Leaderboard

Quick Review A7S vs GH4 Where the GH4 is better: Build quality Viewfinder Flip out screen User interface (by a mile) Battery life (by a mile) Color science Skin tones Rolling shutter (by quite a bit) Detail (internal 4K and 4K to HD) Noise grain (mostly pleasing monochromatic) Built-in flash for stills When lens size is included, a much smaller package Can shoot best quality on < 64GB Class 10 UHS-1 cards (A7S requires >=64GB cards for XAVC-S) Price Where the A7S is better: Low light (it's very good however the noise grain is colored and multi-spectral; not as pleasing as GH4's mostly monochromatic fine-grain noise) Shallow DOF (add a SpeedBooster/focal-reducer to the GH4 and this isn't much of an advantage) Audio (no buzz; not tested thoroughly yet though) If a 5D3/full-frame owner: can use existing lenses with a non-focal-reducer adapter (with similar DOF) Super 35 mode allows use of many NEX lenses (some aliasing) Auto ISO After having worked with 5D3 14-bit RAW and RED RAW, where the unmodified RAW looks pretty good straight from the camera, Slog2, Cinegammas, Cine-D/V, etc., start looking like gimmicks. None of those gamma curves are providing a real increase in dynamic range. In certain cases they may provide more information for 8-bit compression, however they can be tricky to use and must be exposed carefully. I've had the best luck shooting Natural with the GH4 (and no crazy curves), though iDynamic is helpful sometimes (appears to be local pixel group based processing vs. a simple curve. The A7S has a similar feature (disabled if any picture profile or effect is active, though)). Rolling shutter is very challenging on the A7S in full frame mode (worse than the 5D3): not very usable for handheld without a lens with IS and/or a solid rig. The A7S menu and button system is a mess. The FS700 has a better design! (many folks find the FS700 non-intuitive to use). Both cameras have aliasing and moire in slow motion. Perhaps similar to the FS700 in 240fps mode (not as bad as FS700 480+fps modes). I haven't done a direct comparison, however the FS700 120fps and less slow motion is better than the GH4 and A7S (all slow motion modes). While the A7S isn't quite a one-trick-pony (low light), the GH4 is a much better all around camera. I haven't had the A7S as long as the GH4, so there may be other elements that make the A7S more compelling, yet to be discovered.

View the price drop on the C300 at B&H here View the price drop on the 1D C at B&H here C300 and 1D C drop $2000 This is an interesting move by Canon. The 1D C I expected really to drop further in price because of intense competition from Panasonic and Sony at much lower prices. The C300 however has been selling very well but now apparently Canon want to shift stock faster. Is this to make way for a replacement? Based on specs alone it is certainly due one. Based on the real world and how this camera has been accepted by videographers and filmmakers, people seem pretty happy with what they have! Read the full article here

Here's Steve Huff's review: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/07/01/the-sony-a7s-digital-camera-review-wow-period/ I'm still waiting on a legitimate video capability review, preferably one that's not focused on shooting in pitch black conditions.

More slow motion videos are required for proper analysis…. you know, for science.

Just $19.99 - Buy It Now http://www.eoshd.com/eoshd-panasonic-gh4-shooters-guide Written by Andrew Reid The new EOSHD Panasonic GH4 Shooter's Guide is for filmmakers, photographers and all users interested in mastering video on the GH4! The guide covers the features of the camera concisely telling you only what you need to know and nothing that you don't. There's a chapter on tuning colour and image response in-camera, for an appealing image straight out the camera which doesn't need to be graded and one that responds better to grading. Three profiles are offered in the book - Cinema, Graded and Flat. By applying the settings in the book, you can be sure the camera is correctly set for filmmaking. This book has been written from scratch and is not simply an updated GH3 guide. Key Features How to shoot optimal 4K video, 128 pages of information Image settings for filmic quality carefully formulated by filmmaker Andrew Reid Concise explanations of all major camera features Tips and unknown features revealed Recommended lenses and adapters Practical cinematography advice Recommended settings Beginners guide to using the camera and more... Read the full article here

Doing lower light tests with the GH4+Voigtlander 25mm @F.95 and the A7S with Canon 50mm F1.4 @ F2 (fairly equivalent in terms of FOV and DOF), the A7S does much better with noise control vs. the GH4 (as expected), however the GH4 does surprisingly well. In lower light shooting, the GH4 noise does go from nice monochromatic to colored, similar to the A7S (which is much less and better controlled). The GH4 is looking more detailed (4K => 1080p) and clear in bright light. The A7S is clearly better in low light; shooting handheld is tricky as rolling shutter is 30.5ms (vs 20.5ms for GH4 in 4K (13.7ms in 1080p)): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue!

Let's hope you won't need to look for a lawyer because of some company not liking one of your reviews.

Nokia 3210

She doesn't get darker as she passes by the pillars except at the end. She also has fill light exclusively on her while the floor and walls don't seem to catch any of that. So I'm guessing GH4 with green screen background.

I'd say GH4, the DOF is really deep and the girl looks a little oversharpened...

Doubt a tilt shift would produce such a fake looking blur. The DR looks alright so i don't think its an iphone. Doubt its an a7s due to the deep dof. So I'd say GH4.

iPhone with blur filter? The Depth of Field is enormous. From the front to the back of the hallway everything is in focus... the blur on the sides looks artificial, ugly imo. Could be a tilt lens, but looks more like a fake blur instead of bokeh - correct me if I'm wrong though.

A7S at 120fps? :)

that's the CEO with the camera in mouth. "At its current price, GoPro has a stock-market value of $4.7 billion. That’s roughly 35 times the 2015 profit estimate that underwriters settled on as the forecast. It’s about 3.1 times the 2015 sales estimate." http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/26/is-gopro-a-gadget-maker-a-lifestyle-brand-or-a-social-media-firm/ So currently the market is expecting an exponential growth in profits.. I have a feeling we're gonna see more new "lifestyle" video oriented cameras from the other companies soon.

don't know and don't care. I think I'll loop this the rest of the day before I make my guess.

Doesn't make sense to me; that is, blur doesn't seem to be from lens but in post. When she's walking, a doorway far behind her in focus, which wouldn't make sense if blur/focus is all optical. Or maybe an optical filter for blur? In any case, should be a shot any of those cameras can do.

Love it! No idea what camera but since I own a GH4 I hope it's that.

Fs700?

Because few people (at least the type that read this forum) want to haul around a (fully kitted) 30lb package that requires active cooling?

Super smooth! Very cinematic feel to the movement...

Surprisingly good! And only 'surprisingly' because shorts are so hard to do, especially watchable zombie ones. But this was really well shot. I thought the colour palette you used was appropriate, nothing was out of place or looked off from one scene to another. Stylistically, I wouldnt have done the warm and fuzzy cut away to 'better times' because it seems a little cheesy. A brief cutaway to another photo may have been better. Your main non zombie actress was also pretty good, but the zombie didn't feel particularly dangerous. But great work.

it was good! i was interested with the plot most of the time. i felt that it was a little too dark in some places; even if it was meant to be dark to convey the mood of the film, i couldn't really tell what was going on for a small portion of it. good job though!

I hope this is true. Cine D is terrible for colours.

Shooting LOG with the BMCC has been so much easier after I bought a DP7 monitor that supports LUTS. Being able to see scopes and exposure of the frame with a LUT added has been a lifesaver.

In mathematical terms Logarithmic scale is: "... a scale of measurement that displays the value of a physical quantity using intervals corresponding to orders of magnitude, rather than a standardlinear scale. The function of the curve may include an exponent, which is the source of its curved nature." Translation, it's a curve. In digital camera terms it usually refers to a profile curve that is built into a camera's firmware that is going to select the bits to encode from the scene, to the eventual file, but that file will be recording 256 (or fewer) integers if it is an 8bit format. If you want to retain the typical full range (and have it be usable) of a camera's log profile, you will want to encode to 10bit. Most log profiles consider middle gray as 18%, not 50%, because our eyes see 50% as almost white, and require 10bits to cover the full range. Log profiles often look "flat" and can vary in their "flatness" based on the profile. The original source of the flatness was not desirable as much as necessary to reproduce a print and include more dynamic range, but it also can allow more details to be drawn out, assuming you have the color depth. So basically, a log profile might not be desirable when shooting rec709 8bit, but this is the source of much (much) debate. A LUT is a color lookup table and has more to do with post and changing the way you interpolate a file, although it can be used for lots of other conversion needs. Gamma log seems redundant to me, I'm confused by that one, that's kinda like "Scientology", i.e. the study of science.