Liam

I can see using it sometimes but if a camera did not have it but was a great camera it not having slomo would not be a deal breaker for me.
 

For what it's worth, my students and I tested the a7s, GH4, 5D MKIII (h264, not Raw), NX1, A6000, 70D, and BMPCC for low light noise + color performance, and all three projects chose to shoot with the a7s. Two of them are low-light night shoots, but one is day. For low light, obviously the a7s wins by a long way over the others -- in noise and color. (Once you start digging into the picture profile menus, you can really carve into the color.) 5D was closest, of course. The rest were just painful in low light (when compared with a7s). We even tried a Voigtlander .95 wide open on the GH4 to see how it would compare to the a7s with a Jupiter 9 at 2.8, and it wasn't close (for noise); the a7s/jupiter won by a mile.
In daylight, they were all nice in their own ways. Dynamic range of a7s and BMPCC is nice, all things being equal, but when money is tight, I'd personally take the cheaper camera and spend the extra on lenses and kit. I think they're all capable of good color. Different looks, and different paths to get there, but I've gotten images I like out of all of them. 
In good light, NX1 and 5D probably take the least effort to get good color, but that h265 on the NX1 isn't a lot of fun right now. It is less work than 5D Raw, but still a big pain compared to other cameras, IMO. Personally, if I was going to go through the pain of converting every shot, I'd probably choose 5D ML Raw right now. I think that gives the best color of the lot, but you gotta really want it.
That said, the whole thing is so personal. What works for you -- the camera, ecosystem, and workflow that you will enjoy -- is so different from anyone else. I tried shooting the NX1 for a week and sent it back, preferring to keep my GH4 and a6000. It's a nice camera, but it didn't really speak to me. I felt like I kept having to talk myself into loving it, and then I realized that I just didn't love it.
I tried the a7s for a week, and now I'm going to sell my GH4 and a6000. I am truly loving this camera, for both stills and video. It's brought a joy back to the art and craft of image for me. Are there better cameras out there? I don't know, and I don't care any more because I'm loving what I can do with it.
So I say, if the a7s isn't bringing you that joy of shooting, sell it and find the camera that does. Regardless of specs and features: if you love shooting with a camera, you'll shoot with it and find ways to make it work. It doesn't sound like the a7s is that camera for you.

I think keep the a7s - rent or borrow or steal a NX1 - do a test side by side.  Don't base your desire on other people or forums.  It is indeed highly subjective.
 
the reason I like the NX1 is because it's small and light and the battery lasts forever and the screen is excellent and right away very nice skintones.   But the a7s has nicer motion.  SO yes, don't give up - just yet.  Don't listen to any of us.  Trust your gut.

I enjoyed watching this film a lot but I find the above comments by Ebrahim etc a little astonishing  

I just need to rant a little and not give any new input probably, because this is just my favorite subject.
First of all, bravo, Ed!
“I didn't know what you couldn't do. I didn't deliberately set out to invent anything. It just seemed to me, why not? And there is a great gift that ignorance has to bring to anything. That was the gift I brought to Kane, ignorance.” - Orson Welles, in reference to still the greatest film ever made
This is why I left school really. It wasn't a school with particular emphasis on film, which showed. it was zero to do with creativity and all to do with the terrible formula for making films the crappy way. One of our textbooks was Your Screenplay Sucks - a book written by a man who has written maybe a handful of unknown, low-rated feature length screenplay that have been made... one of them was Ernest Rides Again. I wish I was kidding. . I had never been more inspired to not care about what I was doing. I once made a mistake of writing about something I cared about for her class, and since stuck to bullshit since that's what it would become anyway. She disrespected innumerous amazing films in our class by saying an aspect involved in it was horrible. Along with many things, she criminalized montages altogether.. which is literally a term for "editing". It can be used in sort of an overdone "cheating" fashion perhaps.. but it's clearly an insane set of parameters.
Since leaving school, I buckled down and wrote my second longer screenplay, which I'd had in mind for years but couldn't touch because I was kept so busy with nonsense. I absolutely love it, and I'm satisfied to say in that class it would have been torn to shreds. It may not end up feature length even! Which I love! That's freedom! Because no one wants that. Let's not conform to an standards by adding rubbish to your film so that it's long enough, nor keeping a short film short enough that it can hold the attention of the audience by falling into a different formula.
"A movie tries to pacify people by keeping it going for them so that it's sheer entertainment. Well, I hate entertainment." - John Cassavetes, my favorite director. And with this mindset he has made the most entertaining, amazing films. When making Faces he and his team didn't know if it would end up ten hours long. They made it anyway, expecting zero profit, because screw everything. There are legitimately good 5 hour long films which people won't give a chance.
Let's do what's right for the story. The films I've written had been entirely formed in my head before I started typing. And it wasn't active brainstorming. They just happened and they mattered. Not that every film has to be developed that way, but shouldn't we all be that lucky! and then people come in to criticize and change things. But if my professor could have changed Citizen Kane, she would have. We'll end up with bad films if we don't try to change something when we see a "flaw", but we'll also end up with amazing films. Sidney Lumet is fantastic, but could have never made Kane in his studio setting. And Welles made KANE, but also made some real stinkers, because he fought for that freedom. He would have been much more crazy if he could have, and I really wish he could have.

I just need to rant a little and not give any new input probably, because this is just my favorite subject.
First of all, bravo, Ed!
“I didn't know what you couldn't do. I didn't deliberately set out to invent anything. It just seemed to me, why not? And there is a great gift that ignorance has to bring to anything. That was the gift I brought to Kane, ignorance.” - Orson Welles, in reference to still the greatest film ever made
This is why I left school really. It wasn't a school with particular emphasis on film, which showed. it was zero to do with creativity and all to do with the terrible formula for making films the crappy way. One of our textbooks was Your Screenplay Sucks - a book written by a man who has written maybe a handful of unknown, low-rated feature length screenplay that have been made... one of them was Ernest Rides Again. I wish I was kidding. . I had never been more inspired to not care about what I was doing. I once made a mistake of writing about something I cared about for her class, and since stuck to bullshit since that's what it would become anyway. She disrespected innumerous amazing films in our class by saying an aspect involved in it was horrible. Along with many things, she criminalized montages altogether.. which is literally a term for "editing". It can be used in sort of an overdone "cheating" fashion perhaps.. but it's clearly an insane set of parameters.
Since leaving school, I buckled down and wrote my second longer screenplay, which I'd had in mind for years but couldn't touch because I was kept so busy with nonsense. I absolutely love it, and I'm satisfied to say in that class it would have been torn to shreds. It may not end up feature length even! Which I love! That's freedom! Because no one wants that. Let's not conform to an standards by adding rubbish to your film so that it's long enough, nor keeping a short film short enough that it can hold the attention of the audience by falling into a different formula.
"A movie tries to pacify people by keeping it going for them so that it's sheer entertainment. Well, I hate entertainment." - John Cassavetes, my favorite director. And with this mindset he has made the most entertaining, amazing films. When making Faces he and his team didn't know if it would end up ten hours long. They made it anyway, expecting zero profit, because screw everything. There are legitimately good 5 hour long films which people won't give a chance.
Let's do what's right for the story. The films I've written had been entirely formed in my head before I started typing. And it wasn't active brainstorming. They just happened and they mattered. Not that every film has to be developed that way, but shouldn't we all be that lucky! and then people come in to criticize and change things. But if my professor could have changed Citizen Kane, she would have. We'll end up with bad films if we don't try to change something when we see a "flaw", but we'll also end up with amazing films. Sidney Lumet is fantastic, but could have never made Kane in his studio setting. And Welles made KANE, but also made some real stinkers, because he fought for that freedom. He would have been much more crazy if he could have, and I really wish he could have.

I just need to rant a little and not give any new input probably, because this is just my favorite subject.
First of all, bravo, Ed!
“I didn't know what you couldn't do. I didn't deliberately set out to invent anything. It just seemed to me, why not? And there is a great gift that ignorance has to bring to anything. That was the gift I brought to Kane, ignorance.” - Orson Welles, in reference to still the greatest film ever made
This is why I left school really. It wasn't a school with particular emphasis on film, which showed. it was zero to do with creativity and all to do with the terrible formula for making films the crappy way. One of our textbooks was Your Screenplay Sucks - a book written by a man who has written maybe a handful of unknown, low-rated feature length screenplay that have been made... one of them was Ernest Rides Again. I wish I was kidding. . I had never been more inspired to not care about what I was doing. I once made a mistake of writing about something I cared about for her class, and since stuck to bullshit since that's what it would become anyway. She disrespected innumerous amazing films in our class by saying an aspect involved in it was horrible. Along with many things, she criminalized montages altogether.. which is literally a term for "editing". It can be used in sort of an overdone "cheating" fashion perhaps.. but it's clearly an insane set of parameters.
Since leaving school, I buckled down and wrote my second longer screenplay, which I'd had in mind for years but couldn't touch because I was kept so busy with nonsense. I absolutely love it, and I'm satisfied to say in that class it would have been torn to shreds. It may not end up feature length even! Which I love! That's freedom! Because no one wants that. Let's not conform to an standards by adding rubbish to your film so that it's long enough, nor keeping a short film short enough that it can hold the attention of the audience by falling into a different formula.
"A movie tries to pacify people by keeping it going for them so that it's sheer entertainment. Well, I hate entertainment." - John Cassavetes, my favorite director. And with this mindset he has made the most entertaining, amazing films. When making Faces he and his team didn't know if it would end up ten hours long. They made it anyway, expecting zero profit, because screw everything. There are legitimately good 5 hour long films which people won't give a chance.
Let's do what's right for the story. The films I've written had been entirely formed in my head before I started typing. And it wasn't active brainstorming. They just happened and they mattered. Not that every film has to be developed that way, but shouldn't we all be that lucky! and then people come in to criticize and change things. But if my professor could have changed Citizen Kane, she would have. We'll end up with bad films if we don't try to change something when we see a "flaw", but we'll also end up with amazing films. Sidney Lumet is fantastic, but could have never made Kane in his studio setting. And Welles made KANE, but also made some real stinkers, because he fought for that freedom. He would have been much more crazy if he could have, and I really wish he could have.

Brian, given your own eyes have moire, it's going to be there on the camera in some situations. Laws of physics, and all that.
When you look at the file to check for moire, make sure you look at it 1:1 because 4K material scaled to fit a 1080p is going to moire worse, it is completely at the mercy of the video player or NLE scaling method.