A7s or GH4 - which for you?

[Noa Put]

I think a nice thing with having super high iso is you then have control over depth of field so you're not always having to use 1.4 aperture - it gives you more choices

That's the beauty of M4/3, you don't need to do that to get a manageable dof and still shoot wide open with fast lenses, otoh, you can't ofcourse get the super shallow dof full frame can give you.

[Ade Towell]

yes but the a7s gives you more choices - and you can stop down to use lenses at their sharpest.
I've been a m43 user for many years and low light was always a struggle - the a7s has given me more freedom - i no longer worry about the iso and instead use whichever aperture the shot requires

[Noa Put]

In any case, I think the gh4 should not be compared to the A7s but rather to the 5DIII (and it's raw shooting capability) since both are in the same pricecategory and have a full frame sensor and more likely it's successor, the 5D4 which very likely will shoot 4k as well. The gh4 has a much smaller sensor and is about 3000 dollar cheaper then the A7s with a 4K recorder if you want to shoot 4K.

I think If I had to choose between a A7s with a shogun 4K recorder which together should be around 4,5k or a c100 which is about the same price I even would consider the c100 as it's a more complete camera and still has a very robust image.

[Ade Towell]

yes they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, was merely responding to where the thread was at.....
| wouldn't have only a dslr or mirrorless as my main camera anyway - I have the c100, and the gh3 and now Sony a7s are nice b cams that i also use for stills and for fun away from work

[Peter Rush]

Can anyone sum up the difference between the A7/A7R/A7S?

As far as I can see the A7s has the lowest resolution sensor making it more sensitive in low light (a good thing) but lacks the hybrid phase/contrast detection of the A7 (a bad thing)

I'm seriously considering the A7 as a replacement for my 5D and with the metabones smart adapter can keep using my Canon glass but it's expensive so I don't want to make a mistake here :/

Pete

[Craig McKenna]

Originally Posted by Dave Partington

Fortunately, outside of weddings low light is not quite so important. I'm often able to setup and use lighting when ever needed for the corporate and charity shoots I do.

As far as I can see, the GH4 doesn't suffer the same moiré & aliasing issues the A7s has, which is hugely important to me. I understand it's a 1:1 4K (more cropped too), so pixel binning is not longer an issue.

Can you confirm this with the GH4?

Also, how far are you willing to push the GH4 in low light before it gets too much (I realise this is subjective), especially when downscaling to 1080p for final output (which should help noise anyway).

Information about 4K with the GH4 from B&H:

Professional 4K Video Recording
The DMC-GH4 brings the GH-line into the 4K age by offering both 16:9 UHD 4K 3840x2160 video at 23.98p, 24p or 29.97p, and 17:9 DCI (Digital Cinema Initiatives) 4K 4096x2160 videos at 24p. 4K resolutions can be recorded as MOV or MP4 files in high bitrate 100 Mbps IPB codec. When recording at 100 Mbps, you will need an SDHC/SDXC memory card capable of handling the transfer speed.

Please note: For better quality, 4K recording modes use a 1:1 pixel map of the sensor. This yields a slight crop of the sensor, resulting in approximately a full-frame crop factor of approximately 2.3x when shooting DCI 4K resolution.

It's true that many professional testings show that when shooting in 4K, moiré & aliasing are unnoticeable. However, in 1080p, it is still a 'problem'. Watching Vimeo clips, such as these will help you to understand more about the 4K capabilities, as well as checking out Philip Bloom's review (NOW WITH VIDEO REVIEW! The no longer evolving GH4 review! | Philip Bloom)

Caleb Pike's Review:

Panasonic GH4 Video Review on Vimeo

(Moire test at 19:18)
Philip Bloom's Review:

Video review of the Panasonic GH4 on Vimeo

Joe Simon's Budapest video (shot with the GH4):

Budapest Cityscape on Vimeo

Joe Simon's synopsis:
Pros –
- Beautiful 4K image, rivals the look of Canon C100, 1DC, Black Magic 4K
- Great resolution, sharpness and image texture
- Small and light
- Great DR
- Lots of fine tuning profile adjustments
- 100/200 mbit codec
- Did not have banding issues with blue skies or gradients
- No aliasing or moiré in 4k
- AF function is quick, has face detection
- Built in timelapse function
- HDR function that combines photos

Cons -
- 1080 is soft and resolves little detail
- 96fps is soft, but works well in MED/CU scenes
- Micro 4/3 sensor, hard to get shallow DOF, extreme wide lenses, bad in low light
- Low light is terrible, anything over 1600 iso is unusable, too noisy and blocky
- LCD screen isn’t too sharp, hard to manual focus

---

Ultimately, this is where I think Joe has forgotten the cost of the GH4, because:

- 1080 is equal to the GH4, but with better low light - personally love the image the GH3 provides.
- 96fps is awesome and Philip Bloom's duck video is amazing (

GH4 Tests: The Duck Whisperer @ 96fps on Vimeo

)
- Micro 4/3 sensor is great for getting more depth of field and there are fast lenses to get shallow enough.
- Low light is an improvement (especially in 4K mode when downsizing to 1080p) over the GH3. I'd personally shoot 3200 in 1080p and would be tempted to push 6400 when shooting 4K.
- LCD screen is double the resolution of the GH3s - looks great - and manual focus has hugely improved over the GH3 with the help of peaking.

So, it's completely up to the person with the camera. Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by Peter Rush

Can anyone sum up the difference between the A7/A7R/A7S?

As far as I can see the A7s has the lowest resolution sensor making it more sensitive in low light (a good thing) but lacks the hybrid phase/contrast detection of the A7 (a bad thing)

I'm seriously considering the A7 as a replacement for my 5D and with the metabones smart adapter can keep using my Canon glass but it's expensive so I don't want to make a mistake here :/

Pete

Hmmm Pete, I think the differences have been summed up well here: sony a7s review // sony a7s vs a7r - Washington DC Wedding Photographer Sam Hurd (there's a table a short way down the page between the three different bodies). Maybe others will be able to provide you with more information though!

[Noa Put]

- Low light is terrible, anything over 1600 iso is unusable, too noisy and blocky

Ah common, what a load of crap :) Probably my expectations are a lot lower then Joe when it comes to imagequality but I have been shooting several times at 6400 iso the last 2 weddings and with a f2.0 lens the image is brighter then what I can see with my own eyes, sure there is noise but the noise gets much smaller when you downscale from 4K to 1080p and then you hardly notice it, side by side with my gh3 the difference is noticeable eventhough both camera have about the same sensitivity.

[Craig McKenna]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Ah common, what a load of crap :) Probably my expectations are a lot lower then Joe when it comes to imagequality but I have been shooting several times at 6400 iso the last 2 weddings and with a f2.0 lens the image is brighter then what I can see with my own eyes, sure there is noise but the noise gets much smaller when you downscale from 4K to 1080p and then you hardly notice it, side by side with my gh3 the difference is noticeable eventhough both camera have about the same sensitivity.

Haha I thought the same when I read it... I guess he's highly critical and this is his first M4/3 camera... if it is, then it's understandable that he might have unrealistic expectations, but if he's owned or used one before, then it's a bit too critical in my opinion, especially considering his pros for what is in effect, a camera shooting way above its price point.

I agree, although I'll admit to only having seen footage online, as I've been far too busy to really get out and shoot. However, I really messed up the pre-wedding video I made for my first wedding video - the father of the groom made a speech and I:

- had the wrong white balance
- had the wrong exposure
- changed the exposure midway through the speech

After colour correction and outputting to DVD, I realised that although the image wasn't perfect, it was far from awful and rendered well on a HDTV... sometimes, our expectations are unforgiving and the reality isn't as bad as we first think.

Can't wait to take my camera out at the weekend!!! So far, I've only shot inside my home.

[Noa Put]

Here is a quick and dirty comparison I made between the gh3 and 4 with a f2.0 lens at 6400 iso at the last venue I was with the camera pointed to a part where there was no light, only candle's on the table, look at the pink wall in the back to see the difference. (I blurred all faces as I don't have permission to place this online)
The noise levels are comparable between the gh3 and 4 but when you downscale from 4K to 1080p the noise becomes very fine grain, with the gh3 you can see the noise dancing around on the walls, with the gh4 you don't. The downscaling makes the image appear cleaner. the part of the image I show is a bit soft because the focus was on a person in front outside the frame, but it does show the difference, next wedding I"ll try to do a better test.

[Craig McKenna]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Here is a quick and dirty comparison I made between the gh3 and 4 with a f2.0 lens at 6400 iso at the last venue I was with the camera pointed to a part where there was no light, only candle's on the table, look at the pink wall in the back to see the difference. (I blurred all faces as I don't have permission to place this online)
The noise levels are comparable between the gh3 and 4 but when you downscale from 4K to 1080p the noise becomes very fine grain, with the gh3 you can see the noise dancing around on the walls, with the gh4 you don't. The downscaling makes the image appear cleaner. the part of the image I show is a bit soft because the focus was on a person in front outside the frame, but it does show the difference, next wedding I"ll try to do a better test.

There's a noticeable difference between the two... either way, if wedding videos sold ten years ago, the low light performance of the GH4 is easily going to produce footage that sells well today.

I agree with your earlier comment of shooting 'how it is' and keeping the blacks black etc.

That said, I'd obviously jump at the opportunity to own an A7S as well, but I can't see myself opting for the A7S or its successor over the GH line because I'm well-invested in the M4/3 lens line up.

By the way, responded to your email and thanks for the reply!

[Ade Towell]

Interesting dynamic range test between Arri Amera, A7s, gh4, 5dmk3 & C300

Dynamic Range – Sony A7S vs. the others « cinema5D

A7s has 14.1 stops - close to the Arri 14.5 which is amazing for a camera at this price

The gh4 comes out lowest at 10.9 although from seeing some files I thought it looked a lot closer to my c100 (c300 came out at 11.4)

Obviously dynamic range isnt the be all & end all but the A7s is definitely showing some serious high end qualities

[Michael Eggerton]

Game of Thrones isn't shot in 4K. Why are we so concerned with 4K for our weddings?

I know why: consumerism is huge in this industry. Wedding videographers are some of these company's best customers, so the need to make us feel that our current gear is inferior is a tactic. But in all honesty, our work is seen on VIMEO in 720p, usually on a laptop inside of an embed (not full screen). Why on earth is 4K so necessary at this point?

I'm fine with my C100s for now. Lol. Maybe in 10 years when the majority of home televisions and computer monitors are 4K I'll start worrying about that.

[Clive McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Peter Rush

Clive did you receive your A7s? I'm still thinking that this might be a better alternative than using my 5D for ease of focussing but I have a big investment in Canon glass so need to know of any pitfalls in using EF lenses with this camera.

Cheers

Pete

Hi peter, sorry - i was on holiday - I've got some reading to do!

But I'll start by addressing your point! My A7S came within three days, from HONG KONG! I was shocked!

It is the universal 'world camera' version.

I love it.

I'm not sure I will use SLog though - not for weddings. the 3200 base ISO is just too tricky to have to deal with on the fly.

The metabones adaptor is fine in areas apart from autofocus in picture taking.

It seems to hunt like bad video cameras would. Over reaching, under reach, over reaching again and EVENTUALLY finding focus. But I'm not going to be taking stills with it.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Michael Eggerton

Why are we so concerned with 4K for our weddings?

I know why: consumerism is huge in this industry. Wedding videographers are some of these company's best customers, so the need to make us feel that our current gear is inferior is a tactic. But in all honesty, our work is seen on VIMEO in 720p, usually on a laptop inside of an embed (not full screen). Why on earth is 4K so necessary at this point.

Not for the output yet but it does have one big advantage and that is the fact you can zoom in considerably and reframe without any visual quality loss and 4K downscaled to 1080p holds much more detail then any 1080p camera can deliver. It's also looks cleaner at high iso as the noise gets smaller as well when you downscale. Currently the biggest advantages are when you edit it on a 1080p timeline. The crop factor alone was for me as a solo shooter enough reason to invest in it now. Have you even looked at some ax100 videos, either on vimeo or youtube in 1080p? I at least have not seen any 1080p camera yet that can output that amount of fine detail.

For me it makes a difference shooting in 4K and editing on a 1080p timeline, I can correct all framing mistakes made on my unmanned camera, I can choose a wideangle or medium closeup and make it look like I used 2 camera's. It gives me extra possibilities which I did not have before.

[Dave Blackhurst]

There are two kinds of videographers...

Those who have shot 4K themselves, and won't turn back...

And those who are trying to convince themselves they should not touch a 4K camera, even though prices are now becoming reasonable.

Really the "jump" to 4K was far less expensive and mostly painless compared to SD to HD. The image quality jump is still significant, and the advantages are there. Calling it "marketing hype" or whatever won't change what is happening. It IS "bleeding edge", so there are "good" reasons to wait, but also many good reasons to be on top of the coming wave, while producing better HD in the process!