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.
mrcultureshock - there is still more review to come (one final update, which will include additional information and separate conclusions as well as an overall comparison).
We do not have enough writers to prepare separate reviews - I could split this one up and present exactly the same information in two separate articles, but I don't understand how that would be preferable. I'm going to be drawing conclusions about each camera separately, as well as then making a comparison but, since they have so many common features that need to be tested alongside each other and explained, it made more sense to put each camera in the context of the other.
My intention was to write a review that told you what you wanted to know about each camera, and *also* helped explain their strengths and weaknesses as the best two stills/video hybrid cameras we've ever seen.
I believed readers deserved to see both cameras in proper context (because readers deserve things, cameras don't).
photo_rb: I may be missing it, is there any place that tells us which lenses are used on the studio comparison cameras?
If you click on the 'gear' icon at the bottom right of the comparison tool, it should be listed there.
Kwick1: Absolutely hate this "comparative review" format. If you want to have a set of common pages for video in each in-depth review, then fine, but the rest of the camera feature sets are apples and oranges.
Could you please break them apart?
Splitting them apart would give you exactly the same information as you just deciding not to read the pages with a7S or GH4 at the beginning of the page title.
In response to reader feedback I've re-ordered it so that the GH4 sections and a7S sections are clustered together, so that you don't have to read too much about the other camera if you don't want. It is not possible to cover both cameras in this much depth separately.
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.
We've never shot ISO for that test, but it's something we'll consider doing.
It's quite hard to retrospectively add another parameter to our comparison system (and it will take much longer to test each camera), so it's not something I can promise in the short term, I'm afraid.
josbiker: At Richard,
Why o why is there such a great difference in the exposure in the comparison tool?It seems,some one made a very bad mistake.
I have no idea why!
Which cameras are you seeing a discrepancy in?
Test Scene JPEGs are all shot based on matched middle grey (within 1/3EV), Raw files are now shot at standard settings and then brightness-matched.
If there are any serious variations from this, let me know.
estarkey: So I just realized, they removed the original GH4 preview! What the hell kind of operation is going on here? The original preview was better than this so called comparative review.
I'm pretty sure there are more egregious examples of click bait on the internet than publishing a review in sections. We're not trying to draw your attention back every time we change a sentence, we added six pages of editorial content (which is more than many websites would consider necessary for a review).
I can't write the review any faster, so the choices I have are to publish updates (and be able to see what aspects people are interested in) or publish nothing until the whole thing is ready.
Artpt: No matter how you cut, crazy ISO performance on the A7S....I know this is a video comparison, but come on...
I'm pretty sure we say exactly that on the IQ page.
Lin Evans: "the RX100 III offers the best image quality of any pocketable camera we've ever seen."
I guess you haven't seen Sigma DP Merrill cameras then....
You're welcome to your opinion but I'm struggling to think of any clothing I own that has pockets that can fit a Sigma DPm.
At which point, I stand by my statement about image quality. The lens is very good for a zoom, the Raw dynamic range and noise characteristics are genuinely class leading.
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.
@ET2 - nothing I've written denies that.
However, if, for a certain shot, there is a minimum depth-of-field you wish to achieve, and the GH4 can match it, then *for that shot*, there is no sensor-size advantage for the full frame camera.
As soon as you're in a position to open up the aperture, the advantage attributable to sensor size is available.
Furthermore, the a7S's sensor out-performs the difference you'd expect from size alone (or, to put it another way, it's better at high ISO than other current full frame sensors), so there's that to be considered too.
We have seen the DP Merrill, wouldn't consider it pocketable in the same sense and couldn't make broad-ranging statements about its image quality (no matter how much you may like some aspects of its IQ, it should be apparent that you need to include some caveats).
rfreund719: Image quality is amazing. It would have been nice if in any of the many reviews raving about the camera that they mentioned that you can't use the viewfinder if you wear glasses. It must be so obvious that it does not get mentioned. However if you are nearsighted and wear glasses it is a waste of time to think the view finder is something you can use.
What is it about the viewfinder you find unusable?
I wear glasses and didn't find it a problem.
I've amended the text to make it a bit clearer, but there is a distinction:
In video you have less freedom over changing shutter speed (since it will change the representation of movement). As such, if you're shooting footage where you need a certain amount of depth-of-field then you have to boost the ISO on the FF camera to compensate for the smaller f-number ([which you can do](http://bit.ly/equivap)).
In stills this shutter speed restriction is much less pressing: you can stop the full frame camera down to match the depth-of-field but you have more freedom to use different shutter speed (and maintain the sensor size advantage), rather than just having to use ISO (and risk neutralizing, but not losing, the advantage).
Unimatrix: DPREVIEW - The RX100 III showed-up out of the blue on the last page. However, there was no mention of it in the other sections of the Table of Contents. What gives?
The nature of categorising the world is that things get fuzzy at the boundaries between those categories (no matter what basis you choose to categorise by).
The RX100 III will be covered in another roundup group where it sits more naturally. However we couldn't, in good conscience, say that the G1 X II is the best choice simply because one of its rivals sits on the border between two categories.
Guenter Hofstaedter: they all work with the same aged sensor technology, so choose by design becouse the Iq is more or less the same! I wonder there is no sigma quadro in that list!
There is a mixture of the latest BSI-CMOS and older FSI CMOS designs here, and a variety of sensor sizes - both of which make a considerable difference to image quality. So no, you can't decide based on design alone.
You'll notice there aren't *any* of the fixed focal length APS-C cameras here (Nikon Coolpix A, Ricoh GR and Fujifilm X100S are missing, along with the Sigmas) because we consider that a different group. We hope to address that group later in the year.
It would be deeply misleading to suggest that Sigma's Foveon technology is inherently better or more advanced than rival technologies.
peevee1: DPR, what a shame about presenting Canon SL1 as the best entry-level DSLR. Really, better than D5300 and k-50? Really??
How much had Canon to pay to misrepresent the WORST DSLR of 2013 as the best DSLR of 2014? How many thousands of ignorant customers you will fool with it?
We recommend the D5300 (or K-50) as the best mid-level DSLRs, which should make clear that we consider them to be better cameras than the entry-level choice.
The SL1 is a genuinely good *entry-level* DSLR.
We didn't write a preview of the GH4. I wrote [this summary of its features](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9092895041/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4-a-quick-summary), which is still available, but we've not removed anything we'd previously published.
Arikd: And some more quirks:IV: All the reviews tell you about the great number of customizable buttons. The problem is - you cannot set them to do what you want. There is an extensive but limited number of options...one thing that is missing is being able to control the mic gain. You can set the display to show the levels, but in order to set it you need to go into the menu... not possible while recording! ARRRGH! and no, I will not buy a $2000 connection extender with mic level control just to take a video of my son and his rock band.V: Although this camera is sold primarily as a hybrid stills / video camera, it is mostly regarded as a great video camera. And yet, the main dial is stills oriented, and only has a "creative video" mode. Luckily the touch screen provides control over "PASM" modes. unluckily, this option is NOT available when in custom mode! so if you set your custom mode to "A", and want to keep all settings but move to "S", you need to dive into the menu.. another ARRRGH!
If you press the video tab on the right-hand side of the screen, you can use the touchscreen to adjust mic level during recording.
Just another Canon shooter: No FF cameras? I hope that nobody takes your guide seriously.
We will be adding several other classes of roundup in the coming months. Full frame will be one of them.
Gryfster: How is it updated? I would have thought that new camera releases would replace obsolete ones. For example why aren't the Fuji XT-1 and Sony a6000 added in to "Take Control" or the D810 in "Tried and True"?
We will be updating all of the roundups over the coming months. I've already written the X-T1 and a6000 sections and that one will be published soon.
BelePhotography: Would be interesting to know what settings were used for the videos - especially when testing for "rolling shutter" as this is more an effect of misusage than just the camera ;-)
Ah - I thought I'd already specified, which is why I was surprised (I'll add the information now). They're all 1/50th of a second.