Jacek

And just look at lenses: - FF 50mm/1.8 is 10x cheaper than Voigtlander 25mm/0.95.. - FF different primes from 20/1.8 to 100/1.8 are sooo cheap (m43 equiv. 10/1 to 50/1) compared to many even weaker m43 lenses.

And I do see some FF advantages: wider dynamic range (and color depth?): GH4 has new, very good sensor (released in 2014) so it looks nice, but only compared to old FF sensors (5D3 is 2 years old now). FF A7s (and more today's / upcoming FF sensors) will be probably noticeable better. f/2 lenses renders image much better than f/1 lenses (resolution, coma, abberations...): m43 25mm/0.95 @0.95 will look much worse than FF 50mm @ 1.8. In theory SpeedBooster would help, but there is no SB currently changing GH4 2.2x crop to 1.0x. SB is not a perfect solution: additional cost, not native lenses = no AF (so much less usable for stills), sometimes bigger lens than necessary, some small technical problems (focus to infinity, weak aperture ring on adapter, soft edges..), one SB cost per lens mount (with A7s you can use many lens mounts with cheap simple adapters).

Video guy presentation is clearly inspired by SpeedBooster capabilities. He realized, that it is wrong that price of FF 24-70/2.8 is similar to m43 12-35/2.8 price. Why is it wrong? Because simple SB for m43 will make FF 24-70/2.8 much better lens than m43 12-35/2.8 lens - for the same price (except one [still overpriced] SB for all your lenses).

Relax people! Stop throwing arguments and try to understand each other. In general you are both right, so all your new arguments and examples from both sides will be correct. You are just looking at the same thing from 2 different perspectives: EOSHD side is looking at parameters (ISO, light, f-stop) by DENSITY perspective (which is real definition of these well-known parameters) Video guy side is looking at all parameters by TOTAL perspective (which is not real definition of these parameters - it is just a new perspective which he tries to present) Video guy said it clear (was very clear in ISO section, but maybe not so clear in F-stop section), that his 'total' perspective is not the established definition of parameters, but the perspective, which he thinks is more appropriate for different sensor sizes comparison. Which perspective is better to compare sensor sizes is up to you, but the calculations from both sides are in general correct (except for nuances like pixel-level sensor production or same lens construction in different scale possibilities). Now I'm ready for rocks from both sides :), but I'll just pass them to the other side.. :lol:

You are talking about "density of light"/"density of photons" (number of photons per unit of surface). He is talking about total light gathered by the lens (all photons, no mater where you send them - on 1,2 or 3 inch square surface): his "lose light" means "lose photons", and these lost photons belong to the lost part of the image. The same he said on the beginning in ISO section. He said, that ISO definition as "density of light" is misleading, and he is talking later always about "total light gathered by the lens" as more appropriate in his opinion.

That would help a lot (to explain/understand).

I think you are wrong. SB is nothing special, just few more glasses for optical system (called "lens"). Compressing larger image circle is what every lens is doing in their own way (except "pinhole lenses"?) and that's one of the reasons why you have lenses with different fov and especially different max f-stop and different target sensor size (final produced image size). Using a larger sensor makes a lot of sense, not sure if everything is correct, but: - it's easier to design it for lower noise, better DR or higher resolution... - maybe it's easier to design lenses producing shallower dof (because of bigger final image)? - maybe it's easier to avoid some of the optical problems like diffraction limit?.. That's why I'm interested in this topic, because not sure about optical (or other) problems with smaller sensors. If there is something like SB, everybody can produce a lens with "build-in SB" for smaller sensors (and probably some of the existing lenses are doing something similar internally), but also SB has it's limits, so maybe one of other differences between sensor sizes is for example shallowest dof available (is it possible to build for example f/0.9 FF (like latest Mitakon FF) equivalent m43 lens)?

No. Sensor is not getting bigger with SB. SB is just a part of optics to gather bigger part of available image from particular lens. That's why it is a good example to show a difference between two sensor sizes, because they use 'almost' the same lens and the same part of the lens. I was afraid that somebody will say exactly what you did, that this asp-c is no more asp-c... I don't agree. Lens construction is unrestricted and If for example hypothetical Nokton f/0.90 lens were using internally partially similar construction to SB, you will say that now you have bigger sensor inside your camera? And comparing m43 camera with this Nokton to aps-c camera with equivalent lens is not fair? I didn't want to talk about SB, but to find good example to talk about difference between sensor sizes with comparable optics attached. If you don't like this example, it will be difficult to find another because every lens is different and it will be easy to find some differences and say that it's because of sensor size.

Not looking far away, please explain not the theory, but in practice - the difference (FF advantage) on following examples (from EOSHD): '> '>

And no, It's not normal. For example GH4 is 1500EUR = 2050USD = 20% higher (=VAT).

Maybe for You, but not for me ;) In Europe the price is 45% higher: 850EUR = 1160USD, so definitely not under 1000USD

Latest Sony RX100 looks promising. We will see soon how it performs: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-hot-first-rx100m3-images-leaked/ Built-in ND filter XAVC-S: 60p 50M(1,920×1,080) / 30p 50M(1,920×1,080) / 24p 50M(1,920×1,080) / 120p 50M(1,280×720) equiv. 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 lens pop-up OLED viewfinder

contrast. But real professional doesn't say I raised the contrast. No, never! He says: I applied S-Curve. :lol: BTW, If he is smart, he is actually just moving contrast slider most of the time and not spending hours by these graphs...

Sony.. Sony... You had my curiosity. But now you have my attention!

Some more info: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-rx100m3-specs-records-in-xavc-s-format-just-like-the-a7s/ - the same 20MP sensor - Built in View finder (SVGA OLED Tru-Finder 1440k dots) - 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 lens - XAVC S format (but no 4K :) )

Can anybody confirm that free DaVinci Resolve Lite can't handle full 4K (available in GH4)? It looks like it is limited to UHD :( - http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/no/products/davinciresolve/compare EDIT: Or is it just that It can accept 4K files, but outputs only UHD? So it can downscale 4K to UHD? (however silly it sounds ;) )

Maybe you are right. I'll wait until 1st of May to see if Sony will offer something interesting and if not - I'll have to decide between GH4, bmpcc and GM1 (thanks to You :)).

Great post, very usefull for me. Now I'm considering GM1 too :). BTW, How much for your bmpcc? (and can You ship to Europe?) :)

No, please send it to me..

I am waiting for the release, but don't have much time and probably will choose something else (maybe GH4). Main reason: Perfect stills camera for my wife :) and great video for me. Advantage over GH4: - much better stills camera for our needs. - will not get old as fast as GH4. In 3 years, when I'll buy Blackmagic Pocket raw 4K ;), A7s will serve as pure superb stills camera. GH4 at that time will be just avarage video- and weak stills camera.

Panasonic representative [Panasonic Marketing Europe, Department in Poland] also told me, that GH4 should be available from beginning of May - in Poland. So it looks like GH4 global availability is planned for around beginning of May.

There is preorder in Australia for 3500 AUD = 2350 EUR In the same store they have A7 for the same price as in Europe and A7K 15% cheaper than in Europe. So I guess it will be ~2500 EUR in EU. Little too expensive, but I would consider it instead of GH4 If available in near future. One of the reasons for A7S is its (low-light) stills capabilities.

I wonder the same.. Is GH4 (internal recording) much better for 2k than bmpcc RAW..? Found only one small comparison with bmpcc (ProRes):

There is upcoming Panasonic 15mm/1.7 (it will probably be compatible with GH4 new 'DoD' focusing - nice for stills), but we have to wait for some reviews. Probably comparable to Olympus 17/1.8. GH4 4k has something like 2.2x crop, so 15mm -> 33mm FF. Depending on preferred focal length, there is great: Olympus 12/2.0, 25/1.8, 45/1.8; Panasonic 20/1.7, 25/1.4

Nice comparison. You forgot to mention maximum resolution difference (not sure if it changes much): GH4: 4096 x 2160 A7s: 3840 x 2160