gear is just one part of the whole point in going for mirrorless systems. There are several other reasons as well. On the video side, more than on the stills side, the mirrorless system has obvious benefits over the traditional dSLR design, regardless of the sensor size. Even Canon have been moving towards mirrorless systems within the higher end video segment, hence the C-series.   There are already mirrorless systems from S16 to full frame, so the shallow depth of field vs. mirrorless is a moot point. The Sony A7r, whilst perhaps not the best candidate for video, is just the first full frame mirrorless body. More are on the way quite soon, and probably not only from Sony. Same goes for APS-C size, they're getting better, too. There are three trade shows coming within the next six months, and I bet that until March 2015, the palette available for us is even wider. With compelling options in several different sensor sizes. So not much point in digging oneself into outdated trenches.   FWIW, I for one have come to the conclusion that if you want to have the best of the both worlds, stills and video, buy two different cameras. A hybrid to do both will always be a compromise. At least within a reasonable budget.   So all in all, I'd say if you fancy the GH4 just go for it, but if you're not in a hurry, well, then don't be. Your desires, your wallet, your decision.

get a full set of Yashica ML primes - they are superb
there is a full thread on this we have been debating prime lenses for a while now

No camera will give you the best of both worlds, video/photo or Portability/Professional Features
 
I have gone through a lot of cameras.  For background.  I currently use a Sigma DP1M for medium-format still quality in a small/inexpensive package.  I use a BMPCC with a 14-45 for video.  I use a Nikon D600 with 24-85 or 85mm 1.4 for portraits.  (I also have 24mm and 50mm primes which I don't use that much anymore).  I have an EOS-M, which I use as Magic Lantern camera,etc.  I also have a GF3 with a 14mm pancake which my daughter uses mostly now.
 
What you should keep in mind, about this forum, is that it is video focused.  So most people like my hero Andy :) will be more biased (thought also more insightful) about video.  
 
I have ABSOLUTELY no desire to carry, or pay for, full-frame cameras.  My experience is that the dynamic range, low-noise, color saturation benefits are real.  If you are serious about still photography, can afford it, and weight is not a factor, than full-frame is what you would use.  You can get shallower DOF in full-frame, as you point out, but that is NOT why I use it.  
 
Panasonic makes superb interchangeable lens video cameras that shoot decent stills.  As a stills camera, in less than perfect light, I believe the quality from your 5D will be much better, especially if you print large.
 
My biggest problem in suggesting you go with MFT is that I too wanted to go backward from my Sigmas and a original 5D I had.  Once you've worked with full-frame images you see that 3-d look and you, or I, get very fussy when it is harder to get back.
 
As a video camera, I would get the GH3 over the 5D (native video).  But I would not get the GH3 over the 5D hacked with Magic Lantern to shoot RAW.   So you should consider getting a 1000x CF card and learning ML and Davinci Resolve (or ACR workflow).
 
That is another thing to consider on this forum.  There are people who shoot mostly Panasonic H.264 video (which is best in class) and those who shoot RAW.  Panasonic lets you focus on shooting, composition, editing, etc.  HOWEVER, you'd have to be blind to not see the difference between H.264 shot footage and RAW based footage.  There's a lot to read on this forum about all that.  
 
If you want to focus on video, your plan has merit.  If photography is important, prepare for potential regret.   I love my BMPCC.  You can use Canon lenses on it with an adapter.