A7s or GH4 - which for you?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Noa Put]

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 :)

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Noa Put]

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

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Noa Put]

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

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Noa Put]

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 :)

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Noa Put]

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.

[Noa Put]

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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[James Palanza]

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.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by James Palanza

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