www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Previous page Next page

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
Previous page Next page
53
I own it
226
I want it
32
I had it
Discuss in the forums
118
I own it
255
I want it
42
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 493
123
BelePhotography
By BelePhotography (1 day ago)

Would be interesting to know what settings were used for the videos - especially when testing for "rolling shutter" as this is more an effect of misusage than just the camera ;-)

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 day ago)

Which settings in particular?

0 upvotes
kerimheper
By kerimheper (1 day ago)

I have my gh4 like 5 days
since I have a studio and lots of Canon cameras and lenses
I realised if you use mid range lens with GH4 you can get in more trouble than DSLR 1080P video because in 4K you see every detail specialy in corners. I have 12-50mm Olsympus lens because of electronic zoom option but you def. need some thing like prime or 12-35mm Lumix
I've ordered SpeedBooster with manual aperture after that I will test my Canon L lenses .
So far I've tested M42 Super Takumar 50mm F:4 Macro with mft converter results vere perfect very sharp
Than I've tested regular old M42 28mm F 2.8 lens at 2.8 I can tell you even with more crop factor at 4K video still looked too soft at corners
if you consider buying and old M42 lenses 16mm / 24mm / 35mm / 50mm
like lenses just buy good branded ones.

GH4 video codec is very easy to work with that is very important if you also do some editings like me

Hopefully I will upload video samples with variable lenses with GH4 soon

Thanks for review

1 upvote
Cameraman777
By Cameraman777 (2 days ago)

A totally useless "review".

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 day ago)

It's not finished yet.

What was it you are hoping for? That way I can try to include it.

0 upvotes
yomasa
By yomasa (4 days ago)

WHERE ARE THE VIDEO SAMPLES?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 days ago)

At the moment there are two on page 4 and two on page 5. More will follow.

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (4 days ago)

About the Sony "weather sealing", there appear to be a lot of threads like this for that body type...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54194735

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (3 days ago)

So what? If WR failed for someone despite correct use, they should make warranty claims to get it fixed for free or get a new body
This does not change the fact that A7s series of cameras are WR according to Sony and official specs

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (3 days ago)

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/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
neil holmes
By neil holmes (3 days ago)

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?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 days ago)

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."

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
neil holmes
By neil holmes (2 days ago)

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!

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (2 days ago)

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

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (2 days ago)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JunzInc
By JunzInc (2 days ago)

:-) Someones so interested in all these Sony Cameras..

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (5 days ago)

hahaha

Panasonic made the GH4 larger so it looks like something that is in the FF category. (I said "looks", not "is")

Then Sony went and made the FF smaller!

LOL

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 days ago)

Or did they make it larger for extra cooling for the internal processor/sensor to make these high bitrates and internal 4k possible. Or to make room for the weather sealing the a7 lacks. Or for all the fn buttons. Maybe to make it fit in medium to large hands.

We know Panasonic can make awesome tiny camera's too. Look at the only rx100 competitor the gm-1.

4 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 days ago)

oh please! take the comment lightly! ;)
it was intended as humor.

does the gh4 produce too much heat? if it doesn't feel hot, then it isn't overheating - as you would sense it even in a larger body.
thanks for the tip on the gm1... but the RX100 is a relatively small sensor, so there is much more than the gm1 to compete with it, like the Nikon1 series and the Samsung NX mini... and surely more to come. just need to find a bright compact zoom now, to go with one of those... ;)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (4 days ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (4 days ago)

After the GH2 filmakers requested a larger grip and battery. This is why the GH3 and GH4 are larger. There are still the options of the GM1, GX7 and soon the GM2 (tiny body,4k and evf).
For the record, the GH4 is much smaller than the A7s when you shoot 4K video.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (4 days ago)

I was just making a humoristic poke. ;)

Although I would expect the GH4 to be amazing for video, the lot of us here are really amateurs, and I don't think I'll be doing and editing 4K video anytime soon.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (4 days ago)

"Or to make room for the weather sealing the a7 lacks. "

A7s is weather sealed, so are all the FE lenses

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (4 days ago)

"The larger sensor of the gm-1 equals out the slower kit-lens. "

No, it does not. The kit lens is slower by 2 stops. The difference (dxomark) in sensor performance is not 2 stops. It's hardly even one stop. So the slower kit lens does not equal out by larger sensor.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (4 days ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (4 days ago)

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/

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 days ago)

"Salt water entered the camera"

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

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (3 days ago)

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.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (3 days ago)

So what? If WR failed for someone despite correct use, they should make warranty claims to get it fixed for free or get a new body

This does not change the fact that A7s series of cameras are WR according to Sony and official specs

0 upvotes
SmilerGrogan
By SmilerGrogan (6 days ago)

In the olden days the video function on a camera was kind of an afterthought-only-in-an-emergency kind of thing. Now the Sony has reversed the equation.

1 upvote
Ontario Gone
By Ontario Gone (5 days ago)

Funny i thought Panasonic had been doing this for years now with their GHx line. All hail Sony?

3 upvotes
pedroboe100
By pedroboe100 (6 days ago)

Doest it say somewhere which lenses are used? sorry for being lazy

0 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (6 days ago)

Assuming you're talking about the studio comparison photos, hover your cursor over the "i" symbol in the lower right corner and it'll tell you what they're using. The GH4 has the 45mm f/1.8 and the Sony's using the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8.

0 upvotes
NAwlins Contrarian
By NAwlins Contrarian (5 days ago)

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.

0 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (5 days ago)

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

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 days ago)

@ecm - the 25mm was used for the video comparison, since the 45mm ends up being far too long when shot with the 4K crop.

2 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (6 days ago)

I'm assuming the A7s still uses Sony's lossy raw compression that can screw up under some circumstances. That's probably even less desirable in a low-light still camera. Examples:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140212_2-SonyA7-RawDigger-posterization.html

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 days ago)

Dxomark scorres (based on raw) disprove all these " lossy raw compression is bad" claims, so do images in these studio shots.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (3 days ago)

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.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (3 days ago)

I don't trust the article. There are many other articles that shows compressed raw has no visible difference.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

http://www.diyphotography.net/12bit-vs-14bit-raw-and-compressed-vs-uncompressed-does-it-matter/

2 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (1 week ago)

Ok,

There are almost identical across for high iso shooting. Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 RAW ISO 3200, Sony Alpha 7S RAW 12800 and Sony Alpha 7 RAW 6400. All on print preview.

Alpha 7S retains more detail than A7. A7 retains more detail than GH4.

Colours? It seems clear to me that A7 has more saturation than A7S for landscape shooting. GH4 is in between but thats studio. The outdoor photo sample of GH4 shows pleasing saturation than the other two while A7S is fairly wash out in outdoor photography. A7 prone to have problem with skies colour which I have experienced which I own A7 like skies a bit too green for my taste unfortunately. While my old Nex 7 bulleyes for blue skies though which is almost accurate enough. But for portrait A7S is just right. Interesting though! Nex 7 is awful in portrait which shows reddish. GH4 seems to hold it very well for portrait but bit more saturation than A7S though. But much better than E-M1 for portrait of course! All are raw which I looked at.

2 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (1 week ago)

Continue...

Panasonic video mode however shows a bit too much in sharpening at both 4K and 1080. While Sony 7S seems fine. Although I pick Panasonic real life video scene over Sony for daylight outdoor but Sony for low light and indoor is the winner with better dynamic range though.

Overall winner for colour accuracy points to Panasonic for both video and real life but still a bit high saturation for some though but still the best pick out of it. Sorry Sony fan. I am Sony fan but seeing review these are lots of hard fact being present in front of my screen.

Most noticeable is blue skies in Panasonic seems much more accurate than Sony showing bit too much green for my liking.

Anyway there you go thats my pick the best is Panasonic and they have more lens than Sony so I am more comfortable with it. For low light and indoor light I tend to favour Sony A7S. But overall Panasonic though.

1 upvote
DBK The Camera Guy
By DBK The Camera Guy (1 week ago)

For photography, I'd go with my D800 right now, no question about it. For video..... it's the GH4, which for me is hard to say because until this camera and it's 4K, I was a dedicated video camera shooter. I have 3 new cameras this summer. The GH4, the Panasonic FZ1000 and the Sony AX100. I even shot for a few months with the Black Magic 4K camera. 4K is superior even if you are going to finish in HD, or even SD. I can shoot multi camera with just one camera and choose from 4 different images in HD.

The Sony Alpha 7S doesn't excite me.

If you want to see a good comparison, check out this video on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-2ZedzLeZs

Even at under $900, the FZ1000 has amazing quality for so little a price.

0 upvotes
rinkos
By rinkos (1 week ago)

thats the thing..if you are so into 4k then get the fz1000 which is in my opinion the best bridge camera right now .and panasonic has been doing overall superb job with the bridge camera line..but as a camera the Gh line is very dissapointing..the olympus are better at it .
so if its down to a hacked version just get a gh2 ..there is no need to pay 1700$ for a body only just for the 4k

0 upvotes
DBK The Camera Guy
By DBK The Camera Guy (1 week ago)

I would really like to make the GH4 and the M4/3 system my primary system. After a serious car accident (16 broken ribs, 2 broken vertebrae) I am in pain every single day of my life. The more strenuous the day, the higher the pain. What I love about the GH4 is how fast it focuses (Faster than my D800) and how small and light it is to carry. I aways have a camera with me, and at this point it will be the FZ1000 because I can shoot everything I like to, with a relatively small and light weight. In 4K, this camera has a 600mm lens. My GH4 now has the 100-300, which means it's also a 600mm lens when shooting stills and almost 700mm when shooting video. I will never have to carry a 15lbs, 600mm Nikon f5.6 lens again. That makes me smile!

0 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (1 week ago)

Interesting thing. I don't see any reviewers (except digitalcameraworld.com) to notice that a7s does NOT shoot the marketed 5fps. It's "normal" speed is a quite 18th century 2.5fps. You only get 5fps in "speed priority" mode with (I'm guessing) no autofocus or subject tracking.

And that is a HUGE trade-off for its small size and high ISO. It's not pro sport photographers arguing over 11 or 12 fps of D4s vs. 1Dx. It's VERY slow even for the least demanding shooters.

This narrows this camera's market down to paparazzi and... turtle migration photographers?

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (6 days ago)

You can see the burst rate well here:
"A7s vs GH4 Epic Shootout in 4K"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMypfYrKgw
It is quite something (the reviewer thinks it doesn't reach 2.5fps and is slower in reality). I suspect they use a slow sensor read-out speed to minimise noise, as that's the USP.

You are correct and the 5fps mode is focus locked, this is from page 100 of the A7s Help Guide (PDF version):

"In [Spd Priority Cont.] mode, the focus is fixed when you press the shutter button halfway
down for the first image, and the focus is fixed after that. However, the exposure value is
adjusted for each image."

http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=ILCE7S&template_id=1&region_id=1&tab=manuals#/manualsTab

The A7s is still a high ISO monster. However look at the moire test in the video, that would just kill the A7s for me compared to a GH4 (other may have different priorities). Also note the GH4 1080 modes are not good for aliasing/moire, it's only the 4k that's super-clean.

1 upvote
rinkos
By rinkos (1 week ago)

just by going to the studio test shots and seeing it on 100 iso is appalling from the GH side..there is no sharpness to speak of and massive lose of details .
especially when compared with the A7s.

what good is a 10 bit data rate when you cant recreate stuff that is not captured in the first place ?

not a good comparison .

either way ..in 2 -3 years it will all be relevant and by then 4k will be mainstream most likely so no reason to break your saving account for this .

0 upvotes
ThomasH_always
By ThomasH_always (1 week ago)

I will be glad to send you in one of my red apples and a reddish orange for an equally meaningful compare. Both are a fruit, with some amount of sugar, and both have some shades of red/orange on the outside skin. Both can be eaten. But: which is better? Which is superior? Which handles better in a hand, which can be used as a ball to play, not merely as a food or desert?

Nun serious: the size of the sensor alone puts these both cameras in fully different types of application, and the infrastructure is dramatically different. Sony has barely E-mount lenses, whereas m4/3 has meanwhile a battery of some 50-60 lenses, thus a different scope of application. In same term, the low light ability is diametrically different as well. Is the choice of these two about the 4K video, is that it? If dpreview is a site devoted to photography, the entire video stuff is rather alien to most photographers. Maybe we need a Vpreview.com or cinepreview.com, for folks making videos and movies?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (1 week ago)

both are serious mirrorless cameras .. goood for videography!!

0 upvotes
Bosnitch
By Bosnitch (1 week ago)

Instead of leaving out a main established competitor to these cameras, the Canon 5D mkiii, would it be possible to add the 5Dmkiii data in the features comparison?

Of course the data to be compared would be that obtained by comparing only the output of a 5Dmkiii as produced via the MAGIC Lantern hack, which produces RAW FullDH video output often said to be sharper and/or greater in bit-depth than the stock output of either of these tested new-contender cameras.

In short how about comparing real-world tools, which would mean pitting these two cameras against the video output of the *MagicLantern*
5Dmkiii?

0 upvotes
ekaton
By ekaton (1 week ago)

Sharpness, resolution, high iso, bla bla bla. Pull up the Df and see how the A7s and Df leave everything in the dust as far as subtle tonal transitions are concerned. This is were their big fat pixels show their superiority. Like Grandma`s cookies: simply the best. And no charts or over-analyzing will change anything. Great to have choices these days. I brought my A7r to my dealer yesterday to put it on commission sale and walked out with a A7s and a smile on my face. At home, my m-lenses started to grin again.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
s_grins
By s_grins (1 week ago)

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?

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (1 week ago)

because the E-M1 doesn't do 4K video

3 upvotes
s_grins
By s_grins (1 week ago)

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (1 week ago)

well I dont know a camera that don't do stills ((:

3 upvotes
s_grins
By s_grins (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 week ago)

Easy grins

The only stills the gh4 will take in the field is time-lapse.
We are interested in it's video capability. Since it's too expensive based on it's stills capability.

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (6 days ago)

There are about four stills cameras that can also shoot 4k video. One came out after these two so is presumably in the queue somewhere. One is much more expensive (1Dc). The other 4k contenders are video cameras (and cell-phones). Seems worthwhile to pair them up for people who want a still camera with a serious video side. Especially as the A7s has a number of quite big limitations on the stills side that you pay to get the USP of super high ISO. (Amazingly low burst rate, noticeably lower low-ISO DR than its fellow A7 models, plus it's stuck with Sony's compressed raw which can screw up some shots.) The GH4 also has the limitation of a smaller sensor. It's all trade-offs and I think a good choice for a comparison.

1 upvote
Lofote
By Lofote (1 week ago)

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

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (1 week ago)

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
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 week ago)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (1 week ago)

@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?

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 week ago)

@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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (1 week ago)

@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.

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 week ago)

@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.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (1 week ago)

HFLM:
I think downsizing is only an option for evenly lit scenes.
See studio comparison with 810 downsized:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/oqpqb3n

Sony has quite an advantage here in the shadow areas. Brighter areas look quite similar though.

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (1 week ago)

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
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 week ago)

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.

4 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 week ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
qianp2k
By qianp2k (1 week ago)

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.

5 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 week ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
qianp2k
By qianp2k (1 week ago)

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
HFLM
By HFLM (1 week ago)

@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.

0 upvotes
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Bhima78
By Bhima78 (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

Bhima78:

The A6000 isn't a great high ISO body. That's the A5000.

Nikon uses APSC sensor from at least two manufactures--Sony and Toshiba. The good for higher ISOs D7100 is a Toshiba sensor.

1 upvote
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

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.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Serious Sam
By Serious Sam (1 week ago)

" “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....

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

Serious Sam:

I'm not disputing the fact that better glass exists, you seem to have missed that point where I acknowledged that fact.

Some companies, Nikon, Fuji, and Samsung do indeed use the marketing term "ED", Zeiss doesn't. Nor do Leica and Canon.

You seem real confused about this.

The fact remains that clearly Samsung uses very very good glass in 4 lenses faster than f/2.8.

That wiki link says nothing about some minimum standard for "ED" glass.

You were wrong about Samsung NX lenses, and got called out with examples, and lose yourself in marketing terms to avoid admitting what you were wrong about.

Simple cultural (and racial) stereotyping of Koreans adds nothing here. The fact remains that Samsung has good NX bodies and some excellent NX lenses.

No, I'm not Korean; like many people, from all over the world, I try to be broadminded, while you don't.

In place of making claims about gear you've not used, try using the cameras and lenses.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
halfmac
By halfmac (1 week ago)

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
Drew83076
By Drew83076 (1 week ago)

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.

4 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 week ago)

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
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (1 week ago)

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
fototommy
By fototommy (1 week ago)

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

1 upvote
Ron A 19
By Ron A 19 (1 week ago)

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!

4 upvotes
badi
By badi (1 week ago)

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
ZAnton
By ZAnton (1 week ago)

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

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (1 week ago)

"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.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (6 days ago)

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

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
badi
By badi (5 days ago)

@BarnET
Yes! And according to US tech reports 36/2014 and Japanese white paper on light transmittance 56/2015, also some minor coefficients has to be added to the equation. Also considering the D810 lambda function has a completely different graph than on RX100, proves both my comment and yours totally wrong.

Joke aside, I said: not taking into account specific sensors, etc, ect. Just a rough idea.
And about the APSC, their size (on nikon/sony) is 370mm^2 while a FF is 864mm^2, so actually less then half, so for a "similar" sensor, will be a little more than a stop.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (1 week ago)

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.

12 upvotes
Bhima78
By Bhima78 (1 week ago)

Try putting the EM-10 in there. It seems to be at least as sharp as the A7s at ISO 100 RAW (click on print to normalize their size), and fairly sharper than the GH4 for some weird reason.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (1 week ago)

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

5 upvotes
sghound
By sghound (1 week ago)

yep it's terrible

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (1 week ago)

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.

10 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 week ago)

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
Revenant
By Revenant (1 week ago)

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
Timbukto
By Timbukto (1 week ago)

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
josbiker
By josbiker (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (1 week ago)

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
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (1 week ago)

Wow A7s is amazing at ISO 25600 JPEG's

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

Compared the Panasonic maybe.

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (1 week ago)

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 week ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 week ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

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
G1Houston
By G1Houston (1 week ago)

Is the GH4 shot out of focus?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 week ago)

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
halfwaythere
By halfwaythere (1 week ago)

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
BarnET
By BarnET (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
halfwaythere
By halfwaythere (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 week ago)

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
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (6 days ago)

@Richard, you should have stayed with the Oly 50mm.

The 45mm is a great lens - but it is the "plastic fantastic" of the m43. Yes, fantastic. Nope, still plastic.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (1 week ago)

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
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (1 week ago)

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
sbszine
By sbszine (1 week ago)

Does the A7s have an AA filter?

0 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (1 week ago)

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
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (1 week ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (6 days ago)

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.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (5 days ago)

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.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (4 days ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (4 days ago)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (1 week ago)

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.

2 upvotes
halfwaythere
By halfwaythere (1 week ago)

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
Zoran K
By Zoran K (1 week ago)

No comparison!

2 upvotes
aandeg
By aandeg (1 week ago)

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

4 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (1 week ago)

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
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 week ago)

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
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (1 week ago)

Official from Panasonic: GH4's sensor, though identical to GX7's, is tuned for DR, not high ISO.

0 upvotes
Valterj
By Valterj (1 week ago)

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
stevo23
By stevo23 (1 week ago)

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.

7 upvotes
gianstam
By gianstam (1 week ago)

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
stevo23
By stevo23 (1 week ago)

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

1 upvote
webrunner5
By webrunner5 (1 week ago)

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
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 week ago)

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
ET2
By ET2 (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (1 week ago)

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
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (1 week ago)

The news are: GH4 makes high quality 4K affordable.

As you say, before GH4, it was limited to the pros, who are continuously ripped off by the video equipment industry with $2000 add-on that and $1000 plug-in this.

But now, in GH4, pros too have a single camera which can accomplish 95% of the work, without requiring any extras.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (1 week ago)

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
halfwaythere
By halfwaythere (1 week ago)

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

4 upvotes
estarkey
By estarkey (1 week ago)

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

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (1 week ago)

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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

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. :)

8 upvotes
SmilerGrogan
By SmilerGrogan (1 week ago)

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...

1 upvote
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

Heh heh, that was good. :)

2 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (1 week ago)

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.

9 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 week ago)

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.

12 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (1 week ago)

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..

10 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (1 week ago)

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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

"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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

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
G1Houston
By G1Houston (1 week ago)

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
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (1 week ago)

@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?

9 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (1 week ago)

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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

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
SmilerGrogan
By SmilerGrogan (1 week ago)

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
G1Houston
By G1Houston (1 week ago)

" 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
ipecaca
By ipecaca (1 week ago)

@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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

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

1 upvote
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

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
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (1 week ago)

"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
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 week ago)

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
rinkos
By rinkos (1 week ago)

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
LucidStrike
By LucidStrike (1 week ago)

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
ET2
By ET2 (1 week ago)

Just same time as Phillip Boom reviews A7s

https://vimeo.com/102448889

6 upvotes
Total comments: 493
123