yiomo

I am sorry to say that it seems to me that this review is somehow biased. Subjective qualities shouldn't be confused with objective ones. There is a strong emphasis on the pros, which are undoubtably many and a trivialisation of the cons. Mainly noise and DR. From the various videos posted, it is objectively evident that the GH4 performs very bad above ISO 1600. Many users say the wouldn't use it above 800. Also since most shoot 4k fot a better HD, i am focusing on HD. As another poster noted, and this is also not subjective, there is a huge DR difference between BMPCC (and obviously the A7s) and the GH4. Personally i'd go further an add that the image from the BMPCC is miles better and it costs 4x -that is four times! less. Is it as crisp - no, is it 4K - no, but the quality is not just crispness as many have noted and to which I totally agree. And also I don't understand why compression and small size is a good thing when comparing the GH4 to higher end cameras with higher bit rates and it is a bad thing when the A7s does it, compared to the 200mbps HD of the GH4.(which almost no one uses anyway as they shoot 4k which is HALF the data rate of the A7s. A 50mbps rate which is constantly under attack). Again, I believe that the GH4 is a great overall camera from the many different reviews I have read/watched but a rounded review, if it wants to be unbiased, should point out- not hide, the cons. And to my opinion, and I believe to many others, these two points Dynamic Range and Noise are quite vital. I might have misread the review, bu this is how it comes out to me.

Argh. Just saw a fantastic aquarium clip from the gh4. Wow! What clarity. But regarding the compression, isn't it true that the A7s sends more data? Not many people talk about that. Since 4k is presumably the main use of the gh4 and this is done in 100mbps- that is 24mbps equivalent to HD, whereas as we know the A7s HD is 50mbps. No?

Sunyata, from your test it seems to me that indeed the biggest difference comes not from 420 to 422 but from 8bit to 10bit. Araucaria, it seems you are claiming that slog2, which is a flat profile, is only marketing and has no value at all, since it will produce banding when grading. But the again how many of these A7s would Sony sell, if one of their biggest marketing "weapons" - slog2, proves "worthless" in post? On the other hand there are so many GH4 videos out there, most of them shot in camera 4k, so 8bit, which seem to grade fine. And almost all of them shoot flat (cinelike D) and grade heavily (luts +filmconvert +curves +additional tweaking). Why isn't this footage worthless? Another thought, Isn't there any chance that the xavc-s compression is more flexible to work with, despite it being 8bit?

I find it so confusing that there are people who say that 8bit vs 10bit is not a really noticeably big difference vs the others who claim the opposite. And now I read that 4:2:2 is not really different than 4:2:0. But then you have other professionals who claim the opposite. Who to believe ! I trust my eyes for now. In any case both the in camera GH4 and A7S footage looks very usable to me. I am not a broadcasting technician, but then again my doc that went to festivals and found distribution to be broadcasted on TV was shot on a 5d with a horrible DR and h.264 codec. Now we are laughing at it, but 4-5 years ago it was king and very well usable and very much used. Perhaps some have reasons to pixel peep so much. Personally, I just can't bother anymore. Both cameras at 8 /420 seem to provide great results. I just prefer the sony image. Den praises the slog2. So who knows. Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is just the salary talking. If this excuse of a marketing department they have in Sony would give the camera to more people to play with, we'd have a better idea. Now, if a bunch of people come in the open and start claiming that the A7s produces an unusable image, in any terms, I will probably pass. We know it's not the case with the GH4, I doubt it will be with A7s. I guess we'll have to wait a couple more months and see. Hell, the can't even post a price for us Europeans. How incompetent are they?? I've never had any Sony stuff and I guess if I get this camera, I will join the herds of people who hate that company but love its products.

There are two things that the Sony sensor does better for me. First it gives me a couple more usable iso stops and second the DR seems superb. Regarding the 10 422 from the GH4, I saw a short film made using yagh and even though on specs it looks better, it still cannot match the FullHd 8bit or 4k 8bit from Sony's clips. I am very tempted with the GH4 because it looks like a better conceived & made camera overall, but strictly on image quality I think that even with a limited 8bit Sony wins. At least for now. I check everyday for new footage from GH4 but nothing comes close. It is only people who experiment with grading a lot who give decent results that try to mimick (using software) what Sony does better using a better sensor. In my humble opinion of course.

Thanks jcs, i got confused with all this numbers. I guess there goes that advantage. But there are still a few things more.. First time in my life I am so eager about a product and Sony won't give this camera to few people to show us some footage. No wonder why so many people hate Sony. It seems it doesn't care so much about being customer friendly. Besides 2 clips, everything is still on paper.

Unless I missed something on the various posts that compare the two (including this one), no one seems to mention that IN camera the A7s does 4:2:2 , whereas the GH4 does 4:2:0. Isn't that enough to expect a much better colour rendition?

This of course implies that the Xavc-s codec brings no improvements, while many people claim that the quality is as much about the data as it is about the processing method. And this is supposedly a better processing / compression algorithm. Without getting too technical though, to my eyes the 1080p footage from the a7s is much better than gh4's 1080p. This is something noted from gh4 users as well. So even in practice, the "just" 60Mbit codec performs better than gh4's 200Mbit codec.

I am not sure about the quality of that lens. Reviews say that the 24-70 is better but still has quirks with its overall construction and focusing issues. There is no Sony full frame e mount lens that is rated highly, besides the two primes, 35 and 55. I will be using the camera for documentary work too, so a good zoom is a must. Unfortunately everyone who goes the a7s road willl have to pay extra 400 for an adapter .

Indeed, that could be an option. But the whole point is that the polemics against the A7s is that it doesn't shoot 4k internally. I don't care. I want a great 1080p image quality with a great dynamic range. Although the bmpcc would sound like the perfect candidate, it is not without it's limitations... Gh4 looks like a fantastic all around camera, with great ergonomics. But the IQ I have seen so far is far from what I like - even in 4k. The a7s on the other hand, in 1080p, which is what interests me, has shown some great footage . The smoking fish video. Obviously I cannot absolutely trust a commercial video but image quality wise it is much better -for my taste- to what the Panasonic commercials where and to all the cats and dogs and bridges video I have seen out there.

I shouldn't be hijacking my own thread, but do you believe that the DR of the c100 comes close to the one (presumably) by the a7s? I am putting down the logistics for a new project in b&w and I do need the highest dynamic range possible. I definitely appreciate the onboard audio, xlrs and overall convenience of the c100 but isn't more focused on events and company videos rather than filmmaking? Everyone seems to be interested in 4k now and it is quite hard to find reviews about a fantastic 1080p camera for filmmaking. I was initially considering a bmpcc before I started a doc I am filming now but when it is over, I hope my new camera will have a DR equal to the bmpcc.

Well, one of the reasons I asked about the 1080p is that, based on the reviews, the Gh4 has put emphasis on the 4k side and not too much on the 1080p. As I am not interested in 4k, for me the comparison is between 1080p modes.

It seems you are only considering the photography side. I haven't read any rave reviews about a7r's video side.

Thanks xenogears, I am only intersted in a functional stabilisation and best image quality. Since you already own an A7s, can you recommend any other lens in the 24-105 price that could perhaps perform better and also have IS? Also, in order to stay with the canon lens , are the extra $400 needed for the metabones adapter justified ? Considering I can sell it without losing any money.

I am reading mixed reviews about the sony lens.Although DxoMark has rated it quite high. In case I get the A7s I am wondering if I should keep my 24-105 or go sony all the way. From what I've read metabones have created a mark 3 adapter that supports the IS of the canon lens. So what do you think quality wise between the too?

Coming bak to the "on paper battle" though, I've been reading that the 4k on GH4 is 100Mbps (Long Gop) while the 4k quality on the A7s XAVC-S according to sony: "decoding performance is quite equivalent between Long GOP 50Mbps and Intra 100Mbps". In few words GH4 sends HALF the data out 50Mbps vs 100Mbps of the A7s.

Just curious how many people are waiting for real reviews or for the release date of A7s in order to get it instead of the GH4. Would also love to hear your view on whether a very good 1080p is good enough for you.

As I mentioned, I am interested in learning more about the IQ difference. I too get many times into the consumeristic syndrome and want everything now, but I can do my work as I did earlier, with the equipment I have been using so long. Two months is not the end of the world. It could be really bad though, to get now the GH4 and in May /June see reviews raving about the IQ difference of A7s. Saying that I do believe everyone on the marketing division of Sony A7s should be fired. They could at least post more videos and try to convince the consumers that this horrible rolling shutter is a firmware problem that will be eliminated.

From the few sony videos I've seen, I am under the impression that the A7s IQ is better than GH4. Not to speak of the DR. If one cares about 4k, it seems obvious to go with the pana. But for someone like me who simply wants a great full HD 1080p quality, the dilemma is not so easy to overcome. I am hoping that we'll see some decent and unbiased reviews / comparisons regarding the IQ of both cameras NOT ONLY at 4k, which has suddenly become the holy grail for everyone, but also at 1080p. It is evident that gh4 has more features but what i'd like to see is a comparison focused strictly on the image quality at 1080p. Hopefully around mid May someone will be kind enough to make one. :)

+ 1 I am wondering the same thing...

I don't care about the 4k hype at all for many many many reasons. But 10bit 422 at 1080 should be there. In any case on the above clip at 2.24 with a 5.6 aperture and 120 12800 does it for me ! I want one. Glad i didn't preorder the other beast yet. Hope to see some good reviews soon.

What about this? Is that defamation campaign or a sad reality ? personal-view.com/talks/discussion/10010/panasonic-abandons-m43-stops-cameras-production-except-gh4

Thanks for the different perspectives. It is a good idea not to hurry before NAB, but then again there will always be a next exhibition show and if a manufacturer has something so good why not to market it a bit earlier? (well ok, that's for another discussion). Need and want are two very difficult beasts I know, but if we start getting too philosophical about it, which is no a bad thing per se, we'd perhaps arrive to the conclusion that we don't really need anything more than a mini dv camcorder.. ( I am speaking about independent production). To shed some light, I'd like to add that I am working on a new documentary project and while I have finished development and some preproduction, I don't have someone over me to press me to start. I could start shooting in a week or in 5 weeks. Of course, the sooner, the better. This whole "which system to jump into" discussion is only feeding my procrastination demons. The ML raw thing, would be probably be a nice thing to play with on my free time (which I now mostly use in order to decide about my new system), but it looks to troublesome for a new production, in terms of logistics, workflow, possible bugs, etc. The truth is, that other than a good field monitor I don't really need something additional to begin this production. Perhaps I am being to consumeristic, drawn into the flow of technology. But, I am trying to be a realist besides being an idealist. The fact is, and I believe most of you agree on that, that a 5d mkii, as great as it might be for stills, it is a dying dinosaur. The whole debate started in my mind as to not loose the resale dynamic that it now has. I have a dvx100a which I did not sell when it was the proper time and now no one would buy it. I don't want this to happen with my last investment. Perhaps for some of you this is a trivial thing but for me spending 3-4 thousand for a new system is something worth considering very seriously. So besides the ML thing, which otherwise looks great, and staying with my current camera, the question is where to in terms of video. I must admit that I did bite into the "travel light" bullet but it might have been a wrong thing to do and is something I am reconsidering. However many of you have said that the best way is to go double system. And this is what I am considering now. I might just begin this doc with my 5d, which I can keep just for stills until it dies. (i don't need or want more photographic power) and then look into the best image quality- as I understand it- that I can get from a video only or hybrid camera. Thanks again for your input and time.

Wow. This is the second time in this thread someone talks about "content". Thank you very much. I am well aware of this. :) Do you really find it that unusual that someone wants to analyse all the options before he invests his money into a new camera? Or you just want to write something just for the sake of writing something? As I, myself said, yes, content is king, but if we were only interested in content and not in technology, we would be still shooting with the DVX100 or perhaps even film. Not a bad thing per se, just saying. I don't understand what makes you think that making a comparison between 2 competing products is only for people who don't worry about the.."so much more important things.." I happen to have a feature documentary at various festivals and although I shot it with a 5d, with the lowest budget possible, I wish the camera could give me a couple more stops DR to play with. Thank you for your comment but please try to understand what my already expressed concern is.

i thought you were shooting m43 ? My point is illustrated in this old video although gh3 is definitely more sharp, I find the bmpcc has more character. Now, perhaps it is my ignorance speaking and perhaps this (the over- sharpness) is something that can be "fixed" with different lenses. It is just that the majority of the videos online coming from lumix have this sharpness, while the majority of the bmpcc footage has a more gradient, more organic film-like look. I am not denying that content is king. It is true. However when panasonic did the revolution with the dvx100 24p we thought we had it all.. Its the same thing now.. Personally, I have said it earlier, I couldn't care less about 4k, but this organic look is nice to have.