I can't make my mind up, maybe buy both.. GH4 & A7S..

[Hitfabryk]

The NX1, I sent 'home' because of the H265 workflow.

 

The GH4 as a workhorse in my recording studio and the A7S as a creative 'free work' (home, nature, music clip for my band) cam, or as an extra in the studio.

Because of my EM1 I already, have some nice lenses for the Gh4. I have to sell the EM1 and the GM1, because i need that cash for the new ones.

I was thinking buying the canon 24-105 4.0 for the sony, with a metabones adapter, would anyone recommend this or are there some great alternatives.

Thanks for any input.

[Andrew Reid]

The 24-105 has a lot of distortion on full frame. The Sigma 24-105 (new version) is better anyway. Much sharper.

Consider the 24-70mm F2.8 or older 28-70mm F2.8 intsead.

[maxotics]

The 24-105 on the Sony is going to auto focus slower than it would on a native Canon.  You already sold the NX1 for workflow issues, which should tell you something   It looks like you RUN a recording studio, so will you have time to manually set focus, exposure, etc.  I can tell you that using two system, I have Sonys and Panasonics ruins many shots for me because my 53-year-old brain doesn't move between menu systems as well as it used to.  What I've learned in the last couple of weeks is these cameras, as nice as Cine-D and s-log might be, are NOT RAW cameras. You have to have the experience and skill to set exposure EXACTLY RIGHT.  There is little you can do in post.  In short, getting the right exposure on your GM1 or EM1 will do more than having an A7S improperly exposed.   The Sony's have fantastic auto-focus in good light, but I find they struggle indoors.  The Panasonics too.  Again, if you're going to manually do everything IGNORE all this.  But if you have to be realistic, pick one camera platform and get lenses that are made to autofocus with the camera and you have image stabilization.

[Rudolf]

Hello Hitfabryk

maybe you are paying too much attention on the camera? I recently discovered my GH3 can shine when paired with the right lenses. And I never really liked the image of the GH3 so much compared to the GH2. Therefore I will upgrade to GH4 as this can serve as a reliable camera for usual hopefully. I just think that the lense has a significant influence on the image and not only the sensor?! 

 

[jcs]

If only one lens for the A7S, the Sony SEL18200 (18-200mm F3.5-6.3) is excellent. Autofocus, IS, complete zoom range for just about every shot. If zooming while shooting, auto ISO works well. F3.5-6.3 isn't an issue as the camera works well at higher ISOs. Here's what the A7S+SEL18200 looks like in low light, with many different light colors, at 1080p60 (slowed to 24p in post). This is an APS-C lens, so not full frame, however this works well for handheld as rolling shutter is reduced.

For full frame and shallower DOF, the Canon 24-105 F4L looks great. Lots of folks report the Commlite adapter at ~$99 works well (or at least as good as MB). Getting a nice prime in the F1.2-2.0 range is also worth it for super shallow DOF. Used Nikon fast prime lens are pretty popular for the price (Nikon to NEX adapters are also low cost). If you want to do much still photography, consider Sony FE primes so you'll get autofocus (e.g. Sony-Zeiss 55mm F1.8).

[Hitfabryk]

If only one lens for the A7S, the Sony SEL18200 (18-200mm F3.5-6.3) is excellent. Autofocus, IS, complete zoom range for just about every shot. If zooming while shooting, auto ISO works well. F3.5-6.3 isn't an issue as the camera works well at higher ISOs. Here's what the A7S+SEL18200 looks like in low light, with many different light colors, at 1080p60 (slowed to 24p in post). This is an APS-C lens, so not full frame, however this works well for handheld as rolling shutter is reduced.

For full frame and shallower DOF, the Canon 24-105 F4L looks great. Lots of folks report the Commlite adapter at ~$99 works well (or at least as good as MB). Getting a nice prime in the F1.2-2.0 range is also worth it for super shallow DOF. Used Nikon fast prime lens are pretty popular for the price (Nikon to NEX adapters are also low cost). If you want to do much still photography, consider Sony FE primes so you'll get autofocus (e.g. Sony-Zeiss 55mm F1.8).

​Thanks again JCS,

I will give it a good thought..

Already wish you a happy new year .

[Hitfabryk]

How about the FE 35mm 2.8? for a prime. Anyone used this one for video?

 

[Andrew Reid]

How about the FE 35mm 2.8? for a prime. Anyone used this one for video?

​Advantages - small, light, sharp, AF for stills

Disadvantages - expensive for a 35mm 2.8, more than a Sigma 35mm f1.4! Fly by wire manual focus is trickier. No advantage to AF for video.

I prefer the FE 55mm F1.8. Should have stabilisation for that price though and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is as sharp, if not even sharper! Bulkier though.

Don't get too heavily invested in sony glass if you might buy a different system later. Canon & Nikon mount Sigma 35 / 50 1.4 will come with you and these lenses will die with your A7S.

[noone]

Both the little E mount power zoom 16-50 OSS APSC kit lens and the APSC E mount 50 1.8 OSS are cheap and ok for video use in APSC mode on an A7s and both stabilized.

A bit low res for stills on the a7s.       More useful for stills on the higher res A7 cameras.

[ntblowz]

Both the little E mount power zoom 16-50 OSS APSC kit lens and the APSC E mount 50 1.8 OSS are cheap and ok for video use in APSC mode on an A7s and both stabilized.

A bit low res for stills on the a7s.       More useful for stills on the higher res A7 cameras.

​16-50 OSS does not work on A7s, so as the 18-55mm

[Daniel Lee]

This combination looks to have decent AF

 

[noone]

​16-50 OSS does not work on A7s, so as the 18-55mm

​Yes you are right .       I used it for a video the other day but it was on a tripod so I never noticed just tried it now and it does not work for OSS.     Doesn't work on the A7 either.

Oh well, it is such a tiny lens it doesn't really need it.

At least with the little 50 1.8 the OSS works.

[The Chris]

If you want good AF on the A7's with adapted lenses, the LAEA4 is definitely the way to go.  All of the Metabones and various knockoffs can't compare since they don't have a dedicated AF module like the LAEA4.  Sadly you lose stabilization since A-mount bodies have it built in.  But - that opens up lots of great Minolta and A-mount glass.  IMO the best of the lot is the SAL 24-70/2.8, its a tank, but great sharpness and the trademark Zeiss look.

Otherwise JCS's recommendation of the 18-200 is a good one, its a great all around lens.

[James Maynard Gelinas]

I could really use some advice here too.

I've got a GH2. That means lenses (a mix of panny Lumix and ancient Canon FD mount with converter for a follow focus rig). The GH4 would be a drop in replacement and I'm sure everything would 'just work'. But I have a project I'd like to do that would be shot in a rural desert setting at night. No mains. After watching Philip Bloom's review and footage, it's become apparent I could actually shoot in moonlight and use cellphones as practicals with an a7s. Add some battery powered led lights and the whole thing would be portable. No tungsten. No generator. If I want shapable hard light from a point source, build a flashlight based kit with homemade barn door attachments! You could conceivably clamp a three point lighting set up to the sound boom with gooseneck attachments. I mean, is this really possible?!?!? Am I nuts here?

I need a rig and follow focus. Don't want the Sony glass with AF and pull by wire. If I go a7s, this means starting a new kit from scratch. And I am lost here. I want cheap manual lenses and the right converter. Old fast Pentax can be had for a song. And Canon FD mount are still cheap too. Will this thing take manual Nikon? I really don't care as long as I settle on one so I don't have to juggle attachments and invert focus pulls from one brand to the next.

Advice? And especially tell me if I'm expecting too much with a7s low light. I mean, if I have to tote an inverter or generator anyway, then the GH4 is probably a better choice.