For me, I'm not planning to shoot 4k yet, but I feel I should future proof.

With that in mind, I still need to really concentrate on the quality of my HD shooting.

GH4 may well be a lot cheaper, but I will need to buy new glass and sell my ef-mount glass along with my 6D.

For the A7s, EF-mount glass can be used with a metabones adapter.

The GH4 despite having 4k internally is a million miles away from the A7s in terms of HD quality. Not to mention the difference in high ISO shooting and dynamic range.

I really feel like the A7s would be worth saving for compared with the GH4. plus, if you are going to shoot 4k, you probably need to buy a lot more storage and cards.

Anyone agree?

Check out the following HD sample and BTS from the A7s.

It really is amazing, and sure I can buy a 4k recorder whenever I feel the market really warrants it.

Arbroath Smokies - Sony Alpha 7s

Sony A7s Full-Frame Sensor Camera : Behind the Scenes. - YouTube

Sony A7s: Low Light Demonstration (ISO 1600 to 409600) - YouTube

I'm thinking it could be neither, though the Sony does look nice.

I really don't feel the need to rush in to owning 4K gear at this time and think what ever I bought 'now' could easily end up being the wrong decision long term so I'd end up selling it again.

If you're heavily invested in M4/3 glass then the GH4 would probably be the right solution, but I'm not ready to jump ship (again!) in order to be up with the latest trend. I'm going to wait a good few months or more before even considering a purchase.

I'm seriously tempted to see what Canon bring to market first, since the 7D2 should be with us shortly and the 5D4 likely within the next 12 months. Perhaps the 7D2 will be 4K and ready to pop your EF glass on to... who knows?

It's more than storage and cards. You may want to take the time and watch this: Asking Questions About 4K - BVExpo 2014 - YouTube

Some random thoughts:
You seem bent on a DSLR and the headaches that come with it such as investment in glass which can constrain you going forward and ergonomics.

"Future proofing" is a buzzword invented by marketing and sales people. You are talking about being an early adopter so be prepared for all the expense and pain that goes with it.

The argument right now is around "Why shoot 4K just to deliver HD when you can spend less to generate better HD and not get locked in to a camera system/manufacturer before 4k settles down (or disappears)?"

Great post Les.

That has confirmed my analysis of 4k. Its not worth the headache and the cost of upgrading the studio at this point.

I think it will be a very long time coming before my brides start asking for 4k delivery.

The GH4 despite having 4k internally is a million miles away from the A7s in terms of HD quality.

A million miles away? :) I honestly have not seen any video showing a massive difference in image quality, they all look about the same to me and each camera has it strengths, the gh4 has a better codecs to work with and the possibility to reframe in post but the a7 has full frame and very good low light performance. We still have to wait for the a7s price but if it's in the 5dIII ballpark it shouldn't be compared to the gh4 since that one would be much cheaper.

From what I see shooting 4k can result in a better looking 1080p footage, especially when it comes at sharpness, in my case business wise a gh4 would make most sense, since i allready own a gh3 and several m4/3 lenses, I could swap out accessories, batteries and be able to work with exactly the same form-factor, button position will be the same so I could get the camera body only, a suitable card to shoot on and stick the thing in my gear bag and start shooting without much preparation.

Only, it's 600 euro more expensive then the gh3 (900 for the gh3 and 1500 for the gh4), it does have some valuable improvements of which zebra's would be the most important one for me but would that feature alone be worth the extra investment? 4k is great for reframing and there are occasions I would see this beneficial in my workflow, but I"m not sure when it comes to my workflow and dealing with 4k files, will I have to upgrade? Not sure but it would add again to the cost.

About the a7s, the only reason I"d see this as a good investment would be it's low light capability, as wedding event shooter that is a very important feature being able to shoot at those high iso's, but for me it also would mean investing in emount glass again since my m4/3 glass would not fit and that would again add substantially to the costs.

Smartest thing for me to do right now is to finish my year with what I have got, it served me last year and it will again this year, I could also get a gh4 to replace my g6 and just shoot 1080p with it and 4k only in case I would need it. It would save me from the headache of restarting my brain to know which button to press if I go from the gh3 to the g6, having 2 identical camera bodies would make life much easier and would allow my accessories to fit across camera's as well.

Only, like I said it's 600 euro more expensive then a gh3, the gh4 would not allow me to ask more money, I could perfectly get a gh3 to replace my g6 and be a happy shooter for the following 2 years at least.

Only that high iso shooting on the a7s, dang :)

I think it will be a very long time coming before my brides start asking for 4k delivery.

Just add a 4k sticker onto your dslr, no-one will ever notice :)

I just want a 5dMIV that has DPAF, shoots HD to prores internally, and has a nifty hot shoe dual XLR unit.
A headphone jack, zebras, waveform, and audio levels would be nice, too.
I think I could get quite a few years of beautiful footage with that...
And, believe it or not, I really like the DSLR form factor, stripped down or with a rig.

Noa, the price is out for the A7S - its £2500 on pre-order.

The High ISO for me is insanely good and would eliminate what is by far my biggest issue on a wedding day.

I think it may even be worth the money alone.

I also felt that in outdoor footage of the GH4, the highlights were mostly blown out whilst the rest was perfectly exposed. The dynamic range on the A7S I think is better in this respect, however the above clips don't show much strong daylight to fully test it.

I feel that on some occassions my 6D still can't cope at ISO 32000 at an aperture I'd be happy with. You just can't be super shallow on a steadycam or during high energy dancing.

To me, this low light ability is revolutionary.

are you sure that price is official? I don't see anything yet on b&h which are usually one of the first. If that would be the price it would be more expensive then the 5dIII so you have to compare with that camera as both don't shoot 4K internallly

I queried this before - is it possible that shops will somehow guess the price in order to get a head start on pre-orders. Bothe WEX Photographic and Park Cameras have it on.

I also felt that in outdoor footage of the GH4, the highlights were mostly blown out whilst the rest was perfectly exposed. The dynamic range on the A7S I think is better in this respect

They said the same about the rx10, about every first video I saw had blown highlights while when I went shooting with it in Bruges (vimeo.com/81655332) I had no issue with it, a lot depends on what presets you use and how you expose.


I feel that on some occassions my 6D still can't cope at ISO 32000 at an aperture I'd be happy with.

I thought the 6d was on par with the 5dIII when it comes to low light shooting? Surely you should be able to shoot at 6400 iso without much issue? What is wrong with it when shooting at higher iso's?

If I had to pick one of those two, it would be the Sony for it's low light capability alone. But production sample
reviews comparing both at low light levels and image quality will tell. Too early yet. Off topic: The Sony should have been priced at the same price as the Panasonic and provide internal 4K rec as well. Let's see what the other two have to offer.

If I have to believe the rumors on price you could get two gh4's for the price of one a7s, that makes the last one a bit less interesting.

I have not seen anything from the A7s which looks substantially better than the GH4. Low light capability? What are we talking about exactly? What ISO are you planning on shooting at primarily that the A7s will achieve better than the GH4? 6400?

To me, "low light" is primarily clean at 1600 with acceptable results at 3200. After that, I start cringing no matter which camera.

The GH4 actually does 4K, the A7s doesn't. Sony has a line of professional cameras to protect like the FS700, F5 & F55, they won't release a DSLR that competes with those. Panasonic is more flexible they don't have such a protected high-end line so no reason to cripple the GH4. If history (A99) is anything to go by Sony loses here.

I have not seen anything from the A7s which looks substantially better than the GH4. Low light capability? What are we talking about exactly? What ISO are you planning on shooting at primarily that the A7s will achieve better than the GH4? 6400?

To me, "low light" is primarily clean at 1600 with acceptable results at 3200. After that, I start cringing no matter which camera.

if its low noise its low noise, I'll push ISO as high as a cameras allows me.

According to the above video, ISO 50,000 is useable.

It all comes down to you specific needs.

For me, I do evening receptions at weddings which force me to shoot high and sometimes noisey whilst also shooting wide open with a very narrow DOF.

If the A7S allows me to bump up the ISO noise free, and open up my depth of field with an aperture of 2.8 or 4 - Then that is a massive massive boost for my product quality.

If you aren't shooting ultra low light, then I guess the A7S is maybe not worth it. But for me... it might well be.

If you aren't shooting ultra low light, then I guess the A7S is maybe not worth it. But for me... it might well be.

Yeah, 50,000 ISO is very "ultra", but I would never shoot that as a general rule. I get antsy once I get up to 6400, but I have shot at 10,000 ISO with decent results on a C100 and NR turned up in the picture profile.

You can't really tell noise levels from web videos, they are so compressed there isn't enough data to show how much noise there really is. Personally I easily shoot 8000 ISO on my C100 heck I even push it to 16000 with NR & sharpness turned on because the codec & web videos are so compressed my clients can't tell the difference, it's only us video fanatics that see it. Last time I checked non of you are buying my videos so why are we stressing if the general public only cares about content?

General rules don't apply for weddings, you either get the shot or you don't, I shoot between 3200 to 6400 iso all the time at dark venues during weddings with my gh3, I just don't have any other choice because if I would shoot at 1600 iso to get "acceptable" results I often wouldn't have anything to look at because it's way underexposed. Light is often also no option so I always work with available light, shooting at these ultra high iso makes a lot of difference when choosing either a better f-stop and wider dof or just be able to expose every imaginable situation in the way you can see it with your own eyes, even if they turn of the light.

Exactly Noa,
The low light is probably the first thing i want to know about any potential new purchase for me.

And for now, as a wedding videographer primarily, delivering on DVD and HD compressed mp4 online - I would far rather invest money in low light HD than 4k with no significant low light improvements.

You don't buy for the boast factor, you buy to meet your specific requirements. 4k is not a requirement to my business at present.

.
You don't buy for the boast factor, you buy to meet your specific requirements. 4k is not a requirement to my business at present.

I quite agree. Each year there's a new gimmick for the video community to get excited about, last year it was RAW video, before that Black magic. I didn't jump on any of those bandwagons despite my interest and awareness of their advantages as I couldn't justify the cost in terms of business requirements. It would be a vanity purchase, nothing more.

As it happens I'm buying the GH4, not to be seen as uptodate, but as an owner of GH2s and a GH3, its a logical upgrade with several new useful features, one of which is 4k. I'm aware there are better cameras for lowlight, but in the end, I'm sticking with what I have. If I jumped to another camera manufacture every time someone said it was the best option for video, I'd be buying 4 or 5 cameras a year.

With a 5D3/C300/C100 you can shoot shoot noise free ISO6400 at F/2.8 & your footage will end up looking a lot brighter than the location ever was. I don't see why you really need low light capability better than this.

The GH4 actually does 4K, the A7s doesn't. Sony has a line of professional cameras to protect like the FS700, F5 & F55, they won't release a DSLR that competes with those. Panasonic is more flexible they don't have such a protected high-end line so no reason to cripple the GH4. If history (A99) is anything to go by Sony loses here.

I think the Sony A7s is capable of doing 4K. What is the Atomos Shogun used for ?? http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/04/atomos-announces-first-4k-recorder-sony-a7s
The A7s just doesn't capture 4K within the camera itself, but I am sure it will do a fine job with that FF sensor.

With a 5D3/C300/C100 you can shoot shoot noise free ISO6400 at F/2.8 & your footage will end up looking a lot brighter than the location ever was. I don't see why you really need low light capability better than this.

Yea but at what aperture? Super shallow? Thats not enough. We shouldn't have to limit our 'look' and make focusing a difficulty.

Take this following pieces for example - The shallow DOF drives me mad in it, but no doubt the shooter didn't have much choice. i'd rather be at f4 or 5.6 for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMDBfmxwqA#t=80

I'm not sure ISO 6400 cuts its at those apertures. If ir doesnt, I need to test my 6D properly in case I'm not using its full potential. I've never even tried going past ISO 3200.

Yea but at what aperture? Super shallow? Thats not enough. We shouldn't have to limit our 'look' and make focusing a difficulty.

The quote in your post said f2.8. Let's use that as a starting point. f2.8 at 16mm gives a lot more DOF than f2.8 at (say) 200mm, so before discussing usable DOF we first need two things, aperture and focal length.

I've shot at ISO12800 on the 5D3 when no other shot was possible. A little kiss from neat video brought it to an acceptable result (good enough for the client).

I think the Sony A7s is capable of doing 4K

The a7s can do 4k, only not internally but only out to a ext recorder.

The a7s can do 4k, only not internally but only out to a ext recorder.

And only via HDMI of which the Atomos Shogun is the only option I am aware of, and it doesn't ship until August/September or later.

On the other hand, the GH4 will allow you to record 4K as soon as it's in your hands. AVCHD 4K variety, but 4K nonetheless.

Why bother with 4K when 8K is just around the corner ;)

NAB 2014: 8K resolution coming in 2020 - News - Digital Arts (http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/video-post-production/8k-resolution-coming-in-2020/)

The a7s can do 4k, only not internally but only out to a ext recorder.

AKA it doesn't do 4K! In my books a camera only does 4K if it does so in-camera, it's just a marketing gimmick. How many people will be running external recorders?

Eventhough it cant do it internally you would have an option to shoot in 4k, so it can output to 4k if you have the need for that. I also wouldn't call being able to shoot 4k 4:2:2 a marketing gimmick, there are many people that run external recorders, sometimes to bypass the 30 minute recording limit or to just get a higher output quality out of their camera, that's nothing new. It might be a technical limit that the a7s can't do 4k internally or maybe Sony just wants us to buy a external recorder as they are so into accessorizing.
The gh4 applies the same principle, but their brick is even worse, it also adds functionality that the camera itself doesn't have, you need to have powering solutions and a external recorder making this combo useless as a run and gun solution, but it can do 4k 4:2:0 internally, I only would see that useful for it's cropping abilities, outputting a 4k master is useless right now, it will eventually change but the chance is that when that happens you have probably replaced the camera with another model.

The gh4 applies the same principle, but their brick is even worse, it also adds functionality that the camera itself doesn't have, you need to have powering solutions and a external recorder making this combo useless as a run and gun solution, but it can do 4k 4:2:0 internally, I only would see that useful for it's cropping abilities, outputting a 4k master is useless right now, it will eventually change but the chance is that when that happens you have probably replaced the camera with another model.

Except that you will get 10-bit 4:2:2 4K out of the microHDMI port, same way you will get 4K out of the A7s, so it's an equal sum game. The only thing the YAGH does for you is get you to 10-bit 4:2:2 4K as soon as the device comes out because it gives you the ability to connect to currently available external recorders. The A7s has to wait for the Shogun to be able to record 4K at all.

The A7s has to wait for the Shogun to be able to record 4K at all.
Just like most of us have to wait untill they will be able to look at their 4k footage on a 4k tv :), that recorder will come, that's just a matter of time, 4k is a technology that has just come looking around the corner and we are in a transition period, just like we where with the dv to hdv switch. Currently I"d settle for a good 1080p output and there it seems 4k capable camera's give you a slight advantage, but otoh, I"m not that overly exited about 4k, it does have some advantages but not to a point it will be able to make me more money, it will only cause issues in my workflow that will cost me time and money and it certainly won't make me a better camerman, a more lazy one at best because I will start re-framing in post :)

Just like most of us have to wait untill they will be able to look at their 4k footage on a 4k tv :), that recorder will come, that's just a matter of time

Which was the point. GH4 owners can start playing around with 4K until then, A7s owners cannot.

Who says they can't? when the a7s is released for sale the recorder might be available as well, patience is a virtue :)

Which was the point. GH4 owners can start playing around with 4K until then, A7s owners cannot.

Actually, the point of this thread was to buy a "futureproof" camera and in case of the a7s buy a external recorder if the need would arise to deliver or shoot in 4K. The TS mentioned he valued the image and especially the iso range of the a7s much higher then the ability to shoot 4k internally right now, but he wants to have that option for the future, the a7s does give you that. He wanted to know whether the gh4 would be a better option and why.

The TS mentioned he valued the image and especially the iso range of the a7s much higher then the ability to shoot 4k internally right now, but he wants to have that option for the future, the a7s does give you that.

I would say that the A7s gives you a slight edge on ISO range and that's about it. I don't see what "option for the future" is, unless you mean you have the desire to use the worst performing parts of your lenses on a full frame-ish sensor.

You are kidding right? :) The 6400 iso performance doesn't look much better then the gh3 and the a7s, eventhough I have only see compressed footage, looks as clean at 100.000 iso. Is that a slight advantage? :D

You are kidding right? :) The 6400 iso performance doesn't look much better then the gh3 and the a7s, eventhough I have only see compressed footage, looks as clean at 100.000 iso. Is that a slight advantage? :D

The A7s isn't out yet, so this is Sony's doing. Did they enable noise reduction in camera? What about the GH4 NR? Same levels? The A7s clip maxes out at 1080 while you can see the 4K of the higher ISOs of the GH4. Granted the A7s will go much higher, but how useable will it be that clean? Have you ever seen agressive NR in motion? Not pretty.

I would wait until it's in people's hands before making a final comparison. But I would also point out that your mind seems made up in favor of the A7s, and if that's what you need, go for it. They are both great cameras, but I prefer the option internally for 4K and I don't see the Full Frame or insanely high ISOs being worth the move from m4/3 to NEX.

But I would also point out that your mind seems made up in favor of the A7s, and if that's what you need, go for it.

It's not, the a7s would be a too expensive upgrade at this time where the gh4 will be a much more obvious upgrade for me since I have invested too much in m4/3 camera's and lenses,however I also would like to point out that your mind seems to be made up in favour of gh4, so if you need internal 4k, then go for it :)

however I also would like to point out that your mind seems to be made up in favour of gh4, so if you need internal 4k, then go for it :)

Of course it is. I own 3 m4/3 lenses, including the 2 primary zooms. I also like to chase quality. But I don't chase high ISOs or some nebulous "full frame look". I have the C100, so I can use the high ISO if I want, but even then I typically stay in the realm of 640. The GH4 gives me clean 4:2:2 10-bit 1080 out and 96fps for the slow motion functionality that I occasionally need, so it's a good compliment.

Like I said, I don't see the A7s being such a world above the GH4 to convince me to switch over, but if the real world benefits for a higher quality output were plainly seen, I definitely would.

I, and I"m sure Clive who started this thread, do care a lot about how good camera's can shoot at high iso's, as wedding shooters that is a very important feature. From what I have seen so far in comparison videos the gh4 is no better then the gh3 when it comes to noise and low light sensitivity and 6400 iso is already pretty noisy, usable in my case as it still looks better then 3200 iso on my 550d which I had before.

It looks like (again from only seeing what sony has provided so far) the a7s should easily be able to go to 50000 iso and beyond which would open up many more possibilities while choosing your aperture in very dark candle lit venues, currently I only have one choice, open to 6400 iso, shoot at f1.4. I actually don't care if Sony used a noise reduction in camera, their 51200 and even 102.400 iso in their sample video looks usable for my purposes, which is shooting weddings.

The problem only is, that whenever a new camera comes out, you can't change sides as that is often a very expensive change, I do like my panasonic gh3 a lot and the image it outputs is excellent, there is a high possibility I will change my g6 for a gh4 but it's unlikely I will be shooting much 4k with it, unless I need it, I see the gh4 more as a improved gh3 that can do 4k, I value the fact that it has zebra's much more then 4k to be honest.

Everytime something new comes along a lot of people seem to think you need it because what you had won't cut it any more, saw it with the raw capability from the BMC camera's and I have yet to see more then a handful of videos that really impresses me, same will apply for 4k, if the cameraman behind the lens produced crap before, 4k will only make it more obvious.

Also, something important to consider when buying a 4k capable camera and shoot with it in that way is how it will fit in your current workflow. what Clive mentioned about "futureproofing" your camera might be something to think about, could very well be that once you really start to rely on 4k your camerabody might be up for replacement.

If you would integrate the gh4's 4k footage into a 1080p workflow with other camera's first thing that might come in to mind is the difference in sharpness, put a gh4 4k image downsized to hd next to that of a 700d and the sharpness difference might already be too obvious to match the camera's right.
I guess you need faster and bigger cards to handle 4k and to shoot the same amount which add again to the cost.
You need a faster pc to handle 4k natively
You need more storage space to keep all your raw data
The cropfactor is even larger from what I understand on the gh4 when you shoot 4k so your widest lens just became narrower which would be no issue at all on the a7s, but you'd need a external recorder to shoot in that way which will make it more bulky and less convenient.

I guess that no matter what you choose you should base your decision on whether you really "need" 4k or just "want" it, sometimes it's a obvious decision, like if you already have invested in panasonic or sony glass, it depends on budget because changing sides can cost you a lot of money and it depends if you find the ability to crop your footage in a 1080p project more important then to shoot at higher iso and being able to shoot full frame which gives you more possibilities with wide lenses.

Shooting 4k would mostly be considered as something you would need once we can start delivering in 4k which I don't see happening overnight.

what Clive mentioned about "futureproofing" your camera might be something to think about, could very well be that once you really start to rely on 4k your camerabody might be up for replacement.

At this point, "futureproofing" is a fool's game. There's simply no way to do it. Who ever would have imagined back during the HVX heyday that Panasonic would be where it is now? Or that Canon would blow the doors off interchangeable lens cameras? Or that Sony would leapfrog and be the hot frontrunner? Or that BMD/AJA would even be *making* cameras at all?

The cropfactor is even larger from what I understand on the gh4 when you shoot 4k so your widest lens just became narrower which would be no issue at all on the a7s

Crop factor is a way overblown issue. I have had GH2/GH3, C100 and now a GH4 coming up. Shot on Pocket, BMCC, Epic, ect. Crop factor has never been an issue.

I guess that no matter what you choose you should base your decision on whether you really "need" 4k or just "want" it, sometimes it's a obvious decision

I really don't care about 4K myself. The GH4 wins as a great upgrade over the GH2/3 for focus peaking, 10-bit 4:2:2 out, and up to 96fps slow-motion in 1080. Plus improved stills.

Shooting 4k would mostly be considered as something you would need once we can start delivering in 4k which I don't see happening overnight.

Actually, shooting in 4K is to have zoom options for delivering in 1080. Shooting for mastering in 4K is going to be much better on Dragon at 6K.

Here is where I stand with this. I currently have three GH2 setups and a bunch of glass.
As a wedding shooter, I need low light performance. NEED it. The sony cam coming out looks amazing in that regards.

I was thinking of going the GH4 route, using it for low light situations with an external recorder as I've heard that downsizing 4k 4:2:2 to 1080p delivers great results, allowing me to go to higher iso cleaner - but this new sony cam looks to kick the gh4 right in the face.

Problem? I'm invested in m4/3. So now I don't know what the heck to do haha. Sigh

In regards to crop factor not being an issue - it absolutely is for me. When is it an issue? When I need 12mm @ 1.4 in a tight bedroom and well, I can't do that, with m4/3.

When I need 12mm @ 1.4 in a tight bedroom and well, I can't do that, with m4/3.

What do you mean you can't?

SLR Magic HyperPrime Cine 12mm T/1.6 Lens for Micro Four Thirds Cameras SLR-1216MFT (http://www.adorama.com/SLR1216MFT.html)

I use the olympus 12mm f2.0 for my wide shots, works well and if I want fish eye wide I use a 7,5mm rokinon lens.

What do you mean you can't?

SLR Magic HyperPrime Cine 12mm T/1.6 Lens for Micro Four Thirds Cameras SLR-1216MFT (http://www.adorama.com/SLR1216MFT.html)

12mm on M4/3 is 24mm.

Is that not wide enough for you?

12mm is indeed a decent wide, using a tight bedroom as your example concern, if it's that tight than adding just a few watts of extra light would solve that issue along with the 7-14 or other ultrawide of your choice.

Available samples aside, you just have to wait till it's in the wild to see what it's fully capable of. those photosites are twice the size of the average full frame camera these days, so yea, 50,000iso may very well be the new 6400iso, or even better. the rx10 i see as being on par or a smidge better in lowlight than the 5d2, huge difference in size and yet the significantly newer tech shows its strength. always fun to see what the latest tech will do.

And i'm in the same boat wedding/event wise, there are plenty of times i struggled with available light(hate the on camera light look), and cringed the few times i pushed 6400 on the 5d2, with the c100 i put a lot of 12,800 to use to get some manageable DOF. With the a7s, it might be the first camera you can achieve short distance hyperfocal with in unreasonable light :)

12mm on M4/3 is 24mm.

How experienced are you with full frame cameras? Have you owned/used one quite a bit so far?