AngryCorgi: The gh4 is a neat idea from a video standpoint, but once you buy it and the interface unit for recording 4K at higher-than-100Mbps rates, you could have bought a Blackmagic 4K with an internal SSD, Prores 422 HQ & CinemaDNG options, a global shutter and a full copy of Davinci Resolve (worth $1000) and still had $300+ left over. So unltimately, I don't know who the camera is for. People that want 4K, but want their camera to behave like a cheap camcorder?? I just think the move to 4K, at this price, is silly if you aren't going to do anything with it.
So, I am a little confused here. You are saying that the GH4, which one now generally accepts produces better results than a Canon 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern, can not go where Canon went? Why?
The result off the GH4 in compressed mode is not quite at BMCC level, but close. That is highly compressed 8 bit 4:2:0 video. I have yet to see the 10 bit 4:2:2 video that the thing can also output with (as you mention) and added Shogun. Do you have any reason to believe it will not best the 8 bit 4:2:0 video by a good margin?
Again, better than the Canon but it can't do what the Canon already did? Seems a bit odd to me. Oh, and the workflow on the GH4 is miles and miles better than the 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern.
I agree that the GH4 and the A7s are not professional video tools in general. They fit in some areas and in others they do not. You will probably see both the GH4 and the A7s replace the Canon 5D in many places though, and the 5D has been used by professionals...
Since this was a comparative review between the GH4 and the A7s, great video tools for enthusiasts and the occasional pro no matter what, what are their differences?
Well, the A7s doesn't shoot 4K. You need to a unit at $2000 to get any 4K video at all. So, for 4K video there is only one option between the two. Now, if you add the optional (future) unit to the Sony, you will get 8 bit 4:2:0 video out of it, and it is still $1000 more than the GH4 (future) combo of the GH4 and the Shogun which will give you 10 bit 4:2:2 video.
The only place the A7s excels is in low-light, but at the moment you are limited to 1080p we'll see what the situation will be later on.
Remember 4K == fantastic 1080p and is future proof
peevee1: According to your posted specs they dropped digital zoom. Is this true?
As others have said, the single most useless feature on a camera is digital zoom. It simply isn't needed. What a digital zoom does is CROP the picture. If you want digital zoom, open the picture in your favorite image editing software and crop it there. Voilá, digital zoom.
Robert Newman: Nice but expensive camera. I think I would opt for the new Canon 18mp machine over this however. Actually, I still use my Mamiya RZ67 and my 4x5 Sinar P along with an Epson 700 scanner for a variety of work. I don't get the dynamic range of a good digital SLR and clearly there is some quality lost in going from analog film to digital for final printing, but there is plenty of resolution and for studio or architectural shots, there are times when I prefer this approach. It forces me to compose more carefully and meter more intelligently than I might if I just used a DSLR. My main camera is a Canon 5D2, but like all tools it has limitations and when I have time and a specific application for medium or large format images, film can still make sense.
@rikimoto - is there anything about "My main camera is a Canon 5D2" you fail to understand?