Should I switch from Lumix Micro Four Thirds line to Sony AR7 II?

[Connor Clements]

I've had the GH1, 2 & 3 and was considering upgrading to the GH4. I've got a decent range of Micro 4/3rd lenses which was part of the reason I stuck with the Lumix line. 

The specs on the Sony A7rII look miles ahead of any camera at the minute. Am I right in thinking that the Micro Four Third lenses are only suited for the smaller sensors? There's no chance the Lumix sensors can get any bigger?

If I were to sell my GH3 and lenses (14-140mm, 20mm, Nokton 25mm 0.95, among others) what lenses should I get with the A7rII?

[AaronChicago]

If I were you I would wait till it's released and then rent it, if possible. You'd be surprised at how much real world testing impacts a decision over specs.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

If you have MFT glass you like, I would definitely give the Blackmagic cameras a look. I recently upgraded from the GH3 myself and as nice as it was to use, the Pocket's image is in another league. 

I wouldn't be worried by specs. There are always going to be new and improved cameras coming out, but if you're still making great images with your old gear, who cares?

[Liam]

yeah, people keep saying Panasonic should go bigger sensor, but their great lenses wouldn't work, you're right. pocket or cinema camera could be worth looking at. cinema camera gives you an upgrade in resolution, dynamic range, codec etc, without shrinking the sensor size as much as the pocket (cinema camera is about the same as the gh4 4k crop right?) if you want more iso, you can actually adapt manual mft lenses to e-mount on the a7s in a basically m4/3 size crop mode that doesn't lose quality (1080p) - but that could be a bit extreme... and you have electronic lenses too, so. depends on what you need. might want to wait a little and see

[AaronChicago]

What kind of work do you do with the camera? That might make it easier to give advice. BM's are great, and the GH4 is outstanding in my opinion. Can't go wrong with either.

[j.f.r.]

Yes, once you use a Full Frame camera it opens a new creative world simply not possible on smaller sensor......

 

Black magic are great/excellent cameras but outside of the Ursa they do not shoot anything above 30fps, so if you need any kind of slow-motion or 60fps in general you cannot do it on the Pocket,Cinema or Production Camera. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Yes, once you use a Full Frame camera it opens a new creative world simply not possible on smaller sensor......

In what other way than shallow DoF? I find the RAW and DR from the BM cameras opens up way more creative possibilities than simply using a larger format.

[fuzzynormal]

In what other way than shallow DoF?​

Well, there is improved light sensitivity too.  

Personally I'm not enamored with the FF extreme DOF look anymore, but it does offer advantages.  The shallow DOF at f1.4 is pretty useful for interviews, but (IMHO) not for other shooting. 

[Liam]

also, if you're cropping into a FF 4k image, it's not the teeny tiny sensor effect you'd get with a gh4. you could stabilize or reframe a ton and still have an s35 look

[j.f.r.]

In what other way than shallow DoF? I find the RAW and DR from the BM cameras opens up way more creative possibilities than simply using a larger format.

DOF, FOV, ASA, 

Many people forget field of view as a main benefit of shooting Full Frame. A 24mm lens is equal to about a 12mm lens on MFT format, so basically you can achieve great wide shots in FF much easier than smaller sensor crop cameras.

 

The benefit of having a 3200iso base in S-Log in Sony A7s allows you to attain very close to 12 stops dynamic range which is very close or as good as many other professional cameras.

Personally you can own multiple cameras and use them all for many benefits. Imho though I would definitely leave the MFT format for the new Sony A7r

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

In what other way than shallow DoF? I find the RAW and DR from the BM cameras opens up way more creative possibilities than simply using a larger format.

​In full frame you get the full "problems" of your lens. Since most of us loves lenses more for their defects than their "clean" quality, a full frame camera gives you more "optical defects" and less DOF. In a cropped sensor, only the center of your lens is used, which is the more correct optically! Sorry for my english!

[Jimbo]

Many people forget field of view as a main benefit of shooting Full Frame. A 24mm lens is equal to about a 12mm lens on MFT format, so basically you can achieve great wide shots in FF much easier than smaller sensor crop cameras.

The field of view argument makes no sense to me. If I want the field of view a 24mm lens offers me on my 36×24 mm sensor, then I just use a 12mm lens on my 18 mm × 13.5 mm sensor. Done.

The main benefits are that it is easier to obtain a shallower depth of field and the pixel size is general larger so the cameras are better in lowlight. I am a bit confused why Panasonic & co haven't released an 8mp or 12mp sensor yet to negate the lowlight advantage, but my guess is that all investment goes into making the very best single 16mp sensor each cycle that can be used across their entire range of hybrid cameras.

Personally, getting back to OP, I would hang on to your money for now. The GH3 produces a beautiful image and Panasonic have made a camera that handles well in video mode. I would wait to see what the A7s II and Panasonic's next offering bring (and what lenses come in the next year) to see where both companies are heading longer term. Otherwise you'll be selling your lens collection each time you want the "better" camera, losing money and more importantly losing focus on making films =)

[j.f.r.]

The field of view argument makes no sense to me. If I want the field of view a 24mm lens offers me on my 36×24 mm sensor, then I just use a 12mm lens on my 18 mm × 13.5 mm sensor. Done.

​Please show me an equivalent 11-24mm lens (FF Field of view) in MFT Format comparable to Full Frame........... You simply cannot achieve the extreme wide field of view, dof and asa of a full frame sensor in MFT format.

[Mattias Burling]

Nor can you achieve the DOF, Extreme Tele of MFT on a FF format. Different tools with ups and downs to both.

I mostly use large sensors for stills and then its Full Frame that has a weird crop factor, difficulty to achieve wide angle and need super fast glass to get any sort of SDOF.
I shoot Medium Format, its nice but also has a pretty tough crop factor compared to Large Format.

(As an interesting side note, The Swedish word for Full Format is "Small Picture" since Full Format 35mm has such a huge crop factor compared to standard (large) format and Medium.

Large, Medium and Small (FF). )

 

[luizhmgoncalves]

I have been using the Blackmagic Pocket for a while. For me the major advantage is the Dynamic Range / Latitude of this tiny camera.

Its so easy to use and to expose for your shot. Walking trough a corridor from dark to very light situation is when you see the greatness of shooting in a format like the prores or Raw. When you look at the screen and expose for dark part of the corridor and when you go to the extreme light and the zebras are not even appearing on the screen, its great.
I have shot side by side whit canon cameras using the BMDcolor profile or the Cinestyle and we always have to change the exposure not to lose the highlights. And the Blackmagic on the same situation always shines.
Even with a log profile on a 8bit camera when you have a blowing highlight with a very well exposed shot, you lose a lot of information on that highlight not for recovery but for a more filmic highlight.

That new sony camera is a impressive camera. Full Frame with sensor stablization and 4k slog-2 internally, its huge.

But you will have to sell all your lenses and camera and pay 3200 dollars for the camera and a lot more for new glasses. If you need versatility you will have to buy 3 or more good lenses.
If money is not your problem, then its really worth it. full frame is great when you kwon how to get the best with it.

But if you want to keep your lenses my choice from personal experience is the Pocket. Its really a great camera. In some blockbusters they are using Blackmagic cameras to pair with the alexas. Look at that:

Thats how they shoot Mad Max running trough a corridor on the beggining of the movie. They dont chose a 5D, that is more lighter camera and full frame.
They chose the blackmagic for the great colors and gradability of the footages. Its really a good match for the alexas in skintones, etc.
They only use the 5Ds as a crash cams because its has a really rigid body and can preserve the Card and files very well, from a explosion or a car crash...
And the Pocket has the same image quality as the Cinema camera but at 1080p.

The cons of the Pocket:

High ISOs like the sony A7s ( When i look at a 51200 iso footage from a A7s the hightlights are so terrible not filmic, and unrealistic that i dont know if it really worth it. But i have never grade a footage from that camera so....)
And you have a nokton 0.95 thats really great.
I shoot With the Blackmagic pocket in a very low light streets with a rokinon 16mm f2 and for me it really look very well.

Battery times
The baterry is really a problem, but yoou can use a externa batery or even buy a lots of then.
I buy on ebay 10 EN-EL20 batteries for 8 dollars each and they are good enough for a day of shooting.
For long time shooting go for an external battery

File sizes
Even the prores proxy is much better than a 8bit compressed file, it is 10 bit.
If your shot has a lot of movement like foliage you can switch for the prores LT
And if you shoot raw, sometimes i do that: Convert the raw whit camera raw with a similar look to the prores BMD log and render it as a prores for small file sizes and gaining the much greater latitude, colors and grain form the raw file.

With 3200 dollars from the A7r II you cam buy a Pocket camera with lots of cards and battery an even buy the new 10.5mm 0.95 voitglander and have a great low light wide lens.
4k is good but a 1080p camera with good colors dynamic range and latitude worth it, really worth it.

Thats my opinion, choose wisely before you sell your lenses, and sorry for my not so good english.
 

[j.f.r.]

Nor can you achieve the DOF, Extreme Tele of MFT on a FF format. Different tools with ups and downs to both.
 

​No cinematographer has ever said I want a smaller sensor for deeper DOF.......... Regardless you can easily stop down to F/11 or so on a camera like Sony A7s or deeper and bump the iso to 50k if needed, name me one other camera in the world that can do that and have an acceptable image.......

 

The Sony A7 camera can also shoot in S35 mode as well + you have 800mm FF Lenses that you can adapt as well which is more than enough for 95+ % of the people if you were to need something so extreme. The whole point that you cannot use long lenses on FF is false........

[Mattias Burling]

​No cinematographer has ever said I want a smaller sensor for deeper DOF..........

​You do realize that I know that there is no way you could ever know that, right?

BTW. Have you seen the thread here on this forum posted today where one of our fellow members is looking for a small sensor camcorder so he can get deep depth of field. Maybe you should go there and talk him into a a7S

[AaronChicago]

I'm sure this crew said they wanted IMAX and couldn't afford it. Had to settle on Super 16mm. Amateurs.

[Liam]

​No cinematographer has ever said I want a smaller sensor for deeper DOF

​I have

[Liam]

Oh and Dave Dugdale did. And Sony reps (your heroes!) were just talking about their 2/3" sensor cameras recently at NAB, made for super telephoto work. Sorry, we should get back on topic :3

 

edit: and... Orson Welles would have considered it if he could have... because they were going nuts trying to get shots like these