demetris

well i think its absolutely great what sony comes up with on paper. no other company brings out cameras with such amazing specs in the smallest possible bodies. i often like to compare Sony with RED. not that their cameras are comparable in any way, but both companies seem to have the exact same goal of pushing the limits of whats possible with todays cameras and always being the first of introducing new standards and features. 

 

on the other hand theres Panasonic, who would never come out with a camera that isnt rock solid in its performance. FF 4K camera that overheats after 30min of recording? it would never see the light of day if Panasonic built it.

 

its really up to you what you choose, but id always go with a rock solid camera. just like i would always choose an Alexa over an Epic.

Talking about rock solid performance please do not forget that GH2 had a dreadful battery life and GH3's viewfinder and screen was practically unusable for many.

GH4 has come a long way and it really looks like the first DSLR(mirrorless) truly made for video.

However, there are many reports about an audio bug regarding GH4...

Overheating has been a big problem on certain Sony cameras so far, let's see about A7s, but I wouldn't exactly call Panasonic's GH line performance rock solid.

You are right about choosing a rock solid camera and that's why companies still offer professional video cameras and not only cheaper hybrid alternatives.

oh God, a camera is NOT only sensor or test rates!

 

At times, I wonder if this geek idea of a capture device has anything to be with real photography... (E :-)

Did you read the article in the first place? 

Hello, it is about sensor ratings...

Sony's A6000 is so much better than GH4 as a stills camera.

I'm pretty sure that it is very close in video as well and all that for less than half the price!

Sony is gonna say good bye and get past everybody else pretty soon...

It's funny how some people they're trying to reduce A7s qualities in favor of GH4... It feels urgent to prove GH4 is finally up there with the big boys...

Right now 1080p is the reality and in 1080p world GH4 is nothing really special. Even a seriously compromised camera like 5DmkIII from 2+ years ago still holds its own against GH4. As for GH4's low light capability it's still stuck in 800 iso from back in the day... However, I really believe that GH4 is a great camera but a bit overhyped. On the other hand A7s is not out yet so we can only speculate. Enough is enough with biased conclusions, it is just a matter of time before we know what is all about.

Be patient 4K is not there yet and by the time it will be there will be much better cameras than GH4, A7s etc. 

Believe me, A7s isn't "everything we ever asked for". If it was, it'd have 10-bit at the least. Have you ever worked with a true 10-bit video image as opposed to 8-bit? It's a world of difference. Anyone that tells you otherwise simply doesn't understand colour-science, colour-precision, dynamic-range preservation, nor colour-grading.

Further, every one that goes on and on about "the benefits of full-frame" either doesn't realise that full-frame is very hard for precise focus-pulling, nor do they understand that, when shooting 4K, your focusing better be on point. Full-frame is actually very unfriendly for filmmakers - especially "one-man-army" type filmmakers. In indie filmmaking, a small sensor is actually your friend.

F4 is very shallow on full-frame - usually one has to stop down to F5.6 to even make the focusing manageable (and by doing so, you'll be pumping up the ISO to compensate for closing your aperture down), let alone viewable. For some strange reason, shallow depth-of-field has become synonymous with "cinematic". For me, when I see ultra shallow depth-of-field, especially the overuse and abuse of it, it simply screams "amateur", "novice". Especially when it is accompanied by God-awful jitters and micro-shakes.

People need to concentrate on composition more than shallow DoF - and in my humble opinion, light and shadow gives a sense of depth far more than shallow DoF, or the Z-Axis benefit that comes with full-frame sensors (which is a concept I've never really agreed with). Light and shadow is far more important when creating the illusion of three-dimensions through a two-dimensional medium such as film.

But to each there own. For me, tha A7s will be something I buy more for my street photography than video. I'll throw my old Canon FD and Nikon-F glass on there. I don't need auto-focus. In fact, I detest the hell out of auto-focus.

For those that go A7s, be sensible in your composition. The last thing anyone wants to see is 95% bokeh like we did during the 5DMKII days.

In my opinion, A7s is probably the more "fun" camera. I think it benefits still photography more than it does video. The GH4 is by far the more sensible video/film camera - 4K 10-bit at up to 30FPS, 1080P 10-bit at up to 60FPS, a sensor-size with manageable DoF - especially for "one-many-army" type filmmakers.

But like I said, to each their own.

I didn't elaborate about the benefits of full frame or the shallow depth of field but unfortunately you didn't get the point...

I was talking about the A7s 1080p capabilities that apply to present day filmmaking.

Please understand that this is an APS-C camera as well in 1080p, so that makes your comment irrelevant about shallow depth of field. APS-C is equivalent to Super35mm the filmmaking industry standard.

Regarding 8bit 4:2:2, have you ever worked with C300? Do you think it is not adequate for broadcast?

or have you ever seen any FS100 S-log 8bit 4:2:0 in 24Mb/s AVCHD footage? Is it not good enough for most video work?

People need to concentrate on what they can properly use right now.

Right now most of us we are going to shoot 1080p for a great many projects and the A7S wins this battle hands down. On paper it looks like the most complete 1080p DSLM ever made, it offers almost everything we have ever asked for... So many, real world, filmmaking capabilities such as full-frame, APS-C, extreme low light, no nonsense decent codec (50mb/sec for 8bit 4:2:0), S-log picture profile, no need for expensive adapters, even 120frames slomo in 720p(by now obsolete...) and uncompressed output (yet only!)8bit 4:2:2.

However, most people argue about the lack of internal 4K recording!

Obviously 4K is the future but untill our workflow gets properly 4K with respective monitors, PCs, GPUs, TV sets etc. this camera is going to be king for the budget, indie filmmaker. I believe 4K needs a couple of years before it gets industry standard, yet people are already sold to it before they have or can even use it. We've already seen cameras that promise the future and do not deliver now(Blackmagic anyone?) and when the future comes they are already out of specs.

Don't forget that next year GH4(another excellent offer) is going to look so... well, last year. Such a shame really!

This Sony ad is very misleading then, such a shame... (about 4K on APS-C)
Thanx for opening my eyes.

Andrew have you realized that the Sony A7S sensor reads out image data from every pixel with both resolutions available(4K and 1080p) at both APS-C and full-frame size?
Obviously you can use your Cooke lenses...
No need to buy a speed booster(an extra cost for GH4 users) and you get the best of both worlds APS-C and full-frame natively. You can adapt a massive number of lenses and you can use the growing variety of Sony APS-C e-mount lenses. Then again every full-frame lens now can be used in 2 different focal lengths within the same camera. An excellent feature for those looking for lightweight packages with small footprint, documentary work etc.