Leaderboard

  I agree with almost all of Erik's point in his blog, and some other points not... when will people realise on the internet that it's ok to differ! Different opinions do not need so much hatred attached.   Thanks Erik for coming on here and defending your views.   As Erik said in his article it wasn't a review but a look at the shortcomings and quirks. I have a similar article in the works as well.   It isn't a honeymoon period for me, the camera is delivering on the fundamentals in a big way, for my uses.   Agree on the battery life Erik. You really need the vertical grip to improve that. The ergonomics of that are quite nice but not ideal. The lenses are indeed too expensive and there are not enough fast primes. Sony seem to have compromised aperture size to get the size of the lenses down which is why there's no F2.8 zoom. They need to introduce one, and quick, and get the prices to a more reasonable level to compete with Sigma.   I have bought the Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 for when I need AF. It is true that the other glass on the camera is a manual focus only affair which suits me just fine for video but not so much for stills.   I am having the same problem as Erik with the Metabones adapter and blank screen occasionally, it is an incompatibility with the adapter and Metabones are working hard to fix it.   Don't share the same view of Erik who prefers S35 to full frame. I love the look of the larger sensor for almost everything, especially 24-50mm range of focal lengths. For me it is about shallow DOF yet, but not how extreme you can get it, but that you can get any control over it at all at wider focal lengths or when your subject is further away from the lens. To have a little bit of subject / background separation when they are 5m away is wonderful. I can't get that with a smaller sensor unless I use a longer focal length and that changes the rendering of the whole scene.   Obviously the low light is a big attraction for me as that's just how I work creatively. I love using minimal light and natural light sources. I am not a broadcast guy like Erik or a studio shooter. I can absolutely appreciate why some people would not need ISO 12,800!!   As Erik and I both said in our articles, grading S-LOG 2 is indeed rather tricky. But the camera has extensive pro FS700-like control over the image. Switching colour mode to ITU709 for instance with S-LOG gamma makes it easier to get the correct hue in post.   It's definitely a valid observation that auto white balance and the exposure meter aren't really to be trusted a whole lot when shooting S-LOG. Do it manually though and you will end up with a stronger image, at the expense of maybe working a bit slower, which to some will be a deal breaker, to others not. There's no ONE way is right here!   Disagree Erik actually about the 120fps. I am really enjoying it! Good bonus feature and creative. I was just shooting 120fps by candle light at 1/200, getting a usable S-LOG image at ISO 12,800. How many other cameras can you name that can do that let alone for $2500?

Flip a coin, choose a camera you can afford and what your computer can process without exploding. Stop reading blog posts about which camera is 'best'....none of them are perfect, they never will be.....ever. Everyone expects a 'unicorn camera' for nothing these days...it's crazy. I can only comment on shooting 5D3 ML raw and 35mm film. 5d3 raw It is probably the closest (and cheaper alternative) to shooting film In my opinion, slightly clunky processing and large file sizes demand that you shoot in moderation and forces discipline upon you. Dare I say it, teaching the considered craft of filmmaking as well as giving a great deal of latitude in the image to learn about grading and colour correction. A telecine from film negative is pretty much exactly the workflow with ML raw, but thousands of times cheaper! Well worth you trying Magic lantern on your 5d3 and see how you get on with it, this will be much cheaper option, as you already own that camera. If the workflow is too inconvenient to your needs, I'd personally recommend a7s as the next best thing for approximating the 5d3 raw look. GH4 if you want everything in focus and you like your images 'a bit too sharp' - I'm teasing, but I personally think the images from that camera are pretty dull. Probably decent choice for doco work, but only because of that small sensor making the depth of field large enough for Stevie Wonder to focus with.

If people are buying a product based on a single person's perspective and then pissed after the original reviewer changed their mind thus infuriating the buyer of the said product, the buyer should see mental help ASAP. I enjoying asking questions, getting responses, and taking a long time to decide. But if I went out and bought an a7s based on Andrew's video and commentary alongside whatever Philip Bloom says, and realize my 5d3 was a better choice for me due to aesthetics in the video I would not be pissed at them and use it as a learning experience. Some of you give too much credit to individuals, it is scary. Then again this is how masses follow religion :)

I think your exuberance with the A7s needs to be a little more balanced between personal preferences and real facts. Not because I deny anyone personal preference choices, but because there are people who follow your writings and respect your expertise and sometimes depend on your personal interpretations as vital information. Knocking off a camera from your personal likes doesn't make the guy who put his hard earned dime on the camera feeling very well. That same thing can be done using just results without deflating the follower of your site. Saying you want the Sony A7s because you have "full frame lenses" is not a factor in any decision making process at all. Those lenses will fit on many body styles and give different results on each. The guy that is in love with extreme shallow depth of field would certainly go for a camera that specializes in that. However, the truth is there is certainly a reason on the flip side to want the light gathering performance of an f/1.4 lens but have the buffer of an f/2.8 in the process. Saying it is the beginning of the end of a camera like the GH4 you have been heralding really puts a nice taste in the mouth of people who used your exuberance with that camera to put money down to purchase it. What is in the market now is a much wider choice than ever before and one does not cancel out the other. The GH4 gives you added light gathering abilities and the advantage of a wider depth of field, while the A7s gives the opposite with a very narrow DOF and cannot match what the GH4 does. The GH4 however can certainly give a very narrow DOF for people with the skill set to do it. So my objection really is very simple, there are a lot of people who read these articles and opinions standing there holding a camera they bought with their money that suddenly gets trashed for reasons no greater than personal preferences. I think that just ain't so hot :) There is really a ton of facts that come through a web site like this, and for me it is very appreciated. A little more respect for the guy "holding the bag" for a sharp turn of preferences would be nice. Exuberance of why a camera is earth shattering is lots of fun and exciting, but there are lots of people who already hold one of the other bodies that are suddenly on a poo poo list that can be done a lot smoother than this is being done. My 2 cents. Peter

I am still in love with this camera. This is my newest video i shot during a festival, pure run&gun withhout any rig at all:

Someone needs to come out with a battery grip add-on for the A7s but instead of it just being for an extra battery it would also be a 4k recorder....essentially giving you 4k that you can hold in one hand like the gh4.

IMHO, Any of them are fine and you'll be able to do what you want to do. Those that worry endlessly about the tech are missing their chance to just get out the damn door and go shoot something creative and compelling; making work that demands to be reckoned with. Now, it's understood that lots of people just love having new gear and seeing how perfect they can make their footage. That's why I've looked at seemingly endless shots of London, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, and L.A. over the past few years. And even though I love playing with new toys, I'm of the mind that trying to perfect one's storytelling rather than the image is far and away a much more important endeavor. Nothing trumps skill and ability. I like to craft the narrative more than the image...even though I like to get the best image possible as well. Nowadays, I just pick the gear that fits the project. RAW in a film shoot production is slow but viable and sometimes worth the hassle. For docs, I'd shoot compressed and utilize the easy storage. But it's all just options, y'know? Doing a doc in low-light? Consider the Sony. Making a real estate video? How about the GH4? Shooting a short film on a shoe string? That BMPC sure would help... Gotta fly a cam or stick it on a kayak? Go-Pro. Can only do handheld and you need steady shots? How about that Oly OM-D? etc. Ultimately, if you got talent you can make a great film with an iPhone.

I agree with Quirky on a lot of his points. I'm not sure why 5D RAW comes into this at all... It's a massively different kettle of fish. Although I think it's ok to show how cameras such as the a7S can match it in perceived performance. I'm very close to ordering an a7S because I want a different look and toolset compared with my GH3. Rolling shutter, weird record button, odd skin tones on a7S.... Doesn't faze me. There will be work arounds... Love to learn and just shoot. I'll be renting the a7S first though. Don't know why more people don't try before they buy. Did this with the GH3. Loved it, bought it. Tried the BMCC, thought it was ok, didn't buy it. Same goes for pretty much everything. Also... You can't judge a camera just by watching a few Vimeo clips and tests, as this depends on skill and creativity. It's cool to see it's capabilities in the right hands, but to write it off just because someone had filmed something with bad rolling shutter or yellow skin is a little silly. Love camera and what they can do.... I'm just more interested in the subject of the filming :)

Andrew, while it's relatively easy to get great color and especially skintones from 5D3 RAW, the same cannot be said for the A7S. While the A7S can look great, especially with post work (sometimes a lot of post work), it has a problem with green that can make skintones a challenge. Have also seen examples online where the highlights make skin look like plastic (something I don't recall seeing with 5D3 RAW examples online (certainly not with anything we have shot)). When the A7S can produce something like this:

For smaller sensors, I'd go with the Olympus Zuiko 35-70mm f3.6. The 55mm front ring does not rotate, and it is parfocal (which is why I bought it). The only downside that I can see is that it extends when focusing OR zooming, so it's best used with 8mm or small 16mm anamorphics only.

Well, I do with stills but just for personal use, and I develop my own E-6 and scan it, it's just a hobby. Cibachrome is dead now, the chemicals are too old, even if you can find them, so that's another issue with the end chemical printing format dying. Deluxe closed it's Hollywood lab in March of this year, and although people can still make prints, that's a clear sign of things to come. Avatar effectively killed film projection when all the theaters had to upgrade to digital to show 3D (Even the historic local theaters like the "Bruin" in Westwood are proudly digital now). But TV shows like American Horror Story are still shot on film - mastered to 2k and you can still benefit from the look of film, even seeing it through a digital medium, that doesn't exactly convert it to be the same as digital native. There is a tribe of younger cult-movie vegans in Los Angeles that are desperately trying to find

The FE 2.8/35 is an excellent lens, no surprises, it just performs superbly. Take a look at the FE 4/24-70 if you're using the A7S for video & stills, it really is very good on that body, the OSS is superb for video and it's small and compact. The zoom is as good at f/8 as the prime on the A7S if sharpness is part of your criteria. On the A7S the FE 4/24-70 really is worth a look at, it performs better on that sensor. Both the FE 2.8/35 & FE 1.8/55 are top flight optics for stills on the A7S & A7R. I shoot a great deal on the A7R and use both primes exclusively but on the A7S I'll reach for the FE 4/24-70 for the OSS. Chris

The raw looking camera moves actually didn't bother me as much as the pretentious gimmicky concept, or the lack of one. They used all kinds of visual tricks that have been done many times before but with no story line or main concept to guide them, it's all kind of random, trying to be Michel Gondry but lacking his genius, since his visual gimmicks always serve and fit a story or concept. But hey, it's got millions of views, so I guess it did the job!