GH4 GH4 vs A7s

I have both and I can say they really are different cameras suited for different purposes. The A7s has horrible rolling shutter in FF, a too-aggressive-for-8-bit Slog 2 curve (it breaks up), and some highlight aliasing. It's also harder to handhold, has no internal 4K, has far less features than the Gh4, a lousy menu system, and so on. It's also softer with slightly (and I mean slightly) less detail in 1080 than the Gh4's 4K to 1080. On all of that alone, I'd send it back.

But on the plus its image is very very nice, has very high DR (higher than the GH4 for sure, possibly higher than my C300), and its noise is mostly luma so it looks like grain (similar to C300). Whereas the Gh4 can shoot in very low light at F1.2 at a noisy blocky ISO 6400, the A7s can get a brighter shot at F4 at ISO 80000 with no loss in detail and a very nice grain-style noise pattern. Oh and you get much more shadow detail in there too.

I'm torn, because they are really two different cameras. But if I had to pick - one to match up with my C300 and be used in more cases practically, I'd go with the Gh4. It matches up well enough with the C300/C100 and can be used for more things in more places except moonlight at midnight.
 
NeedCreative said:
I have both and I can say they really are different cameras suited for different purposes. The A7s has horrible rolling shutter in FF, a too-aggressive-for-8-bit Slog 2 curve (it breaks up), and some highlight aliasing. It's also harder to handhold, has no internal 4K, has far less features than the Gh4, a lousy menu system, and so on. It's also softer with slightly (and I mean slightly) less detail in 1080 than the Gh4's 4K to 1080. On all of that alone, I'd send it back.

But on the plus its image is very very nice, has very high DR (higher than the GH4 for sure, possibly higher than my C300), and its noise is mostly luma so it looks like grain (similar to C300). Whereas the Gh4 can shoot in very low light at F1.2 at a noisy blocky ISO 6400, the A7s can get a brighter shot at F4 at ISO 80000 with no loss in detail and a very nice grain-style noise pattern. Oh and you get much more shadow detail in there too.

I'm torn, because they are really two different cameras. But if I had to pick - one to match up with my C300 and be used in more cases practically, I'd go with the Gh4. It matches up well enough with the C300/C100 and can be used for more things in more places except moonlight at midnight.
Click to expand...

I admit that I haven't shot with the A7s but I did use an A7 a lot last winter. All of the issues you raise regarding menus and ergonomics are spot-on with my impressions of the Sony system, the native mount lens selection is also very slim. I do like the look of the Sony footage I have seen. . .but I also love the Panasonic 4k downscale stuff I'm getting now. I think that I feel the same way about the A7s as I did about the A7: the A8 version is probably worth the wait.
 
I may pic up the gh4 as a b cam. Can u tell me what you think of the 24p motion cadance as compared to the a7s. Thata a big deal to me. The gh4 motion looks more video than the a7s. Can someone who has both record a short motion test side by side.
 
The A7s images look good, although it hasn't blown me away like the BlackMagic stuff when I first saw it. Except the low light stuff.. pretty amazing.
 
reem12 said:
I may pic up the gh4 as a b cam. Can u tell me what you think of the 24p motion cadance as compared to the a7s. Thata a big deal to me. The gh4 motion looks more video than the a7s. Can someone who has both record a short motion test side by side.
Click to expand...

Im not sure exactly what you mean by Cadence but the major flaw of the A7S which has been discussed is that it has horrible rolling shutter giving the camera a jello like look when used handheld. I believe someone measured the A7S at worse than the 5D MKii's rolling shutter. This problem is compounded when you use non native lenses as there is no image stabilization and it makes hand held use almost unusable. It's a shame because the sensor on the A7S camera seems to be amazing, but being unable to use it hand held kind of defeats the purpose of making it small and compact.

If you don't need to hand hold it and don't use overly quick pans and you need some good low light performance, this is where the camera seems to excel.
 
Maybe we can introduce them at a party and get them slightly tipsy. Their baby will either be a super-sensitive master of detail with logical menus and internal 4K or a wobbly unintelligible noise machine that can only record 4K to an unpowered brick, and passes out after 29'50"
 
True North said:
Im not sure exactly what you mean by Cadence but the major flaw of the A7S which has been discussed is that it has horrible rolling shutter giving the camera a jello like look when used handheld. I believe someone measured the A7S at worse than the 5D MKii's rolling shutter. This problem is compounded when you use non native lenses as there is no image stabilization and it makes hand held use almost unusable. It's a shame because the sensor on the A7S camera seems to be amazing, but being unable to use it hand held kind of defeats the purpose of making it small and compact.

If you don't need to hand hold it and don't use overly quick pans and you need some good low light performance, this is where the camera seems to excel.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very bad. But if you a) slow down and be deliberate in your moves, b) get a metabones adapter to c) mount your Canon IS lenses... it's controllable. If you shoot in APS-C crop mode, it's better still - close to what you get out of a C100/300. The GH4 is better as well - even in 4K - though not quite as good as in 1080 mode (rolling shutter wise).

It's about as bad as the 5D Mark II's RS, and we all worked with that. So yeah, it isn't great - but it's something to work with. $2500 cameras = compromise somewhere. I just happen to think at this point that the GH4 compromises a lot less for the $$.

However every time I go to box this A7s back up and send it back... I shoot something in very low light, or something that has a high DR. And it performs very very well. I am so torn...

My primary camera is a C300 and will remain that way for a long, long time - even when a 4k version comes out. It's a down sampled 4K image that looks fantastic, and it's an amazingly well built and easy to control camera for most mid-level productions. I have a C100 as well as a b-cam, but am selling it as I usually hire a 2nd shooter anyway and they typically own their own c300 or c100. The GH4 and A7s thus become for me cheaper cameras to use as alternate angles with no extra shooters, or as cameras to use when I need to be discrete and steal shots. They are so small that I can bring them along when shooting with the C300 in the kit as a no brainer vs lugging the C100 around too. I just have to decide which one to keep....

Basically, they give you all the advantages and disadvantages of DSLRs - but better. Images that match up well with the mid tier pro cameras well, easy 4K for shooting stock, and so on. It's wonderful. But don't shoot an action flick with them.
 
I have the GH4 and A7r since I prefer the 36mp sensor for 24x36" prints with the 35mm and 55mm Zeiss FE lenses. If the A7s had internal 4K I would have purchased it and I have not shot above 3200 iso with any of my cameras since the A7r looks just as good as the A7s @ 3200 iso.

A7s vs 5D MKIII vs DF vs A7r @ 3200 iso
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top