Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 real-world samples gallery

I didn't realize the GH4 had a 100Mp sensor.

No, all current FF cameras output 2MP video.

Sure, Sony A7s. But you've switched subjects from the still images to suddenly - "oh but it does 4k". If you want it for 4K movies, go for it. But you still won't get the dynamic range of the A7s.

Exactly, A7s can NOT shoot 4K. You need to carry around an external $2000 box for that making it less portable than the largest DSLR. Of course then there is the terrible rolling shutter on the A7s which makes video in any kind of lighting plain ugly.

The A7 does shoot 4k, but needs the external monitor. There's good reason for that...if you understand what's happening and why a person would shoot 4k. But again, you did switch from the mediocre still images in this post to video which isn't a primary reason to buy a still camera. So there's that - apparently you're aware that the GH4 isn't that great of a stills camera, even though that's primarily what it is. Or not. It would appear that you're grasping at this point. The A7 will run circles around the GH4 in the video department. And even at 12Mp resolution, it will make better images than the GH3. Face it, postage stamp sensors aren't where it's at.

1) A7 cannot shoot 4K
2) A7s cannot shoot 4K on its own
3) A7s uses 1/2 the bit rate for 4K than the GH4.
Between the low bit rate, $4600 price tag, and terrible rolling shutter many on sites like dvxuser and eoshd are saying they gave up on the A7s already. The GH4 is the best option, not according to me, but according to the independent film makers sites.
Anyone who thinks a $4600 camera combo that needs a giant box hanging from it, that has 1/2 the bit rate and has a big problem with rolling shutter will outsell the GH4 needs to have their head examined.

You're such an undying stalker. Everywhere I've mentioned something about certain cameras lately, you've jumped in and started this stuff. And you take it so seriously - I can get you so wound up. Just look at how wrapped up you are in your own hype and fanoi-ism. It's all M43 for you and you'll go to any length to bash anything else. You have to.

Wow, you always resort to name calling and personal attacks. Can we stick to cameras please?

I'm not calling names, only relating facts. ! If you want to keep following after every one of my conversations and harassing, I'll be glad to oblige you with facts.

"I'm not calling names"
You need to go back and delete those posts before making this claim. It is too easy to see they conflict with that statement.
Back to topic:
1) GH4 has twice the bit rate for 4K video than A7s
2) GH4 has less rolling shutter than A7s
3) For 4K video GH4 is about 1/3rd the price than A7s
4) GH4 does not need a big external box hanging from it for 4K making it more portable and easier to use.
I am sure the A7s will be nice, but many have already discounted it as being too expensive and the decided the GH4 is a better option for reasons above.

Any one single shot wouldn't demonstrate AF performance overall anyway, no? Unless they posted a whole sequence. S-AF is already understood and well regarded...

There's a guy on the MU-43 boards doing some interesting tests of the C-AF/DFD and tracking tho, he's compared it with the E-M1 I think and commented on performance using Olympus as well as Panasonic lenses (IIRC the f2.8 tele was the most impressive, some Oly primes did ok, the PL25 did unusually poor).

Hopefully DPR tests it reasonably well as they did for the X-T1, etc. DFD seems kinda mysterious and the GH4 seems to be doing well (or better than past models) with lenses that shouldn't even be DFD compatible.

I can't wait until these advancements start trickling down from the top tier models...

Blah, obviously that last comment should've been under another commenter's posts (one of Kim's), whatever

Persistent troll is a persistent troll. You keep reminding us over and over how all cameras will soon disappear and there will only be phones and "pro gear" (which from what I've gathered you define as full frame or bust), but if that's the case the so called pros better start hoarding equipment now because it's ultimately enthusiasts and consumers that pad manufacturer's profits.

Mav, what GH do you have? The IQ difference between the GH2 and GH3 is significant in both color and noise at all ISO's when doing large prints. I've sold hundreds of prints from my GH2 and GH3 up to 36x48 as well as many paid shoots, but I do admit there is a difference. I'd put the M4/3's with the newer sensors closer to the 5D3 then I would a P&S never the less a cell phone.

@Maverick_: "Not a troll. Don't call me that, been on here for over a decade ..."

And learned nothing? People use that term generically to mean "mean spirited" or "annoying" and even "dumb" ... it is a catch-all these days. Your post fits, even if you personally do not (according to you, anyway.)

"I seriously and passionately dislike the image quality of the GH series. None of the images posted above do anything for me ..."

So? I don't like this set of examples either. But that's not a license to make comments that are ignorant of the facts and devoid of any cogency. The latest Panasonic sensors appear in the GX7, GM1, EM1 and GH4. In that light, you are merely stirring the pot for want of something intelligent to say.

"GH is a video tool! Period."

How many ways can one find to describe such a comment? Fatuous is a start. Ignorant is accurate. Unthought works.

You are lost dude !

@Maverick: Not a troll?
Maybe you should start arguing instead of simply posting silly claims like the one with the smartphone... then you might be able to convince others that you are NOT a troll.

what makes you think I want to connect with others in the way that you think. Not all of us are mindless conformist automatons like you.

Sensors have plateaued and other than minor tweaks to IQ I doubt you're going to see any great change until there is a technological break through.
I suspect that's at least part of the reason so many are removing AA filters, to get that little bit extra IQ.
It might even become like the film days when you would go ten years between significant improvement.
Perhaps a good time to break the spiral of gear acquisition (washes mouth out) and concentrate on our photography.

@Bhima78: 1) Quite often. 2) I did not even see a single 3200 ISO image in there, did you?

@Kim, I think Lightroom/Aperture etc are going to have more influence on the IQ of our photos and improved JPEG quality than the manufacturers.

@Bhima78: Thanks, I had missed that one. Peculiar exposure though, but looks clean. I wish they'd shown 6400 and 12800 as they usually do.

@Olymore: Yes, of course. But I see little point in looking at all if all the images fall in a narrow band of decent light. We already know that all the sensors since the GH2 are very similar in normal light, and most of the 12mp sensors are also excellent in decent light. So pushing to extremes makes sense so we can get an early peek at how they do, if only for interest's sake.

Jpeg ? Seriously ? And you are a 'pro' ?