A7s or GH4 - which for you?

[Clive McLaughlin]

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

[Dave Partington]

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?

[Les Wilson]

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)?"

[Matt Brady]

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.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

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 :)

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Matt Brady

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 :)

[Brian David Melnyk]

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.

[Clive McLaughlin]

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.

[Noa Put]

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

[Clive McLaughlin]

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.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

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.

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

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?

[Arthur Gannis]

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.

[Noa Put]

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.

[Gary Huff]

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.

[Nicholas de Kock]

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.