GearShop

News Reviews Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 / Sony Alpha 7S Comparative Review

July 2014 | By Richard Butler, Jeff Keller

As video cameras go, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 and Sony Alpha 7S are very DSLR-like in shape. A four-fold difference in sensor size, and a significant gulf in price suggests this may be the only similarity. However, in terms of intent, they're not as different as all this might lead you to expect.

Not just stills, not just movies

Both manufacturers make clear that these cameras are both intended for videographers just as much as they are for stills shooters. Both are built around a conventional stills form-factor but with video capabilities and supporting functions pushed toward the forefront. As such, we'd expect the two to be judged on a similar basis. We'd expect better performance from the Sony's much larger sensor to help to justify its price tag, but the requirements of the users are likely to be similar.

DSLRs capable of shooting HD video have existed for a little under six years and, though video initially seemed to be a feature added simply because the manufacturers could, it's become seized upon by a growing band of users. At the pro end of the spectrum, cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II have changed expectations of what size a camera could be, but putting video capability in the hands of photographers has also inspired some of them to think beyond single frames.

For the most part, however, the majority of modern mirrorless cameras and DSLRs still don't offer users much support for their video function. Video capability is there but, even in the circumstances where a decent level of manual control is given, tools such as focus peaking and zebra that have been standard on video cameras for years are missing. And this extends even to cameras such as the Canon 5D Mark II and Nikon D800, whose respective manufacturers were happy to promote the video features of, despite the fact they were both somewhat lacking. Canon has subsequently upped its game with the EOS 5D Mark III and the lessons it's learning from the development of its Cinema EOS line, but generally video is promoted much better than its supported.

Beyond the [REC] button

The Panasonic GH4 and Sony's a7S step round these pitfalls, both offering focus peaking and zebra highlight warnings to help videographers get footage that lives up to the cameras' capture capabilities (both are features that can be provided by external monitors so can be added to other cameras if you're willing to rig them up). They also have the add-on accessories available to allow use of industry-standard audio or video connections.

Another shortcoming of many 'HDSLR's is that they capture the relatively low resolutions of video by only sampling some horizontal lines of their sensor - a process that's become known as line-skipping. This leads to lower vertical resolution in the video, along with a greater risk of moiré. The GH4 and a7S avoid this, and both are able to read out at least 4K regions of their sensors at 30 frames per second.

However, just because they go to unusual lengths to accommodate the videographer, this doesn't mean any compromises have been made to the feature sets they offer the stills shooter. Noticeably, the Sony offers the same handling and controls as its more stills orientated a7 and a7R models, while the GH4 adds improved autofocus to the GH3's well thought-out and DSLR-like stills handling.

The table below sets out how the cameras compare:

	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4	Sony Alpha 7S
Sensor format	Four Thirds	Full Frame
Sensor size (mm2)	225	847
Lens mount	Micro Four Thirds	Sony E
Stills resolution	16MP	12.2MP
Max video Res (Internal)	Cinema 4K (4096 x 2160)	Full HD (1920 x 1080)
Max video Res (with external recorder)	Cinema 4K (4096 x 2160), 10-bit	4K (3840 x 2160), 8-bit
Electronic viewfinder resolution	2.36m dots (1024 x 768px)	2.36m dots (1024 x 768px)
Rear LCD resolution	1.04m dots (720 x 480px)	0.92m dots (640 x 480px)
Control dials	Two plus rear dial	Two plus Exposure comp
Customizable buttons	Five, plus five on-screen 'buttons'	Nine (including dual-function AF/MF / AEL button)
Battery life (CIPA)	500 shots	380 shots
Dimensions	133 x 93 x 84mm	127 x 94 x 48mm
Weight	560g	489g
Price (MSRP)	$1,699 / £1,299 / €1,499	$2,499 / £2,099 / €2,399

Gear in this story


Sony Alpha 7S	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
45 I own it 217 I want it 31 I had it Discuss in the forums	115 I own it 247 I want it 40 I had it Discuss in the forums

38 customer reviews

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GH4KBODY 16.05MP Digital Single Lens...

In stock

$1,697.99

Shop now

Sony Alpha a7S Compact Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera

In stock

$2,490.00

Shop now

Comments

Total comments: 394

Actually, bringing GH4k to this comparison is a big achievement for Panasonic .
On other hand, it is puzzle for me why DPR decided to compare GH4K and SONY A7s. Why not to compare GH4K to Oly E-M1?

0 upvotes

The A7S has three dials plus EV dial (plus mode dial). You forgot the one on the back.

0 upvotes

12mp sure isn't much resolution for a stills shot these days. Comparing the detail in the A7S shots to the A7R at base ISO is... staggering. The A7S is a very specialized camera to me. I have much less interest than I did.

0 upvotes

12mp FF sensor makes A7s possibly the King of darkness.

0 upvotes

it is interesting to see that Fuji X-T1 has less noise the Sony, even at ISO6400, unfortunately it is impossible to gather higher iso on the Fuji with the RAWs.

0 upvotes

Despite slightly overstating its ISO's and lots of RAW smoothing, the X-T1 is still quite a bit noisier in low light. See here:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2db12k5.png

Up to 2 stops difference in shadows.

2 upvotes

Yup Fuji's are a bit overated in high iso performance. They are still the best apsc's in this regard nonetheless but the difference isn't huge

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

BarnET:

Both the Samsung NX30 and Sony A5000 are better high ISO APSC bodies than the Fuji XT1.

Not by leaps and bounds, but a tiny bit.

0 upvotes

Not true. Fuji cooked the RAW to make cleaner but on the price of smearing details. X-T1 sample looks so mushy and soft. And as other said, it also cheated on ISO. So when X-T1 needs ISO 6400 to take on the same scene, other cameras at the same aperture and shutter only need ISO 4000 for example. That's a big difference.

3 upvotes

The mushy issue has to do with the demosaicing process in light room. The latest camera raw seems to do an better job.

Jpegs do not show this issue so obvious.
Then the shadows are still very clean. The a5000 uses the 20mp Sony I believe. And I have no personal experience with that one yet.

The nx30 I find very hard to believe.

0 upvotes

BarnET:

Well, I've shot raws the the A6000 and Fuji XT1 and the NX30, and the Samsung produces less noise under the same lighting at the same ISOs.

Right the A5000 uses a 20MP sensor. That has other problems but it's probably the high ISO APSC leader this month (Aug. 2014).

0 upvotes

BarnET: I have downloaded DPR RAW files, and processed with CaptureOne Pro v7.x (or with PhotoNinja). Yes X-T1/X-E2 JPEGs are slightly better with C1P7, so do other RAWs from A7, A6000, 70D, D7100...If you apply a bit of NR, Bayer-sensor based APS-C cameras could have similar cleanness but still will retain more resolution, no mention FF A7, no mention if taken under the same actual exposure (ISO 4000 from other cameras vs ISO 6000 from X-T1/X-E2 for example).

1 upvote

The GH4 has not time limit on recording, period. No Lumix GH series has one. I find it indispensable for recording Live shows and weddings. Most others requires expensive external recorders to have this ability.

0 upvotes

That's not absolutely true, the GH4s can now switch between PAL/NTSC, but the Europe version is still limited to 29mm59s of video recording.

3 upvotes

That has something to do with stupid import taxes.
There have been several camera's that had custom firmware available to address this issue. Most notably magic lantern for canon.

0 upvotes

But the GH4 doesn't have any custom firmware available and it's very annoying for people who record events (some of whom I know). Considering how much it costs it wouldn't have killed them to just pay the duty and pass it on...
I understand it's 4.9% for the EU and 2.1% for the USA. Canadians are lucky at 0%, Australia is 5%.
http://www.dutycalculator.com/hs-code-duty-rate-import-restrictions/852580/video-camera/8525.80.5020/8525.80.9190/851/
However I believe it can rise above 4.9% in some cases, I'm not sure just what they are.

0 upvotes

Hi,
it is long time ago, that i see this old a ATS 20.- bank note of my country.
Gut Licht, fototommy

0 upvotes

I find it surprising how much sharper sony/nikon/canon FF cameras are compared to the olympus/panasonic titans of m4/3. Even with the low 12MP of the A7s, the image is sharper when shot in raw at ISO 100. FF all the way!

3 upvotes

Actually I had some problems understanding this differences in low ISO IQ, but in the end is just how the thing works.
Considering sensors about the same performance (you know roughly the same resolution, about the same generation, not perfect match in DxO scores and so on) this is how physics works:

ISO100 on m4/3 = ISO 200 on APCS = ISO 400 on FF

And that's it. I also value low ISO performance much more than ISO 1bilion, but the truth is that for many needs ISO 100 on today's m4/3 is just awesome.

1 upvote

Look on the price, weight and size of cameras+lens combinations.

1 upvote

The resolution advantage of the m4/3 is evident all the way up to 1600 ISO. By then, the cleaner A7s image has an advantage. Still, pretty impressive for the Panasonic.

1 upvote

Really? Are we looking at the same test scene? The m43's are bigger, but actual resolved detail is less, even at low ISOs to my eye.

8 upvotes

I can’t believe how much Moiré the A7s has in its RAW images

5 upvotes

yep it's terrible

0 upvotes

yep, but that is a monochromic text on the limit of camera's resolution.
IRL that is not that bad.

0 upvotes

It is funny how a few years ago we would have laughed at the thought of comparing Micro Four Thirds against Full Frame cameras. They really aren’t any closer now than they were then. Both have improved drastically.

However, Dpreview seems to think they are close enough to compare now.

8 upvotes

We're looking at them as combined stills/video cameras. The 4X difference in sensor areas is insurmountable (the large sensor gets much more light, for the same exposure shutter speed and f/number), so it's clear that the image quality of the a7S will be better.

However, the video performance, difference in video capabilities, etc, mean they're interesting to review side-by-side (I wish I'd called it a side-by-side review, not a comparative review).

3 upvotes

Sensor size isn't everything. We're comparing cameras, not just sensors. Features, performance, ergonomics, build quality, price, availability of lenses and accessories, all of those things are also important when deciding on a camera. The fact that a lot of customers are looking at both of these cameras, clearly shows that they are comparable. There are people in this thread, who apparently made a choice between these two cameras.

3 upvotes

The A7S's larger sensor quality is not insurmountable with enough light. Sadly its the much smaller MFT camera that is resolving more, however it has a stronger AA filter (and higher sampling rate). The A7S at 12MP has far more aliasing and a 'sharpened' look to it specifically because its sample rate is too low (for stills). But most people prefer the aliased 'sharpened' look. Yet if you ask people to actually see *which* sensor provided more *true* detail, it should be the GH4. True detail means how much more legible is the smaller text? How much more can you see the signature on the sketch? When does each sensor hit the moire wall with the circular resolution chart? In just about every area (and IMO the 45mm 1.8 here is not a perfect copy either), the GH4 is already producing *more* actual resolution and detail with less moire/alaising. Yet most people here just prefer the aliased look, hence the overwhelming majority are fine with AAless sensors.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

At Richard, think before you do and keep thinking if you are doing and there will no I WISH thinking.Happy testing.

0 upvotes

You can't draw conclusions about sharpness from this comparison. Both cameras are tack sharp, at least the ones I have and the GH4 is every bit as sharp as the Sony A7s. Keep in mind the A7s doesn't come out of the coma until it hits ISO 3200. 3200 and up is where it starts to shine, I love the noise pattern at higher ISO's, those huge photo sites produce a very film like look. Even models have commented on the noise pattern and called it film like.
The real and very visible difference in challenging shooting situations is dynamic range and color depth, something the GH4 isn't great at and even at lower ISO's the A7s looks better and produces more manipulable raw files.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

8 upvotes

Wow A7s is amazing at ISO 25600 JPEG's

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

7 upvotes

Compared the Panasonic maybe.

0 upvotes

Let me guess, Samsuck is better "how about" you stick to the Samsuck posts ;)

0 upvotes

Beorseutjie:

Better than what? Not the A7S, though at least Samsung doesn't do compressed raws and sacrifice color.

However the NX30 is a better high ISO still body than the Panasonic GH4.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

And yet DPreview said the NX30 does not do anything all that good or better than any of it's competitors :(
Only 77% "Silver" so I guess they must have missed something...LOL

3 upvotes

Boer:

And yet I have raws, that I've shot, from the NX30, A7S, and GH4, so I'm quite sure about my point regarding the NX30 being a better high ISO camera than the GH4.

As for direct competitors to the NX30: The NX30 edges out both the Sony A6000 and the Fuji XT1 for high ISOs. And yet again: I have raws that I've shot with both the Fuji and the Sony.

Not at all clear why you'd think the GH4 with a smaller sensor a direct competitor to the Samsung NX30.

I'm also very sure that Sony has chosen to compress raws and give up really good color with the A7S--silly since it has good lenses.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Unless you shot those RAW files side by side in a controlled environment with the exact same physical exposure, which I am sure you didn't, any conclusion would be worthless.

3 upvotes

TrojMacReady:

Pretty much exactly the same lighting, albeit on different days and without a tripod and the exact same aperture settings.

So the raws I've shot with the NX30, Fuji XT1, Sony A7S, Panasonic GH4, Sony A5000 and Sony A6000 are far from "worthless" in drawing these conclusions.

In short TrojMacReady: You be incorrect.

Why not instead of just assuming I've not thought of anything like the situation and conditions I've shot in, try to imagine that I've used a digital camera to shoot raw more than a few times in the last 10 years?

So my conclusions stand on very real data.

0 upvotes

Boerseuntjie:

Albeit your original post was about jpegs from the A7S, raws from the A7S don't look real great at ISO 25,600 in comparison to raws from other cameras good for high ISOs like the Nikon Df.

And of course the A7S is going to do better 25,600 raws than the Panasonic GH4.

0 upvotes

There is no reason to assume on my behalf when:
A) you often make vague claims contrdicted by available data and always fail to support those claims by sharing your files and test results.
B) you just confirmed not using a perfectly controlled comparison setup ( no tripod but matched lighting on different days... sounds legit..)
C) and most importantly the actual RAW files provided by Dpreview again prove your claims wrong, with a good margin too. See below.

http://i57.tinypic.com/2ecznzp.png

Same for your A7s claims vs the Df that have been debunked countless times, even made easier by the fact that you don't believe in resizing (according to yourself).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

TrojMacReady:

I don't make vague claims. I'm pretty explicit.

And data generally publicly available is often of limited use.

Yep matched lighting on different days, it's pretty easy.

A link to a single png file isn't going to strengthen your case. I have dozens of raws shot with each of these camera bodies. And the raws back me up. And remember the lens used matters for noise control at high ISOs.

No the point that the Df is a better high ISO body than the A7S has not been "debunked". It's pretty easy to see cyan and magenta banding in shadows at ISO 25,600 with the Sony, while that problem doesn't appear with the Nikon until above ISO 40,000.

Resizing (downsampling) doesn't work for noise reduction, no question. You can try it yourself. And resizing also doesn't remove cyan and magenta banding.

Yet again if noise reduction were that easy camera makers would have figured it out years ago.

0 upvotes

Is the GH4 shot out of focus?

1 upvote

I don't believe so. It may have been shot with a different copy of the 45mm F1.8 than the one used with the E-M1 (we no longer have access to that copy), but I think the focus is correct.

1 upvote

Your friends at dxomark are trying to suggest the Panleica 42.5mm F1.2 is a much sharper lens:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-60mm-F28-Macro-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Olympus-MZuiko-Digital-ED-45mm-F18-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___1297_909_897_909_532_909

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea in using it.

1 upvote

Or the 75mm only since it's just as sharp and cheaper.

0 upvotes

I think the 75mm is a bit long for their studio and I don't think price is an issue.

0 upvotes

With dslr's they should just stick to the sigma 50mm art.
Rock solid performance and available in all mounts in order to make the findings consistent.

0 upvotes

This seems worth a watch too...
"A7s vs GH4 Epic Shootout in 4K"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMypfYrKgw
(Just found in the m43 forum here.)

0 upvotes

BTW do look at the moire test, I don't understand why the A7s moire at 4k is so bad (especially compared to the GH4). I thought it was a sensor pixel per output pixel but I got that from the comments here. Oh and let's not start an argument over this, both are fine cameras.

0 upvotes

Does the A7s have an AA filter?

0 upvotes

I will see the test but the reason for the mooire is that the photodiodes are bigger and has much more space between them compared to the gh4 that has 16 mpx and uses only about twelve in the center i assume, so you can`t see the same amount of moire, and thats the same reason why nikon sold the d800e, when FF get at the same pixel size of the GH4 we probably will not see any moire anymore.

0 upvotes

These tests are no good. Comparing GH4 and E-M1 in the start-up view, the GH4 image is sharp, whereas the E-M1 image looks extremely blurred. Looking at other parts of the scene (the 20 Schilling bank note), though, the E-M1 is actually slightly sharper than the GH4. Something clearly must have gone wrong here.

1 upvote

They were shot with different copies of the Olympus 45mm F1.8.

I honestly don't understand why aren't they using a macro lens since there are two available from each manufacturer.

0 upvotes

No comparison!

2 upvotes

Why does the panasonic have so much noise? The A7s raw at iso 3200 looks like the Gh4 at iso 400.

3 upvotes

What I see is A7S at ISO 3200 equals GH4 at ISO 800, regarding noise. And that's exactly what is to be expected, since the A7S sensor is four times as large as the GH4 sensor.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

As you move further up the ISO scale, the difference climbs well past three stops in shadow noise due to much lower read noise and better efficiency per unit sensor area too.

3 upvotes

Panasonic have Bad pictures in comparison to Sony:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd171/ValterJacinto/Clipboard01g.jpg

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 58 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

I have to say, the GH4 is soft and ugly compared to the A7s. I'm amazed that this little 12Mp sensor kicks the crap out of the flagship 16Mp Panasonic. I expected the fight to be more or less fair.

6 upvotes

What do you mean "this little 12MP SESNSOR"? 16 to 12 Mp isn't huge difference while >4x photo site surface is dramatically larger

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Little in MP, but mighty in performance. I'm impressed.

0 upvotes

Wow, The Sony 7s really has a nice look to it on the comparisons. Pretty had to beat large pixels. That is why I still have my original Canon 5D.

The GH4 looks sort of like early Nikon cameras. Pretty much needs a lot of sharping to get it up to snuff. The 7s almost looks Sigma like. Well done Sony.

3 upvotes

Compare the a7S to other full frame cameras at a common output size and the difference is less clear-cut.

The higher-res camera will capture more resolution in bright light, and have similar noise in low light, if compared at a common resolution. And I'm afraid all of them will significantly out-perform the original 5D, when compared at a common output size, thanks to improvements in sensor technology.

4 upvotes

How do you make your link " common output size and the difference is less clear-cut." clickable?

0 upvotes

Most people in pro shoots use external everything.. i.e .audio break out boxes, external recorders, follow focus, battery packs, etc. So, i dont see the issue with not having 4k recording on board.. esp. when you need to shoot 400-800 + mbps to get decent output from 4k.

5 upvotes

FZ1000... Amazing sensor for its size. In RAW, it is just 1 stop behind Canon 5D3 (look at low light scene, ISO3200 on FZ1000 vs 6400 on 5D3 - same quality), not 3 stops as you would think from the size alone. Wow. BSI-CMOS rules.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The A7s is freakishly clean up to 51k even in the low light scene. Mighty impressive.

3 upvotes

I'm in full love with the GH4, but it aint no denying it: Angelic cleanliness from the A7s.

0 upvotes

No moire (serious problem in video) on A7s even compared to GH4

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr29_1=sony_a7s&attr72_0=1080&attr72_1=1080&normalization=full&widget=131&x=0.8112985320513786&y=-0.8494208494208495

1 upvote

Please rent a Blackmagic Design HDMI to SDI Ultra HD converter and HyperDeck Studio Pro to record the A7s' 4K output for an accurate 4K to 4K comparison. Even a few hours of tests can answer a bazillion reader questions. Mine included. :)

6 upvotes

You guys are wasting your time arguing about 4K because after seeing the new releases of Guardians of the Galaxy and Dawn of Planet of the Apes, I predict the real action is going to be in 3D... "Dawn" was shot in ARRIRAW 2.8K dual-strip 3-D...

The tech has come a LONG way in the last 5 years and well-shot 3D is mind blowing in its ability to tell a story. And these little cameras might be just the ticket because shooting actual 3D requires two cameras...

So, get over yourselves and stop worrying about pixel dimensions because there's a much bigger revolution just outside the gates of DPR...

0 upvotes

Heh heh, that was good. :)

2 upvotes

We understand the disappointment that the A7S does not allow 4k recording to internal media, but it tarnishes DPRs image as a respected resource to not even mention the specifications for 4k on pages 4-5 listing each cameras video recording specifications. To be honest it brings to question the maturity and perspective of your review staff who apparently decided to leave specifications out because they have hurt feelings in how those features were implemented?
Heck by page 6 where you 'compare' the video (offerings) anyone not already in the know might not think the A7S offered 4k at all unless they catch the HDMI-out line item, and were looking for a feature set spec there, but again no specifications for 4k are provided.

To many out there, both in video and general everything stills, the Sony might provide the better system to build on - especially if color/tone/dr/iso and the ability to use just about every lens out there, at native perspective and dof, are important to them.

7 upvotes

It's in a table on page 1. It's in the text just before the table on page 4. It's not on page 5 because it's about a different camera. It's in a table on page 6.

So your criticism appears to be that I've not included, in a table of internal recording options, something that isn't an internal recording option.

11 upvotes

Ah, I see the maturity question still lingers..

On the pages for each camera's 'Movie Mode' (page 4 for the Sony and page 5 for the Panasonic) under the heading of [VIDEO SPECIFICATIONS] there is no precursor that the following tables provided will be for internal recording only... You simply provide a table of video resolutions, frame rates, bit rates, codecs, etc supported by each camera - leaving out any information about the Sony's 4k recording. I am sure there are technical specifications for Sony's 4k recording too??

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the proceeding pages is there anything stating that the 'Movie Mode' pages will only provide video specifications for internal storage capabilities.

...obviously page 5 is for the Panasonic, I was referencing the specific pages provided for video specifications - that is the reason I stated "on pages 4-5 listing each cameras video recording specifications..."

If you put ego aside before responding you might assert more relevance..

8 upvotes

At Richard, again i wish you a very "good" thinking.
Forget for a while your arrogance and ego.

Do that after the GH4/Sony test and be honest all the times.

2 upvotes

"In terms of video features, the GH4 looks slightly better equipped, whether in terms of a handful of pro-orientated features or the provision of more, and higher quality, output options. ... a7S look more attractive as a camera if your workflow is expected to include significant post-processing. The addition of a (currently expensive) external recorder also allows the a7S to close the gap ...

Beginner videographers are likely to find the a7S's Auto ISO in manual exposure extremely useful, ... We'll look into what a more experienced user can do with the cameras"

PLEASE decide who your review is for before writing it.
Paragraph 1- Pro features, significant post processing, expensive external recorder.
Paragraph 2- Beginner videographers.

These cameras are designed (and priced) for people who use them professionally to earn an income. An A7s + a separate, external 4K recorder is not something the beginner typically goes for. Write your article for pro users.

6 upvotes

And stop with the "no Auto ISO in manual mode."
It's manual mode.
Everything is _supposed_ to be manual.

Want auto, use full Auto or Program.

6 upvotes

So in what mode can we specifically adjust both aperture AND shutter speed and yet allow auto-ISO because that is one thing we do not want/care to change?

4 upvotes

@IEBA1:
AutoISO is very useful - esp. for videography.
A blunt statement like "It's manual!" does not change this fact.
Some manufacturers offer it already for stills. You think their engineers are all stupid?

8 upvotes

All cameras need to add a new mode. PASM should be PASIM and it should be on the dial. It wasn't an option with film and early digital had very bad higher ISO's, but with the current state of the sensors I'd like to see it added to my dial. I would also like to see P have the ability to set upper and lower limits for all 3. and ASI modes should have upper and lower limits for the other 2.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

4 upvotes

I agree that it can be useful. Video cameras (not canon) would let you toggle each item in and out of auto. So I could be shooting with my Sony HDV camera and tap iris from manual to auto, and back again to hold that setting. AFAIK, no DSLR is set up like this. It's all about being in a "mode" and Canon camcorders were like that for years with a big dial that you had to rotate (like a DSLR) to pick the mode you operated in. I hated that.

But that's the way it is with DSLRs.

The problem with PASIM is that it still doesn't specify a manual mode that's all manual, or a manual mode with auto iris. Using the camcorder method, where each parameter can be "manualized" individually, like on Sony pro camcorders. So you have a Full Auto mode, and then a "manual" mode were everything you don't make manual is still on auto, but every parameter is individually changeable back and forth.

First DSLR that does that will be a game changer.

1 upvote

I think when you get to a professional level of camera like this the engineers don't expect you to change ISO in the middle of a scene if the brightness changes—instead you change your f-stop because, as I understand it, that's the way it works on professional movie sets.
If you change ISO, it will change the noise and color rendition of the shot and and that could take people out of the movie experience.
But it does make life more complicated because now suddenly you need an assistant to adjust your f-stop when the light changes...Or you have to light your scenes so that the illumination is the same throughout the set no matter where you point the camera.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

" it still doesn't specify a manual mode that's all manual,"

Not sure what you meant, take higher end Nikon dSLRs for an example, to be fully manual, you go to M-mode, and select ISO manually. There are two dials, each for the A and S, and a button for ISO. If you do not want to manually select ISO, enable auto-ISO. If you want to maintain the selected A and S but to override the determined exposure setting, these Nikon cameras, as well as A7s, allow you to dial in EC, by changing the ISO from the determined values. Thus this M mode becomes highly versatile to suit a wide variety of needs. You do know that you can turn the "auto ISO" feature on AND off at will without going to the menu, don't you?

0 upvotes

@IEBA1
separate manual/auto selection of all three exposure variables ia what I really love about fuji x system, albeit not a videocamera. I find it much more useful than the damn PASM modes, a stupid idea those were.
@SmilerGrogan
I believe change od iris affects scene rendition as well, so variable ND filters are used, at least in dslr videography I know of.

1 upvote

Low noise tests:
http://bkmeditor.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/panasonic-gh4-iso-noise-tests/

1 upvote

Also, I'd like to see what the Sony offers when NOT using slog- which requires a high ISO which is very challenging when shooting outdoors, in bright sunlight, when you would most need the greatest dynamic range. You can't just slap an ND on there because most ND's do not stop IR, so then you need an ND with an integrated IR filter, or a "hot mirror" Which makes using the A7s a lot more comples for day shots when trying to leverage slog for the most dynamic range.

2 upvotes

In the coming weeks, I hope DPreview can do a dynamic range test like you did with the GH2. The trouble will be all the various settings you can apply, (profiles, curves, pedestal, contrast, recording range, etc) that all affect the quality of the final image.

A word of warning: I am the moderator of the GH4 User Group on Facebook and a couple users have posted already about the "noisy blacks" of the GH4 and what causes them. DON'T use curves. Don't use pedestal. and DO NOT use iDynamic. Turn off iResolution for good measure. These all create more noise in the blacks than is there when they are off. Adjusting the settings in the picture profiles is reported (by several) to deliver clean results. Then you get clean darks at high ISOs.

Use the full recording range of the camera. Use the entire 256 steps available in the digital file. Starting at 16 and not going to 256 means you're not using all the data that's available. Use it all, then in grading you have more to work with.

3 upvotes

"Another shortcoming of many 'HDSLR's is that they capture the relatively low resolutions of video by only sampling some horizontal lines of their sensor - a process that's become known as line-skipping. This leads to lower vertical resolution in the video, along with a greater risk of moiré. "

Please. If you're shooting 4K with the GH4, (which is one of the main reasons to get it, otherwise go get the GH3) then the sensor is sampled 1:1. There is no interpolation, no line skipping and this entire paragraph doesn't apply.

2 upvotes

That paragraph is there to highlight the problems shown by many of the existing cameras on the market - it was meant to highlight what these two offer that's different. I should have (and will), add a line making this explicit.

5 upvotes

if you are so intent on 4k and true pocketable solution get the xperia Z2 ..yea its 5 minutes each time ( 2 gigs of memory ) . but most good video bits are comprised of even lesser time consuming parts than 5 minutes.

the z2 costs less than a third btw.

or you can get the FZ1000 with the same 4k basically .

if you want the hacked 1080p go for the gh2 .

but 1700$ for this ??
well if you are fanatic who must have the newest thing then by all means go spend your money . but while the 4k is better the technology is about 2-3 years ahead of the current mainstreaming . by then the price of a 4k recording device will plummet .

0 upvotes

The GH4 is superior to its very capable sibling FZ1000. Its autofocus is better, for one thing. It also has more features. The FZ1000 doesn't have touch screen, a headphone jack, etc.

As for 4K, 4K capture is better for 1080p output than mere 1080p capture, not only because of the cropping, zooming, and stabilizing options but also because of the Nyquist Theorum. To make the most of 1080p, you need to sample twice the information (UHD). The GH2, even hacked, can't resolve as much detail or give as much color information.

It's possible that, for a given set of needs or preferences, the GH2 and FZ1000 are solid alternatives, but it's not the case that the GH4 is redundant or overkill.

It's weird. Panasonic puts out a $1700 camera that puts most cameras under $10,000 to shame, and there's STILL someone around to complain it's not a good value. People. -_-

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Just same time as Phillip Boom reviews A7s

https://vimeo.com/102448889

6 upvotes

Does anybody remember the eye-controlled focus on EOS film cameras ? that would be something that could work in film making!

0 upvotes

Another $0.02: after a certain point, AF becomes meaningless if one gets into movie making. Wireless focus racking starts to steal our money, and all that's left is image quality and detail. As Philip Bloom said, "Autofocus will never work because the camera doesn't know where I want to focus."

6 upvotes

You know the Lumix G line has had touch screen focus since at least the GH2, right? You can pull focus to exactly where you want.

Example: 'Panasonic Lumix G6 sample video 5: touch-screen focus-pulling in low light with Leica 25mm f1.4'

https://vimeo.com/66462756

1 upvote

@Lucid: Yes, you can use "tap-focus", but only if you are satisfied with the resulting quick jump between focus planes.

I guess most professionals prefer controlled, manual focusing.

3 upvotes

Aye, that you can't control the speed of the transition is a disadvantage, but the actual point is that it ISN'T true that the camera can't know where you want to focus.

As for it not knowing how slowly, that seems like it could easily be made into a software feature at some point. But eh.

Anyway, AF can be pretty important for run-and-gun films, particularly docs, tho it does help to be able to focus manually.

0 upvotes

And autofocus tends to be much more accurate than the human eye, especially at the end of a long day of shooting.

0 upvotes

Accurate AF is a godsend if you're shooting documentary work, particularly in fast moving situations. It's not about focus pulls from foreground to background, but quickly and accurately acquiring focus when the scene changes, or the subject moves. I use the GH3 and am looking forward to the improvements of the GH4.

0 upvotes

Question for anybody: can these cameras stream video to a computer or tablet etc., for archiving or live streaming online for example?

0 upvotes

Clean HDMI out means yes, but you may need a device like the Blackmagic Intensity.

0 upvotes

Wow No Noire with A7S....impressive....Hmm...

4 upvotes

That's what happens when you sample 1:1. Neither camera really has moire at 4K. It's just that, unlike the GH4, the Sony samples its 1080p from the 4K capture for output, apparently:

"The Sony, by comparison is oversampling the scene (reading out a 4K region of the sensor) then processing that data before downsizing."

1 upvote

The GH4 doesn't have moire in Extended 1080P mode (says EX beside the res indicator on display). This mode is an "extended zoom" mode and works by sampling just the center 1080 pixels of sensor 1 to 1 instead of the entire width and then downsampling (causing the moire). Only reason the normal 1080p mode does downsampling and full width is for the angle of view.

0 upvotes

@abortabort:
> And the aspiring amateur HAS to have 4K?

I think I can answer that, because situation really reminds me of the 5-10 years ago when everybody was buying DSLRs to be able to shoot RAW. And everybody was asking "why the amateurs need the RAW?"

The thing is that amateurs need the extra quality - in still RAW, in video 4K - because they make mistakes more often than pros and enthusiasts. If you have a cooked file - JPEG or highly compressed video - options to correct the mistake are very very limited, or non-existent. While with the uncooked files, one has plethora of possibilities to correct almost any beginner's errors present.

So in a way, I can easily imagine the "aspiring amateur" videographers wanting the 4K. It simply opens up many possibilities that were simply not there before.

One sure can't relieve the moment, but with the RAW images and 4K video one can PP one heck out of it.

3 upvotes

I see your point, but is this something people who are learning should be learning? The old 'we'll fix it in post'? What happened to learning from ones mistakes? Otherwise it just becomes a crutch.

0 upvotes

most comments here are about video production, and so ... however, this kind of cameras (with decent/good/great 4k) start also to be a option for "image enthusiasts" just to record their memories.
You know, one decent 4K TV nowadays starts from 2k euros, while the GH4 is 1.5K ... and even if I don't have a 4k TV now, i will in 2-3-4 years, so why not record my usual holiday movies, or my kid playing or whatever in 4K?
The difference in quality is really more than significant, and in 10 years, when you'll watch your son first ... don't know what movie, you'll be thinking, why the hell did i not use the GH4 instead of my camera that was 500euros cheaper :)

0 upvotes

For those users Badi they would be far better off with something like an AX100 or the many alternatives that will be out very soon, even models like the FZ1000.

0 upvotes

I said the "image enthusiasts" ... sure, the examples you give are good enough for a lot of people, but for those IQ addicts that don't do movie production, are not.
For example i would prefer (for myself) something like a mirror-less that can shoot nice 4K. I don't care much for movie recording, but i record some things from time to time, and they are especially "nice memories".
I am saying this just so you realize that the market is just too complex, and all the products will find their users. Some more than others, of course.

0 upvotes

4K captures produces better 1080p. Not all manipulation of 4K footage is about 'fixing mistakes', so folks should stop talking about it that way.

3 upvotes

4k capture can also produce better 1080p by allowing you to change the framing...another way of fixing mistakes...oops, sorry.

0 upvotes

An analogy with different cameras:

The difference between the video output of the Olympus EM-5 and the Panasonic GH3 is quite marked. When I first got the EM-5, I thought the video was excellent. But the GH3 showed me what I was missing with 25/50p and a much better codec. And that's just at the level of 1080p. 4K represents a similar kind of jump in quality, at least. It can be hard to imagine something that is better than what you currently think is good until you see it for yourself.

0 upvotes

Hello DPR,

Thanks for interesting comparison!

It would be perfect if the sample gallery included pictures made at the same place, same time, with both cameras. It would be much easier to compare the photos.

Thanks in advance!

2 upvotes

There will certainly be some shots taken side-by-side to allow easier comparison.

3 upvotes

You should note that GH4 motion picture continuous clip recording time in AVCHD (in non-euro sales) is limited by battery power, max is 220 min, min may be around 110 min. MP4 may or may not be limited to 29 min, documentation is really confusing on all this. People wishing to film concerts, lectures, long events look at this spec, so DPReview should get it right.

3 upvotes

I thank dpreview for this comparison.
I was torn between buying these two.

If the GH4 was not so much better for stills than the GH3,
I could have kept my adequate GH3 for unattended, unlimited video,
and bought a A7s for still shooting.

The A7 series is currently out of the question due to the darth of reasonably priced lens.
As for using Canon AF lens on the Sony, I hate them so much that I used Sigmas on my 5D2.
So, I will keep my Nikon cameras and lens for stills.

As for using an external 4k recorder:
The A7s obviously benefits greatly, the GH4 much less so.
Very few people need a YAGN, I never will. it is literaly a "brick" to me.

For my use, the GH4, one Lumix lens, one battery, one large memory card, and an Azden shotgun mic are all I need 99% of the time
to shoot over two hours of continuous unattended video.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The gh4 is a neat idea from a video standpoint, but once you buy it and the interface unit for recording 4K at higher-than-100Mbps rates, you could have bought a Blackmagic 4K with an internal SSD, Prores 422 HQ & CinemaDNG options, a global shutter and a full copy of Davinci Resolve (worth $1000) and still had $300+ left over. So unltimately, I don't know who the camera is for. People that want 4K, but want their camera to behave like a cheap camcorder?? I just think the move to 4K, at this price, is silly if you aren't going to do anything with it.

6 upvotes

> and the interface unit for recording 4K at higher-than-100Mbps rates

It was discussed ad nauseam: one does *not* need the GH4's interface unit for 4K at all.

Buy a micro-HDMI cable/adapter and record the 4K directly off the camera.

So your figure of "$300+" is off by about $2000 in the other direction.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

6 upvotes

Actually, I had been too kind. The cheapest 4k recorder adds another $3000 to the price ($2000 when sometime in the future the shogun is released). The BMCC 4k records at 880Mbps 10-bit prores 422 HQ natively to SSD without need for any external device. Not to mention its CinemaDNG ability. OOPS! I'm sure that's been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere too. So in reality, you are looking at $3700-4800 for the GH4 to do what the BMCC 4k already does at $3000 and you still don't have 12-stops of DR or a global shutter or a super 35 sensor with the panny.

1 upvote

We arrive at the same issue: who is the GH4 for? No uncompressed or uncooked 4k for less than a small fortune and the serious video competitors have significant price and technology advantages the GH4 can't overcome. Is it marginally better than the 7S at video? Maybe in some circumstances. But I wouldn't buy the 7S as a serious video tool either. They both feel like dead-ends and bad investments as serious video platforms.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

@AngryCorgi

I agree that the GH4 and the A7s are not professional video tools in general. They fit in some areas and in others they do not. You will probably see both the GH4 and the A7s replace the Canon 5D in many places though, and the 5D has been used by professionals...

Since this was a comparative review between the GH4 and the A7s, great video tools for enthusiasts and the occasional pro no matter what, what are their differences?

Well, the A7s doesn't shoot 4K. You need to a unit at $2000 to get any 4K video at all. So, for 4K video there is only one option between the two. Now, if you add the optional (future) unit to the Sony, you will get 8 bit 4:2:0 video out of it, and it is still $1000 more than the GH4 (future) combo of the GH4 and the Shogun which will give you 10 bit 4:2:2 video.

The only place the A7s excels is in low-light, but at the moment you are limited to 1080p we'll see what the situation will be later on.

Remember 4K == fantastic 1080p and is future proof

0 upvotes

"So in reality, you are looking at $3700-4800 for the GH4 to do what the BMCC 4k already does at $3000 and you still don't have 12-stops of DR or a global shutter or a super 35 sensor with the panny."

You are missing the bigger picture.

Sleep on this very simple question: where one can buy a BMCC 4k for $1700?

0 upvotes

*sigh* That is NOT the bigger picture. You can get a FZ1000 for $900 if you want 100Mbps 4K camcorder footage similar to the GH4. There is no need to throw the other $800 away. If you are going to get serious about 4K, though, there is no logical advantage going with the GH4. Good at a few things, but master of none of those things. I guess the GH4 is for those people who want a plastic spork with a knife-like handle. It's a cute gadget, but not a serious utensil. I find it odd that Panasonic actually opted to compete with itself with the GH4 and FZ1000. Any argument FOR the GH4 requires a larger investment, thus nullifying it as it crosses into pro-4K price territory without producing pro-4K results.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

> FZ1000 [...] there is no logical advantage going with the GH4.

Except that you can't change the lens on the FZ1000.

But still I'm glad that you have recommended FZ1000 instead of the Sony Z2.

> Any argument FOR the GH4 requires a larger investment [...]

Not for everybody. Some, that would surely surprise you, already own not only the native m43 glass, but also adapters and the legacy glass. And also the compatible flashes, lights and rigs.

Why you keep inventing the rationalizations for your dislike for GH4? It's a free world - you owe no explanation to nobody for your dislike of the GH4.

0 upvotes

I don't hate the GH4, to each his own. I just don't get the rationalization for it. It is neither here nor there. It occupies a zone between pro-hardware and consumer-hardware (albeit natively closer to the consumer level) and offers poorer VALUE (performance/cost) than that of its closest competitors. Moreover, I just can't understand why Panasonic decided to throw the FZ1000 in the mix and effectively defeat their own product in terms of video value. It's just weird to me and makes no sense.

0 upvotes

Some people hate working with the Blackmagic anyway because it's unwieldy.

At any rate, that's only a concern if you're going for 4K mastering, which is overkill for most people. If what you want is to master optimal 1080p, which suits that VAST majority of view conditions, 4:2:0 8-bit 4K is just right.

As for the FZ1000, the biggest problem for me is that its lens isn't a fast, constant aperture zoom. Pretty key for changing lighting conditions in run-and-gun.

0 upvotes

@AngryCorgi

So, I am a little confused here. You are saying that the GH4, which one now generally accepts produces better results than a Canon 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern, can not go where Canon went? Why?

The result off the GH4 in compressed mode is not quite at BMCC level, but close. That is highly compressed 8 bit 4:2:0 video. I have yet to see the 10 bit 4:2:2 video that the thing can also output with (as you mention) and added Shogun. Do you have any reason to believe it will not best the 8 bit 4:2:0 video by a good margin?

Again, better than the Canon but it can't do what the Canon already did? Seems a bit odd to me. Oh, and the workflow on the GH4 is miles and miles better than the 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern.

0 upvotes

@ColdViking

"The result off the GH4 in compressed mode is not quite at BMCC level, but close."

No, it is not close, particularly to the raw output. Not only does it not have the dynamic range, it has more visible gradiations in some areas. Properly graded BMCC 4K raw footage looks considerable better than the same footage on the GH4.

"You are saying that the GH4, which one now generally accepts produces better results than a Canon 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern, can not go where Canon went?"

First off, I don't know who "one" is that "generally accepts produces better results...", but I never mentioned anything in that vein one way or another. I never even typed the word "Canon" anywhere above, so I don't know where you are going with this argument.

0 upvotes

I can also record Video that is only limited by the huge battery life and my 128GB memory card.
I have gone over two hours of unattended continuous recording with the GH4.

The AFF (continuous AutoFocus), DFD (Depth from Defocus), and DOF (Depth of Field) of my 12-35 lens at f/2.8 is so good
that I can capture (indoor poor light) Bowlers on three sets of lanes at the same time

The only thing the A7s has that I could find usefull is the great LowLight capability.
Thankfully the GH4 is more than "good enough" for my use at ISO 6400.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Well it certainly sounds like you are putting that 4K to the test with four hours of three lanes of bowling from the one angle. Can't wait to see your masterpiece.

3 upvotes

Certainly not a "MasterPiece" but more than adequate for critiquing our bowling skills.
The Videos (usually 1080 P60) can be paused or slowed down considerably with VLC media player

4 upvotes

I guess my point is do you really need a GH4 for this?

1 upvote

The GH4 does a noticeably better job than the GH3 did.
No other cameras will record unlimited while unattended
without an external recorder.

However, the main reason I upgraded was not for 4k but the improvements in shooting action stills.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

Actually, no camera at all will record UNLIMITED while unattended, with or without an external recorder. ;)

0 upvotes

Yes, I am limited to my 128GB SD card and two batteries including the grip (not sure if you can switch in new ones while recording).

There are external recorders that you can switch hard drives while recording and you can use an AC adapter.
In this case, the life of the camera might be the limtiing factor.

0 upvotes

Could not help but notice many more external control points (wheels buttons) on GH4. Looks like a really nice body.

0 upvotes

I have no trouble using AutoISO on my GH4
It was easy to set up and the range has increased over the GH3
Yes, you can use it in Manual Movie Mode
I can also adjust Shutter Speed, Aperture, and EV while recording

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Both (Sony and Panasonic) make clear that these cameras are intended for photographers and videographers yet both lack a swivel viewfinder.

Is this one giant conspiracy?

0 upvotes

patent restrictions rule that:
offer one important feature
but lose another important feature
means competitors mentioned/reviewed (above) can never offer it all at once in any single model

explains why Canon can take its sweet time, and it has nothing to do with their being conservative, but that they control a lot more patents than their competitors are willing to admit, except as materialized in the peculiar inconsistent show/no-show of obviously useful features in new models.

Canon's VASS (Vari-Angle Swivel Screen) used on Canons more than any other mfr combined, so every now and then, they remove it for a fixed screen, and recently, first time ever, put the notoriously limited tilt-up-down screen on the Powershot G1 MkII (aghast! wtf! heaven forbid! hellfrozeover!) but, hey, ... Canon is just flaunting it (and I hate tilt screens ... ) please, return the VASS, and at least offer modular VASS for EOS LV FF dSLRs ... no slippery smartphone wifi alternatives, thx

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You have the display why do you need a swivel viewfinder?
However a display hood would be nice.

3 upvotes

nice comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O76Ci8MDGhI

0 upvotes

4:47 nice bit of focusing! If he can't even focus the lens on the GH4 I think he needs to be receiving not giving the talk ;)

1 upvote

I guess he could only use his mother in law to shoot this video and his dog to edit it. Pity he scripted it himself as the parrot would have done a better job.

I particularly like the statements of being stuck with slow zooms on the A7S, but WOW look how the Panasonic can adapt these lenses.

0 upvotes

Don't know if anyone already commented on this, but as an owner of the A7s, I absolutely HATE the position of the video record button. Would it have killed Sony to place it anywhere else? As it is, pressing the REC button induces a shake that ruins the first 10 or so frames of the video. This annoyance aside, so far it's been great.

2 upvotes

Doesn't it let you use the shutter button to start recording if you're in movie mode on the mode dial? Bit of an oversight if not.

0 upvotes

Normally we start the video in advance so the 1st 5-10 seconds doesn't matter.

1 upvote

Exactly. Silly red video buttons. Except cameras that put it on the top. Otherwise, these push forward buttons are terrible, especially with finderless cameras you are already holding precariously.

We don't know what we've lost until it's gone. If the camera has to be in Movie Mode, the more useful shutter button can be used to start and stop video recording.

0 upvotes

Yeah, it is a bit woeful. Lots of complaints about the NEX-7 video button, so they updated firmware to disable it in anything but video, but this design takes it needlessly too far. At least make the shutter button video start/stop Sony, as you can't take stills in video mode anyway (according to the annoying warning).

1 upvote

@stevens, that is actually rather incorrect IMO. 3 or 4 seconds early perhaps, but 5-10 is a bit long (though if that's your workflow, I can respect that). I personally cannot bring myself to accepting bad button placement induced shake just bcos "the first frames usually don't get used anyway." I see your point and haven't lost any shots because of this, but it's still silly.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

Thanks Richard for correcting the price of the GH4, which is now shown as £1299.

Now it can be seen the difference between it and A7S. Especially when the 4k recorder needed with the A7s brings the price up to over £4000! That is £2,700 more expensive!

Clearly the price of the GH4 is an absolute bargain easily within reach of the aspiring amateur.

2 upvotes

And the aspiring amateur HAS to have 4K?

3 upvotes

No, but the GH4's 4k downscales to make some of the best 1080p you can get (at standard frame rates, it doesn't go higher) plus you get Cinelike-D and a huge pile of Pro-Video controls which you can't get elsewhere (even in the 7s for a number of them).

IMHO if you're shooting movies and don't want to assemble/transport/use a full rig it's the way to go.

BTW one disappointment with the A7s is the low ISO dynamic range compared to the other A7 cameras - I guess there is no free lunch...

6 upvotes

So that's a disappointment compared to the other A7's when comparing to a GH4? That makes a whole bunch of sense.... It's also disappointing that it has lower resolution than the other A7's too I guess. It's also disappointing that it's smaller than an A99 and disappointing that it doesn't have a rangefinder.

3 upvotes

"It's also disappointing that it has lower resolution than the other A7's"
no it is not; you can choose among 12, 24, 36 MPix
"It's also disappointing that it's smaller"
small is beautiful
"it doesn't have a rangefinder"
rangefinder??? It's an ILC camera.

0 upvotes

So are many rangefinders?

At any rate I think your sarcasm meter needs calibration.

0 upvotes

So you're saying you don't care about a stop less DR at low ISO than the other A7 cameras, okay, that is half as much though...
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-versus-Sony-A7-versus-Sony-A7R___949_916_917
But to me if I was considering an A7 it would make me think. Plus the lack of AF lenses and the low burst rate would be a show-stopper (it is strange all the A7 models have crap burst rates). Also the lack of 4k in a portable package.

(It is a bit odd that after all this time with NEX lacking so many lenses that when they finally come up with a really useful one, the 16-70 Zeiss, they then move to full frame so people can't use it anyway.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

And yet it still beats these tiny sensors... so what is your point? It seems like you are clutching at the old 'well it's worse than something at this' routine. So what are we comparing here? A7S vs GH4 and it's lack of 4K internal recording or its lower downsampled to 8MP DR than the A7R? Seems to me the GH4 can't compete on DR and the A7R can't compete on video. You can't slice it up every way and say 'it doesn't have this, but x product does. But it also doesn't have this, where y product does', because at the end of day neither x nor y products have what this product does... understand? Thus why my silly remarks about rangefinders.

And you may have missed it, but in screen mode DR is hardly affected, while colour, tonal range, SNR pull massively ahead... but you only got as far as the initial test page and thought 'well that's bad, better go find someone to complain to about this matter'...

Over to you doc

1 upvote

I find the GH4 used in 4k and Cineline-D achieves amazing results and a lot of people agree with me. It's also loaded with pro level controls and a very compact package.

My issue with the A7s is no 4k without a big expensive dongle and otherwise it offers great high ISO performance with lots of poor features. It's on average a worst low ISO still camera than the GH4 (severe lack of AF lenses, dire burst rate, etc. etc.) and if you want a FF camera (with bonus huge lenses - and I have some very big Canon lenses) you don't get all the advantages you should at low ISO, so it's compromised. I also shoot FF and when I carry FF lenses I like to have a body to take advantage of them, I couldn't see myself buying a body that was only good at high ISO unless that was a key feature to me, it isn't.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 50 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Total comments: 394

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2014 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site