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?
"From youtube comparisons..." Remember that Youtube also has a denoising algorithm so any video posted on Youtube will have less noise. Also, depending on which video you saw, it might be a 4k-rescaled-to-1080p, which gives it an advantage over straight-1080p A7s footage.
The GH4 holds less detail in the shadows, there's no debate there. The A7s' slog-2 has a greater dynamic range that allows greater post production. So yes, A7s is actually a better "pro" video solution if you're going to drag the videos in DaVinci Resolve afterward. The A7s is not a low-light photography tool only, though I agree the GH4 is mostly for video. Don't see too many people touting that camera's stills quality.
Actually not surprising to find the A7s with superior low-light performance. After all, that's the A7s' mission in life, right? I think this is kind of an apples and oranges between the A7s and GH4. If you want terrific continuous AF and internal 4k recording, the GH4 is an easy choice. If you have to deal with low-light situations and want to work with Slog-2, the A7s is your ticket. Both have advantages and shortcomings. What's most important is every user figure out what sort of work he does, then buys the appropriate tool. I have an A7s and love it. My friend has a GH4 and love it. To each his own.
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?
@pko, I actually know movie making quite well, thank you. I hope you're not assuming that I think Spielberg filmed "Ryan" with a DSLR?
The 5D was used to shoot "Men of Valor" to prove a point: that it can be done. With an adaptor, cine lenses of different brands can easily be mounted on different brand bodies, or are we not talking about the same thing? Put a Zeiss CP.2 on a A7s vs on an Alexa. The only difference in price is the body. The rig itself ought to cost the same. Why would you think it's going to be more expensive?
I would really like to know why you hate the A7s so much?
Jonath: Love them or hate them, the best thing that Sony are doing for the camera market is making it interesting again. Plenty of innovation, admittedly some of it questionable, but really trying new things and getting a debate going... like this one for example... just a simply news story about a Sony body used to film one commercial and nearly 200 comments already... if only Canikon could create this much debate or much needed interest in a market that is sadly shrinking for all brands.
Good points by TrojMacReady. Sony is a far broader brand and naturally spends much more money on ad buys to cover all their products. Not sure why pko hates the A7s. Innovation is good no matter which brand it's from. Mass suicide from Sony fan boys when the A7s is surpassed? That could also mean that lots of Canon and Nikon users already jumped off their favorite bridge when the A7s beat their current cameras, right?
Innovation of any kind is to be applauded.
Envious of anyone actually thinking about buying this.
Well, either they achieved great results and discovered a new (and probably cheaper) alternative to future commercials, or they found out that this isn't going to work and will tell others to stay away. I'm glad someone tried this on a professional level. The 5D2 shot a movie before, so the A7s filming a commercial shouldn't be too hard.
I agree. Canon pioneered this market but has gotten annoyingly lazy in making it better or pushing the envelope. Panasonic's GH series and now Sony's A7s have created new possibilities. Innovation benefits us all.
dash2k8: All these haters coming out of the woods! I see this situation as Company A decided to use Device B to shoot Commercial C. Who cares what they use, as long as they get the desired results? The Mona Lisa was painted with a 0 megapixel camel hair brush but the result wasn't so bad, was it?
If you don't like the A7s, say "I don't like the A7s" or "I would use something more powerful/expensive/professional." To dump on this camera just because it's not an Arri is nothing but self-service.
All valid points that I concede. I think, though, that my message was more about using a brush to achieve results that were no worse off because there were no megapixels. ;) Let's get back on topic, folks. :D
All these haters coming out of the woods! I see this situation as Company A decided to use Device B to shoot Commercial C. Who cares what they use, as long as they get the desired results? The Mona Lisa was painted with a 0 megapixel camel hair brush but the result wasn't so bad, was it?
Randy Benter: Compared to competing models, this tripod: -has No Separate Panning adjustment/lock. -has No Arca-Swiss clamp. -has No Hook for hanging weight. -is more expensive.
No question being a name brand costs more. Fortunately there are many other brands at lower prices that will help drive competition and give consumers like us a wide variety of selections.
dash2k8: Several ppl saying their Manfrottos fell apart. Sorry to hear that. I've had several Manfrottos of various sizes over the years and they're all still in great condition.
I'm sorry to hear that. Either I'm extremely lucky or others have been extremely unlucky. I would not hesitate to buy another Manfrotto if the price is right since I've never run into any trouble with them. But if I were one of you guys, I'd totally stay away based on bad experiences.
Several ppl saying their Manfrottos fell apart. Sorry to hear that. I've had several Manfrottos of various sizes over the years and they're all still in great condition.
Poweruser: I guess this camera is fine and all. But it´s still a brick and a technological dead-end. I know my little mirrorless is "worse" on paper. But so much more fun to have it with me all day.
Couple the D810 with a decent Nikon zoom and what you get is almost grotesque in size and weight.
Allow me to throw out a crazy metaphor: this is like Usain Bolt running the 100m with Puma shoes while LeBron James wears Nike for basketball. Whatever gets the job done.
Not to sound holy or get on a high horse, but Greg Heisler said that he's not bound by a specific system; he takes what he feels is good for the job on hand. I know several top-tier pros who say similar things. "It's not the equipment, it's the shot." Whatever helps each of us get the best shot possible is the best camera for us. m43 people have their preferences (weight, and the portability it affords) while DSLR users (including myself) can brag of shallower DOF, etc etc etc.
I personally have never understood how people complain about weight. Calling big cameras bricks is almost demeaning those of us who go birding with FF bodies and 500mm+ lenses on big pods. They are big for a reason. Small cameras have their place, just like big ones do. There's a reason why medium format cameras are still used extensively by professionals. I never hear them complain about weight.
Are these photos or CG?
Petak: They've been charging too much for too little for too long - it is that simple.
Great quote, but the sales figures disagree.
KeeChiuPeng: SJ4000 sells between 100 - 120 USD with complete mounting. Eat that GoPro.
Chinese brands have improved a lot in quality over the years, which is good for us consumers by driving prices down.
tom1234567: If the sold at a cheaper/reasonable price they would sell moremy opinion??????Tom G
I think their price point is fair. Not great, but fair. And I don't think their current price has hurt their sales. Sure, selling cheaper is always going to boost sales figures but they still have to pay for R&D.