Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 and Sony Alpha 7S added to studio comparison

Shutterspeed... only one of importance when we talk about rolling shutter.

Could you please link to those "Official" Sony specs and what is covered by warranty? That would really help.
WR is not the same between vendors an can mean almost anything.
An owner who talked with a Sony repair engineers and support directly after his A7R was damaged by brief light rain reported that Sony says these cameras can only “withstand temperature change when there is water in the air, but no more”. (not direct light rain) He had to pay for repairs.
If there is anything more covered by the warranty let us know and we can contact this person to change his site.
http://tobinators.com/blog/index.php/2014/04/everything-else/sony-a7r-in-not-weatherproof-shock/

As far as I know Sony has never claimed "weather sealed". There is SOME sealing (and I am happy using my A7 in light rain for a short time). I applaud your efforts to point this out to people....you must want an A7s really bad?

How about now making an effort to advise the folks with a GH4 to send it in to get the audio issue fixed?

No specific claims, but:

"Dust and moisture resistance

Carefree shooting in tough environments is yours thanks to comprehensive dust and moisture resistance measures that enhance reliability by helping to prevent water and dust from entering the body. These measures include sealing around the buttons and dials, as well as a protective double-layered structure that tightly interlocks panels and components."

See that's what I thought.

I took that to be more sealed than it is too but the reality is that the a7 cameras do what is claimed (and no more).
It does seem more than it actually is if read casually but it is not and this has been so wide spread now that no one should have any excuse if using an a7 camera in poor weather.

Thanks very much!

Now, It puts RX10's "weather sealing" in question.

Richard, in the original "Key Features" for the A7 and A7s it says, "•Weather-proof alloy and composite body". Is that something you got direct from Sony? It appears to have been removed from all the Sony sites and the only thing that has to do with weather is a setting for the LCD when it is Sunny.
Also, several people who had cameras damaged by rain have report Sony customer service told them, "The A7R was designed with dust and moisture protection in mind, but we do not make any guarantees". That implies it may be there but use at you own risk. Search google on "A7" and "weatherproof" for actual user experiences.

The one series have an sensor that is much worse. Both the nx mini and nikon 1 have much slower lenses as the rx100.

The larger sensor of the gm-1 equals out the slower kit-lens. Nothing more nothing less.

ET

I was not talking about the more expensive mkiii.
That sony has no rival as somehow they also got an good evf in there.
Not to mention the high bitrate video and f1.8-2.8 zoom lens.

That said the gm-1 does have access to a lot of very capable small primes. Since I already own 3 of them I would still buy the gm-1.
But my gx7 isn't holding me back in weight yet.

About the a7s weather sealing. Thanks did not know that. I assumed to early since the first 2 didn't have it. Now the lenses make sense. Since I believe the body is the most vulnerable in the rain.

Sony cameras are marketed as Weather sealed, but do NOT live up to the hype. The A7s simply cannot compare to real weather sealing.
http://tobinators.com/blog/index.php/2014/04/everything-else/sony-a7r-in-not-weatherproof-shock/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sonys-a7-and-a7r-cameras-are-not-dust-and-moisture-resistant/

"Salt water entered the camera"

How did SALT water get in?
Rain is not saltwater.

From the article I linked to..
"So, I would expect that my camera would be OK if exposed briefly in light rain in Scotland (say 30 seconds at a time), and would be OK getting some sea spray from breaking waves on it when shooting at the coast. It seems not."
This person was in light rain for only 30 seconds at a time and learned this is NOT covered by the warranty.
According to Sony, weather sealing only means, “withstand temperature change when there is water in the air, but no more”.
Everyone needs to read this for the full story.
http://tobinators.com/blog/index.php/2014/04/everything-else/sony-a7r-in-not-weatherproof-shock/
Do shoot the messenger.

For at least one of the comparisons, the i info box says the Panasonic is using a Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 (not a 45mm f/1.8), and the Sony is using a 55mm f/1.8. However, I suppose different tests may have been done with different lenses.

@NAwlins Contrarian:
Hmm, not seeing that..... which one?

Read the article and look at the samples. It's just maths - if you get certain types of data it will make a mess of storing it. It's only a few things that will cause issues (Star trails are a nightmare), but it's annoying. It's also a fact not an opinion as you can see if you try to encode the problem types of data by hand - the algorithm Sony use will trash them.

Both GH4K and E-M1 cameras do stills, do not they

You have a great knowledge! So explain to me why GH4 could not be compared to E-M1 instead of SONY A7s - in terms of stills of course.

Ok, but it's certainly not the king of resolution. Generally I've found sensor size has a bigger effect on resolution than megapixels but I suppose that's only true to some level because the 3x density difference between the A7 series makes a huge difference in usable resolution.

HD monitor is 1920x1080 which is about 2MP, and you can have ideal about what 12MP can do for the printing size.

BTW: Most of the people have no ANY ideal about MP vs Printer size, that's why only most expensive Nikon uses LOWEST MP sensor($6,000+ D4s body is 16MP) because it is for PRO as PRO is more knowledgeable.

FWIW: 12MP Nikon D3s body is still over $6,000.

@Mike FL

Was the D3x NOT a pro camera? Were MF cameras not professional? Isn't a 50MP Phase 1 back useful for pros?

D4 series, like the D3, was specifically for photojournalism and sport. 16MP is more than enough for a good double page spread in a magazine, but it's a bit of a stretch for an advertising shoot or a 4" landscape print.

Sure, enthusiasts tend to buy more camera than they need, but last I checked a D800 is much cheaper than a D4. 20 million free pixels?

@57even,

Regarding to " D800 is much cheaper than a D4. 20 million free pixels?", Just released D810 body is about half of the price of D4s when D4s only has less than half of the MP than D810, but D4s has better IQ. That's my point; for the same sensor size, too many MP is bad for (low-light/High ISO) IQ.

Also 12 or 16MP can produce fairly large print.

@mosc: I think 12MP is enough for most professional use cases, esp. when the final output are print media.
If you need more, pick another cam. But what good are 30MP if you mostly have to shoot in low light conditions?

I think Sony made a smart move with this:
No other company offers two bodies with such different specs. I can imagine professionals buy both models, provided that the lens selection is enough for them.

@MikeFL
I like the versatility of the D810. I can have incredible IQ and DR at low ISO, but I can downsize, too, to 12MP to produce very good results. Here at DPReview they compared the A7s to Canon 5DIII and A7r some time ago. The A7r when downsized to 12MP gave comparable results to the A7s at ISO 25600 (the D810 is in a similar ballpark). That's enough for me. Regarding the D4s, it's very good, but look at a recent post at Fstoppers.com, comparing it to the D810. IQ is not better then D810, only at very high ISO it has an advantage, in my opinion.

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

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.

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.

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).

@HowaboutRaw: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A5000-versus-Samsung-NX-30-versus-Nikon-D7100___929_931_865
Doesn't go in line with your claims.

On the ISO A7S will surely be a winner, but there is other factors to consider.

A6000 and A7s are fantastic BODIES, but lack reasonable priced glasses. I never tried the Samsung NX30 and again lens sucks and you ask people who take photography seriously to take Samsung seriously....you are kidding right? What about M43, well noise on high ISO of an M43 sensor just berried them straight away.

Fuji may no longer be the king of high ISO, but it still has a class leading jpeg engine, it still has a whole bunch of glasses at amazing optical quality but priced very nicely.

My X-E1 plus the two XF zooms cost less than US$1300. DSLs/Sony lens alone is about 2K already.

Personally I think the Sony a6000 or Nikon APS-C do much better at high ISOs than Fuji.

HFLM:

It's safe to ignore DXO sensor scores, partly because the ignore the lenses, and mostly because the scores aren't based on real illumination but modeled illumination.

Also if you read what I wrote about, I already said I thought the A5000 likely the best APSC sensor for high ISOs. (Sony lenses are a different problem as are compressed raws.)

I like the Toshiba sensor in the D7100, but didn't mention it. And it has banding problems at lower ISOs that the A5000 or NX30.

Serious Sam:

Many Samsung NX lenses are optically excellent, say the 30mm F2.0. And some Samsung NX lenses are extraordinary, the 85mm F1.4, bested only by the optically best Leica and Zeiss lenses. And way better than Canikon's ED/L lenses.

Right the A7S is a very good high ISO body, but it's not as good as it should be.

HowaboutRAW:

Good lens is not the main problem but rather I was putting it

"you ask people who take photography seriously to take Samsung seriously....you are kidding right? "

The three sub 2.8 Samsung ED lens are the cream of the top but like most other brand, sub 2.8 ED glass are not cheap. Then there is the body cost. So Samsung is asking people to take a leap of faith and spend 2K to buy into their system... no I dont think so and I doubt anyone plan to purchase a system on a 1-2k budget will.

Serious Sam:

It is simply untrue that you acknowledged that the Samsung NX system has some good lenses, quoting you from above:

"I never tried the Samsung NX30 and again lens sucks... "

Then regarding cost and lenses faster than f/2.8 from Samsung:

I suggest you check the prices on on the 30mm f/2.0 and the 45mm f/1.8 for the Samsung NX line, both retail for around 300usd. And both are excellent, though not extraordinary, I guess they're not what you'd call "ED".

Spending 2000usd on a an NX30 and excellent to extraordinary lenses is not a leap of faith if you already have an NX100 and say the 30mm f/2.0. Or say the NX20 and the 45mm f/1.8.

No one is saying one has to buy the NX 85 f/1.4 lens to use this NX system well.

HowaboutRAW

You are totally missing the point here.....AGAIN.

1) If you have a Samsung mirrorless then you are suck into the system already of course there is no leap of faith. I am talking about people shopping for a new system.

2) Yes Samsung has cheap glass but not widely tested and all mirrorless platform has cheap glass too , while m43 Sony and Fuji widely tested.

So if I am someone shopping for a cheap system, cheap glass, why would I buy Samsung who does not have a reputation when compare to other brands. And one is serious about photography, they will look at the whole system of the brand, this is why Canon and Nikon has such strong hold on the DSLR market, its the system that people have faith in and the big brand mirrorless still find a hard time to convince people to switch and I really don't see people picking mirrorless will see Samsung as their first choice.

Serious Sam:

Quoting:

"2) Yes Samsung has cheap glass but not widely tested and all mirrorless platform has cheap glass too , while m43 Sony and Fuji widely tested."

Samsung lenses get "testing" anyhow there are sample photos from various websites to look at. And I don't pay a lot of attention to test scores, I look at raws I've shot or downloaded.

What do you mean the Samsung doesn't have a reputation like other systems? The NX line is not new. The NX300 is an excellent body. The 20-50mm kitzoom is one of the optically best kitzooms there is. There are inexpensive NX bodies, like the NX3000.

Right people buy Nikon and Canon DSLRs partly for the name, but not many carry that name seeking over to the Nikon and Canon mirrorless systems.

There's a big difference between writing that you don't see Samsung as a first choice for a mirrorless system and what you wrote above about "lens suck" and claims that all of the very good Samsung lenses are expensive.

I can see that I am talking to a Samsung fan boy now and someone who cannot see photography system on a macro base

Lets switch to fan boy mode talk:

Take a look at this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52797443

And....how many award Samaung has got when compare to other bodies and lens manufacturer? I rest my case...

From the day they created Galaxy camera they are on the the wrong track already. That is the problem with Samsung functions functions functions. Is a bloody camera, why do I need a quad core processor and android on it.

If they put their effort in developing a high quality and some high quality lens from day one then they may have a chance. Now is too late unless they do something that is ground breaking. Otherwise the will only complete with pro compacts in the prosumer market.

By the way I say Samsung has three sub F2,8 ED glass, I never say they are good.

Serious:

I like some Samsung NX lenses, and shooting raw the cameras do very good still image quality. However I think there are problems with some NX bodies. So claims of "fanboy" are simplistic thinking on your part.

Don't behave as if the Galaxy is the only NX camera, that position doesn't strengthen your case. And in fact I don't like any of the Galaxy cameras from Samsung.

However the NX30 released after the Galaxy NX.

From the first NX release some of the NX lenses have been optically excellent. Then Samsung has extraordinary lenses in the NX line, optically better than the best Fuji or Olympus lenses.

You don't seem real interested in cameras or lenses, just in marketing.

And you're not real informed about what Samsung has to offer. Instead taking the approach that since you're not using one, the system must not be good, and can't have good lenses.

Samsung has more than 3 faster than f2.8 lenses, but not all are excellent.

I said "Sub 2.8 ED glass." Do you know what that mean? And there is only three unless you just invented the fourth one.

And where is your "excellent" Samsung lens on the DXOmark ranking..... oh yeah there I see it right behind all the all the sony zeiss, Olympus ED and Panasonic DG glass. Woo..

The new ED Zoom of Samsung is good on paper, shame no good body to support.

Serious Sam:

Yes, Sam I know that “sub” means less than, or faster than in this case.

I can think of at least 4 Samsung NX lenses that are faster than f/2.8. You forgot the f/2.4 20mm. (And there’s a 5th that’s f2.0 when fully wide open, then there may be more. Check B+H.)

No one argues that the NX30 isn’t a good body.

DXO lens scoring isn’t real helpful; it can only say if a lens is good, not if a lens is extraordinary. I believe in fact the 85mm f/1.4 NX is scored well by DXOMark, but I go by raws that I’ve shot. (Albeit DXO lens scoring has some use, unlike the sensor scores.)

You need to stop assuming I’m not familiar with a wide range of digital cameras and lenses.

f2.4 16mm, not 20mm.

So counting the zoom, optically extraordinary, that's 5 NX lenses that are faster than f/2.8.

Then there are couple that are f/2.8, eg the 60mm.

You miss the point again, the key is ED
Here is a lens 101 for you. No need to say thanks.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_dispersion_glass

Sorry Sam,

I never claimed that Samsung has more than 2 “ED” lenses, also faster than f/2.8

It has 2 extraordinary lenses. And then there are two more optically excellent lenses. The 16mm f/2.4 isn’t real special.

So by my counting that’s 4 very good lenses faster than f/2.8.

Clearly Samsung is using very good glass in all 4 of these lenses.

“ED” is a marketing term mostly used by Nikon.

It’s not like Fuji and Leica or Zeiss use that term for their lenses, eg the Otus isn’t called “ED” by Zeiss.

That better optical glass exists yes, no question. Interesting enough history on Wikipedia, but it’s a Nikon mostly term for camera lenses.

" “ED” is a marketing term mostly used by Nikon."

You must be joking....

And Otus use anomalous partial dispersion glass, 6 of them. its in the same family of LD glass. Here another lens 101 lesson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_dispersion_glass

Honestly I don't know why I even border talking to you.... so no need to reply RIP!!!

BTW are you happen to be Korean? If you are not then I am sorry and if your are I understand everything....SAMSUNG and LG is the greatest brand in the world, and everything the Jap makes is over hype, over marketed crap....

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.

"Even with the low 12MP of the A7s, the image is sharper when shot in raw at ISO 100."

There is much simpler explanation.

Something is off with the GH4's studio shot.

Compare GH4 and GX7 - the IQ on low ISO should be identical.

GH4 and GX7 share the same sensor. GH4's one is tuned for DR, while GX7's tunes for high ISO - but on low ISO they should perform the same.

badi M43 vs fullframe is 4 times given they are fabricated using the same technology. Quality between fullframe sensors vary wildly. The Canon 5d mk3 for instance get's smoked by the D810 in shadow noise.

Vs Apsc it's different
Since they are not twice the size
It's about half a stop to 2/3 stop. or nothing at all when compared to canon

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Does the A7s have an AA filter?

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.

There is no reason for them to need more space between the pixels, you would expect they will be built in very similar processes and so have wires of similar sizes. Plus there will be microlenses and probably light-pipes so the light will be guided around all that wiring anyway.

The process will be similar, but is just about physics. Maybe i`m thinking that the photodiodes are rounded, and thats why they would have more space between them, so they could catch more light thats are not at 90 degrees em relation to the sensor. But supposing i`m wrong about it as you have more resolution with a smaller size you get more fine detail, and finer details are the cause of moire, because a bigger diode can`t distinguish that as good as a smaller one.

The way it works is they have a Micro-lens over the sensor to aim the light into the pixel and avoid the wiring. Better designs also have a light-pipe to carry the light down past the layers of wiring and into the sensor.
Worth a read:
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/30/five-reasons-you-may-soon-be-shooting-at-iso-50000/
(Which I just found while searching for a Chipworks sensor pic showing light-pipes, but this is a better explanation.)

I will read it, thanks, but in advance i know that micro-lens tech will not be equal to smaller photodiodes, and will introduce some kind of distortion in the process.

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.

" 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?