Jump to content

New Sony $2k 4k vs GH4k


skiphunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the camera samples I've seen so far, the new Sony 4k for $2k camera (can't recall model number) is more impressive than the official GH4k footage I've seen. Has anyone else noticed that? If so, why?

 

And, should the stills performance from the GH4 be night/day better than the GH3?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Sony wanted to get the high-end of the DV market they came out with the VX1000, which was so loaded with features it was desirable for years.  I believe the same might happen with 4K.  I think you're thinking of this, Skip

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-FDR-AX100-Video-Camera-3-5-Inch/dp/B00HNJWVIA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1393989795&sr=8-3&keywords=sony+ax10

 

When DSLR video became hot camcorders could not take decent still.  That camcorder will take as good stills as the RX10, probably.  If I'm running the AV department of a school I would buy that Sony camera for 4K, not the GH4.  Anyway, interesting times, huh!

 

I doubt the stills performance of the GH4 will be better than the GH3.  Does it matter?  The industry can't even get APS-C to match full-frame sensors.  MFT for stills?  Certainly, okay if that's your only camera.   Most serious photographers end up with full-frame and if not, they slum it with APS-C.  MFT?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here we have some more realistic shots

 

you can also download the MOV out of the camera.

 

From what I see in youtube the Sony looks better, but looking at the original files its a different story. looking forward to see some sony file out of the card before coming to conlusions.

 

no doubt the sony is a Video Camera while the Panasonic is a photo/cine camera: different tools for different shooting styles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for my use, the GH4's versatility would definitively be preferred. I just figured the sample videos via YouTube would look more similar with regard to sharpness and resolution. The GH4 stuff looks great, but doesn't have quite the fine detail and sharpness the Sony samples have. 

 

Mostly curious. Will not be pre-ordering either of them. I'll leave that to the early adopter, gear-porn addicts. They can pay the premium to be the first kids not he block with the new toy and figure out what the bugs are. ;) 

 

That's one of the reasons I got an affordable Nikon D5300... it makes a nice image and will hold me over until the 4k dust settles a few months  or a year from now. 

 

And, I don't subscribe to the idea that "serious photographers" only shoot full-frame. I've seen plenty of top-notch photographers run circles around heavy, full-frame-toting so-called "serious photographers" with nothing more than an average compact. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, I don't subscribe to the idea that "serious photographers" only shoot full-frame. I've seen plenty of top-notch photographers run circles around heavy, full-frame-toting so-called "serious photographers" with nothing more than an average compact. ;)

 

I couldn't agree more, Skip.  I was trying to point out that Panasonic, or MFT cameras, are fighting an uphill marketing battle.  When they came out there was hope they would reach full-frame quality in low-light, etc.  Right or wrong, I get the sense more photographers want full-frame, whether they can shoot or not is another question.  When the GH2 came out, it appealed to both photographers and videographers because it did each one reasonably well.  Since then, high-end photographic camera users are moving away from MFT, which makes the GH4 less desirable for photos (again, not saying you can't take great photos with it).  So that leaves the GH4 having to fight better in the video space.  

 

I have no idea how it will play out.  As Andrew pointed out, the stills from the 4K cameras are as good as most cameras (but not full-frames in special circumstances). I do think it is possible 4K camcorders could make a resurgence and be preferable to a GH4.  

 

If the Sony 4K downsampled gave me more of a Blackmagic look, I'd want that camcorder convenience.  Hand-held, nothing beats a camcorder like nothing beats a minivan if you have kids ;)  

 

Or let me say, I know people who shoot video on DV tapes that run circles around those professoinals shooting 4K ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have no idea how it will play out.  As Andrew pointed out, the stills from the 4K cameras are as good as most cameras (but not full-frames in special circumstances). I do think it is possible 4K camcorders could make a resurgence and be preferable to a GH4.  

 

If the Sony 4K downsampled gave me more of a Blackmagic look, I'd want that camcorder convenience.  Hand-held, nothing beats a camcorder like nothing beats a minivan if you have kids ;)

 

Or let me say, I know people who shoot video on DV tapes that run circles around those professoinals shooting 4K ;)

 

I think camcorders and dslr/m competes only marginally: The small sensor on a camcorder makes it unusable in low light, specially in 4k, while the big sensor of a dslwhatever makes it uncomfortable for fast focal changes between super wide and super tele and ND switch.

A wedding videographer as me would need both the systems in one dream system which simply does not exist.

A news videographer probably will not even consider a DSL

A cinematographer probably will never consider a ENG camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thing I hate about the sony is the $@%%@$@ AVCHD, no MOV no sale for me

 

btw FF is overated, I tend to find myself shooting in lower F stop so I can fucking focus properly

 

LOL!  Andrew concluded that AVCHD is slightly better than MJPEG because its a new codec, etc.  My test bore that out.  But I still often shoot MOV just becuase @#$%$$#@#$%

 

I have an 85mm 1.8 for my D600.  I went through the same thing.  1.8, then missed focus on what would have been nice shots, then 2.8, then I'm walking out side, put on the 24-85, then 5.6.  

 

Lately, I've had no need for full-frame.  However, in low light, with fast primes, it makes a difference.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157634891578611/

 

@etidona.  What you say was definitely true a few years ago,  The new Sony 4K camcorder will have a 1-inch sensor.  LIke you say, there will never be one camera for everything.  I generally find that photographers who have to make do with only one camera do better than tech junkies like me.

 

Here's a set that bears that out.  Someone gave me an old camera they were throwing out, one of the FIRST digital Canon rebels.  I took these shots at an event.  I look at this to remind myself about what Skip says ;)

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157628003611229/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AVCHD isnt really a codec though. It's a package right? Most avchd videos use h264 codecs, which in my experience (from animation renders to video encodes) is far better than mjpeg for both filesize and quality. PS. No offence but that photo from the Rebel looks like crap :P

 

@Julian: That Sony footage is very detailed yes but the 1 inch sensor prevents it from doing really great low light stuff and dynamic range. I had an RX100 which was great in the day but at night fell apart.

 

As for the FF vs APS-C vs MFT vs 1inch debate... Well that's just going to go on. I think it's silly actually to do what someone mentioned above and believe that MFT will get to FF level. Logic tells us that if MFT sensors were to get that good, then FF sensors would also improve by the same margin. So MFT will always be behind. However it is very impressive that MFT is almost as good as the Nikon APS-C line.

 

I myself am currently going round in circles. I love my GX7. However I have looked at comparisons on dpreview, which show that the Canon 6D at ISO3200 has the same noise level the GX7 does at ISO1600. And the differences become more striking as you increase the ISOs. Further, the Canon has a stabalised 35mm f2 lens, as well as a 24-105 f4. The closest thing to that that MFT has is the Panny 12-35mm f2.8 (FF equiv 24-70mm f5.6). However the GX7 has got all sorts of advantages such as tilting screen, more video detail, 50p, silent lenses, non-imposing size etc. And of course, easier focusing. A lot of time, FF has too much out of focus anyway. You lose context of the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AVCHD isnt really a codec though. It's a package right? Most avchd videos use h264 codecs, which in my experience (from animation renders to video encodes) is far better than mjpeg for both filesize and quality. PS. No offence but that photo from the Rebel looks like crap :P

 

 

There was more than one photo in that set.  I have a whole trunk of crappy photos, you underestimate my talent ;)  I find the photos very interesting, wouldn't have been what I got from my 5D at the time, which I didn't bring.  My point is only that different camera, different look and sometimes faults can be interesting.  Because the camera didn't do high-ISO, you get all that blurring.  

 

"You lose context of the scene", that's up to you and your f-stop and shutter speed.  It is sensor neutral.  Of course, with full-frame you can physically get a shallower DOF than an APS-C or MFT.  If you shoot 2.8 on full frame it's pretty much 1.8 on APS-C, etc.   If you're going to shoot low-light photography, you want a full-frame camera.  Doesn't mean you can't shoot fine without one, but if you have a choice, and  size isn't an issue, it's no question to me, or anyone else I know who has a choice.  Metabones isn't an option, for me photographically, because it degrades the optics (okay for video, but not if you want to maximize your photo image IQ)

 

In any case, if I had a GX7 and I had the choice between really good flashes and radio triggers, or a 6D, I'd go with the former.   Light is always what you really want.  Spending a lot of money for a camera to shoot in bad light is no real victory ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think camcorders and dslr/m competes only marginally: The small sensor on a camcorder makes it unusable in low light, specially in 4k, while the big sensor of a dslwhatever makes it uncomfortable for fast focal changes between super wide and super tele and ND switch.

A wedding videographer as me would need both the systems in one dream system which simply does not exist.

 

Sony RX10 fits the bill. It's halfway between a camcorder and DSLR.

 

Though in lowlight nothing matches a dslr with an f1.4 lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

How are people reaching the conclusion that the AX100's image is better than the GH4?

 

First mistake is to judge it from YouTube!

 

Second mistake is to judge it from marketing videos!

 

Third mistake is to compare from different shoots! With different amounts of talent behind the camera!

 

Final mistake is to forget about the lens! Will the AX100 look the same as a GH4 with a PL adapter and Cooke cinema lenses? NO! Indeed will the AX100 at F2.8 or F4 look like the GH4 with a Voigtlander 25mm F0.95 attached? That lens on the AX100 is sterile, no life.

 

Also I'm expecting the GH4 to be way ahead of the AX100 in low light. 16MP on a larger 2.0x sensor vs 20MP on a 2.7x crop one. Maximum aperture on the AX100 is F2.8, max aperture on the GH4 is F0.90 with Speed Booster.

 

The AX100 is a camcorder and it will look like a camcorder, but in 4K. Like the same sensor in the RX10 and RX100 yes it can do nice images and I am not writing it off, but got to compare like to like. It is not an interchangeable lens cinema camera and you will not be getting a Super 35mm look from it with that zoom lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Andrew. Wow. That's a lot of exclamation points in one post. Settle down champ, no one is pissing on your precious GH4. I'm even considering one myself to follow up my D5300 after the dust settles and a few are out in the wild.

 

I just posted a simple question regarding the footage that's out so far. From what I've seen regarding image detail, the Sony looks to have finer detail... significantly finer detail. Yes, a lot goes into making a final image, but the YouTube argument doesn't really hold up. If both are compressed by YouTube and one still looks significantly better than the other, the YouTube compression factor is a wash. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I KNOW the GH4 will offer more options in looks via interchangeable lenses, and the skill level of the shooter. But the original question was why does one budget level 4k camera, even after both are subjected to YouTube compression and displayed as 4k, look significantly sharper than the other? Both the GH4 and AX100 footage were official manufacturer footage, so I'm assuming they put their best foot forward with regard to selection of shooter and lens choices. Yet, from a resolution standpoint, the Sony stuff appears to render considerably more detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

@etidona.  What you say was definitely true a few years ago,  The new Sony 4K camcorder will have a 1-inch sensor.  LIke you say, there will never be one camera for everything.  I generally find that photographers who have to make do with only one camera do better than tech junkies like me.

 

 

1-inch sensor makes it less versatile in the optical side. i doubt it will have a great tele and you can't even change it. not a random choice by Sony to make the more pro 4k camcorders with a 1/2 inch sensor, more versatile but again too small for low light. That AX100 in particular have no manual controls, no decent focus ring etc etc..

 

Sony RX10 fits the bill. It's halfway between a camcorder and DSLR.

 

Though in lowlight nothing matches a dslr with an f1.4 lens.

 

No 4k...

if we consider 1080p the C100 is the wedding machine. the built-in ND with interchangeable lenses made his fortune...

 

However the first GH4 samples out of the card are starting to come over and they looks awesome! If even low light is decent i think i've found my next toy ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@Andrew. Wow. That's a lot of exclamation points in one post. Settle down champ, no one is pissing on your precious GH4. I'm even considering one myself to follow up my D5300 after the dust settles and a few are out in the wild.

 

I just posted a simple question regarding the footage that's out so far. From what I've seen regarding image detail, the Sony looks to have finer detail... significantly finer detail. Yes, a lot goes into making a final image, but the YouTube argument doesn't really hold up. If both are compressed by YouTube and one still looks significantly better than the other, the YouTube compression factor is a wash. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I KNOW the GH4 will offer more options in looks via interchangeable lenses, and the skill level of the shooter. But the original question was why does one budget level 4k camera, even after both are subjected to YouTube compression and displayed as 4k, look significantly sharper than the other? Both the GH4 and AX100 footage were official manufacturer footage, so I'm assuming they put their best foot forward with regard to selection of shooter and lens choices. Yet, from a resolution standpoint, the Sony stuff appears to render considerably more detail.

 

Here's some more exclamation points for you.

 

Facts!

 

Facts!

 

Facts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...