Previous page Next page

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 / Sony Alpha 7S Comparative Review

As video cameras go, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 and Sony Alpha 7S are very DSLR-like in shape. A four-fold difference in sensor size, and a significant gulf in price suggests this may be the only similarity. However, in terms of intent, they're not as different as all this might lead you to expect. We've already had a quick look at the new features of the GH4 but here we're going to test the two cameras side-by-side - not necessarily to find a single 'winner' but to see where each camera's strengths and weaknesses lie.

Not just stills, not just movies

Both manufacturers make clear that these cameras are both intended for videographers just as much as they are for stills shooters. Both are built around a conventional stills form-factor but with video capabilities and supporting functions pushed toward the forefront. As such, we'd expect the two to be judged on a similar basis. We'd expect better performance from the Sony's much larger sensor to help to justify its price tag, but the requirements of the users are likely to be similar.

DSLRs capable of shooting HD video have existed for a little under six years and, though video initially seemed to be a feature added simply because the manufacturers could, it's become seized upon by a growing band of users. At the pro end of the spectrum, cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II have changed expectations of what size a camera could be, but putting video capability in the hands of photographers has also inspired some of them to think beyond single frames.

For the most part, however, the majority of modern mirrorless cameras and DSLRs still don't offer users much support for their video function. Video capability is there but, even in the circumstances where a decent level of manual control is given, tools such as focus peaking and zebra that have been standard on video cameras for years are missing. And this extends even to cameras such as the Canon 5D Mark II and Nikon D800, whose respective manufacturers were happy to promote the video features of, despite the fact they were both somewhat lacking. Canon has subsequently upped its game with the EOS 5D Mark III and the lessons it's learning from the development of its Cinema EOS line, but generally video is promoted much better than its supported.

Beyond the [REC] button

The Panasonic GH4 and Sony's a7S step round these pitfalls, both offering focus peaking and zebra highlight warnings to help videographers get footage that lives up to the cameras' capture capabilities (both are features that can be provided by external monitors so can be added to other cameras if you're willing to rig them up). They also have the add-on accessories available to allow use of industry-standard audio or video connections.

Another shortcoming of many 'HDSLR's is that they capture the relatively low resolutions of video by only sampling some horizontal lines of their sensor - a process that's become known as line-skipping. This leads to lower vertical resolution in the video, along with a greater risk of moiré. The GH4 and a7S avoid this, and both are able to read out at least 4K regions of their sensors at 30 frames per second.

However, just because they go to unusual lengths to accommodate the videographer, this doesn't mean any compromises have been made to the feature sets they offer the stills shooter. Noticeably, the Sony offers the same handling and controls as its more stills orientated a7 and a7R models, while the GH4 adds improved autofocus to the GH3's well thought-out and DSLR-like stills handling.

The table below sets out how the cameras compare:

  Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Sony Alpha 7S
Sensor format Four Thirds
Full Frame
Sensor size (mm2) 225
847
Lens mount Micro Four Thirds
Sony E
Stills resolution 16MP
12.2MP
Max video Res (Internal) Cinema 4K (4096 x 2160)
Full HD (1920 x 1080)
Max video Res (with external recorder) Cinema 4K (4096 x 2160), 10-bit
4K (3840 x 2160), 8-bit
Electronic viewfinder resolution 2.36m dots (1024 x 768px)
2.36m dots (1024 x 768px)
Rear LCD resolution 1.04m dots (720 x 480px)
0.92m dots (640 x 480px)
Control dials Two plus rear dial
Two plus Exposure comp
Customizable buttons Five, plus five on-screen 'buttons'
Nine (including dual-function AF/MF / AEL button)
Battery life (CIPA) 500 shots 380 shots
Dimensions 133 x 93 x 84mm
127 x 94 x 48mm
Weight 560g
489g
Price (MSRP) $1,699 / £1,299 / €1,499 $2,499 / £2,099 / €2,399
Previous page Next page
88
I own it
269
I want it
37
I had it
Discuss in the forums
138
I own it
260
I want it
44
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 683
1234
arya44
By arya44 (2 days ago)

Thanks for the review of Panasonic DMC-GH4 dynamic range. It is great to know that by exposure compensation we can achieve higher range of luminance. Is the basis based on keeping the luminance upper margin at 255? If so, does it mean it needs to be adjusted in the post once captured? i.e. it won't stretch as far with 235? The other concern I have is to address iDynamic in combination with master pedestal and in combination with highlight / shadow adjustment. Would it be possible for you to create the same S curves with highlight / shadows of -2/+2 (let's say low contrast) and -5/+5 (let's say extreme low contrast). My objective is to see which combination creates a better variations in the mid tone (skin colour as my most important part of the image) while having the most visible dark and super bright spots in the image. Thank you.

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (4 days ago)

Go Panasonic!

0 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (5 days ago)

At DPReview,

Do you keep your promise? Where is part three? Before the FOTOKINA was your promise???!!!!

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 days ago)

I'm very sorry about that. I thought I'd have enough time to finish before Photokina but several manufacturers arrived with their new cameras in a very short period of time, so I ended up spending all my time preparing content about those.

I'll push on as fast as I can, at this point.

0 upvotes
the bruce
By the bruce (2 weeks ago)

from your introduction: "here we're going to test the two cameras side-by-side - not necessarily to find a single 'winner' but to see where each camera's strengths and weaknesses lie".

can you please list each camera's strengths and weaknesses. would ensure for ease and clarity of understanding?

3 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (3 weeks ago)

The GH series really needs to be able to record 422 10bit or better internally by now. Sony is behind here but still they should be able to as well.

1 upvote
Scottelly
By Scottelly (4 days ago)

I suspect Panasonic will make the GH5 capable of this. Let's hope so. Certainly UHS-2 SD cards are big enough and fast enough.

0 upvotes
kerimheper
By kerimheper (3 weeks ago)

I've shot some sample videos with GH4 using cheap olympus 9mm F8 lens in very short time to give people some idea . inside of mosque wasnt a good place to shoot with F8 but I've pushed to iso 800-1600 so coud give you some idea and didnt reduce the noise by editing
Since I have 2 studios as a pro photographer over 10 years
I use 5D mk3 as camera and my other canons
With bigger sensor you can probably have better shot but you need bigger glass to fill that sensor if you want to be compact as possible I can say if you buy good F1.4 / 2 - lenses you can neary shoot with half the weight and size compare to full frame

With Sony You must Use External REcoder for 4K / With GH4 You can record internaly Atomos 4K external recorder is 2000$

if you are like me as a full frame owner you already have good glass you just buy metabones and go with lenses you have for GH4

Here is the GH4 video if you want to check
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss9Z0XiabBg&feature=youtu.be

2 upvotes
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (3 weeks ago)

This statement is false:

"Quite simply, the smaller sensor will receive less light at matched exposures (same shutter speed and aperture) and this means more noise."

It's only true if the pixel pitch is lower (meaning the pixel density is greater.) But if the number and size of the pixels are identical, that less light received on the m43 sensor is equivalent to the 'more' light gathered by full frame because the full frame requires more light to cover the larger sensor.

Imagine if you had a sensor that was cut 1/4 the size of the full frame sensor. That means it only needs the same shutter speed and aperture to produce the same quality of image, but that image would be only 1/4 the pixels of the ff sensor, and would therefore only need 1/4 the light.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (3 weeks ago)

Your logic is incorrect, easily demonstrated by a little bit of reductio ad absurdum.

If your argument were true, then an infinitesimally small sensor would need no light to produce a perfectly fine image.

Our original statement is absolutely correct - the total amount of light collected by the larger sensor will be more than the total amount of light collected by the smaller sensor, given the same shutter speed/aperture. Therefore, the same captured scene will be 'sampled' using many more photons, which means less noise.

The number of pixels and/or pixel pitch are largely irrelevant in normalized comparisons. And though they can have an effect, the reasons are subtle and too nuanced to get into here.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (6 days ago)

At least mine is logical while your statement that, "an infinitesimally small sensor would need no light to produce a perfectly fine image," is totally illogical.

First, "infinitesimally small" is still small and therefore requires some light, duh!!!!! For "no light" to be applicable, it would have to be no sensor area to follow my logic!!!! Duh!!!!!!!!

Stop trying to justify your position and spend more time first understanding what I'm saying. You're acting irrational because you're getting emotional by taking it personally.

Your statement that "Therefore, the same captured scene will be 'sampled' using many more photons, which means less noise." requires there to be comparatively more light per square area in order to have "more" light striking a larger sensor since that same larger sensor invariably requires MORE light. Just saying "many more photons" is not only an incorrect generalization but also patently false.

You're wrong, dude, keep trying.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (6 days ago)

My statement: "an infinitesimally small sensor would need no light to produce a perfectly fine image" follows from your logic, so I'm glad you agree it's completely illogical.

Emotional? Taking it personally? I'm sorry, who's using all caps and exclamation marks again?

Your statement: "Imagine if you had a sensor that was cut 1/4 the size of the full frame sensor. That means it only needs the same shutter speed and aperture to produce the same quality of image..."

... is just wrong. It'll only create the 'same quality of image' at the pixel level. And no one views images at the pixel-level - you view them 'normalized' fit on your screen or on a print. At which point the larger sensor will have an advantage.

Also, your initial comment says: "if the number and size of the pixels are identical [across two different sized sensors]...". Now think about that for a minute... how would that ever be possible?

4 upvotes
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (5 days ago)

um... read the first post, it was a simple comment from which you started the s*^t talk with "reductio ad absurdum" so please blame yourself for your reply.

What you finally pointed out: "if the number and size of pixels..." is my mistake. I meant to say just that "if the size of pixels..." So I admit my error. And had you pointed it out in your first comment, I would have gladly admitted it. Your first comment didn't mention that and went on a rant about an irrational relationship between smaller sensor and no light, and so I didn't read it again thinking there was in fact a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out, but stating a smart ass comment doesn't help the conversation.

My point still holds true when you omit that extra word. Please read it again without the word "number" and if you still feel it's illogical, let me know. Like I said: "It's only true if the pixel pitch is lower (meaning the pixel density is greater.)"

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (4 days ago)

No - and please don't take this personally, but - your point is still wrong. It's the overall sensor size that matters; the pixel pitch plays a very small role. If pixel pitch mattered that much, the A7R wouldn't perform as well as it does against the A7S, which I showed here.

I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$. I thought the reductio ad absurdum would be a quick and easy way to understand the flaw in your logic.

Seriously. Apologies if you were offended; that wasn't my intent.

I don't know how to state this any more clearly: pixel pitch plays very little role next to sensor size. The biggest reason it plays a role is b/c smaller pixel pitch for the same sensor size = more pixels = more read noise events. But that's a very subtle effect/point.

5 upvotes
Melbourne Park
By Melbourne Park (4 days ago)

Qyuote: "My statement: "an infinitesimally small sensor would need no light to produce a perfectly fine image" follows from your logic, so I'm glad you agree it's completely illogical."

You could not have such a small sensor, because the concentrated light would burn through the sensor. Hence your example neglects what is going on.

If the small sensor could work as well as the big sensor, quality would be defined by the lens. As m43 improves, the lens quality increasingly becomes the issue. And quality can be depth of field, lens size and weight too ...

0 upvotes
JamesD28
By JamesD28 (4 days ago)

rufusrm44,
Do you think editors are given their position? They get it because not only are they able to produce clear, detailed articles, but they also have a matchless understanding of cameras and the technology/physics behind them.

Everything Rishi has said is correct. Pixel pitch does not really affect noise performance. If it did, then a 36 megapixel full-frame sensor (Sony A7R) would give very similar noise results to a 16 megapixel APS-C sensor (Sony NEX 5R). However, DxOMark tests show the Sony A7R has a 1.6 f-stop advantage in ISO capabilities over the NEX 5R. Since the pixel pitch is the same, it must be the larger sensor which is providing better performance.

With regards to the "infinitesimally small sensor", Rishi is also correct. It's recently been proven in mathematics that the number 0.001 with an infinite amount of zeros is technically equal to absolute zero. The same rule applies to sensor size.

Just accept you made an invalid statement (well, several) and move on.

3 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (4 days ago)

What he is getting at is NOT invalid. Think about photons. The same lens will project the same number of photons through it at the same focus and aperture settings, no matter what size the sensor is. Now . . . it matters what the image circle is. One lens that is 150mm might make a huge image circle at f8 (such as the 150mm lens for my 4x5 large format camera), while another lens, such as the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro will make a much smaller image circle at f8. Do you think that if you put a full-frame sensor behind both lenses that you will get the exact same amount of exposure with the same shutter speed? NO the light projected by the large format lens gets "spread" out, rather than focused on a smaller area . . . or am I mistaken? If I am indeed mistaken, then how can the Metabones Speed Boosters work? http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf

0 upvotes
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (4 days ago)

Nothing personal either but saying "reductio ad absurdum" doesn't lead me to a typo.

On the topic of "normalized," for an image on a monitor or laptop screen, one must take into account the resolution of the screen. On a 4k monitor, one doesn't need any more than an 8mp image to equal the screen's resolution. If the image is enlarged for any reason other than aesthetics, then it's not normalized anymore and it's about pixel level detail.

Let's get one things straight, of course a larger sensor will always yield a better image, but that talk doesn't stop at 35mm equivalence, as you well know. I was talking about generalized statements concerning more and less light, and in that context, sensor noise is directly related to pixel pitch (and of course tech).

From a tech view, noise is the key and comparing an 8mp image (m43) on a 4k monitor with a ff 32mp image, there is no difference with all having the same fstop, shutter, and pixel pitch. The extra pixels can't be resolved.

0 upvotes
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (4 days ago)

JamesD28, one must take into account technology differences too. That said, my point is about the fundamental relationship with noise per square area. That boils down to pixel pitch (and technology, of course). I'm NOT saying a larger sensor is the same. The principle of noise is about the size of the pixel receptor and the consequential amount of light IT receives, not the amount going through the lens. A bigger sensor needs more light proportional to it's larger area.

Tradeoffs with a smaller sensor have some benefits as long as we realize that as things get bigger, they also become more unweildy, that's why medium format isn't included in this discussion.

M43 can theoretically have lenses 2 stops faster for the loss of 2 stops in greater noise at high iso, given an equal sized lens (key!). But for this to be realized, M43 must always be 1/4 # of pixels to ff.

This is also about relative needs to relative tools. M43 is a great street shooter, ff for detail. etc...

0 upvotes
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (4 days ago)

I think these discussions oftentimes devolve into an apples vs oranges conflict (no computer pun intended). If the whole point is to have a bigger sensor, one would haul around a medium or large format camera on a tripod. Most don't. If the whole point was to shoot discreet images with reasonable quality, m43 tends to have an advantage, but at the pixel level, it's about physics principles, and then apples to apples. Stepping up, at what point is there too few pixels? Maybe 8-12mp. Too many, over 40mp?? seems to make file management unweildy. So each person has a sweet spot for their needs.

I spoke of pixel relationship because the original comment was generalized about light amount... which can be very deceiving. The editors should know better than to use generalized terms without context. I was just "calling" them on that... I get the generalized concept of more is better, but out of context it means little to each person. and for some, it's actually NOT better...

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (4 days ago)

Scottelly: for any given f-stop, a lens projects roughly the same number of photons per unit area. That's the whole point of the f-stop definition.

Lens' image circles either cover the full area of the sensor or they don't. If they don't, you see a vignetted image. If you don't see a vignetted image, then it's covering the full surface of the sensor, and 'image circle' shouldn't enter into this conversation at all.

And now following up on the rest of the comments: I'm not sure how I could be any clearer. Our initial statement: "Quite simply, the smaller sensor will receive less light at matched exposures (same shutter speed and aperture) and this means more noise." is positively correct. It's assumed that the reader knows we're talking about a normalized comparison (image viewed at equal sizes); we haven't talked about pixel-level noise in quite some time. Pixel-level comparisons were only really valid years and years ago when sensor sizes & pixel counts were relatively constant.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (4 days ago)

In fact, by doing normalized comparisons, we are talking about noise per unit area of the scene, given an equivalent scene (that is: images were shot at equivalent focal length across sensor formats). B/c that's what matters. And here, larger sensors - all else equal - will perform better. And it'll have very little, if anything, to do with pixel-pitch.

At least until you get to ridiculous ISOs - for example, at ISO 409k, the A7S is trying to make an image with roughly ~50 photons per pixel. There pixel pitch/count matters, b/c every (fraction of an) electron of read noise counts, and having 3x as many pixels (A7R vs A7S) starts to have a noticeable effect - even after normalization. But even here, manufacturers will often decrease per-pixel read noise as they shrink pixels (the opposite is true for the A7S though - they decreased per-pixel read noise with bigger pixels, presumably by implementing dual-gain circuitry). My point is: it gets pretty complicated from here.

1 upvote
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (3 days ago)

hmmm, noise IS increased amplitude of signal to account for reduced light when aperture and shutter speed are insufficient. noise has everything to do with pixel pitch. smaller pixel lens or "window" means less light, so once the need to boost amplitude arises, so does noise go up. It's actually the same in audio.

With all others equal, including pixel pitch, noise will only go up if amplitude is increased (increasing signal sensitivity to lost light levels). Period. that is what noise is (in daylight amplitude isn't raised so little difference). If you have more pixels, you have more resolution. Therefore, this greater resolution is what you are talking about.

In general with daylight, unless the pixel pitch is very small (ie, smartphone camera), there is no noticeable difference between m43 and ff. but m43 typically has too many pixels for it's size meaning light gathering capacity or pixel pitch is adversely affected by raising amplitude while in ff, it's not until high iso.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (3 days ago)

No, noise is a deviation from the signal. Yes, it is amplified along with the signal when the signal is amplified (e.g. via ISO amplification, or what have you).

Normalized noise does not have everything to do with pixel pitch. It has almost nothing to do with pixel pitch, for most scenarios. Normalized noise has to do with the amount of light recorded per unit area. That unit area can be divided up into many pixels, or not so many pixels. The net normalized noise will be roughly the same (assuming no extra light loss due to interpixel spacing).

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding the concept of normalized noise analyses.

And your observation that in daylight there's not much difference between m43 and ff, that's b/c above a certain SNR, we have trouble seeing the benefits. Brighter tones already have higher SNR b/c of lower shot noise, so the differences btwn sensor sizes become less and less discernible for bright tones.

1 upvote
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (3 days ago)

Incidentally, that last bit of my last comment also explains why iPhone's can give great image quality in bright daylight.

In this case, the higher signal is not coming from more surface area in the iPhone sensor, but more full pixel wells.

But before I get into another lengthy discussion, I'm just going to stop there.

1 upvote
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (3 days ago)

You keep tangenting while factually, a sensor with the exact structure that's 1/4 size (or 4x the size, my original statement) has same noise with the only difference being resolution/more pixels (this is a simple fact).

I said it because the author made a generalized statement about light, and saying that is not accurate without context. DPReview has stated over and over what I have said in context... this is nothing new.

Arguing that more light makes a bigger sensor better, is well, generalizing to an extreme. Each time I point out that pixel vs. pixel, if everything is the same, will result in same noise, you tangent back into the generalized statement that normalization justifies that more light is just better because it's a bigger sensor.

I really don't want to argue with you, but you simply won't accept a factual statement and tangent back to your normalization focus.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 days ago)

The original statement is absolutely true: 'The smaller sensor will receive less light at matched exposures (same shutter speed and aperture) and this means more noise.'

To remove any ambiguity, I've changed it to say 'f-number,' rather than 'aperture' because although they tend to be used interchangeably, the word aperture doesn't always mean f-number.

F-number defines how many photons each square mm of the sensor gets. Consequently, the sensor with the largest area (largest number of square mm) gets more light, given the same aperture.

And it surely isn't contentious to suggest that more light will create a better image, in general terms.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 days ago)

@Scottelly. In the diagram at the top of this page, you can see what happens when you mount a lens on different sized sensors.

The larger sensor will receive more light - the smaller sensor simply never 'sees' anything beyond its own imaging circle.

Using a lens specifically designed for the smaller format doesn't change this, either - it simply never captures or projects that extra light that the larger format lens would project.

As I'm hoping the diagram makes clear, it's not the same light spread out over a larger area - it's actually more light (which also explains the wider angle-of-view you get, when you use a given focal length on a larger format).

And, in answer to your question, this is exactly why a Speed Booster works - it captures and condenses that otherwise wasted light back down onto the smaller sensor (increasing available light and broadening the field-of-view).

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 days ago)

@ rufusrm44 - yes, a sensor with 1/4 the area and 1/4 the number of pixels would look the same as the central 1/4 taken from a larger image. But one of those two photos would be terrible (too cropped or loosely framed).

Pixel-for-pixel everything is the same, but you're ignoring the fact that the larger sensor has captured more picture.

Again, if you refer to this diagram, it should be apparent why - the larger sensor is able to capture more of the light from the lens.

To make it more photographically relevant, you could put a shorter lens on the small sensor camera to ensure both cameras have the same field-of-view. Matched f-numbers would still give the same light-per-unit area but the aperture diameter would be smaller for the small sensor (16mm/8 vs 32mm/8 for instance). These are all downstream consequences of the fact that larger sensors are exposed to more light at matched exposures.

1 upvote
rufusrm44
By rufusrm44 (2 days ago)

"Pixel-for-pixel everything is the same, but you're ignoring the fact that the larger sensor has captured more picture."

What exactly is "more picture?" It's higher resolution. More pixels per square area. A larger sensor has to capture more light, and that in and of itself doesn't constitute higher image quality. The reason the aperture is a larger diameter is it must be larger to cover the larger sensor with an image circle sufficient for the task.

Stating that "more light" means better is deceiving because it implies that a larger sensor that NEEDS more light means it's just better. That's too generalized without articulating that that larger sensor has the advantage of either keeping the pixel pitch greater or placing more pixels per square area in comparison to a smaller sensor.

It's simply NOT accurate to say the aperture is bigger therefore it's better, and that's what you are alluding to without clarification.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 days ago)

By more picture I either mean that there's a big border of additional image around the edges (if you're using the same focal length) or there's more detail/resolution (if you're using equivalent lenses, offering the same point of view).

At the same f-number and shutter speed a large sensor will receive more light and, since the (quantum) efficiencies of pixels are very similar across different sensor sizes, large sensor's don't need more light.

To avoid having to talk in the broadest possible terms, can we agree on the scenario we're describing?

Are we discussing the same focal lengths or the equivalent focal lengths (giving the same framing)?

Are we discussing the same resolution on both cameras or have they got the same sized pixels (therefore the larger format has more pixels in total)?

2 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (1 day ago)

Richard, I have a hard time understanding this aspect of equivalence.

What I don't get is that the amount of light projected on the APS-C area of the 35mm sensor is the same amount of light projected on the actual APS-C sensor.

That being the case if you crop the image produced by the 35mm sensor, does it have the same amount of noise as the image produced by the actual APS-C sized sensor, assuming similar technology, pixel pitch and using the exact same lens?

Or put another way if you used the same tech and pixel pitch in the D7100 and the D800e (both released early 2012) the same 50 ƒ/1.8G, would an image taken on a D810 in DX mode have as much noise as the D7100 in 1.3x mode?

If I look at the D5200, the D7000, the D800 and the 5D2 on the studio comparison tool all images RAW ISO 100 (and magnify my MacBook view iva CMD-shift-'+') I see very little difference in noise, with noticeable but not great differences in brightness and a bit more aliasing in the DX (esp the 5200).

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (3 weeks ago)

I think you made a disservice to GH4 by comparing to A7s. The GH4 is a mature product, while A7s is literally a Sony's first shot at a hybrid.

A7s has exclusively one thing going for it: the high ISO. That means, vice versa, comparing it to GH4 is making a disservice it too. Just watch the (sorry, have no other word for it) orgasmic review of A7s by Philip Bloom:

http://vimeo.com/102448889

The need for the "extreme" high ISO for video shooting is well explained.

Overall, I think the comparative review was worth the shot. And it is not DPR's fault that in the end it hasn't worked out.

4 upvotes
estarkey
By estarkey (2 weeks ago)

Uhh, have you heard of the A7, A7r and the Nex line of cameras? Let's not forget the older Alpha 55,65,77,99 series too. This is farrrr from Son'y first time around the block.

3 upvotes
langev
By langev (3 weeks ago)

What about the autofocus for GH4 in video? Is it good ?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 weeks ago)

See for yourself:

We test both the main AF methods on this page.

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mikey fried
By mikey fried (3 weeks ago)

Please stop shooting images in PORTRAIT!! It makes NO sense.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (3 weeks ago)

I'm not sure I understand your point.

12 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (3 weeks ago)

i understand

2 upvotes
PeterTahl
By PeterTahl (3 weeks ago)

me 2

2 upvotes
tabloid
By tabloid (3 weeks ago)

There are very few 4K SLR cameras around at the moment, so comparisons between whats 'around at the moment' is very limited but also very valuable to see the differences …eventual this will change as the selection of 4K cameras for the public to buy and for DP to review will get larger.

0 upvotes
pixmation
By pixmation (3 weeks ago)

Major bug for video shooters is that the XVAC-S codec cannot record timecode.

0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (4 weeks ago)

$1700 for a 4/3 body. It seems way over priced to me but the G4 is a nice camera, esp if video is of major importance.

2 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (3 weeks ago)

> It seems way over priced to me

Nah. You are just too cheap for the real good stuff.

P.S. Considering that cheapest pro-/semi-pro camera with internal 4K costs IIRC >$3000, $1700 is cheap. Considering that GH4 is also a very good stills camera, $1700 is very cheap. To some of course. I personally am interested in the GH4 solely as the preview of what tech we would see in the future mid-range Pana cameras.

4 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (3 weeks ago)

Nah it's a 4/3 camera and you are comparing to FF. It's over priced.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (3 weeks ago)

Yeah, mate. I'm 100% with you on that. FF is overpriced.

1 upvote
balazer2
By balazer2 (4 weeks ago)

"Sensor size alone would lead you to expect the a7S to have a 2EV advantage over the Panasonic"

The low-light advantage for larger sensors based on sensor size alone comes from their ability to use larger aperture lenses, and nothing else. That advantage is not realized if you shoot with the same aperture diameter on both cameras. In the low-light comparison above, the Sony is using an f/8 lens and the Panasonic is using an f/4 lens (same aperture diameter for both), and yet the Sony is still beating the Panasonic by 2 EV, maybe 3 at high ISOs. This advantage has to do with the low pixel count, large fill factor, and other differences in sensor technology - nothing about the sensor size.

There's another 2 EV to be gained if the Sony were using an f/4 lens. (though of course they would not be equivalent images because f/4 in the larger format means the focus field would be shallower)

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (3 weeks ago)

No, that's absolutely false. Sony's shutter speed was 2 EV longer to account for the 2 stops smaller f-number.

In other words, both cameras got roughly the same focal plane exposure for any ISO. Any ISO advantage on the A7S is down to (1) sensor size, and (2) lower upstream, sensor-level read noise.

6 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (3 weeks ago)

And to reiterate: the reason we shot the A7S at f/8 and the GH4 at f/4 was to match DOF & diffraction effects.

Read more about this principle here: http://bit.ly/equivap

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
balazer2
By balazer2 (3 weeks ago)

Oops, I overlooked the shutter speeds. Thanks. :)

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (4 weeks ago)

I applaud Richard for taking a chance and trying something new. However, this simply just didn't work. These cameras are completely unrelated and they each deserved their own review.

7 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (3 weeks ago)

The problem is that one can not just make a studio scene video "shot" to see the differences. DPR had to improvise how to pitch the cameras at each other.

The inherit problem with the "versus" comparative reviews is that subjects are compared on what can be compared in them, leaving aside their own specific strengths. Yet, GH4 and A7s are way too different. Probably the GH5 and the A8s - but right now the offerings are simply way far apart.

Overall, I think the first forays of DPR into the video-gear reviews were generally positive.

0 upvotes
marc petzold
By marc petzold (4 weeks ago)

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?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

"the A7S for lowlight photography, the GH4 mostly for video"

It seems odd that Sony would include a video-orientated S-Log2 tone curve, 4K output or ITU709 colour response option in a camera solely focused on 'low light photography.'

The review will look draw separate conclusions about the two cameras (for those people who aren't in the market for the best-available stills/video hybrid camera), as well as a comparison of the two.

How I wish I'd called it a side-by-side review.

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
marc petzold
By marc petzold (4 weeks ago)

From youtube comparsions - the video quality from the GH4 looks better to me, and no external 2k $ recorder is req'd for recording 4K - the GH4 does that internal, a big plus..personally, i wouldn't give a sh*t for recording with the A7S,
just for stills, if i would have one. I don't record vids anyway with my A7, too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (4 weeks ago)

"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.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (4 weeks ago)

@marc petzold
Two professional videographers also recently reviewed both the GH4 & A7S
http://philipbloom.net/2014/08/06/a7svideoreview/
http://www.eoshd.com/content/13197/sony-a7s-x70-pinewood-studios

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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.)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (4 weeks ago)

@ Dr_Jon
"I’m surprised at how nice the quality is from APS-C (Super 35mm) mode on the A7S. I expected it to be a lot softer! There’s no signs of significant moire or aliasing either."
http://www.eoshd.com/content/13105/good-news-super-35mm-mode-sony-a7s-dramatically-reduces-rolling-shutter

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (3 weeks ago)

Interesting, I guess it's the scaling then... thanks!

0 upvotes
rishi o'
By rishi o' (4 weeks ago)

How about a section talking about bugs & fixes for firmware updates? Here's mine for the A7s:

- Function and Custom customizability of "Silent Shooting Mode"
- Function and Custom customization of "APS-C Size Capture"
- Function and Custom customization for "Format"
- Deactivate Monitor should turn off monitor!
- When “Pre-AF” setting is disabled, it should apply to both photo and video mode. It currently applies only to photo mode with no way to disable in video mode.
- Allow focus point to be shown in manual focus mode. (The focus point should be shown when in manual focus mode so that we can use both manual focus mode and back-button focus effectively without having to leave manual focus mode.)
- Be able to view histogram and level at the same time
- Keep grid lines visible when moving the focus point around
- Have more consistent menu behavior. Sometimes when you set a menu, it might or might not drop out of the menu system which is annoying.

2 upvotes
jonak2
By jonak2 (4 weeks ago)

I think DPReview is a great resource, it's my 'go to' place for reviews news and photographic tips; not just the articles or reviews, but also the comments sections which often supply useful pointers to other sites, or users web pages and experiences - on low light photgraphy, landscape, Trey Rratcliffe.

I often find comparison articles a great way to emphasize differences and advantages of currently available gear. It keeps me thinking about what do I shoot now, what else may be fun to try, and keeps me learning about some of the more technical stuff, for example the great article on 'what's equivalence' has made me think hard about what's my next decent camera for night photography.

So, DPR, you (collective) are doing a great job, don't get too knotted up by the whiners!! We're all humans doing the best we can, you guys do just fine.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (4 weeks ago)

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!

1 upvote
langev
By langev (4 weeks ago)

A dynamic test for video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMypfYrKgw

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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.)

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (4 weeks ago)

Why do so many people misspell the over used word "whine"?

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (4 weeks ago)

I believe it is "Briticism" usually spelled "whinging" and pronounced "winjing".
We have a number of different countries and cultures represented here at DPR and thus we will see things that may at first seem incorrect.

I get annoyed when I see "errors" but as so many of my posts get "auto-corrected" by my computer I have a lot more understanding of the "errors" I see.

1 upvote
antares103
By antares103 (4 weeks ago)

Ha. I tried to figure out what was wrong with the word "error".

1 upvote
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (4 weeks ago)

Thanks for the explanation

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (4 weeks ago)

To troll whose who will wine about it

1 upvote
m3
By m3 (4 weeks ago)

Prefer beer myself ...

2 upvotes
Corkcampbell
By Corkcampbell (4 weeks ago)

The same kind of people who forget to put a hyphen between "over" and "used."

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (4 weeks ago)

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!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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.

0 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (4 weeks ago)

Richard, you have used a different TIME and therefore there is a different EXPOSURE RESULT and that is why you cannot use the pictures in the comparison tool and of that because the result is very misleading when you compare!

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (4 weeks ago)

If you're talking about the night scene with the Space Needle - those shots were taken on different days, but at around the same hour. In other words, something like 4-5 hours after sunset and 4-5 hours before sunrise. So, right around the darkest part of the night here in Seattle.

There really shouldn't be any appreciable difference in brightness levels of the scene. Save for lights in buildings that went on/off, & perhaps some slight atmospheric differences that may have changed the black level of the sky. But you can explore the scene and find streets/buildings that would not have experienced any appreciable changes in brightness due to being shot on different days.

Focal plane exposures were matched so any differences in exposure would be down to T-stop, which we don't believe to be too different between the lenses used.

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (4 weeks ago)

If you're asking why we didn't shoot them at the same time side-by-side - that raises a point I always try to make about the importance of designing controlled tests vs. doing one-off side-by-sides. No one has the resources to test every combination of cameras side-by-side. A controlled lab setup, though, allows you to compare cameras on different days, months, years even. As our studio scene does. And we're working on designing a new low light (& daylight) lab scene that emulates the real-world spread of tones/brightnesses. In the meantime, this night scene worked quite well - it allowed us to talk about ISO performance across shadows, midtones, & highlights.

In fact, the differences in ISO performance between cameras match up with SNR data we've acquired for these cameras. That's a nice lab to real-world correlation that validates lab testing.

The irony is, with lab testing we'll still get people saying that we should go shoot it in the real world. You just can't win sometimes.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (4 weeks ago)

Richard, i can repeat myself but that i think that is not necessary.
Look at the ISO 1600 JPEG there you a whole different picture e.g. people on the left etc.etc. So you have a different light because the TIME is different,it is not a controlled environment! So that is why it is not use full for a comparison tool.
Again very misleading because you compare apples and oranges.A intelligent photograph MUST know this.

0 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (4 weeks ago)

At Richard and Rishi,

You use a lot of words to explain things they at base wrong and again misleading.

Most people likes a more contrasts picture and there is a tendency to overexposure and most people do not like either.
Other people like more detail etc.etc.

So a compare tool you offer must be a neutral offer otherwise wait until you can give us the right tool it is now so subjective and you get misleading information

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (3 weeks ago)

Except that the ISO performance pretty much matches up almost perfectly with what DxO's full SNR data predicts. Read page 2 of my original article introducing this scene/test here:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4613822764/high-iso-compared-sony-a7s-vs-a7r-vs-canon-eos-5d-iii/2

Results match up with what sensor size (and resulting shot noise contributions) and read noise measurements of these cameras would predict.

Don't look at parts of the scene that are mildly different b/c people are walking on the street or building lights have been turned on/off. There's enough consistency throughout the scene for you to draw the relevant comparisons.

Like I said before: you just can't win. Ultimately, we found these results to be quite helpful in demonstrating the points we wanted to make. And they match up with SNR data from lab tests.

If you can prove we're showing something that disagrees with what the SNR data and/or math would predict, feel free to come back with something concrete.

0 upvotes
josbiker
By josbiker (3 weeks ago)

Thank for your explanation.
I do not agree with your explanation and i am not able to tell you in the English langues.
I see in the tower two total different exposure in one picture is a lost of detail and in the other ISO 1600 picture is less detail in the shadows and from my point of view you cannot tell what is best because these pictures are different.
So see for your self and than you agree with me!

0 upvotes
JunzInc
By JunzInc (4 weeks ago)

Does any on else feel that the GH4 raw images in the ISO Compared : GH4 vs A7S looks softer than the Images from the A7S?

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal
By Rishi Sanyal (4 weeks ago)

That's to be expected. The larger pixels of the A7S place less demands on the lens. Therefore, to get the same effective normalized resolution on the A7S, you could use a lens of lower resolving power than what you'd need on the GH4. Put another way: to resolve the same amount of scene detail, a smaller sensor of equivalent resolution would need a lens of higher resolving power.

Furthermore, it's possible that the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS lens used on the A7S is sharper than the Olympus lens used on the GH4.

Shots were taken at equivalent apertures such that diffraction effects should have been consistent across cameras.

1 upvote
mrcultureshock
By mrcultureshock (4 weeks ago)

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.

9 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (4 weeks ago)

They are currently enjoying their 5 minutes of fame but I am sure plenty of best cameras ever are waiting in the wings.

2 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (4 weeks ago)

mrcultureshock nailed it. The A7s deserves it own review for sticking only 12MP and leading the way for low light FF cameras.
The GH4 deserves its own review for bring 4K video to the ILC masses and also showing mILCs can compete with DSLRs in AF-C.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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).

1 upvote
Lab D
By Lab D (4 weeks ago)

Are you going to have a section on auto-focus speed and continuous auto focus with the 35-100m lens? Or even the -4EV focus claim?
The GH4 finally is very competitive with most DSLRs in many ways, but my fear these things will be glossed over in this "video comparison" review.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

@Lab D. We haven't got a 35-100mm lens but I will be looking at the continuous shooting of the GH4. This isn't a video comparison, it's just that a lot of what sets these cameras apart are their video features.

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (4 weeks ago)

OK, thanks. Make sure you use one of the new Panasonic lenses (borrow a 35-100mm if you can). As with most systems some older lenses affect focus speed.

0 upvotes
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (4 weeks ago)

I like the comparison as these two cameras are being discussed hand in hand in the forums I manage.

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

For the GH4 lens choice all you really need is to make sure the lens you use supports 240fps focusing and DFD.

0 upvotes
Kwick1
By Kwick1 (4 weeks ago)

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?

7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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.

1 upvote
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (4 weeks ago)

I like the comparison as these two cameras are being discussed hand in hand in the forums I manage.

2 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (4 weeks ago)

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.

Thank you.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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.

0 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (4 weeks ago)

Thanks Richard.

I understand that and you're not expected to introduce another variable for EVERY camera review.
I'm saying it's justified for this PARTICULAR CASE as we are probably facing the current two best Hybrid cameras. It's very important to know how much you can stretch the ISO in video, because it's proven to be a very different matter from photos and with these two video centric cameras it's pretty much relevant.

Even if you would just publish a static page with selected crops it would already be a boon.

Thanks again.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
duartix
By duartix (4 weeks ago)

You are fussy indeed. ;)
I take my GH2 to ISO800 regularly on venues and most of the videos hold up quite well, even without NeatVideo.
I can't imagine the GH24 being worse.
But I would really like to see how far can it go with acceptable video IQ.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

Remember at 4k its one sensor pixel per video pixel, in 1080 its 4 sensor pixels per video pixel so will have less noise.

0 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (4 weeks ago)

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.

5 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (4 weeks ago)

and I got GH1 and I am still loving it ..
over my GM1 and GX7 both are adorable on their own!!

0 upvotes
tabloid
By tabloid (4 weeks ago)

What Dp are doing here is very interesting to people like myself.
If you don't like it , don't read it….
Keep up the good work.

Remember Dp winging on these forums is quite normal.

I remember one chap wrote "I don't know why they make 50mm lenses, as have never found the use for such a lens"……..lol

7 upvotes
pew pew
By pew pew (4 weeks ago)

sorry m4/3 fans but a7s everyday any day.

7 upvotes
Felix E Klee
By Felix E Klee (4 weeks ago)

What's your use case?

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (4 weeks ago)

Don't be sorry mate .. enjoy your a7s!

3 upvotes
dabhand
By dabhand (4 weeks ago)

Why should I value your opinion - On what basis do you make your choice - what do you use it for - how much experience of BOTH cameras do you have - or are you just a fan boy who just wants to go yah boo sucks to anyone else ?

5 upvotes
Summi Luchs
By Summi Luchs (4 weeks ago)

I agree. My 4/3 camera always failed when taking a movie of my black cat in the darkroom.

4 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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.

3 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (4 weeks ago)

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.

15 upvotes
probert500
By probert500 (4 weeks ago)

perhaps someone will start a Mike Ronesia website for everything Mike Ronesia.

7 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (4 weeks ago)

Exactly my take. Dpreview is losing it. GH4 and A7s deserve their own indepth review. I do not want everything mixed either.
Gh4 is long long here and nothing from dpreview. Then this: a part 1 and then ages and then there is part 2....zzzzz.

It seems like they could resist Gh4 just fine, but when A7s came out they could not resist that one and had to add this very recent cam to the half year old GH4....Whatever their reason, the endresult is completely not interesting for me and I have not read part 1 in total and will not be reading part 2 at all. I just will go to CameraLabs etc for an uptodate and indepth take on camera's.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
13 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (4 weeks ago)

Yes mate the upgrade is worth it if you are after 4k video or even that bit better IQ.

2 upvotes
dabhand
By dabhand (4 weeks ago)

try http://www.steves-digicams.com/ then

0 upvotes
Sonyshine
By Sonyshine (4 weeks ago)

I agree!

Its like 'official' trolling - almost a form of review flaming or click bait.

I dislike these comparisons too.

2 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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.

0 upvotes
photo_rb
By photo_rb (4 weeks ago)

I may be missing it, is there any place that tells us which lenses are used on the studio comparison cameras?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

If you click on the 'gear' icon at the bottom right of the comparison tool, it should be listed there.

0 upvotes
photo_rb
By photo_rb (4 weeks ago)

Ahah! Thank you so much!

0 upvotes
Ian SS
By Ian SS (4 weeks ago)

I am interested in video, although both can capture 4K, GH4 can do it without external recorder, if you downsize 4K to 1080p, the quality is amazing. I am in a budget, this option is a major consideration.

1 upvote
badi
By badi (4 weeks ago)

Thank you for letting us know. Now i can sleep well at night.

0 upvotes
Skipper494
By Skipper494 (4 weeks ago)

I agree with others, why compare chalk and cheese? Comparing a M4/3 with a FF is absolute nonsense, particularly harping on video when we all know that video cameras take much better video. It would also be nice to see 'professional' standard sample photos, instead of the usual snapshots. For instance, I chose a Fuji S2 Pro long ago after downloading the extra sharp London Bridge shot.

We expect to see the ultimate capabilities of cameras in these reviews, not amateur examples. That an a7S was used to shoot a Chev commercial is hardly a recommendation, an Airbus or even a BMW, maybe.

My Pan M4/3 system is sitting in its bag, waiting for a buyer, but my NEX 7 and Samsung NX20/200 are kept busy.

7 upvotes
obayedh
By obayedh (4 weeks ago)

Absolutely agree with you. Comparing a FF with a Micro-third sensor is like comparing an apple with an orange!

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
lunic
By lunic (4 weeks ago)

This is good comparison because they are first 2 mirrorless cameras that enable to record 4K movie. Don't you get the point?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
badi
By badi (4 weeks ago)

And still there are so many moments when you choose to eat an apple or an orange... because they are on the same plate :)

7 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (4 weeks ago)

Of course one can compare cameras with different sensor sizes (and therefore different IQ and DoF control), just as one can compare cameras with different AF performance, ergonomics, build quality etc. It's perfectly valid as long as the intended use cases for the cameras aren't completely different.

Since there are many use cases where both a GH4 and an A7S would be appropriate, what's wrong with comparing them?

1 upvote
Androole
By Androole (4 weeks ago)

Interesting. Which Panasonic M4/3 do you have?

I bought my girlfriend a Samsung NX210 with the 30mm/f2 lens (fantastic rendering on that one), and later got myself a Panasonic GX1. I was expecting that the sensor size would yield big dividends for the Samsung, and while I do notice the slightly increased resolution, I find that at ISOs in the 1600-3200 range, the GX1 matches the low-light performance of the Samsung. In fact, I almost find the NX210's noise patterns splotchier and less pleasant.

...as far as your first point, I think you will have a hard time convincing people that the GH4 is significantly worse than most any video camera on the market for less than say, $5000...

2 upvotes
antares103
By antares103 (4 weeks ago)

If someone didn't compare FF to m4/3, then the differences would just be theory and myth, and could be a disservice to both sides.

1 upvote
write2alan
By write2alan (4 weeks ago)

@Carlton: Only if they come to Toronto, Canada to shot. LOL.....

0 upvotes
Carlton Foxx
By Carlton Foxx (4 weeks ago)

The world is full of many colors of people and you would do us all a big favor if you made it a policy to include lots more non-white peoples in your sample galleries. The subjects of your photos are all very nice looking people, but we need to see how cameras handle skin tones beyond those of sun-deprived Seattleites.

And I don't mean just throwing in the occasional light-skinned east Indian. In every photo gallery there should be dark-skinned Africans (African-Americans) as well as Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Thais, swarthy olive-skinned Mediterraneans... the whole gamut of humanity.

10 upvotes
CyrusH
By CyrusH (4 weeks ago)

That does sounds good but for me, i'm just grateful for these free and prompt reviews, and to be honest, i'd prefer reading a review sooner rather than waiting longer to ensure the gallery features the whole gamut of humanity. I'm an Asian, so i'm all up for your suggestion if time and money is of no concern.

0 upvotes
Corkcampbell
By Corkcampbell (4 weeks ago)

This is the best suggestion that I've read in a while. I'm from the States (and, coincidentally, plan on moving to Seattle in a year or so), but I spent 12 years in China and just finished my first year in Korea (and I soon will be on my 4th trip to North Korea). Not a lot of sun-deprived, chalky white faces of Caucasians here. With Seattle having about 18% Asian population, there is really no excuse for ignoring it. That's not to mention South Asian, African, etc. The examples in the reviews are like the Ferguson (Missouri) police department - 50 white officers and 3 black.
Thanks for the post!

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
John C Tharp
By John C Tharp (4 weeks ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

0 upvotes
GoneMirrorless
By GoneMirrorless (4 weeks ago)

Scratching head. Why compare when they are so different???
GH4 $1000 less and has 4K option no extras needed
A7s $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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
15 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 weeks ago)

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.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
GoneMirrorless
By GoneMirrorless (4 weeks ago)

$800+ is a big difference. I and I guess most readers can't afford the a7s. It looks great though for high end guys. I doubt the readers here want a $2000 recorder unless they are rolling in money.
Maybe I am wrong and this site caters to high end video people. I just don't get comparing cameras with a drastic price difference. I can afford one, but not the other, and I doubt I am alone. For 4k the difference jumps to $2800 I think. Not in my price range.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (4 weeks ago)

$1,000? The gh4 is $1700. Lets see who blinks and drop their price in the next 2 months.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
GoneMirrorless
By GoneMirrorless (4 weeks ago)

I hope Panasonic blinks soon. I just realized when I add lenses it is almost out of my price range too. Maybe a good competitor will show up next month too. Fuji? Sony? Canon?

0 upvotes
Androole
By Androole (4 weeks ago)

@steelhead3

Hopefully they both blink. Better for us. Both currently have unique selling propositions that make choosing one over the other a legitimately difficult decision.

The quality difference of 4K, even downsampled (or played back on a 1080p monitor) is shocking. Not to mention the huge flexibility it gives you in terms of in-shot pan & zoom, or 8MP JPEG stills. For something like sports journalism, you can simply take a 4K clip of the critical moment and never miss the shot.

Adding an external recorder to get 4K on the A7S takes it into an entirely different price and size bracket.

0 upvotes
Artpt
By Artpt (4 weeks ago)

No matter how you cut, crazy ISO performance on the A7S....I know this is a video comparison, but come on...

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

I'm pretty sure we say exactly that on the IQ page.

1 upvote
Artpt
By Artpt (4 weeks ago)

....still starstruck though....

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 weeks ago)

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?

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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).

0 upvotes
neil holmes
By neil holmes (4 weeks ago)

May I suggest you try the Sony "Live View grading App" with the a7s.

I have only had it (the App) for 5 minutes with my normal A7 and I think it will make a sizeable difference to me for video. For a start the basic a7 creative styles range for video for things like sharpness expands from a range of -3 to +3 to -7 to +7.

For a lot of people might well be worth the $10 just for that alone.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (4 weeks ago)

The built in picture profiles of the A7S cover this more than the grading app so far as I can tell.

0 upvotes
neil holmes
By neil holmes (4 weeks ago)

Wasn't sure for the a7s though I know it has a LOT more than the other Sony cameras.

Still it does seem a very handy App for video and Sony cameras like the A7 series and the A6000 and a few others.....so much more control of video settings....at least for the normal A7. Has dozens of different settings for video so might be less of a need with the A7s but still might be useful.

I want an A7s and I can put the App in more than one camera so I will try it one of these days.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (4 weeks ago)

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.

AND

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.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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).

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).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 weeks ago)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

@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.

2 upvotes
Carlton Foxx
By Carlton Foxx (4 weeks ago)

Cinematographers don't have the flexibility with f-stop that we still people do...it's because people's bodies naturally move around quite a bit even when they're trying hard to stand still, so moviemakers have a much greater need for depth of field to keep the actors in focus. They also need to keep the "look" of a scene consistent when the different angles are assembled. Hence, from what I've seen, cinematographers tend to pick one f/stop and stick with it. It would be extremely disorienting to watch a film where the depth of field kept shifting at random points.

0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (4 weeks ago)

@carlton foxx: Funny you should say that because that's exactly the opposite of what I see. Sometimes DOF is shallow for isolation and sometimes deep to include multiple elements even for scenes next to each other if the POV is different. Sometimes focus will shift from one subject to another to redirect your attention (which only works with relatively shallow DOF). DOF obviously doesn't change within a single take or camera angle unless the light also changes (i.e. rare inside/outside transitions.) It's highly variable depending on the DP's style. Did you ever see Star Trek TOS where ever ytime they changed to show a female closeup the lens was suddenly coated with Vaseline?

3 upvotes
Carlton Foxx
By Carlton Foxx (4 weeks ago)

Excellent point and a wakeup call that I need to spend more time at the theater enjoying movies on the big screen rather than watching them on my stupid iPhone.
But still, shallow depth of field is something that goes in and out of fashion as the decades pass—people still revere and admire Citizen Kane for its deep depth of field and I imagine that it's not long before we see that becoming the standard again.
And that Vaseline effect is something that you see a lot on shows with actors and actresses who are getting older... there are dozens of threads on the cinematography boards about diffusion filters they all use.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 weeks ago)

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.

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (4 weeks ago)

Scroll across the last set of DRO comparisons for entertaining timelapse!

1 upvote
CaPi
By CaPi (4 weeks ago)

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?

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (4 weeks ago)

1080p or "4K" is like making a small print (4x6 or 8x10). At smaller sizes, even cel phone pictures are hard to distinguish from Pro Cameras. Aside from sensor size, both of them are quite similar. Mirrorless, size/weight, features. If your looking for a still camera, these will work fine but many other cameras have better bang for the buck.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 weeks ago)

They are comparable as two video cameras that also take still images, as both are primarily targeted towards video shooters.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Carlton Foxx
By Carlton Foxx (4 weeks ago)

What DPR needs to do is compare these cameras to an industry standard like the Arri Alexa, but that opens up a whole other kettle of fish.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

@Carlton Foxx - that would be nice. I'm currently finding it hard enough to get hold of a kettle (well, an external 4K recorder), let alone trying to round-up additional fish.

1 upvote
Arikd
By Arikd (1 month ago)

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!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Arikd
By Arikd (1 month ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (4 weeks ago)

Umm, duh! What do you expect it to do. You told the camera to save a certain block of settings as C2. That's exactly what it does. When you change to C2 you're telling it to use those settings. How is the camera suppose to know that LAST time those were the setting you wanted to use with C2, but THIS time you want it to ignore those settings and use different ones?

2 upvotes
estarkey
By estarkey (4 weeks ago)

@Bob Meyer You beat me to it!

@Arikd Those presets are better used fora scenario like this:
C1: Studio Stills - 1/200 @ f/8 ISO 200
C2: Sports Shutter Priority Auto ISO and AF-C Mode
C3: C4K Cinema 1/50th and video centric display.

0 upvotes
Eric Nepean
By Eric Nepean (4 weeks ago)

Further to Bob Meyer's and estarkey's responses, what I do is I assign 1 custom mode (typically C3-3) to "last" modification.

Lets say I start with preset C1, than make some modifications - if I know i want to update thepreset, then I save the configuration as C1. But if I'm in a hurry, might want it back or maybe not, then I save it as C3-3.

In the latter case I can come back later and reuse C3-3, potentially modify it some more, if I like it I can save it as C1 or as a different preset.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Arikd
By Arikd (1 month ago)

This is part one. What's going on with part two? Why are some cameras being reviewed within days and game changers like the GH4 take months to review?
I could not wait for the review, so already got my GH4. For everyone that's interested, Here is my review:
1. This is a great camera in terms of image quality, video and stills.
2. Not so great in low light with m4/3 lenses. put on an old, fast Canon FD lens with a speed booster and the camera is nightworthy.
3. Quirks:
I. 4K is only available in "creative mode". This is No. 1 most annoying "feature". My GH1 (hacked) was so easy to use as a hybrid camera, doing both stills and full res video in one mode! why break something good?
II. When you switch from creative mode 4K to stills mode, the camera puts you in 1080 50p all I 200Mbps. You switch to the mode you like (say 50Mbps) and when you go back to creative mode... you will stay in this mode. It will not go back to 4K automatically. So now I have to switch back, and forth, back, f..

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
estarkey
By estarkey (1 month ago)

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.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

We didn't write a preview of the GH4. I wrote this summary of its features, which is still available, but we've not removed anything we'd previously published.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (4 weeks ago)

When Phil Askey ran this site, he'd just go straight to the point with a review instead of all this click bait.

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

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.

1 upvote
estarkey
By estarkey (4 weeks ago)

Well accept my apology Richard! I could not find that piece as I was looking for a preview. Sincerely.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 weeks ago)

@estarkey - no apology necessary. I'm sorry it's so hard to find (I've added a link at the beginning of this review, to help with that).

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (1 month ago)

I have been thinking for a while. It seems clear to me that it is better off for you to buy Panasonic GH4 if you want more range of lens you can get compare to Sony A7 series you won't be able to have much of lens line up which is a difficult one. I really like the look of Panasonic colours that almost looks same as real life. I think Panasonic has a clever invention in it.. Maybe if you were to do both day and night video. Probably would be good to have both GH4 and then use A7s for low light and night video. So you wouldn't have to struggle with high iso performance problem. So it is really a lot of pros and cons in it to balance in between. Why can't Sony have more lens being built for A7 series cos it is very high demand they need more lens than just few, zoom lens are more popular than prime lens. I only go for native lens, not compatible lens with speed booster that I no longer interest in due to some issue problems with it.

3 upvotes
kerimheper
By kerimheper (1 month ago)

GH4 4K Video Sample with Canon 17-40mm L Series F 4 Lens @ F4
using manual EF - mft converter ( manual focused )

if any canon owners wonders about get their hands on GH4 with canon lenses they already have

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UfBU8bnAA

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (4 weeks ago)

BTW the EF speed-booster is out now ($$$ though) and a non-lensed EF adapter announced (does aperture, IS, electronic focusing lenses).

0 upvotes
kerimheper
By kerimheper (3 weeks ago)

if you ask if they work Answer is : No they dont
You have to put your lens on your canon or nikon to adjust aperture as wide as possible to get more light but
You could by cheap boosters with manual aperture as an option this way you can Put your lens in wide open in your slr then manually close down with adapter but its not good as original metabones IS fonction does not work because of no power connection but if the find a way to power the lenses I am sure it will work at least a little

0 upvotes
BelePhotography
By BelePhotography (1 month ago)

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 ;-)

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

Which settings in particular?

0 upvotes
BelePhotography
By BelePhotography (1 month ago)

Shutterspeed... only one of importance when we talk about rolling shutter.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

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.

1 upvote
kerimheper
By kerimheper (1 month ago)

I have my gh4 like 5 days
since I have a studio and lots of Canon cameras and lenses
I realised if you use mid range lens with GH4 you can get in more trouble than DSLR 1080P video because in 4K you see every detail specialy in corners. I have 12-50mm Olsympus lens because of electronic zoom option but you def. need some thing like prime or 12-35mm Lumix
I've ordered SpeedBooster with manual aperture after that I will test my Canon L lenses .
So far I've tested M42 Super Takumar 50mm F:4 Macro with mft converter results vere perfect very sharp
Than I've tested regular old M42 28mm F 2.8 lens at 2.8 I can tell you even with more crop factor at 4K video still looked too soft at corners
if you consider buying and old M42 lenses 16mm / 24mm / 35mm / 50mm
like lenses just buy good branded ones.

GH4 video codec is very easy to work with that is very important if you also do some editings like me

Hopefully I will upload video samples with variable lenses with GH4 soon

Thanks for review

1 upvote
Cameraman777
By Cameraman777 (1 month ago)

A totally useless "review".

7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (1 month ago)

It's not finished yet.

What was it you are hoping for? That way I can try to include it.

2 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (1 month ago)

A very slow one. Seems to take ages. What is this? Funny thing is that I was not interested in this review one bit. I want to see a GH4 review and a Sony A7s review. Not some mix. But dpreview explained it and oke...In any way I did not look at it. Until I I did a few days ago only to note nothing had changed from the first time I looked (2-3 weeks ago I think)....??????????

5 upvotes
Total comments: 683
1234