Any Lumix GHX jumpers here?

R

rokkor

Active member
Hi Folks,

I think i'm approaching my ceiling with the beloved Lumix brand of cameras. I've been shooting Lumix since the GH2 and have love it even though they've had there issues, as most cameras do. For the last year or so i've been really loving the "look" from the Sony sensors, A/A7xx line of cameras, for a dedicated video camera the fs5 also intrigues me. I'm a fan of portability though so, that being said, the a7sii/rii as well as the a6500 is on my radar even though they also have their own issues. Is their any one here that switched systems from Lumix to Sony and if so whats your experience been like? I've invested in 5 native lenses for Lumix (currently GH4)... Or wait... But we all know how that waiting game goes...
 
I use Sony's a7S II in addition to Panny's GH4 and GH3. While there are good options in Sony's native lens lineup, it's definitely not as mature as MFT native lens offerings, and pricing is generally higher as well. I mostly shoot with manual lenses (Canon FD, Nikon, etc.) so this was not an issue for me, as all I had to do was pick up a few adapters and I was ready to use the same lenses on Sony's E-mount.

While the a7S II is a workable camera, but it is more of a hassle to use for video production than Panasonic's video-focused GH-series of cameras. The menus, button settings, etc. are not well-organized for quickly setting the camera up for shooting video, but once you set it up, it does the job (until you have to change another setting). That said, Sony's customizable quick menu and assignable function buttons are good, though they both have some odd omissions in terms of what functions can be assigned to them.

The a7S II does allow you to punch-in/magnify the image while recording, which is very useful for confirming focus and of course, the low-light performance and IBIS are useful in certain circumstances.

I could go on about the differences, but the bottom line is that the GH4 and a7S II are surprisingly good compliments to each other, where one fills in the gaps of the other. If I could only take one with me around the world, it would probably be the GH5 ;)
 
Thanks for the reply Sol M. Everything you've touched on in your reply I've thought about, its a hard decision but I think ill hold out and see what the gh5 bring to the table once the real world tests starts. The low light and extra dynamic range would be nice though. I also have a collection of Legacy glass, Minolta rokkors that I'd be using alot more, the ibis would be welcomed addition.
 
I went from the GH2 to GH4, then jumped to the A7S II mainly for the dynamic range and low light capability. Three advantages the GH had over the A7S II for me are the more compact size, usability, and price. Being full frame, the A7S is two - three times as expensive, and with some native lenses could get as bulky as a DSLR. It could get down right unfriendly to use with the glitchy software, byzantine menu layout, inaccurate white balance, poor battery, and the overheating. If you can live with these issues, the A7S II is an incredible camera for what it can do.
 
Since buying an A7Rii in January 2016 my Gh4 has sat unused I have all the native lenses for it including the nocticron 42.5 F1.2 which I love (one of my favourite lenses ever) but I just prefer the sony in fact I think its time to sell the gh4 stuff and maybe add an A6500 to the kit bag.
 
steve phillipps said:
What is it that you like and that makes you choose it over the GH4? Image, usability, functions, full-frame, low light? All of the above?! :)

Steve
Click to expand...

Hey Steve. I think I will try to take a stab at a few of these questions for you from my perspective. Like Steve Benjamin, I picked up an A7 series camera in January of 2016, only I got the A7SII. I had owned the original A7S since launch, as well as a GH4, but I couldn't stand the GH4 anymore, so I decided to get the A7SII and to use it alongside my original A7S and FS7.

I made this switch because the GH4 kept disappointing me. It's not that it's a bad camera (it's not!), but the A7S I and II produced much better images in most of the work I do (run & gun docs). I often don't get the luxury of lighting my scenes (think filming in the Himalaya mountains in Pakistan or filming from a camp in Alaska). These types of shoots should theoretically be perfect for a GH camera because they are easy to use, well built, weather sealed and lightweight (especially with lightweight M 4/3 lenses). But in reality, I kept getting soft and noisy images. I felt that in 4K, cropping in on an HD timeline only revealed the image's softness rather than give me great HD results. The A7SII on the other hand still looks great when cropped in on 4K (at least to me). The lowlight capabilities of the A7SII, which are even better than the A7SI, really do come in handy. So many people say that there's absolutely no need to shoot in high-ISO conditions and that you should just learn to light, but how can you light every single thing you shoot when you are packing out for 10 days in the middle of nowhere? You can't. Plus, being able to shoot at f/5.6 in lower light for an easier time focusing and still getting clean images is great. And even when shooting a commercial, the lowlight abilities of the A7SII may not be needed, but because it is so dang sensitive to light, your images are always clean. It's truly incredible.

The full frame sensor also looks incredible. I'm not necessarily a "full frame junky" that wants to shoot extreme shallow depth of field shots all the time, but there's just something about a full frame camera that makes the images stand out. It's hard to explain until you've shot a lot on different sensors. It's just an aesthetic look that I love. The colors are also incredible from this camera. I've found that shooting in S-log2 / S-gamut3.cine will allow me to get gorgeous results that can cut with my FS7 almost flawlessly. It's great to have. This is one of the main reasons I picked up the A7SII over the A7RII. The RII doesn't have S-gamut3.cine, which is in many people's opinion (mine included) Sony's best offering for colors. The GH4 on the other hand did not produce very pleasing colors FOR ME. I understand that it does produce great results and I've seen those results myself, but I personally just had a hard time with it. My colors looked "plasticy" to me and were often soft and noisy. Just not what I was looking for.

The A7SII's audio is another huge factor. Being able to run the K2M or K1M into the A7SII for two great channels of audio using XLRs means that I no longer need to use a separate recorder or a splitter (like Wooden Camera's A-box) to get two channels of audio. The audio preamps of those two adapters are great and the sound is clean and rich (depending on the mics of course). I understand that the new GH5 has its own audio adapter (DMW-XLR1 XLR), but look at it and you'll see its biggest flaw. There's no shotgun mic holder on it. That's a big problem! This means to mount two different mics (a shotgun and a wireless), you either have to use a cage to mount them both or you have to get a cold shoe extender and a shotgun mic holder and mount them on top of the adapter in its own shoe mount. That wasn't exactly a brilliant move by Panasonic. The Sony K2M on the other hand has a shotgun mic holder and a flat surface that allows you to velcro a wireless mic to it. This means if you want to run both of those mics, you can do it without a cage or cold shoe extender. This makes much more sense.

The A7SII also has 120 FPS in full HD (another reason I got it over the A7RII). The GH4's 96 FPS looks very soft. In fact, I often couldn't justify using it because of its softness. The A7SII by contrast looks tack sharp. It does have some aliasing/moire, but it's easy to work around and it looks clean. It is cropped (2.2x) but you can work around that with wider lenses. It's a great feature and still looks good when cut with the FS7.

The GH4 does have some impressive features, like bars and tone, that make it feel like a more professional camera. It also feels great in the hand and the flip out screen works well. However, the A7SII is not a difficult camera to use and a few days with it will make it feel just as easy to use as the GH4. I actually like how it feels in the hand as well and to me the button layout is actually pretty good. The menus have never been a problem for me and I've never once ran into an overheating issue. The IBIS is nice to have and the screen and EVF are great as well.

Final words: The GH4 is a nice camera and in the right place it can produce exceptional results. People who are much better than me get awesome shots with it and will no doubt do the same with the GH5. But at the end of the day, I just felt that the A7SII allowed me to get prettier results much easier and in a wider range of environments. It's wonderful lowlight capabilities, clean images, sharp 4K, outstanding color space, high frame rates, great audio solution and overall handling made it a no-brainier for my business. I hope my post provides some insight from an A7 series user's perspective and perhaps will answer some questions for you. I'm going to attach a link to a trailer for my latest film project that I shot in Pakistan this past January. It was a fast-paced run & gun doc that covered most of the country. I used only the A7SII and the A6500 and I felt I got great results with them both. Hopefully this 1 minute trailer will demonstrate some of the environments I shot in, showing why these little Sony cams are so great for shooting outside of the studio. Take care.

Link: https://vimeo.com/rusticrivermedia/merasafartrailer
 
Last edited:
I went to Sony with a FS5 - a6300 and a RX10. But I held on to my Panny stuff as a reserve kit, the is still life in the old dog yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top