Photoman: Why? I feel the Pana/Oly are better lenses than Canon, plus the weight saving alone. If I want to shoot FF for video, than use a FF camera.
I have lenses from both and the latest Canon lenses are better than the Panny lenses, especially wide open. The Panny lenses are more like the last-gen Canon lenses. Also reports from EF SpeedBooster users suggest the Canon stabilisers and better than the Panasonic ones for video (I'll need convincing they are better than the 12-35, but the 35-100 OIS is awful for video, it just loves to throw in the odd bonus shimmer every now and then).Also you get an extra stop of light with the SpeedBooster, so my f2.8 becomes f2 and the f1.2.... whoa...Plus finally I have some decent Telephotos for the m43, I can put something big and light gray on it... (The GH4 focus peaking should be very cool there.)
marc petzold: I'm wondering because DPR did the "Experiment" the 1st Time - to compare different Sensor & Camera Classes, which are simply not comparable.
Otherwise, DPR compares different FF Sensor DSLR/DSLMs, APS-C, etc...but m43 and FF - why the hell? Both cameras have their different application & niche - the A7S for lowlight photography, the GH4 mostly for video - so why the hell a comparsion? no offence.
I do also not compare 1 inch sensors to APS-C, and so on...because that simply doesn't make sense.
Next time someone comes comparsion FF to Medium Format, or an MiniCooper to a Ferrari - WTF?
Interesting, I guess it's the scaling then... thanks!
duartix: Come on DPREVIEW... where is the ISO tab on the very first (and most important image comparison page, given the context)?http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-dmc-gh4-sony-alpha-7s/2
We need to know how how these cameras compare when recording video at ISOs other than 100. We all know they are perfect at base, but what we really need (in such a video centric comparison) is how far can they be stretched.
Remember at 4k its one sensor pixel per video pixel, in 1080 its 4 sensor pixels per video pixel so will have less noise.
Dr_Jon: 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
It's just maths, if you use that compression scheme it will break in some unusual circumstances, but be fine 99% of the time. My point was those circumstances (small bright things in a dark background) are more likely in low light so more of an issue with the A7s use-type. Feel free to duplicate the tests.
SmilerGrogan: 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.
The Canon 5DmkII started the ball rolling, everybody is copying that if anything... Anyone remember the "House" episode shot entirely on 5DmkIIs?
kerimheper: GH4 4K Video Sample with Canon 17-40mm L Series F 4 Lens @ F4using manual EF - mft converter ( manual focused )
if any canon owners wonders about get their hands on GH4 with canon lenses they already have
BTW the EF speed-booster is out now ($$$ though) and a non-lensed EF adapter announced (does aperture, IS, electronic focusing lenses).
Arikd: More quirks:III When I put the camera in one of the custom modes - say C2 I set for 4K (these are modes you can pre-program to whatever you like, and are the only way to get fast switching between 4K ans stills mode!) the camera loads all settings and "runs over" any changes you made. So I get my camera ready in 4K, set gain, aperture, noise reduction, etc. then want to take a still, so I move to another custom mode - say C1 I prepared for stills - bang - all my settings are gone. Even when I go back to my "4K" C2 custom mode, I will get the original settings, not the ones I worked so hard to set.So I do it again... and then turn the camera off to save battery power until the show I'm shooting starts. When I start it up again - Bang - all the settings are gone again, but now the show starts... So I shoot with the wrong settings and get a crappy result. Thanks Panasonic.Yeh, I can save my settings. But it would have been easier if the camera asked before changing my settings.
The GH4 remembers quite a bit of stuff on the manual video settings mode position. I can be shooting in A with STD profile and f5.6 @say 1/320, then move the mode dial to M-Video and I will get Cinelike-D and 1/50th immediately (plus it changes back when I go back to A). I'm still on firmware 1.0 BTW.
RichRMA: Can either of them process data fast enough so you don't see those patches of blur when moving water is video'd? In HD, or 4K?
Do you mean shooting at high frame rates (GH4 does 96fps in 1080 but only 25/30 in 4k) or shooting at high shutter speeds (which they all do, but you get a different "look" to the video, very Private Ryan battle scenes).
Mike Ronesia: I don't like reviews like this. I have a full set of M4/3 lenses and want to read about the GH4 without adding info about some other system that I'll never use. It's just confusing as all the information gets mixed together. I know my GH3 and am trying to decide if the upgrade is worth it, and this format is not helping at all.
This might be a fine second "alternative" review for someone deciding between systems. It is not what I have come to expect from DPR and if these group reviews are the way the site is headed, it's no longer of use for me.
Having a GH3 and a GH4 I'd say the upgrade is really only worth it if you want:
* less aliasing/moire in video (you will have to shoot in 4k though, 1080 is the same as the GH3)
* more DR in video (Cinelike-D is a big step up)
* higher burst rate for stills
* The EVF is better for stills too (less of a difference for video as GH3 EVF is 16:9 and GH4 4:3).
Otherwise I think there isn't much in it.
pew pew: sorry m4/3 fans but a7s everyday any day.
That;s where you are going wrong, it's supposed to be a coal cellar (presumably hard to find these days).
Oh and IMHO I still think the A7s has enough limitations to make people think very carefully if they are going to buy one. There is a lot of moire in the 4k video for some reason (unlike the GH4 which is excellent, the reverse is true at 1080), the burst rate is unbelievably slow, limiting it quite a bit as a stills camera and the low-ISO DR is a big step down from the other A7 cameras. IMHO you really do need the high ISO feature (ideally at 1080) or it will annoy you.
IMHO for 4k and the GH4 I don't go over ISO 800, but I'm fussy. I would go another 2-3 stops if 1080p was the final target (but still shooting 4k!).
Well, if I had to I might go over ISO 800 but would use some high-end noise-reduction software in post. I did say I was fussy though.
mrcultureshock: I really dislike this combo review. The review for the Sony A6000 is 13 pages long and yet the combo review for GH4 and A7s, which are 2 of the most important hybrid camera releases ever, only gets 14 pages?
Please review the GH4 and the A7s separately.
For the GH4 lens choice all you really need is to make sure the lens you use supports 240fps focusing and DFD.
IEBA1: As 4K is the key factor for the GH4. Can we see dynamic range tests in video mode, just to see if the DR tests in still mode apply to video.
The compression engines for video and stills are different and the GH series has always suffered when it came to retaining dark detail (separation of those steps) in HD. It does considerably better in 4K meaning that within the video side itself, the camera offers different results, let alone the difference between stills and video.
So a test of still capability may not apply at all to what the camera does in 4K video. Dynamic range tests for video please!
Allegedly the GH4 sensor was optimised for DR over high-ISO, I have no idea if this is true. I find I can grade GH4 4k pretty hard and it doesn't fall apart (provided I shot in Cinelike-D, which has a lot of DR) but don't claim that is scientific. (IMHO Cinelike-D is as big an upgrade as 4k BTW.)
The reason I wouldn't get an A7s is the moire at 4k, which I have no idea where it comes from - is it a sensor crop or an iffy down-scaling algorithm? It's worrying as it can ruin shots - the reason I bought a GH4 was specifically due to there being no moire/aliasing at 4k (1080 isn't good though) as getting a one-time shot and finding it's hosed is beyond annoying...http://youtu.be/qdMypfYrKgw 17:38 ->Not that the A7s isn't good at 1080p and fabulous in low-light, just I'm past my safe limit for the allowable lifetime total of ruined shots due to the camera rather than me... Depends what you want I guess. (Burst rate is another huge difference - also nicely demonstrated in the linked video.)
marcio_napoli: For those saying the price is absurd:
I'm a really, really small fish as a fashion photographer, I can't charge not even a fraction of what this camera cost.
But I've once heard that a big name, national level fashion photographer, charged 60 K for a fashion catalog.
There's another big name I can think of, that shoot bedding and product photography.
His average price is around 30, 40 k per job! I've once heard he charged 95 grand for a larger job.
See? That's where these cameras are finding homes.
For big name photographers, who have their huge reputation tested job after job, nothing makes more sense than a Hasselblad and Phase One.
3 k DSLRs like the D800 only complement their kit for specific needs (higher ISO, more flexibility, need for weather sealing on a beach shooting), and are not their main camera.
Phase and Hassel are their average DSLR.
I doubt if a lot of people buy these, I expect a good number just finance them and it's a monthly cost to the business, which will usually be a limited company. Also they can usually claim a chunk of the cost back against tax (sometimes all of the cost, if you're in the right business area in the right part of the right country).
SeeRoy: Having been creating spherical panos for many years - quite a bit of it commercially, I'll believe this works properly when I see it. Unless it defeats the laws of optics - namely parallax errors - it's impossible to get accurate stitches if there are foreground elements. To do so requires rotation around, or at least close to, the no-parallax point of the lens. Even with the best stitchers such as PTGui or Autopano this is required.No doubt this will work after a fashion, with horrible stitching errors visible, which may well satisfy the selfie obsessed knuckle-draggers.
I assume you are shooting cylindrical (strip) panoramas rather then spherical, including up and down?
You don't have to have a pano head, just tie a piece of string abound the phone (close to the camera lens), hang a weight on the end and keep that at the same place on the ground (and tight).Works for me (okay, with a FF Canon not a phone):http://www.viewat.org/?i=en&id_aut=7366&md=vt&sec=pnPlus I find freehand can work if you're careful.
James Pilcher: I had a chance to see one of these up close when Pope John Paul II visited our city in 1993. Canon had a showroom at that time and they put this lens on display for a couple of weeks. The Canon rep set it up over a mile from the Pope's podium, put the EF 2x tele-extender on it and got some impressive results. Wow. 2400mm f/11.
Rumor has it that one or two news agencies had one of these lenses for loan to staff and contract photographers.
In the end, I think it was an engineering exercise more than a serious product.
I believe it was originally designed for a specific baseball stadium in Japan (the Koshien Stadium) plus use at the Olympics.
deep7: That first paragraph confused me. Reading on, it's not actually a copy but a genuine example. That would be a heck of a price for a mere copy!
People talk about having a good or bad copy of a lens, so it's not unusual usage...
M Jesper: Does it even cost that much to have on custom made right now?
It took a year to grow the fluorite crystals, plus you need a bunch of lens designers and other stuff...