Quick review of A7S vs GH4
- Thread starter jcs
- Start date
Uwe Lansing
Veteran
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Uwe Lansing
Veteran
cyork
Well-known member
Looks like they shot slog2 in Sgamut and didn't correct for it as well as shooting 60p in FF mode. Oh well. The difference is close to neglible when it comes to this test anyway. Who could really tell save for the pixel peepers? When your movie, corporate video or wedding film is playing, people aren't watching intently for small amounts of aliasing. They are ideally enjoying what you've created for them to watch. All great cameras.
Is that not just IR contamination? I know that would turn black to magenta, does it do anything to reds? Surely they had to load up on the ND to be able to shoot slog outdoors.
benjaminreece
Active member
For what its worth, I bought and used the GH4 pretty extensively for almost 2 months. I put it inside 2 low budget (10-20k) commercial shoots.
I sold it and bought a A7S because it makes the GH4 look like a video DSLR where as the A7S looks like a "film" DSLR (to my eyes).
Its probably the dynamic range, the SLOG2, FF, etc.
In my testing vs the BMCC, I was excited about the GH4 potential. But, in real world usage....
I was just straight up disappointed in the GH4 after seeing it through to post (which included finalizing the grade in FilmConvert 2).
The GH4 is a more usable camera to be sure. I miss the flip out screen, weatherproofing, and in camera conform for higher frame rates. But those are things I can live without.
I've not put the A7S through the paces, but after watching things like this: https://vimeo.com/102457596 and this: https://vimeo.com/98791150 I find it hard to think that a good image with this camera would not be my own failing.
However, I have little doubt the 8 bit and 60/120 fps line skipping is this camera's limit compared to a fat 3:1 5K 96FPS R3D file
But considering the small package? Wow.
If I owned a GH4 I'd sell it an get an A7S. Unless I valued 4K over a more filmic look or disagree with my subjective assessment (and that wasn't sarcastic, some may truly do)
If I owned a Mark III, I'd perhaps hold it and wait for the next generation. (I've owned a Mark II/III/&6D, but sold them before magic lantern raw.)
Just my little ole' perspective.
NeedCreative
Well-known member
For what its worth, I bought and used the GH4 pretty extensively for almost 2 months. I put it inside 2 low budget (10-20k) commercial shoots.
I sold it and bought a A7S because it makes the GH4 look like a video DSLR where as the A7S looks like a "film" DSLR (to my eyes).
Its probably the dynamic range, the SLOG2, FF, etc.
In my testing vs the BMCC, I was excited about the GH4 potential. But, in real world usage....
I was just straight up disappointed in the GH4 after seeing it through to post (which included finalizing the grade in FilmConvert 2).
The GH4 is a more usable camera to be sure. I miss the flip out screen, weatherproofing, and in camera conform for higher frame rates. But those are things I can live without.
I've not put the A7S through the paces, but after watching things like this: https://vimeo.com/102457596 and this: https://vimeo.com/98791150 I find it hard to think that a good image with this camera would not be my own failing.
However, I have little doubt the 8 bit and 60/120 fps line skipping is this camera's limit compared to a fat 3:1 5K 96FPS R3D file
But considering the small package? Wow.
If I owned a GH4 I'd sell it an get an A7S. Unless I valued 4K over a more filmic look or disagree with my subjective assessment (and that wasn't sarcastic, some may truly do)
If I owned a Mark III, I'd perhaps hold it and wait for the next generation. (I've owned a Mark II/III/&6D, but sold them before magic lantern raw.)
Just my little ole' perspective.
I currently own a C300, a C100, a 5D3 (mostly for stills), a GH4, and an A7s. I have a wide range of Canon and Panasonic glass and will be adding one Sony/Zeiss 55mm to the mix too.
After some sales, I will end up with my C300, a GH4, and an A7s. And I will be happy until that mystical 4K C400 comes around, which I won't be in a hurry to get because the A7s w/Shogun and GH4 shoot 4K well anyway for when I might want/need that.
The A7s sure does have a lot of DR, and the highs are a good 6+ over. It's very nice. It matches well against my C300, which is a very nice camera still - and even has more range to play with beyond the C300. But I am I selling the Gh4? No way.
Besides all the ease of use factors, I love the way the GH4 looks when some nice native glass is on it. I often use a Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm Noctitron on it and it is a stunning lens. I liken the whole aesthetic of the Gh4 to a beautiful S16 camera. It's got some contrast, lots of detail, and is small and easy to use. Does it have 14 stops of DR? Nope. It has a decent 11+ though, which is far better than many "video" cameras out there. It still has a nice rolloff in the highs, and any skilled DP can make it look fantastic.
I will admit, for all its faults in usability and battery, etc, (now that I have shot extensively with it) I will use the A7s far more often because it matches up so well with the C300. I can push and pull the footage more than the Gh4's relatively thin grading window. It really works well in scenes with a lot of dynamic range like sunsets, neon lighting, naturally lit skin, etc. But the Gh4 can also look great if you use it where i makes sense. I've seen some Gh4 stuff that is just stunning - hardly looking like the evening news on TV (a/k/a "video").
If I had to choose just ONE camera, (well, a mirror less or DSLR) I'd choose the A7s sure. It's not that bad handling wise, will output pretty stunning 4K externally, and we all know how nice and "filmic" it can look. (Well if I had to choose ONE camera it'd be a Sony F55 for 4K or a Canon C300 for HD.. but strictly concerning small cameras, yes the A7s.)
But to throw away and discount the Gh4 is not giving it a chance to work in the right situations? I don't get that. Myself, I'll use the C300 as an A-cam, the A7s as a B-cam/small stealing shots camera to the C300, and the Gh4 for that odd angle wide where I want a lot of detail. It's a nice look to contrast against the other two cameras, and adds dimension to a shoot.
I am gaining a lot of portability and creative options having the Gh4 and A7s over having to lug the C100 with a Samurai around for HD when all I need is a nice small travel-friendly B-Cam that can cut in with my C300. To have two cameras with 4K is a nice bonus. I could go on and on but you get the point.
Uwe Lansing
Veteran
Ian-T
Veteran
Amazing thing for me is I liked only three out of twelve of the A7S side by side shots more than the GH-4.
I found the review above to be one of the best, if not the best comparison I've seen. What it demonstrates that I haven't seen before is how much better of a stills camera the GH4 is -- in terms of ergonomics, fps, focusing on moving subjects, ease of use, lens selection with autofocus, etc. Clearly the A7s trumps it in low light though. I didn't find image quality at lower ISOs that different (in fact, I picked 50% A7s and 50% GH4 in the blinded comparison). I've now used both cameras so I can concur with this review based on my experience.
NeedCreative
Well-known member
Agreed. This was a fantastic side-by-side review, albeit focused on stills I too picked mostly GH4 stills in the side by side, which surprised me. (I own both cameras).
I do have to say with a nice lens like the 55 F1.8 the Sony is an amazing artsy/portrait stills camera. But the GH4 is clearly capable of taking great stills too (heck, I sold my 5D3 for it.)
For video, the A7s has the DR edge by a good amount. But I like both cameras for different reasons.