Sdaniella: lol.too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videographye.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc
e.g.Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4EunJae Imhttp://vimeo.com/96882002"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im
Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking
C100 mkII still has no raw and no 4K, not even with external recorder.
As for AF, this camera is independent pro filmakers, right? AF is not important in that market. Alexa and Red don't even have AF
GodSpeaks: So, no 4K, despite it having an 8.3MP sensor? Or did I miss something (again)?
At one third the price, the GH4 would be a much better buy for most people, and it does 4K.
AF matters for consumers, but real filmmakers don't use AF in video.
Red, Alexa, F55, F65, - none of these cameras even have AF.
shadowz: The Sony A77 mark2 is almost as good ...while wearing a significantly lower price tag .........
but what do I know .....
Where is A77? Looks like DPR not only have no plans to review it, but they didn't even bother to do do studio shots
Funny DPR never posted anything about FS7 that totally kills this in features (internal 4K, 10-bit video, 180 fps, XAVC, 12-bit raw to external recorder, etc) and ergonomics.
Nonsense. 8.85 MP sensor in C500 records 4K with external recorder.
I am pretty sure the sensor could have done at least UHD if Canon wanted to include that feature.
Zvonimir Tosic: First the amazing GX7, now LX100. This is brilliant; real thinking outside the box.
RX100 is a pocket camera. LX100 isn't. They aren't in the same category. If someone wants a pocket camera to add to their ILC gear, RX100 wins, as RX100 is a pocket camera, period.
LX100 is comparable to Canon G1X series.
Curtox: I was all in on this phone. Then I saw that price. If that's for real, this thing is destined to barely make a dent in terms of sales. That's an incredibly steep asking price. Just wow.
Yeah, 128 GB IPhone plus is $950, $100 cheaper than this phone which is only 16 GB. IPhone 6 16GB $650, half the price
quangzizi, the whole laundry list is useless, as RX100 is a pocket camera while LX100 isn't. If someone wants a copact pocket camera, RX100 wins. Period.
"LX100 is by an order of magnitude *smarter* and more innovative product than any Sony's compact"
How is it more "innovative" than the original 2 year old Rx100 and full -frame RX1? One was a pocket camera with zoom lens and 1" sensor and the other was first full frame compact.
Pana is more similar to Canon G1X series.
AlanG: Clearly Sony sees that one place to attack Canon and Nikon is in the full frame video market.
Nikon has never been in video market. Sony has been in video market before Canon.
WHere is FS7 announcement? That's E-Mount camera
princecody: Also why no Sony E mount Otus?
E-Mount can use all other mount lenses with adapter.. There is no AF on the lense anyway.
Bob Meyer: You comment that:
the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.
Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.
The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.
Why re we talking about Hollywood movies with milion dollars lighting budget?
There are other professional independent filmmakers and journalists who might have to shoot in available light. DOF is flexible and A7s clearly would be a better camera to shoot in lowlight situations.
GoneMirrorless: Scratching head. Why compare when they are so different???GH4 $1000 less and has 4K option no extras neededA7s $1000 more needs $2000 option for 4K, undisputed low light king, FF
Where are the real reviews? I wanted to read about the GH4 - the one I can afford - and there is only this which is not helpful to those with an under $2000 budget.
I read GH4 focuses like a top DLSR -big advance for mirrorless- but this review has squat about that.
They aren't that different. Both are DSLR-shaped cameras that capture professional quality video. Anyone who is primarily interested in video has an interest in both; so it's a valid comparison.
DOF is flexible and it's not the case that you need exact matching DOF to shoot the scene. So, no, you aren't losing high ISO advantage. If it's a lowlight scene (evening beach, sky, stars, indoor concert, wedding, church, etc) and you are shooting wide open anyway, A7s has the advantage.
CaPi: I am still unsure wether these two really can compare. What are we going for here? Will we learn if sensor size has become unimportant.?I wouldnt think so. hm. Any ideas?
They are comparable as two video cameras that also take still images, as both are primarily targeted towards video shooters.
A77 II didn't make any list?
A7s was used to shoot a documentary for Al Jazeera
Philip Bloom is also using A7s/F55 combo to shoot a 13 part documentary (for CNN?) that will be shot in dozens of countries.
andyshon: To me the interesting question is why? Clearly they had the budget to shoot on any camera they chose. So why take the risk of using an unproven system like this?
pkosewski, read the post. It was cameraman decision to use A7s -- not any deal with Chevrolet.
A7s has already been used to shoot a TV documentary before this commercial. Google.
Paul Guba: Oddly it doesn't say why use this camera. With a budget and so many known cameras available why would you choose to experiment on a high budget, high pressure job. Why do I feel like I am not being given the whole story?
Here is the direct quote:
""The problem is not the 4k downscale, the problem is 4:2:0 AVC encoding throws away 90% + of your data. You don't get the benefit of oversampling in the color data. You do get better image resolution and cleaner images with fewer artifacts, but it won't help the color gamut and it doesn't give you more grading room. "
It's not true 10 bit.