So funny! Just goes to prove content is king! But which one of the three is the low light queen?

To the OP, you didn't mention if stills are a requirement. If they are not, then I would personally look at a C100 with Ninja. Gets you fabulous footage without all the HDSLR baggage. But if you are shooting stills along with video, I think that if you are correct in looking at a GH4 with adapters for your lenses. While I personally prefer the look of the 5Dmkiii (a bit more organic if I can use that phrase), I can understand the GH4 fanboys. It has a beautiful clean (you could call it antiseptic) look to it. I'm willing to wait to see what Canon eventually brings to the table, as I'm not needing to jump today. If I had to travel with only one camera, and be able to shoot both stills and video, I'd likely use the 5Dmkiii and Ninja Blade, and wait on the rest to sort itself out. I am speaking from some experience, I own or have owned the xf305, C100, 5Dmkiii and Panny HMC 150. I've done multicam shoots with friends with Panny GH3s, and their image was superb. I'm not biased against anything, these are all tools. If Canon doesn't come to the game with a better camera next year, I'll likely move to Panny. But to be clear, the 5Dmkiii does just about everything I want. Good luck!

I agree with Bergstein. Will wait for canon's next move as far as owing a camera is concern because stills are also equally important for me. Meanwhile for current work I will hire MKiii and GH4 both.

Will wait for canon's next move

One thing you can be sure of, Canon will never develop a 4K camera at the GH4's pricepoint and if they do, it will be seriously crippled, they will do whatever it takes to protect their c-line. The reason why most people are considering a gh4 today is because it can do 4K internally at 1500 euro, Canon charges you 10k minimum for their first dslr offering and 20k if you want to stay into their video oriented c-line. I would be very surprised if they would bring out a 7d mark II that can do 4K, probably their entire c-line gets it first at an even higher pricepoint.

Noah! You keep saying the same old stuff.... but by the time you buy the bells and whistles for the GH4 you are actually above the cost of a 5D3. Larry Jordan just did an interview with Phillip Bloom on 4K hype, I suggest to you you watch this, and then perhaps you might come to your reasonable senses.

You are talking about a GH4 $1600.00 camera that you can't plug a monitor into to.... get real dude! Not to mention that a half an hour of 4K takes up 500 gigs of storage space! The price stsrts to add up fast, not tp mention the gigs ( new Computers) you need to process 4K. You then begin to ask yourself if it is worth the cost, for you wedding photographer types!

It helps if you know what you are talking about, one hour of 100mbs 4K footage is about 20GB, not 1 terrabyte as you put it. :D

And what new computer or "processing 4k"? I can edit natively on my older i7 3770 with 8gb of memory and with onboard gpu only on edius 7 (it doesn't even have a raid drive, just a bunch of separate 7200rpm discs), no transcoding required, no stutter but smooth editing, I have a nice fluid full quality preview on my big lcd screen during my edit using a spark card that works with edius only. It's not a 4k output as I edit in a 1080p project and the card doesn't support 4K out but even then it almost looks like looking out of a window.

If I place a 10 minute 100mbs 4K 25fps file in a 1080p 25fps timeline it takes 5min and 10 sec using the motherboards gpu to output to a 1080p h.264 25mbs mp4 file, how about that for "processing 4K" :)

What bells and whistles? I shot last wedding with a borrowed gh4, filled 64 gb of data on 2 cheap 45mbs cards that I normally use for my gh3 and used the camera only, no accessories, just by looking true the very sharp viewfinder and the improved eyepiece enabled me to shoot in sunlight without having to use a loupe. So why would I need to plug in a monitor? I have peaking, magnification and a sharp image to judge my focus on. There where no extra costs involved for me, just a 1500 euro camerabody and I could start shooting, that's it.

I don't need to look at the interview, I can look at the footage I shot last weekend and I can come to my senses that I should get the camera after all. :D Even on a 1080p output I see a image from the gh4 that has a clarity I have not seen before and I already found my gh3 a pretty good camera, especially after having shot with a canon 550d.

Canon makes great camera's, that for sure, but you pay a very high premium for the good stuff. Panasonic at least doesn't cripple it's lower pricepoint camera's like Canon does or has ridiculous high prizesdifferences between models with just minor differences. So if you have the budget, by all means wait for the next big thing from Canon or start shooting with what is now available at a much lower pricepoint.

Also, 4K is not a hype, it has some real world advantages, especially for solo shooters, the extra detail you get together with the cropping possibilities without any visual loss in detail opens up extra possibilities. Most people, like you, that complain about 4k and it's so called disadvantages have not worked with it, you should try first and then judge.

Regarding file sizes, in his review, 'Learning DSLR's Dave Dugdale said the file sizes were about the same, shockingly, from the GH4 compared to his Canon cameras. HOWEVER, when I read another review, it looked like it was at least twice the size as usual Canon codec, and with special faster SD cards required.

For a lens with f/1.2... shoot with it, but use it 2 stops down. I recall seeing that most, if not all, lenses tend to be their sharpest at least 2 stops from wide open. An f/1.2 lens would probably be much higher quality, and give you better sharpness at f/2 than an lens with max aperture f/2 would at f/2

A lens is a lens is a lens and lets in the same amount of light regardless of what camera it is on, but that doesn't mean that camera uses that light. During tests, my Canon crop factor camera (70D) is not quite 2 stops darker than my full frame (5d Mark ii). So I put my 50mm f/2.8 (85mm equivalent) onto my 70D, and get about the same light as my 85mm set at f/4 on my 5d Mark ii.

Bokeh and sliders are probably the two easiest things to overuse, and perhaps along with only shooting for and delivering a pretty 4 minute trailer, common mistakes for many of us when we start out, especially if we didn't mentor with anyone. They still have their place, of course, and much like lighting, can be used to great effect.

Personally, I really like slider shots for transitions between spaces, as in, slowly pulling in as if you're approaching the church. I like shallow depth of field for those small, personal moments between the B&G, like the vows, or a first look, or maybe when reading a note from each other. Here, I find it useful to make them feel like they're the only people in the world, and shallow depth of field can help that.

It helps if you know what you are talking about, one hour of 100mbs 4K footage is about 20GB, not 1 terrabyte as you put it. :D

And what new computer or "processing 4k"? I can edit natively on my older i7 3770 with 8gb of memory and with onboard gpu only on edius 7 (it doesn't even have a raid drive, just a bunch of separate 7200rpm discs), no transcoding required, no stutter but smooth editing, I have a nice fluid full quality preview on my big lcd screen during my edit using a spark card that works with edius only. It's not a 4k output as I edit in a 1080p project and the card doesn't support 4K out but even then it almost looks like looking out of a window.

If I place a 10 minute 100mbs 4K 25fps file in a 1080p 25fps timeline it takes 5min and 10 sec using the motherboards gpu to output to a 1080p h.264 25mbs mp4 file, how about that for "processing 4K" :)

What bells and whistles? I shot last wedding with a borrowed gh4, filled 64 gb of data on 2 cheap 45mbs cards that I normally use for my gh3 and used the camera only, no accessories, just by looking true the very sharp viewfinder and the improved eyepiece enabled me to shoot in sunlight without having to use a loupe. So why would I need to plug in a monitor? I have peaking, magnification and a sharp image to judge my focus on. There where no extra costs involved for me, just a 1500 euro camerabody and I could start shooting, that's it.

I don't need to look at the interview, I can look at the footage I shot last weekend and I can come to my senses that I should get the camera after all. :D Even on a 1080p output I see a image from the gh4 that has a clarity I have not seen before and I already found my gh3 a pretty good camera, especially after having shot with a canon 550d.

Canon makes great camera's, that for sure, but you pay a very high premium for the good stuff. Panasonic at least doesn't cripple it's lower pricepoint camera's like Canon does or has ridiculous high prizesdifferences between models with just minor differences. So if you have the budget, by all means wait for the next big thing from Canon or start shooting with what is now available at a much lower pricepoint.

Also, 4K is not a hype, it has some real world advantages, especially for solo shooters, the extra detail you get together with the cropping possibilities without any visual loss in detail opens up extra possibilities. Most people, like you, that complain about 4k and it's so called disadvantages have not worked with it, you should try first and then judge.

Well I guess Phillip Bloom is off his rocker..... poor guy! So in other words 1080p is no different file size than 4K? Bloom talks about this Mac crashing as a result of editing 4K video, complains about the massive file size, and extra time it takes..... all adding up to more expense. Your right I've never shot in 4K and I have no need to do so, and according to Bloom he doesn't either......
Philip Bloom: On 4K Video (Part 1) (http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com/interview/philip-bloom-4k-video-part-1/#.U6zFUhZH1FI)

Regarding file sizes, in his review, 'Learning DSLR's Dave Dugdale said the file sizes were about the same, shockingly, from the GH4 compared to his Canon cameras. HOWEVER, when I read another review, it looked like it was at least twice the size as usual Canon codec, and with special faster SD cards required.

For a lens with f/1.2... shoot with it, but use it 2 stops down. I recall seeing that most, if not all, lenses tend to be their sharpest at least 2 stops from wide open. An f/1.2 lens would probably be much higher quality, and give you better sharpness at f/2 than an lens with max aperture f/2 would at f/2

A lens is a lens is a lens and lets in the same amount of light regardless of what camera it is on, but that doesn't mean that camera uses that light. During tests, my Canon crop factor camera (70D) is not quite 2 stops darker than my full frame (5d Mark ii). So I put my 50mm f/2.8 (85mm equivalent) onto my 70D, and get about the same light as my 85mm set at f/4 on my 5d Mark ii.

Bokeh and sliders are probably the two easiest things to overuse, and perhaps along with only shooting for and delivering a pretty 4 minute trailer, common mistakes for many of us when we start out, especially if we didn't mentor with anyone. They still have their place, of course, and much like lighting, can be used to great effect.

Personally, I really like slider shots for transitions between spaces, as in, slowly pulling in as if you're approaching the church. I like shallow depth of field for those small, personal moments between the B&G, like the vows, or a first look, or maybe when reading a note from each other. Here, I find it useful to make them feel like they're the only people in the world, and shallow depth of field can help that.

I don't know, but Doug Davdale is a bit of a light weight. I trust Bloom a bit more......

Noa, the 5d3 has a pretty good screen but I always use an external monitor. If you are a hobbitst then yea it's OK to squint to see the screen and hope for the best, but if you are a professional you NEED a monitor, and that costs you another $2000 bucks for the GH4.

It may give more clarity than a 5D3 but it looks digitalized, and then on top of it you have to deal with the compressed look of the small sensor. Cheaper to just buy a pair of new glasses.

Well I guess Phillip Bloom is off his rocker..... poor guy! So in other words 1080p is no different file size than 4K? Bloom talks about this Mac crashing as a result of editing 4K video, complains about the massive file size, and extra time it takes..... all adding up to more expense. Your right I've never shot in 4K and I have no need to do so, and according to Bloom he doesn't either......
Philip Bloom: On 4K Video (Part 1) (http://www.digitalproductionbuzz.com/interview/philip-bloom-4k-video-part-1/#.U6zFUhZH1FI)

Well Michael, I"ll show you, I"ll make a small video showing what the file sizes are, showing how easy it is to work with it and showing how fast I can export, if you then still don't believe, just keep following Philip and keep working with a mac :)
To know the exact filesize I have to correct myself; 7 minutes and 12 seconds of video is 4,16gb which I guess is where the fat32 limit cuts the files, these files have a average bitrate of 78mbs and a max of 106 according to mediainfo, so about 33gb an hour? Still a massive difference to the 1TB that was referred to.

if you are a professional you NEED a monitor, and that costs you another $2000 bucks for the GH4.

I make a living using these camera's (that makes me a "professional", no?) and I can perfectly look true the small viewfinder and judge exposure and focus in a correct way. Everyone has different needs gearwise but I can perfectly do without a extra monitor when shooting weddings.

Ok, here you go, a bit longer then expected, the toppart of the screen of my NLE was recorded at 15fps so that image does stutter if you see playback which is normal, I also had some issues syncing up that recording and the life recording I made with a camera, at around 4 minute there is a larger delay between the 2 but for the most part it runs somewhat in sync, didn't have enough time to fix that so hope it won't be too distracting.

I listened for a small part to that interview with philip and he complains about his macbook pro not coping with 4k, especially if you add effects that it comes to a halt, that's why I also included some colorcorrection at the end to show how easy that is on my setup.

I know I am editing from a desktop pc with medium to a bit higher performance but surely there are high end laptops that are equally fast or even faster then my pc right now. If a top end macbook can't cope then it means you should use a high end windows based laptop and a NLE that can handle 4K of which Edius seems to be a proven one.

I think some try to hard to find reasons not to use 4K, "you will need to buy a much faster pc", "you will need a lot more storage space", "you will have to buy expensive cards" and "you will have to invest in more accessories" are the most heard of of which I below prove that's not the case, ofcourse it's a more taxing codec and you do need more storage space but certainly not up to the amount as many claim, just a 2 year old pc and a few simple HD's (storage space is cheap now) and you are good to go.

I recorded onto class 10 45mbs second cards last wedding which are actually not recommended yet I shot 64gb of data of it, the gh4 did lock up once in the evening when the camera was in standby and I had to take out the battery but no data lost but that could have been because of the slower cards, not sure as this has been reported more by other users.

So in my case it's no extra hidden costs and I can't speak of workflow issues, it's slower yes, but it hardly has any effect on my existing workflow.

So any out there that still think 4k is too demanding for general videowork (like weddings, short corporate shoots, even short dance performances) , you are either using the wrong tools or you have no experience working with 4K.

You can't output to 4k you might say, yes, but you can save a 4k master for later use when 4k becomes a standard or you can use the cropping ability now to reframe your shots which are very valuable for solo shooters without any quality loss.

So here it is Michael, you still do not have take my word for it and believe whatever someone else tells you, I know I"ll be shooting again with the gh4 tomorrow (I got one for myself today :) knowing I will be using the benefits of an improved camera (I do have a gh3 as well) and the 4k cropping ability and "only" have to spend 1500 euro (without any extra investment) and edit without frustrations. (Ok, I"m lying a bit here, I did get a 64gb Kingston SDXC Card UHS-I U3 64 GB with 80-90mbs write/read speed for 70 euro as I needed an extra card anyway)

Sorry if I don't sound as charismatic as Bloom and I do hope you understand me well enough, English is not my native language.

password: gh4
vimeo.com/99330803

5D3 is a two year old camera, which is a lot these days, 5D3 is a great photo camera with video recording capabilities, it was designed that way, GH4 was released just couple of months ago and i am pretty sure it was designed as a video camera which can also take great pictures; and we're talking about digital look, i'd say 5D3 looks way more digital than GH4, plus the image control level in GH4 is just phenomenal, i let go my 5D3s with no regrets, and after a week of testing i am actually selling my Epic, anybody wants one?
So is now a right time to purchase 5D3? No, even if today you shoot with T3i, as of today nothing in the range up to $10K beats GH4 video.
Low light? 5D3 is better, so considering your project specifics, i'd look at C100, or Sony A7s, rumors say it has mind blowing low light performance, and i tend to believe that.
and if you'll get Shogun for it? Ay caramba!

Noa, thanks for the in-depth video! The only thing I can think of then that Bloom is talking about is shooting 4K raw with a Blackmagic or whatever camera he has that shoots 4K. He obviously isn't talking about using a GH4 with the compressed codec.

So, I stand corrected!

5D3 is a two year old camera, which is a lot these days, 5D3 is a great photo camera with video recording capabilities, it was designed that way, GH4 was released just couple of months ago and i am pretty sure it was designed as a video camera which can also take great pictures; and we're talking about digital look, i'd say 5D3 looks way more digital than GH4, plus the image control level in GH4 is just phenomenal, i let go my 5D3s with no regrets, and after a week of testing i am actually selling my Epic, anybody wants one?
So is now a right time to purchase 5D3? No, even if today you shoot with T3i, as of today nothing in the range up to $10K beats GH4 video.
Low light? 5D3 is better, so considering your project specifics, i'd look at C100, or Sony A7s, rumors say it has mind blowing low light performance, and i tend to believe that.
and if you'll get Shogun for it? Ay caramba!

I'm in the market for a second camera to compliment my 5d3 so I'm constantly watching reviews on all these new cameras. I have to say this is absolutely with fail the first time I have ever read that the 5d3 has a digitized image usually this distinction is reserved to the gh4.

Most critics of the gh4 in the numerous reviews I've read and seen say just the opposite that the gh3 has a digitalization image.

I suspect some of the amazing sharpness of the gh4 comes from the smaller sensor. When u look at fh3 footage my intuitive Intelligence kicks in and tells the image looks more compressed than the 5d3.

I have taken a serous look at the gh4 but for my needs (external monitor) new lens etc. the price is right up there and above most others..... I most likely will not jump on the bandwagon and buy this camera.

Do you use an external monitor on the 5dIII now? You do know the gh4 has a sharp flip out screen with peaking and magnification? Just put a cheap loupe on it if you and focussing becomes even easier.

As I see it the gh4 and the 5dIII are 2 different camera's, you would use a 5dIII mainly for it's full frame sensor and a resulting very shallow dof if that is what you need and it's low light capabilty. The c100 is the next step up if you want to stay in the canon camp but from what I have read it has a crap lcd screen and viewfinder and for that one a external monitor would not be a luxury, if I have to believe the comments I read from users. And if you want to have a good screen you pay a whopping 8k extra for the c300 for a better screen, a better codec and sdi/genlock which just shows how greedy canon is.

For a better screen and codec on the C100, consider adding a Ninja Blade. Ninja Blade | Atomos (http://www.atomos.com/ninja-blade/)

It's not as integrated as a C300, but is very cost effective.

Do you use an external monitor on the 5dIII now? You do know the gh4 has a sharp flip out screen with peaking and magnification? Just put a cheap loupe on it if you and focussing becomes even easier.

As I see it the gh4 and the 5dIII are 2 different camera's, you would use a 5dIII mainly for it's full frame sensor and a resulting very shallow dof if that is what you need and it's low light capabilty. The c100 is the next step up if you want to stay in the canon camp but from what I have read it has a crap lcd screen and viewfinder and for that one a external monitor would not be a luxury, if I have to believe the comments I read from users. And if you want to have a good screen you pay a whopping 8k extra for the c300 for a better screen, a better codec and sdi/genlock which just shows how greedy canon is.

Noa, for what I do I need an external monitor, because I'm filming myself most of the time, and I need to see if I've framed the shot while I'm standing across the room. No one is here to help me, I'm a one man show. I almost never shoot hand held, so constantly bending down to look in the viewfinder while it's on a low slider or tripod kills me. So it's an absolute requirement for me. If I get the GH4 it's going to cost the same I paid for my 5D3 without a decent lens. This GH4 is not cheap.

from what I've seen I'm not that excited about the c100...... I'm not a cinematographer I'm more of a documentary guy and at times question why I didn't just buy another video camera, but I got all wrapped up in the DSLR frenzy and told myself I must have one.

Perhaps the question I should be asking is what video camera compliments the 5D3? I have a canon HV-40 which has a very decent image..... but I'm tired of dealing with tapes.

My videos have gotten better because of the 5D3 simply because you can't just point and shoot like I did on my XH-A1 I had to study the aperture, frame rate, ISO etc, not to mention the focusing issues...... it's a hand full at first until things settle down and it starts to become second nature.

Here is what I do..... I was just messing around trying to get familiar with FCPX..... I'm looking into doing a documentary in the art of guitar making..... staring myself.

Guitar making on Vimeo

I agree with Bergstein. Will wait for canon's next move as far as owing a camera is concern because stills are also equally important for me. Meanwhile for current work I will hire MKiii and GH4 both.

At the Gigapan conference a few years ago there were presentations on documentation of archaeological sites using Gigapan technology. It's quite good for extracting extreme detail from large scenes. There are also photogrammetric and stereographic applications that might be of interest, even some giga-macrophotography showing detail in small subjects.

As for video, for the (non-interview) subject matter, I assume the sites are at risk from environmental and other factors so I would want to capture as much detail as possible which would imply either shooting 4k or time-lapse.

Re data storage, is it possible to collaborate with museums or other institutions who might have infrastructure for data preservation? How about sponsorships from companies? Perhaps outsource the data backups to LTO?

The Sony A7S is being hailed as a low light game changer. I wouldn't touch the 5DIII with the A7S on the market. The reviews are coming in and they are impressive.

Sony A7S ISO TEST / Graded and Ungraded on Vimeo

The A7S low light is impressive, no doubt, if that is a requirement for your shooting. And P. Bloom loves his GH4, but is clear that it's an early piece adopter piece of gear and his words, 'If you can't justify the costs of moving to 4K, then don't." That was spoken in June, last month! He goes on to say that he only shoots 4k for clients that demand it, and he makes them pay for the privilege. Absolutely, if you have the money and want to be an early adopter, go for it. We all have been making fabulous videos (given individual talents) on 2k for a number of years now. The real question I have for Noa and everyone else claiming that the OP is stupid for not moving to 4k is, "so where you are showing the 4k footage?" As Bloom says, "it (the channel) doesn't exist!"

Bloom loves his F55 the best, says so in Larry Jordan's interviews with him. I highly recommend that anyone feeling the need to buy a 4k camera when they already are shooting a 5dmkiii listen to this interview! It may save you a lot of money! And he is clear when he says, 'the most important element is the person behind the lens, not the gear itself" or words to that effect.

I've been watching gear heads chase the next greatest piece of gear since the 1960s, so this whole discussion is oh so familiar. People have been thinking 'if only I owned the same camera as (enter the name of your favorite shooter here), I will be a better filmmaker!" You won't be the next Philip Bloom because you buy a GH4. Or anything else. Bloom himself says in the interview that renting is the way to go. The OP (and me) currently own one of the finest cross purpose cameras *currently* made (still and video). When I need to travel to foreign locales, and expect to shoot both video and stills, I grab my 5D (and Ninja and Gopro) , and leave my C100 at home. Do I expect to shoot on 4k? You bet. Likely next year. I expect every manufacturer to have 4K cameras out in the calendar year 2014. The investment in a GH4 might seem, like a rush to judgement (remember the Panny AF100? I passed on that for a xf305, and have never regretted that choice for my requirements). So use it until you need the next generation. Or another way of saying, "the right tool for the right job."

The advantage of shooting in 4K is much bigger then I had expected, I can only speak for myself and the main purpose I use my camera's for which are weddings and shooting them solo. Since Bloom doesn't shoot the same I do and in the way I do his opinion only applies for his kind of work. So if you want to hear about the advantages of 4K you should also take other opinions into consideration, it's not about gearheads wanting the latest and greatest and I"ll tell you why.

The biggest advantage by far is being able to zoom in considerably on the image without any visual quality loss can make all the difference for me. During the ceremony in church I run minimum 2 camera's, sometimes 3. Framing the unmanned camera's is the biggest challenge because often I don't have access to these camera's anymore during the ceremony and it has not been the first time my framing was off with no way to correct it if I was zoomed in to tight. I always have a unmanned camera pointed at the lectern to capture the readers, it's not the first time a big guy comes up to the lectern and his head is half out of the frame, I do correct that but it does depend what I"m doing or where I"m standing that it takes a short while for me to make that correction and I have to cut in b-camera shots in post to cover that up.

In 4k that doesn't happen anymore, I just frame my unmanned camera wide enough and correct in post, I don't have to touch the camera anymore during the service giving me more time to focus on getting nice b-roll of the guests. During the vows and ring exchange for instance I often only have an option to shoot one angle with a manned camera so that shot counts, every mistake I make is there to stay, here again if I am unsure I can just shoot wide now and get extra tighter framed shots in post as needed.

Another advantage, though it's not one I absolutely would get a 4K camera for now is the extra detail you get, especially on wide shots. In the past if I would mix video and photos on a 1080p timeline that difference really showed. Photo's always looked much sharper, with 4K that difference is almost gone as the extra detail you get is something you have to see for yourself to believe, it's what 1080p should look like.

A 3th advantage is that 4K scaled down to 1080p is cleaner in low light, everyone is talking about the a7s, a great camera, no doubt but if I compare my gh3 at 1080p with my gh4 at 4K in terms of noise they are about the same, but when I downscale that 4K image to 1080p the noise gets much smaller as well and then suddenly looks much cleaner. I have done side by side shots with my gh3/4 at a dark venue 2 weeks ago and 6400 iso on the gh4 is perfectly usable without any neatvideo treatment. I only use f1.4, f1.8 and f2.0 lenses at the venue and shoot wide open almost all the time. M4/3 gives you another advantage of having a much more managable dof at those f-stops so focus is not such an issue. Try that on a full frame.

The a7s has it's high iso shooting to compensate for that so very high iso to close the iris down more and get a deeper dof but until now my gh4 allows me to shoot candle lit only venues and show it even a bit brighter then what I can see with my own eyes. What would the point be of shooting at 100.000 iso making night look like day? I rather shoot and show it the way it was and for that I don't need a a7s.

If you stabilize your 4K footage on a 1080p timeline there is no loss in image quality anymore when the software zooms in on the image to correct, a small but again another advantage.

Bloom also said 4K, especially once he started adding effects would bring his Mac to a halt, I don't know what type of 4K (maybe raw) he is talking about but I don't share that same experience on my 2 year old desktop with 4K from the gh4. It is more taxing but I can easily handle one 4K stream with several colorcorrections and still have realtime playback at the highest quality and twice realtime renders to 1080p h.264 mp4 files at high bitrates. I expect the Sony ax100 to even handle easier as it's only 50mbs compared to 100 mbs on the gh4.

Storage space is also mentioned as an issue but it's really not that much of an issue either, If I had to shoot 4K only with a gh4 and a ax100 I'd say I would need twice the amount of space I have now. Harddrive space is cheap these days.

There are ofcourse some challenges:
Eventhough zooming in and reframing is a big deal for me I know eventually when clients demand 4K I will loose that advantage but I expect to shoot many projects just in 1080p for the next years and slowly add some 4k footage when that would be requested.
Also zooming in on a 4k image does increase the noise again but it won't be worse then a comparable camera, like my gh3 that shoots 1080p only, in the worst case I would have to apply neatvideo to clean up which only would be in very dark venues at high iso's.
I can't edit 2 streams of gh4 4K in realtime on my machine in a multicam sequence, it is possible to cut but it stutters, one stream is no issue.

So you see Al, depending on what you use 4K for, it can have some clear advantages worth investing into it now, which is what I did. It will make my life easier while maintaining a higher level of quality when shooting run and gun.

4K is not for everybody right now, again based on what and how you shoot right now, but it's not for gearheads only...:)

Noa Put said: What would the point be of shooting at 100.000 iso making night look like day? I rather shoot and show it the way it was and for that I don't need a a7s."

Having looked a Phillip Bloom's short video on the Sony A7S, I imagine many film makers will use the dramatic low light advantage to create a brave new world of interesting effects, and styles. Just like everyone did with the flowers going in and out of focus on the 5D..... ha ha!

The more I look at the A7S the more I like it. I'm pretty sure the A7S will be my next camera. I will never sell my 5D3 though.

It's kinda funny just a couple of months ago everyone jumped ship and got the GH4, and began the fashionable Canon bashing. I said many times "Only Fools Rush In". Now let the GH4 bashing party begin!

Sony better DR 14 bit full frame Verse a MFT's with limited low light abilities and a digitalized image with wide DOF. I think we will see many barely used GH4's appearing on the market soon.