Need help on new gear advise (A7SII + Lenses) for 4K

[TSV]

Hi

First of all thank you for taking the time to help me here. While I know that there are no real review on the A7SII, I am thinking of moving from Panasonic to this new camera and for the following reasons :

1. the GH4 low light capabilities are not there
2. No IBIS on the GH4 (Even with a Gimbal (Came-TV Single) and IOS shots are not silky smooth)

Now, however I am EXTREMELY pleased with the GH4 in general especially its sharpness in 4K, the battery life of the GH4 is fantastic (only need two batteries for my usage everyday), the GH4 and the 12-35 is affordable and so on.

This said, I am considering moving to Sony. Now the question that I have is : If I move to the A7SII which lenses should I consider? Initially I am willing to get these two lenses in order to replace my Combo 12-35 and 35-100 :

- Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens 
- FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS

Now, I know that there is a 2x crop factor on MFT compared to FF (GH4 vs A7SII), but, correct me if I am wrong, the GH4 crop even further when shooting videos and I was wondering if the 28-135 alone would give me at least what I have with the 12-35mm or not. If it is the case then I would only take the 28-135 for the time being. Can someone confirm this?

Do you have other recommendation in terms of lenses?

Note :

1. I know that I will need at least 3 to 4 batteries on the A7SII to get what I have with the GH4
2. I only shoot in 4K
3. What I do not know yet is if the A7SII is as Sharp as the GH4
4. A cheaper low light alternative to the A7SII in order to extend my GH4 life until a GH5 would be to use a speedbooster and the Sigma Art 18-35mm (I am also considering this cheaper way)
5. Going the Sony way will allow me in the future to get an FS5 alongside the A7SII and keep the same lenses (no need for adapters) 

Thank you.

[manueldomes]

I understand the temptation and was in the same boat. For financial reasons I went down the GH4 route and couldn't be happier. For low light I am using the sigma 30/1.4 with speedbooster xl and honestly can't complain about low light capabilities (and certainly not about DoF). We shot a few scenes pretty much in the dark with minimal artificial light, and to me, they look good. And by now I somewhat prefer the handheld+chest brace look over the stabilized footage from my stolen Olympus OMD EM5, but matter of taste I guess. I'm also using the Pilotfly H1+ and it's smooth enough for me. Can probably look even better if I dig a bit deeper into the settings.

So with all that, I arrived at a setup where I can't use lacking gear as an excuse to not shoot anymore, which is all I needed  

I am definitely going to stick with the system and am pretty sure that the GH5 will have IBIS. Also, it should be easier and cheaper to innovate technologically on smaller sensor sizes, so let's see what Panasonic has in store for us.

[lafilm]

Hi

First of all thank you for taking the time to help me here. While I know that there are no real review on the A7SII, I am thinking of moving from Panasonic to this new camera and for the following reasons :

1. the GH4 low light capabilities are not there
2. No IBIS on the GH4 (Even with a Gimbal (Came-TV Single) and IOS shots are not silky smooth)

Now, however I am EXTREMELY pleased with the GH4 in general especially its sharpness in 4K, the battery life of the GH4 is fantastic (only need two batteries for my usage everyday), the GH4 and the 12-35 is affordable and so on.

This said, I am considering moving to Sony. Now the question that I have is : If I move to the A7SII which lenses should I consider? Initially I am willing to get these two lenses in order to replace my Combo 12-35 and 35-100 :

- Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens 
- FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS

Now, I know that there is a 2x crop factor on MFT compared to FF (GH4 vs A7SII), but, correct me if I am wrong, the GH4 crop even further when shooting videos and I was wondering if the 28-135 alone would give me at least what I have with the 12-35mm or not. If it is the case then I would only take the 28-135 for the time being. Can someone confirm this?

Do you have other recommendation in terms of lenses?

Note :

1. I know that I will need at least 3 to 4 batteries on the A7SII to get what I have with the GH4
2. I only shoot in 4K
3. What I do not know yet is if the A7SII is as Sharp as the GH4
4. A cheaper low light alternative to the A7SII in order to extend my GH4 life until a GH5 would be to use a speedbooster and the Sigma Art 18-35mm (I am also considering this cheaper way)
5. Going the Sony way will allow me in the future to get an FS5 alongside the A7SII and keep the same lenses (no need for adapters) 

Thank you.

TSV, the Sony is sharp..but GH4 is sharper than the Sony A7s ii.

However, it's not as filmic. Better for the Nat Geo channel, surely..but the Sony has a more organic feel. I believe that when you compare S Log 3 to Panasonic V.

I was at a filmmaker meeting in LA with over 30 filmmakers. The talk was about the new cams. Every one of them (for low budget) picked the Sonys over the Panny..and yes, over Black Magic as well. (Those are fightin words around these parts Lol).

If you really want sharp images out of the A7 series, I would suggest you forget about zoom lenses.

Pick up 3 primes. They don't have to be Sony lenses.

One of the best features of the Sony cameras is the mount. You can literally get an adapter to put almost ANY lens on the A7. That includes PL lenses, Canon, Zeiss, Nikon..whatever. 

If you want fast primes you're good to go as well.

Some of the sharpest lenses are the Sigma Art series, the new Canon L 35, and the higher end Nikon primes. 

If you have the money, Zeiss Otus and Milvus are blindingly sharp at 1.4.

Good luck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TSV]

I understand the temptation and was in the same boat. For financial reasons I went down the GH4 route and couldn't be happier. For low light I am using the sigma 30/1.4 with speedbooster xl and honestly can't complain about low light capabilities (and certainly not about DoF). We shot a few scenes pretty much in the dark with minimal artificial light, and to me, they look good. And by now I somewhat prefer the handheld+chest brace look over the stabilized footage from my stolen Olympus OMD EM5, but matter of taste I guess. I'm also using the Pilotfly H1+ and it's smooth enough for me. Can probably look even better if I dig a bit deeper into the settings.

So with all that, I arrived at a setup where I can't use lacking gear as an excuse to not shoot anymore, which is all I needed  

I am definitely going to stick with the system and am pretty sure that the GH5 will have IBIS. Also, it should be easier and cheaper to innovate technologically on smaller sensor sizes, so let's see what Panasonic has in store for us.

It is true that the for the price the GH4 is a killer... I can only dream of a GH5 with IBIS (surely) and Descent ISO1600 (or at least as good as the GH4 at ISO800)

TSV, the Sony is sharp..but GH4 is sharper than the Sony A7s ii.

However, it's not as filmic. Better for the Nat Geo channel, surely..but the Sony has a more organic feel. I believe that when you compare S Log 3 to Panasonic V.

I was at a filmmaker meeting in LA with over 30 filmmakers. The talk was about the new cams. Every one of them (for low budget) picked the Sonys over the Panny..and yes, over Black Magic as well. (Those are fighting words around these parts Lol).

If you really want sharp images out of the A7 series, I would suggest you forget about zoom lenses.

Pick up 3 primes. They don't have to be Sony lenses.

One of the best features of the Sony cameras is the mount. You can literally get an adapter to put almost ANY lens on the A7. That includes PL lenses, Canon, Zeiss, Nikon..whatever. 

If you want fast primes you're good to go as well.

Some of the sharpest lenses are the Sigma Art series, the new Canon L 35, and the higher end Nikon primes. 

If you have the money, Zeiss Otus and Milvus are blindingly sharp at 1.4.

Good luck.

 Unlike most of you I am not a professional (even if I earn money from what I am doing), and I am not confident enough to use a lens fully manual so I like having AF even if it is slow, enhance greatly reducing my choice in lenses. Now, what I am doing is more related to "Nat Geo" (Well without the skill for sure) than creating a film, explaining why sharpness is what matter for me. I want the sharpest image when I shoot a temple or a flower for example, I am not building a story on my videos, I am just merely show to others the natural beauty of Japan with, hopefully, beautiful images. This is why I always stay at F4.5 on my 12-35 since I know this is the sharpest aperture that my lens can handle. 

[Liam]

around 9:50, Faymusmedia compares detail of the a7s to a 4k recorder and the gh4 in 4k (also to an external recorder). seems there really is more detail in the sony - but not 100% sure the a7sii is quite as sharp recording internally. the video in general might be a little biased though..

You don't do much post production, right? I feel like if you set the image how you want it in-camera, the gh4 might be a better tool for that, without really lacking in sharpness. and yeah, a gh5 with a stop better low light and IBIS for a lower price than the a7sii could be on the way.. eventually. A speedbooster could definitely be helpful and satisfy you for a while longer. nx1 isn't the best in low light, but could tick a lot of boxes for you. very clean up to 800iso, and a very sharp image, good colors and look straight of of the camera. the lens stabilization isn't great (and they're pricey lenses), but the DIS looks like it could be helpful sometimes. decent autofocus as well (but again, native glass).

[TSV]

around 9:50, Faymusmedia compares detail of the a7s to a 4k recorder and the gh4 in 4k (also to an external recorder). seems there really is more detail in the sony - but not 100% sure the a7sii is quite as sharp recording internally. the video in general might be a little biased though..

You don't do much post production, right? I feel like if you set the image how you want it in-camera, the gh4 might be a better tool for that, without really lacking in sharpness. and yeah, a gh5 with a stop better low light and IBIS for a lower price than the a7sii could be on the way.. eventually. A speedbooster could definitely be helpful and satisfy you for a while longer. nx1 isn't the best in low light, but could tick a lot of boxes for you. very clean up to 800iso, and a very sharp image, good colors and look straight of of the camera. the lens stabilization isn't great (and they're pricey lenses), but the DIS looks like it could be helpful sometimes. decent autofocus as well (but again, native glass).

Thanks Liam... I will make sure to watch this video. And you are spot on, I am not doing a lot of post production, just slightly correct or boost colors if needed. I though of having an external recorder and after toying with an external monitor (that I no longer use) It is actually utterly unpractical in my case. The added weight of the monitor increase risk of shaky videos when shooting outdoor, on a single spot I can move my camera as much as 30 to 50 times in a single hour, ppl will immediately spot you with a recorder... Now, a Recorder without a screen that unload files on an external SSD and that rely on the basic info of the Camera while keeping 10bit output I would really consider it, but as they are and being alone with my backpack surrounded by tourists or in the middle of nowhere alone is a bit tough. 

Well so far all points to keeping my GH4, get a speedbooster and wait for the GH5... I will try to rent a A7SII and play with it for a day or two to see, but it does not seems that this kind of camera is made for me...