Phil Kenny

I love this comment, by which i mean its just plain idiotic.
Everything you've seen from the FS7 has been shot within the first 5 minutes someone has had the camera. Let's wait a few months before making such a wide declaration. Early A7s footage/GH4 footage also looked pretty crappy. Give people a few shoots with a camera - then make your judgements. 
 
Now to your "video" point. It has zero to do with frame interpolation. Its called over-sharpness. What really annoys me is people who shoot a digital sensor camera that isn't a RED, want a "cinematic" output, and yet use no softening filters (RED deliberately keeps their image as soft as they can get away with). None. An Alexa can look over-sharp shot poorly. 35mm film can too. When we shoot film (too rare!) we often have 3 layers of softening in front of the lens. 3 layers! When shooting a commercial or drama we have a range of Tiffen softeners ready to go for the Alexa or the F55, and we often will soften the highlights again in the grade. 
 
However - if you're shooting for broadcast, and you're matching $150k studio cameras which are horrifically sharp, being able to look 'video' is actually a plus! Sony and Canon and Panasonic understand this.
 
You want a more pure 'filmic' camera that's value for money? I can't recommend the BMs enough.
 
You need a camera that can shoot reportage, TV interview, a feature doc, a music video AND an indie feature? Better to start off hella sharp and adjust to taste.
I tell people all the time: A Swiss Army knife is actually a pretty terrible hunting knife. Unless you NEED that flexibility. 

I love this comment, by which i mean its just plain idiotic.
Everything you've seen from the FS7 has been shot within the first 5 minutes someone has had the camera. Let's wait a few months before making such a wide declaration. Early A7s footage/GH4 footage also looked pretty crappy. Give people a few shoots with a camera - then make your judgements. 
 
Now to your "video" point. It has zero to do with frame interpolation. Its called over-sharpness. What really annoys me is people who shoot a digital sensor camera that isn't a RED, want a "cinematic" output, and yet use no softening filters (RED deliberately keeps their image as soft as they can get away with). None. An Alexa can look over-sharp shot poorly. 35mm film can too. When we shoot film (too rare!) we often have 3 layers of softening in front of the lens. 3 layers! When shooting a commercial or drama we have a range of Tiffen softeners ready to go for the Alexa or the F55, and we often will soften the highlights again in the grade. 
 
However - if you're shooting for broadcast, and you're matching $150k studio cameras which are horrifically sharp, being able to look 'video' is actually a plus! Sony and Canon and Panasonic understand this.
 
You want a more pure 'filmic' camera that's value for money? I can't recommend the BMs enough.
 
You need a camera that can shoot reportage, TV interview, a feature doc, a music video AND an indie feature? Better to start off hella sharp and adjust to taste.
I tell people all the time: A Swiss Army knife is actually a pretty terrible hunting knife. Unless you NEED that flexibility. 

I love this comment, by which i mean its just plain idiotic.
Everything you've seen from the FS7 has been shot within the first 5 minutes someone has had the camera. Let's wait a few months before making such a wide declaration. Early A7s footage/GH4 footage also looked pretty crappy. Give people a few shoots with a camera - then make your judgements. 
 
Now to your "video" point. It has zero to do with frame interpolation. Its called over-sharpness. What really annoys me is people who shoot a digital sensor camera that isn't a RED, want a "cinematic" output, and yet use no softening filters (RED deliberately keeps their image as soft as they can get away with). None. An Alexa can look over-sharp shot poorly. 35mm film can too. When we shoot film (too rare!) we often have 3 layers of softening in front of the lens. 3 layers! When shooting a commercial or drama we have a range of Tiffen softeners ready to go for the Alexa or the F55, and we often will soften the highlights again in the grade. 
 
However - if you're shooting for broadcast, and you're matching $150k studio cameras which are horrifically sharp, being able to look 'video' is actually a plus! Sony and Canon and Panasonic understand this.
 
You want a more pure 'filmic' camera that's value for money? I can't recommend the BMs enough.
 
You need a camera that can shoot reportage, TV interview, a feature doc, a music video AND an indie feature? Better to start off hella sharp and adjust to taste.
I tell people all the time: A Swiss Army knife is actually a pretty terrible hunting knife. Unless you NEED that flexibility. 

First, I too think it looks sharp. :-) 
 
The hard zoom in definitely, and I'm pretty sure there's a couple of frames at the beginning of the track back that would fail (hard to be definitive on Youtube), and the BBC would potentially fail you on the speed of the dolly back itself. Yep, its that tough.
They let a ton of micro-skew go in the 5D2 days, but have tightened up recently. If you want to know why they, Discovery, Fox and others are so vigilant on skew and micro-shake its because it messes with the layers of compression they need to get it to people's homes. 
 
Now is your film fine for a web customer?  Sure! Looks really nice.
But for me, the A7s is only a specialty camera right now UNLESS I invested the time to learn its quirks. 
 
Hope that made sense. 
 

First, I too think it looks sharp. :-) 
 
The hard zoom in definitely, and I'm pretty sure there's a couple of frames at the beginning of the track back that would fail (hard to be definitive on Youtube), and the BBC would potentially fail you on the speed of the dolly back itself. Yep, its that tough.
They let a ton of micro-skew go in the 5D2 days, but have tightened up recently. If you want to know why they, Discovery, Fox and others are so vigilant on skew and micro-shake its because it messes with the layers of compression they need to get it to people's homes. 
 
Now is your film fine for a web customer?  Sure! Looks really nice.
But for me, the A7s is only a specialty camera right now UNLESS I invested the time to learn its quirks. 
 
Hope that made sense. 
 

You won't regret it. As long as you can control the light on your set the GH4 will give you great images, and the first time you drop 4K on to a 1080 timeline and reframe it you'll be sold. Plus all the other niceties and fantastic button ergonomics. Even the 96frame is not useless. 

Just waiting patiently for the FS7.

I love this comment, by which i mean its just plain idiotic.
Everything you've seen from the FS7 has been shot within the first 5 minutes someone has had the camera. Let's wait a few months before making such a wide declaration. Early A7s footage/GH4 footage also looked pretty crappy. Give people a few shoots with a camera - then make your judgements. 
 
Now to your "video" point. It has zero to do with frame interpolation. Its called over-sharpness. What really annoys me is people who shoot a digital sensor camera that isn't a RED, want a "cinematic" output, and yet use no softening filters (RED deliberately keeps their image as soft as they can get away with). None. An Alexa can look over-sharp shot poorly. 35mm film can too. When we shoot film (too rare!) we often have 3 layers of softening in front of the lens. 3 layers! When shooting a commercial or drama we have a range of Tiffen softeners ready to go for the Alexa or the F55, and we often will soften the highlights again in the grade. 
 
However - if you're shooting for broadcast, and you're matching $150k studio cameras which are horrifically sharp, being able to look 'video' is actually a plus! Sony and Canon and Panasonic understand this.
 
You want a more pure 'filmic' camera that's value for money? I can't recommend the BMs enough.
 
You need a camera that can shoot reportage, TV interview, a feature doc, a music video AND an indie feature? Better to start off hella sharp and adjust to taste.
I tell people all the time: A Swiss Army knife is actually a pretty terrible hunting knife. Unless you NEED that flexibility. 

Yes, that's what I get a full-frame sensor for, to crop it. 
Its not crippling, but when you're in that early phase with any camera anything that 'catches' you turns into a huge problem. 
Pans that I have been doing for the last 5 years on my other DSLRs were unusable on the A7s. Then i'd remember I had to crop it. 
Over time you'd plan for that. At this point its not worth me investing the time. 
 
Let me repeat - the A7s LOOKS great. I just found it too annoying to learn to love, especially for 1080. Once the 4K recorders are out, my opinion may happily change :-) 

Agree with your review Andrew, but I can't shoot 1080 anymore. My two main broadcast clients now demand 4K acquisition (I work in LA). I rent an F55 a lot, but also bought a GH4 as "my" camera to replace my trusty Canon RAW/Nikon setup. 
I was very reluctant to even try the GH4, but having worked with it daily now for about 2 months, I can't go back to non-4K. I'll put up with its many quirks for that frame size. I've dealt with worse in the past :-)
 
When a range of 4K recorders are out I'll try the A7s again, but to be honest I'll probably get an FS7, with the GH4 as the B cam. And one day the A7s II will be out, which will hopefully address the skew issue, which is also a deal-breaker for me. 
 
The image from the A7s is lovely, but only if its not moving, and you're ok with 1080. The S-Log2 implementation is odd, and it tilts WAY Magenta.