leo

Andrew, not to the extent found on speedbooster. And the question now is how much you need to stop down to get rid off purple fringing, corner softness and vignette ? if you end up at 1.8 then what's the point ? no full frame look on 2x crop sensor at 1.8, or at least not so much SDOF you would get on FX. There is no cheating with speedboster, you eighter get the best lenses or a full frame sensor that shoots 4k. I have seen speedbosters on gh3 and the purple fringing is wayyyy worse than a dedicated lens from Panasonic, the purple fringing is much thicker on speedboster and quite visible.

Did anyone checked how heavy the chromatic aberrations are with a speedboster ? it's bad, purple fringing never leaves the image and you can't correct it in lightroom :). Why bother, get a 1.2 lens or a nokton and lose the canon lens.

While I like the advantages of speedboster I hate that I lose touch focus.

Who cares anymore if d800 or 5dmark III is better ? both of them are dead, the moment gh4 starts shipping, DSLR's are history for video productions. And if GH4 sensor is a problem, A7S with that huge DR and low light monster performance will surely kill any possible thought of ever buying a DSLR for video. Face it people, we need to sell all the crappy DSLR body's and embrace the future which is mirrorless.

Again, this is absurd araucaria, Nikon d800 giving bad colors ? the hell are you talking about ? cameras these days give colors as much as possible closer to what you are seeing, WITH YOUR EYES to be more exact, you can go further doing a custom white balance and there is not much more to do, what colors do you want ? what are you a newbie wanting color effects in-camera ? Appleidiot, I can't deny FX has a good look, better than a crop sensor, but if you try harder when you compose and get some fast lenses, you might pull it off at 4k, luckily for Panasonic they will survive even if you don't buy a gh4, while you are gonna shoot on a dated soft FX DSLR, the rest of the world will shoot 4k on gh4's and other gadgets capable of 4k, you will be forced to switch if you are running a video production business.

Come on man, this is absurd, i know this is not the place to say content trumps image quality but when you drop something like this, that line works. A good composition sometimes doesn't need any grading, it's just good straight from the camera. The exageration of everything we do in photography is almost at the amateur level, exaggerating clouds, changing colors to the point of not being from planet earth, everything is over the top. I'm managing just fine right now with H264 1080P, sure i will move to 4k but just to stay in business.

Damn it, now I can't make up my mind :). Even rich people check the credit card balance when they hear Leica, I expect this to cost a small house.

Simon has a very good point, full frame is harder to focus and bluring everything isn't professional. When is it hard to focus ? well, let's take a wedding for example :), you have the first dance and the bride and groom have an energetic dance, believe me, no one in the industry managed to keep this kind of dances in focus on a FF. Conditions are bad for first dance, very low light, you need to be wide open, you have to estimate where they are going in order to keep them in focus, it's impossible not to miss them a few times. People exclusive to FF do these with multiple cameras, 2 is not enough, sometimes the static FF shooter who misses most of the dance can't give much footage, most footage come from glidecam which has an absurd 14mm set to infinity, no bokeh there. So yeah, gh4 sensor is the workhorse for everything, but if you have the money, a7s is not a bad choice for a second camera and it is a must if you do high end weddings.

Nice presentation from Sony but damn those shots are static, not a pan, nothing. Basically this is a presentation of how 4k should look, not conclusive how a7S does in 4k, sure it's super sharp and detailed but that is 4k. I don't know, these constant upgrades never end, say we all go and buy a7s with an external recorder for 4k, one year later comes a new version of a7s with 4k internal and 10 bit output. Marvelous little thing but in the end the fact it doesn't do 4k internally is a deal breaker, even with a perfect Full HD is still just for a moment, in 6 months or 1 year is gonna be, recorder or the a new version of a7s with internal 4k, more money and more money, never ends. Wonder if we are ever gonna get another 5d mark 2, that thing was good for quite a few years, even now is heavily used for whoever doesn't have money for c100-c300.

OMG, this should be the best low light camera for video ever made, let down for not having 4k internal but that huge ISO and full sensor readout should end DSLR's era in videography forever, even professional cameras are threatened by this little thing in low light, and the DR, man o man.

I guess the expectations for ones money is different from person to person, some people expect to be given the moon in the sky and some almost nothing for a great deal of money or a bit more for even more money. The shocking thing in all of this is when someone drops a bomb like magic lantern on you and you understand that raw recording coudl've been possible years ago, then you understand how ripped off you got for so many years, litle improvements like, hey, you now have stereo or a mic jack on you shitty DSLR, wow, and you have a crappy full HD now but at 24 fps, maybe if you pay triple you get 60 fps. When you get used to accept little improvements and constant upgrades you might think sony is working day and night to bring you the mother of all cameras, but, in reality, they give scraps. That's why i keep 1 FX and the workhorse m43's.

Do you know how much a FS700 costs ? do you know how much it costs with a cheap 4k recorder ? Let me help you http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/963240-REG/convergent_design_odyssey7q_odyssey_7_q_monitor_recorder.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010153-REG/sony_nex_fs700r_4k_nxcam_super_35mm.html So, 10.000 $ for body and 4k external recorder that captures at 8 bit raw, not 10 bit like a cheap gh4 - 1700 $ http://philipbloom.net/2014/04/04/7q/ What can i say, Canon doesn't hold out eighter if you drop 10k or more, but at 2-3k you won't see any miracles. I am excited about this FX 4k camera but as always sony can ruin it, 4k at 60mb/s, i don't know, in full HD would mean 15 mb/s, seems quite low for grading.

My experience with sony products has been of getting ripped off, almost always I had a better choice from Canon, Nikon or Panasonic, even a blank DVD costs more if it has a sony badge. The thought of having 4k on a full frame sensor is amazing, even with a 1.3 crop, I woud drop every gear I have in an instant for an FX 4k. I doubt this will happen, there must be a catch if they give 4k right now, it will eighter be very very expensive or have some basic features cut off, maybe some bad codec that breaks up, who knows. At least I know I won't be buying anything from sony until I see 10 reviews discussing every litte thing and maybe waiting even half a year to see user impressions :), that's how bad I see sony products.

Important question for Andrew, how is the touch focus ? is it still brutal ? can you do moderate pull focus ?

Gh4 has proper exposure too, histogram, peaking, and even if it didn't had that, a 400$ smallHD would do all of those and on a much better screen quality. Sound might be the problem with a gh4 but who shoots serious stuff with the onboard sound, surelly you use external recorders for better sound and sync it. Then there is the DR, c300 has amazing DR but we don't know what gh4 has, a resize from 4k to full hd might give some good DR. The definite nail in the cofin is the output of gh4, this can't be denied in any way, 4k 10 bit 422, how can c300 beat this ? it's four times the resolution, and raw, in a professional enviroment you already use super expensive sound recorders and external monitors, any advantage c300 might have for what it has on the body is out the window. Now, if the 4k raw output isn't enough to make c300 obsolete you are left with this, c300 14000$ vs gh4 1700$, with 14000$ you get one gh4, a few prime lenses and maybe a cheap 4k external recorder for raw from atomos when it comes. See, it's not that i hate Canon, it's more that i love Panasonic for not holding back, i get that Canon can launch a gh4 killer anytime, but they are holding back to make more money, what would be the point of giving consumers everything at once, this is no way to make more money.

Some people don't feel professional or serious if they don't drop a few thousand dollars to canon for a little bump in image quality. Well, no matter how much they bitch about, a puny gh4 will murder a c300 that costs 14k $, we should understand the grief they are going trough. And we can have cinematic sdof with voigtlanders and even a 1.4 fstop rokinons or superb 1.2 Panasonic. Wonder at how much c300 will go on ebay after pana has gh4's in stores, man o man the canon guys will suffer.

Sony makes too much money to sell good cameras at affordable prices, this 4k handycam needs to be handicapped and cheap to build, Panasonic gh4 doesn't exist in charts of market share, maybe a 0.0001% or something.

etidona, I remember some people who said, film is film, digital can't replace film, well, they were right :D.

Ebrahim, videographers need to kill photograhers because they have it so easy :), they been having it so easy for years with big sensors and raw files, tweaking maybe 1000 stills and wowing people and saying it's art or some bullshit to get more money, ohh, and the usual, its not about the perfect picture, its about the perfect moment, well guys, 4k at 25 frames/s must get some awesome perfect moments, what about now, how can you explain charging 10-20k $ for the perfect moments captured in stills. Can you imagine wedding photojournalists now ? how are they gonna pitch the perfect moment when the videographer can machinegun every moment. But yeah, its silly to fight like these, these are just tools and it's all about the man behind the buton ( video has 25 frames/s :) ) ,seeing the light, understanding light.... bla bla bla.

While some of you complain about c100 and c300 being to expensive, it's not a problem for canon, they don't even want hobbyist to have these cameras. Those 10k cameras are for professional's that shoot low budget commercials to weddings and music videos, there is plenty of money in that segment for gadgets like these. Imagine the profit they get from a puny c300, that thing has an asp-c crop sensor, they say "canon digic III" processor and unrestricted codecs, nothing exotic like full hd at 200 fps, cpu on that thing is slow, all of that for 14000 $ :lol:, t2i sensor with proper processing and video camera features at 14000$, funny shit.

Canon is not stupid to give 4k so easy, or cheap, Panasonic proved there is no technological barrier to overcome, it's all about squeezing every possible drop of money from consumers, the longest possible time, until they really need to invent new stuff. They already have good products that offer 1080p and 4k at professional level, c100 and c300, only excuse for not putting 4k in a 5d mark 3 or future t4i, or whatever naming scheme they have is, money. If they see a big money opportunity in selling cheap 4k DSLR's right now, they will do it, if not, they will wait for the market to drop to the point they really need 4k to get sales back.

While I would like to see photographers doing something more than taking pictures for a shitload of money ( high end weddings ), and acting like they do art ( lightroom/raw/ huge DR in current dslr's, easy money ) they won't die, they have those little thingies called speedlites, that makes them impossible to kill, as a videographer you can achieve the same thing a photographer can but with a huge and expensive crew and with quality thousand W lights. So no, 4k won't kill the wedding photographer, his importance will be diminished but not to the point of obsolete. And to actual topic, sony wants a lot of money if they make something good, if this thing gives quality 4k and maybe even raw for external, 10000$ price, just like canon 1DC. I don't know of anything sony makes that is price competitive with Panasonic or Canon, everything is overpriced and usually bad ( sony nex-vg series).

I might not buy it immediately but man that gh 4k will be in my hands eventually, and in good numbers, and with some good lenses( pana 42.5 1.2 stabilized, oh yeah). I hope they read this ( Panasonic), a shit load of people around the world still shoot events and low budget commercials, music videos etc. with canon 5d, mark 2, mark 3. Very few upgraded to C100 and very very few to c300, now, if Panasonic drops a 4k camera with peaking and maybe some raw features for full HD, man there will be mass switching to m43. How can a 5d compete with a clean and sharp 4k image. And to be on topic, I have nothing more to add :)

If reception is shoot at candle light and i need neat video, i calibrate only for reception and put it on a separate video track, i set the plugin to the video track and not to the individual clips. While i do that clubration i feel it's for nothing, the chrominace and luminance is always the same, 100 and 60. When i apply neat video to scenes where i get noise in shadows but have good portions of image where the light is good, i can crank up the sharpness all the way to 250% with no white halo problems around the edges, neat video has a very good sharpening algorithm, usually you get white halo if too much is used, unsharp mask is worse.

Get a i7 3770k or 4770k with a GTX 560 or better and you will get much better perf. with neatvideo, I know how painfull it is, from 20 hours render on a wedding from a q6600 I went to 8-9 hours now, doing it overnight. Now with DSLR/m43 I rarely use neat video, with gh3 I can go up to iso 3200 with no major noise iso, I found that using mp4 28mb/s gives better results noise wise, if I shoot mov 50mb/s there is more detail but I get more noise and 72mb/s 25p has the most detail and most noise, so 50p 28mb/s mp4 is the workhorse for weddings. On the Nikon I have primes and I hardly need iso over 2000, at iso 6400 neat video comes into play. With gh3 above ISO 3200 you lose color, even with neatvideo the image is destroyed, colors are muddy, with Nikon you have good colors even at 12800 and can be cleaned nicely with neat video, but it is FX so...