Image courtesy: CameraSize.
Enrique Pacheco tested the 4K performance of the Sony A7s and the Panasonic GH4. And in terms of both dynamic range and resolution the A7s outclasses the main competitor:
Image courtesy Enrique Pacheco and Macgregor.
The image on top shows the difference in dynamic range. Enrique writes: “Sony A7s vs Panasonic GH4 in CINE4 mode. Pro ISO 200 the difference of detail in highlights from heaven speaks for itself.“
And this is the resolution comparison: “Compared to the Lumix GH4, which has always been known camera with good resolution, the Sony A7s seems to deliver a clearer, sharper picture, you could say that with increased microcontraste or acutance if you’re like us, having grown up with analogue. But we must also note that although the image appear sharper the A7s, actually both seem to achieve the same level of detail.“
And Enriques further test also show the A7s has less moiré and less color aliasing. The GH4 advantage is far less rolling shutter (not tested by Enrique but seen in other comparisons) and the GH4 is cheaper and records 4K internally.
Sony A7s store links:
Sony A7s in USA/CA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony USA, Sony Canada.
Sony A7s in Eu at Sony DE, UK, ES, FR, IT, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, NO, FI, PL. And Wex UK.
A7s Gariz leather case in [shoplink 27569 ebay]Black (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 27570 ebay]Brown (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 27571 ebay]Red (Click here)[/shoplink] and [shoplink 27572 ebay]Orange (Click here)[/shoplink].
Sony A7s in USA/CA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony USA, Sony Canada.
Sony A7s in Eu at Sony DE, UK, ES, FR, IT, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, NO, FI, PL. And Wex UK.
A7s Gariz leather case in [shoplink 27569 ebay]Black (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 27570 ebay]Brown (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 27571 ebay]Red (Click here)[/shoplink] and [shoplink 27572 ebay]Orange (Click here)[/shoplink].
0 Responses
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised that a full frame camera with a cutting edge sensor should outperform any Micro 4/3 camera out there. I’m sure the Lumix is fine as far as M4/3 goes, but compared to the A7s it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Well I guess they are similarly priced, sized and featured (overall), but agree the GH4 just can’t match it.
You would have to remove a crap-load of features from the GH4 in order to match the A7s. Low light performance alone is just not an entire “feature set” for the majority of users. The A7s also has serious codec banding issues that make it a poor choice for professional productions.
I have yet to encounter those in post, especially recorded externally.
Banding is far more of an issue with the GH4.
Bahahaha! Here come the GH4 fanboys. GH4 is an overpriced lump of trash with one feature that makes it stand out, but in no time at all that one feature will make it an expensive joke. I feel VERY sorry for anyone who bought it.
Not seen the serious banding issues you mention after many torturous hours of shooting in the crappiest of conditions. Nor has my GH4 buddy heard any of the serious audio noise issues that plague the GH4.
The A7s is the most amazing camera Sony has made to date. The image quality is spectacular.
Now they need to get that crazy sensor into a larger pro E mount body!
That 12mp FF sensor really hits the bull’s perfectly. It’s the perfect balance of resolution, ISO and dynamic range. The perfect “sweet spot”!
I’m really trying to understand the magic of this camera. I just don’t get it. I hear the tonal gradation suffers because of the 12MP as well. I also understand that the A7R outperforms it in low level light up until about 3600. Maybe I just need to rent it to appreciate what it can do. Outside of video though, I’m not sure what the appeal is.
exactly what I thought until I got one, now its my main camera for stills when I don’t need 36mp and of course video, thinking about getting a second body
Agree…go buy an A7s at B&H. On the very rare chance you dont like it then return it. No risk.
You will LOVE that thing. Its a very hot selling and very well reviewed camera for Sony.
I was skeptical before I opend the box…After a week if shooting with it…I fell in total love with it. And for video? Jeez…Slog2 is friggin amazing.
While I like Slog2 I’m actually REALLY impressed by the DR in the standard shooting mode, it’s rather insane. Everyone jumps straight to the Slog2 and doofus at EOSHD was complaining the other day that it is hard work and the D750 produces ‘nicer’ video out of camera… but of course has never ever tested any of the other picture profiles.
Agreed. Only use SLOG-2 when you are working in 3200 ISO light. Filmconvert just released the A7S LUTS/profiles and they are lovely, the resulting images look pretty cool. I’m liking PP6 for daylight work. But going out after dark is where it becomes really fun with PP7.
Seriously, I let one of my diehard Canon friends use it for ten minutes. He’s thinking of making the switch already…
Agree. Don’t listen (read) DXO actually go out and use the camera, it is IMO the best camera ever made. A7 and A7R are wonderful cameras but the A7S is something else again. Just a bit more refined in a lot of areas makes a huge difference overall.
Spot-on. It’s a perfect match with the FE 4/24-70 and the new shoe mounted XLR too. It just opens the door to imaging you’d be hard pressed to get with the GH4. My personal love is the audio from the Sony XLR adaptor,.
http://youtu.be/F5o-wvzeGzM?list=PLH4jlvsIqT-4VOdPzXIk063g_pj3U7bM7
There are a multitude of native AF lenses for mFT covering a wide range of focal lengths and aperture . When downsized to 1080p { the only convinient way to shoot with the A7s ] the GH4 results are superb even in low light situations.
Show me some examples of what you speak to please? There’s a lot of theory/talk, lets start to share “some of our own actual work samples.”
did they use external recorder for GH4 too? if they didn’t, i don’t buy that A7s resolution advantage.
You didn’t read the test, did you? 🙂
I tried but got bored by it. I was just trying to find some of the simple things, like what lens was used on both cameras and things like that. I gave up trying to read the article and did a search on “lens”… the word wasn’t even mentioned so it kind of reinforced my thought that the comparison is junk. I no GH4 fan, but I love comparisons… of course I would prefer that they be done properly… which means with lenses of equal quality, with the cameras both having the proper exposure and being equally in focus with the same f-stop settings… you know so I can make a fair comparison. If I were to look at either of those shots I would simply be left thinking so they are both bad…
Maybe the next person doing a comparison can do it properly so we can see which is actually better.
If this is 4k test, i don’t need to read 🙂
Then why bother asking the question?
To make a point? That would be : not a fair comparison.
So just read the test, you will have your answer.
Wow. you really don’t get it do you?
Most people can easily guess this test is not fair given the reason A7S need a recorder to record RAW file vs GH4 in camera file.
My first comment was a rhetorical question.
Just read the test FFS!!! They used an external recorder for both cameras!
Who da f are you? Get a life, will you?
It’s because Sony’s decision to not make any cameras that are average, betting on large sensors, and slightly more expensive cameras that rock while (mostly Canon, but the rest also) keep flooding the lower part of the market with mostly mediocre cameras.
The best is to have both. You strap each one to your head and the 4k recorder to your chest. Now you can record your life in 4K without the feeling of disappointment- maybe disappointment with your life but like…not the video recording of it.
NO it doesnt. it doesnt record 4K.
GET YOUR STHIT TOGETHER SONY AND GIVE US FUULL FRAME INTERNAL 4K FFS
Waaaaaaa! Sony you delivered possibly one of the best video cameras of all time for an absolute budget price but you SHOULD have included 4K, because the internet says it’s important…
+++++++
Just step up to the plate & buy the Shogun. You need a good monitor anyway if your doing any serious video work, and the Shogun monitor looks like it will be more than adequate. The only thing that I can fault with the camera, is the flimsy HDMI port. Sony should have included a firmly attachable Micro to Full HDMI adapter, or at least sell one separately as an accessory. This could also be used on the other A7 cameras. Would be great if they did the firmware update to XAVC-S for my A7r as well. Hint Hint.
They do supply a cable protector thing with the A7S.
I havent’t found a cable that it fits properly yet. Looks like I will have to order the Lockport A7 Kit but it is almost $240 with shipping. A bit pricey for an HDMI adapter.
FS7
The shame here is that you need an extra contraption to get 4K on the A7s to achieve this result, whereas the Panny gives you all of that from the get go.
By the way, Admin says: “And in terms of both dynamic range and resolution the A7s outclasses the main competitor:” The latter is contradictory to what they write since you also quote them as saying: “…But we must also note that although the image appear sharper the A7s, actually both seem to achieve the same level of detail.” So the A7s is only better, in that criteria, than the GH4 in dynamic range.
You do know that the GH4 records internally at 4:2:0: 8bit, right? So to get the same quality out of the GH4 you would downscale to 1080p, and then no longer comparing like-for-like. The internal GH4 recording is a box ticking exercise only. In that mode, you are talking about a camera with less dynamic range, recording to a codec with less post leeway. Basically good for WYSIWYG corporate stuff. No use for creative video at all, IMO.
“Basically good for WYSIWYG corporate stuff.”
Very narrow minded.
ENG benefits greatly when you reduce the amount of contraptions you need to carry with you. I understand the point of the A7s having better video overall, but it is not a practical package for people that need 4K and want a compact kit. Let me give you an example:
You are shipped to Sierra Leone to cover the Ebola outbreak there. Your client does not broadcast 4K, but wants future proof so you are asked to shoot it anyway. The client doesn’t have the budget to send an audio guy with you so you need to get that right too. Your priority is to cover that, get it right, in 4K, and get the best audio you can. Your choice is…A7s+external recorder+sony contraption for XLR to feed a proper mic+mic or…GH4+audio unit+mic
Is not that I don’t care for video quality, because I do know my $h1t. I do care about getting the job done and the most conventional and practical package is given by Panasonic.
Well a7s isn’t ideal for 4k ENG (kind of a rarity), but it’s great for low budget 4k filmmaking / documentary.
Though I must ask – why is it the GH4 has an audio unit whereas the a7s has an audio contraption? The Sony XLR adapter is pretty great and the new one is perfect for ENG.
Agreed on the A7s use as you state with the caveat that “documentary” means a mostly interviewed based documentary.
On the contraption comment…:
http://www.newsshooter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SONY-XLR-NAB-2014-600×501.jpg
It takes the hotshoe, which means that the Atomos has to be rigged separately. Or the other way around. Also, that hotshoe link for something that looks a bit top heavy doesn’t really give me much confidence…
Whereas GH4 unit:
http://www.cinema5d.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GH4_slant_YAGH_zps2fe945db.jpg
Hotshoe is free to take up the mic…
That being said… you could always just ignore Sony’s offering and get a Tascam DR-60 and just screw it to the bottom like the panasonic solution:
http://www.dslrfilmnoob.com/wp-content/uploads/Tascam-DR-60d-firmware-2-of-2.jpg
So many choices…
The Sony XLR adapter holds a shotgun mic. The GH4 version will take up the hot shoe with a shock mount + mic. Thus for 1080p shooting, the newer Sony solution is a tad faster to setup / more compact.
The older Xlr adapter has a cold shoe atop it and a user can attach the LCD 4k recorder to it.
Fair enough. For me, any long term experience with the GH series stopped at the GH2 (still own it and still use it with one of the bitrate hacks, but don’t see a great leap up from that to either the GH3 or GH4 apart from 4k… at least not enough to justify a purchase, having had hands on with both the GH3 and 4).
I personally don’t see the GHx as a creative video camera, and I guess both corporate and ENG would fall into the group of things it is good at (video reviews I have seen tend to confirm this).
I do see the a7s and Black magic cameras in the creative group because you can do a lot more with color and exposure with these cameras, and more in creative grading generally. Certainly for the BMs (which I own), they are harder to use than the GHx in terms of speed of setup and post, but I find them to be much more creatively fulfilling. If I need to shoot something quickly and upload to youtube, I’ll dust off the GH2, but that cameras always felt more like work rather than play for me.
Guess its down to what you want, what you consider to be normal use and what you see as important… as in most things 🙂
That makes two of us! (on the GH2) except that I use the GH2 only because the look out of it, with the patches, is still the most organic. I think that the patches give you enough room to grade in post (especially Driftwood Moon T) if you don’t expect them to behave like ProRes or RAW, which you shouldn’t anyways. To me, the GH2 is the best balance between sensor size, output quality and convenience when used with the 12-35 as a compact high quality run and gun piece.
I agree that the GH3 or GH4 are not tempting to replace GH2 unless I needed 4K. But grading GH4 4K is not THAT bad unless you are looking to push the files with the same strength you can do to the 1080 200mbps files (or GH2 with a Moon patch for that matter) I tried…I know it doesn’t work as well but for most intent and purposes, GH4 4K gives you a bit of grading leniency especially if you can get as much as you can right from the get go (good white balance, desired contrast/saturation so as not too pull/push too much in post)
I am not a fiction content creator, so I can never go wild with anything I do (stills or film) so I am more than happily served with the GH2 for everything. I just wished it had proper audio recording and one XLR with phantom power so I wouldn’t need the external recorder.
Was the comparison with the 10-bit 422 output or the internal 4K for the GH4? With the possibility of Panasonic delivering RAW output via firmware, the comparison will be even more interesting.
If he used 10 bit you would not know it as your monitor would not be able to display it 🙂
10 bit is for post only, Most people would not see better color (that requires a correctly set up and capable monitor) and minimal exposure gain (10 bit is more about being able to recover exposure in post, rather than as-shot looking better off the bat).
Also, the codec is a big deal: a lot of exposure recovery depends not on the sensor but the codec you are using: using a good codec (or best of all, no codec) can give you more dynamic range of itself, because less is thrown away. That’s important, and probably the reason Sony chose external recording at this level of product.
I don’t get your comment, I thought it was pretty clear that the whole point was about the flexibility to manipulate in the post, if not, I wouldn’t have mentioned RAW. Actually, the whole idea of getting uncompressed data via HDMI output is to get as much info you can get to have better results in the post. I think it was a pretty safe bet that the A7s wouls win in DR and ISO but the 4K codec from Panasonic is pretty good and people have been showing pretty good results, with more flexibility than they anticipated from such compression. So, in the end it would come to what fits each person better.
And no, the reason is that Sony actually had no choice because the A7 family form factor is no good for this. Be it the handling – which is also why they said they are not going to make bigger and brighter lenses for now – or because it has compromises like heat dissipation issues or less capable and louder shutter because of its size. So as Sony chose this small form factor, they knew already that some sacrifices would come with it. And the codec may not make any difference in the uncompressed output, it really depends on how the manufacturer implements it. Panasonic, for instance, outputs uncrompressed data before it gets to their codec and not after like many manufacturers do.
But anyway, my point was to know if both cameras were at their best in this
comparison because it wouln’t make so much sense to simply compare to
the internal codec of the GH4.
🙂
My point? This fetishisation of what is measurable rather than what is real concern… if they both cameras were tested at their best, what would that tell you given the actual tests carried out are totally misguided?
Its all ‘the tiles on this one are this and on that they are that’. 10 bit has nothing to do with that, post or no post. Neither does dynamic range, nor for that matter sharpness…
Dynamic range is not even being used correctly in the test: he’s not using an ND. Why? because he wants to test sharpness and the ND would be the critical factor… maybe that would actually be the case for 100% of video users for the scene in question!
And even then there’s the fact that sharpness is different for video than it is for stills. A stills lens can never be too sharp, but a video lens certainly can, and it gets there really quickly. Sharpness matters far less in video and for the test here, we’re well beyond the point where it matters.
Unfortunately, as you know, the visual component of these cameras is only 50% of the equation. We’re still waiting for a proper test/analysis that addresses the other 50% “AUDIO” – I think here, when it comes to audio, the Sony system far excels the other manufactures for its simplicity and single-user adaptability.
Both those pictures look more than fine, hell, the 1080HD out of the A7S looks more than good enough and you can still get background separation with the FE 4/24-70, win-win!
Stupid compare a7s+recorder 4k = over 4.000$ , gh4 1.500$
Depends on what quality you expect.
Actually it’s a great comparison. People can see if it’s worth spending the extra bucks or not.
“extra bucks”
lol. how rich you are
The test is absolutely unimpressive. Really. Blown up sky at both cameras. Really poor, I would say.
Old nex-5n can definetely shoot it better at DRO lv5
I hear you with the DRO, but only NDs would fix the shot in question. I don’t think he used one because the quality reduction may well then be down to the ND… which kind of negates any ‘real world’-ness of the test in many ways!
Actually, the sky seems to be exposed just below whites clipping on the right.
Has anyone tried removing the sensor from the A7S and sticking it in the GH4? Wondering how that worked.
Tried it twice – didn’t work.
Wow, unbelievable. Such unexpected results…
Same ridiculous comparison as the RX100 vs A7r+Otus.
Would love to see Sony add 4K featues for photographers (ie. the ability to record 4K to SD, and easily extract 8MP stills).
4K stills is a gimmick.
From what I understand, a number of high-profile magazine covers have been shot using 4K stills (Cosmo, Vogue, etc.)
Sony cant record 4k. If you invest another 2000$ to buy recorder, tripod to carry all the stuff. Stop promoting a7s as 4k camera
Agree one records Internal to Card for the quoted price and the other needs an external and probably bulkier external recorder which defeats the purpose of Mirrorless – being a light package to carry around all day.
Still better than not offering this by the 2 compalacient companies Nikon and Canon
An often heard misconception: “adding parts increasing size, defeats the purpose of mirrorless cameras.”
No, one of the main purposes of mirrorless cameras is their flexibility. Flexibility that includes the option of:
– being small without those extra accessoires, for certain purposes and outings
– being able to adapt to most lenses on the market
In other words, with certain lenses and for certain purposes, the A7(S/R) will still be smaller and lighter than any FF DSLR with any lens.
Thank you. Somebody else gets it.
That is true but the article [ written by a Sony photographer} is however very specifically to do with 4K shooting , which with the Sony requires an additional piece of equipment which adds weight, bulk inconvinience and cost to teh equation. Have a look at teh independent review sites [ not here } if you want a tru comparison
I have thanks. Now reverse it and add the cost of a decent recorder plus XLR inputs to a GH4 and tell me which is more practical / expensive?
And with good 4K output for grading, the GH4 requires an external recorder too, since the internal 4k recording is limited to a rather paltry 100mb/s (relatively speaking, since it’s roughly 4 times the data of 1080P and still the H.264 codec, rather than the two times more efficient H.265 codec.). Thus similar to 1080P in AVCHD @ 25 mb/s.
An a7s + recorder (which is basically an LCD screen) is still a lot smaller, lighter and $2500 cheaper than an FS7.
It’s also good for people who only need 1080p now but have the option to upgrade down the road (when there are more / cheaper recording options) or rent when the need / paying work for 4k arises.
Exactly. People keep saying you ‘need’ a $3k recorder… what they don’t say is that is ‘for now’, how long until there is a $500 4K recorder? answer: not long. How about adding XLR audio to the GH4?
Fully agree. GoPro already there….
silly comparison.
Still waiting on that Monochrome A7 we heard about.
Dude just buy the A7S and set it to high contrast black n white with the DRO level 5. You’ll be amazed how much details in the shadow you’ll get. The dynamic range of the A7S surpasses the D810. I believe A7S has 15 EVS of dynamic range.
With A7S you can play around with the kelvin so you even get better result because you’ll get the perfect highlight in higher kelvin temperature. that’s something you can’t do w/ leica monochrome.
A7M will be useless if A7S is already far superior than Leica Monochrome
You guys are crazy with this A7S. I’m going to have to rent it first. Has to be some special sauce in that thing if people are trading in their A7R’s for it. I’ll have to eyeball the files up myself to make up my mind. Here I go.
It’s great and definitely worth a rental. It wouldn’t replace an a7r for landscapes, interiors, product shots but it is excellent for street photos, events, dim light anything and video. The high ISO abilities surpassed a 1dx in my tests and it actually focused better in low light.
Ah the fantasy DR claims lol, don’t let reality get in the way , it can be quite
distressing when fanboys have to deal with it
Yes because you read DXO and now you are a man ‘in the know’ 😉
Me too and or that Samsung monochrome.
Actually it is a very useful comparison, for someone who is can only afford to buy one of these cameras and is having difficulty deciding which way to go.
If you can only afford one then how do you afford the additional 4k recorder the 7s needs?
The point is not just buying a camera body, but investing an a whole system. Take into account all of the lenses & accessories needed to complete a system, and the additional cost of the Shogun becomes far less of an issue. Even people that choose to go the GH4 route may end up buying the Shogun anyway to use as a high quality monitor. and take advantage of the better quality recording available.
simple physics…i think people who go out to get a gh4 are the same still convinced a smartphone with HD display looks worse than QUAD HD ..not realizing its all about the other parameters .
Enrique Pacheco is sponsored by Sony Spain.
http://www.enriquepacheco.com/postcards-from-stockholm
Why ? Anyone expecting the GH4 to be better ? With a sensor for times smaller ? Anyway, i bought the GH4 and I have no interest in the A7s not even if it has recorded 4k internally. You can argue but physics goes both ways, larger sensor = better iq = larger lenses = higher price. Or larger sensor = same iq = same size lenses = higher price. If size and price would not matter to me, In would shoot the 1Dc right now.
Nonsense. GH4 is 3 stops behind A7S, lenses are at most 1 stop behind for similar money and size, GH4 body is bigger. A7S has better quality output and (at least when I bought it) cost the same as a GH4.
Yes, it is 3 stops behing in ISO. For me, it doesn’t matter. That’s a compromise I was willing to make, for other benefits much more important to me. As for price, I don’t know where your are living, but on the rest of the planet, the A7s is much more expensive, and so are the lenses I need.
Is reasonable to say the A7s can produce better images, it’s stupid to say everybody should buy the A7s. Why don’t you buy the Pentax 645Z ?
For example, I shot a formula 1 race with the GH4 and the 14-140mm MKII, the tracking worked amazing at 7,5fps. It was raining and I shot at f/5.6 ISO 1600, and got beautiful shots. Also got great 4K video. All in one small and light package. I don’t want to lug a 300mm small frame (FF) lens all day at the track, no matter how much cleaner the images would look at 100%, no, thank you. I cannot see any difference on my big 4k tv.
Small mistake in the last equation, if with ‘same iq’ you mean ‘same IQ at the same ISO’, which would mean you you could do with two stops less aperture, so it would have to be “= smaller lenses = similar price” (higher price for the body, lower price for the lens). Example: Voigtländer 25mm f/0.95 vs. Sony 50mm f/1.8.
So where are the 28-300mm f/7.1-f11 compact zoom for the A7s ? Or the 200-600mm f/8-f11 ? Or the 90mm f/3.8 that is as small as the 45mm f/1.8 ?
I never said that for each and every (M)FT lens there was such an FF option. Which indeed is a major advantage of (M)FT. Your equation is wrong nevertheless, because said advantage is a matter of product policy, not physics. (My equation isn’t completely true, either, but me to the truth than yours.)
Not sure what’s stranger looking; the giant sensor in the small A7s body or the tiny sensor in the bulky Lumix body.
I wonder which lenses he used. With the GH4 paired with my Contax Zeiss lenses, which are lower in contrast, I get beautiful colors, great latitude and amazing sharpness. especially with the Metabones speedbooster. You can’t really trust online reviews all the time. Test’em out yourself.
I use A7 too but i dont believe in this test. It conflicts too much with feedbacks from video professionals. All of them seem clearly to prefer Pana’s gear for thier videography.
The GH4 should have been shot in C4K (4096×2160), not UHD, that would make a difference. The A7s doesn’t have a C4K mode. Also, there’s no mention if the GH4 was recorded in 10-bit- which would give it a clear advantage in post/color correction, that could more than make up for a perceived difference in dynamic range with correct exposure. There’s no mention of which lenses were used, that could also make a difference.
The 10 bit mode does not add any dynamic range, since the noise floor is the limitation here, not the bit depth.
With no internal 4K recording in the A7s, it’s really not apples to apples. With external recording the GH4 both C4K mode and 10-bit recording and compare again.
if you pay 1700$ for a camera for a 4k ..and you actually need that 4k for editing you either have the equipment to do it..or just belong to the group who like to spend more money to boast they have the “best there is ” for the sake of it.
video files are just frames of still in the end . and still vs still you can add all the bit you want . but bit is not the actual data but the space for that data .
there is no extra data in the GH4 . all the while the A7s tramps the gh and most cameras out there with pure insane iso levels , DR , color richness .. ETC .
Oh there’s one thing for sure, you will regret when you buy a 1-inch-sensor cost 1700 $! All other avantages of A7s is still there, you have to see them yourself, especially the S-log2!
You need to do your homework. The GH4 does NOT have the smaller 1″ sensor. The 4/3 sensor is significantly larger than the 1″ sensor. And if you want to pay $800 more for the Sony, by all means go right ahead and buy it. Also, check out the various 4/3 lenses. There are some excellent ones, and on the GH4 you will get great shots and great sharp video. You get the best bang for the buck with the GH4.
I know that he made a mistake, but because I think m43 is crappy, I’ll 1-up him.
It should be a bit better than a 1 incher, the only thing that keeps me away from 4/3 is this that horrible highlight blowing they do. I was looking at LX100, but, the crop makes it hardly much bigger than a 1 inch sensor.
Well… It’s still… Somewhat bigger, of course. Like the difference between FF and Sony’s new half-baked MF… Or was it the size Leica S’ sensors have always had?
the gh4 sensor is as big compared to the 1inch you just dismissed as APS sensor is big from the gh4 one..and a FF of course doubles that nearly .
as for GH4 lens variation ..seriously ..pricey , and little.
your definition of great shots is in the same league as the new fz1000 which i think is an amazing invention by panasonic btw .
i also think thats the step panasonic needed doing all the time .
as for sensor size..there is no delicate way to say it .
smaller sensor = less quality given the same technology level .
there is no “best bang for buck” or any bank for buck when you pay 1700$ !!! for a crappy 4/3 size sensor .
Sorry for that, but GH4 will never get to A7s level, 1 thing is S-log2. You can believe it or not, just get what you want but A7s still wins the comparison.
Crippled vs over extended.
Will wait for Gen 3.
Nikon D750 has caught up in 1080p and is better in color management…according to Mr EOSHD.com.
4K will become the rigour later on but by that time the outputs will be so good it won’t make any difference.
One would expect a $2000+ camera to do better. Why should one even want to compare it with GH4?????
Why compare? Because micro sensor users keep saying the GH4 is better.
Even if you prove that GOD does not exists, those who believe that he exists will say the opposed, do, do not waste your time teaching people who do not want or need to learn.
anytime you compare wide-shot landscape style stills from a full frame sensor to an M4/3rds the edge is going to be full frame. no surprise here. also the images look to be about 1 stop over-exposed, but that’s subjective.
OH REALLY OMG THAT’S REALLY AMAZING. A FULL FRAME SENSOR CAMERA HAS BETTER QUALITY THAN A M4/3 ONE? REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY!!!!
-.-“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
you know what is new here? is that the m4/3 actually has a great image that almost reaches full frame quality for a much lower pricetag.
Any sane person (GH series fans excluded) realises the GH4 has no chance of competing the A7s.
The only reason both cameras are often compared is that they both brought 4K video in a compact form factor at the same time and that they are high priced. But while the A7s brought many other huge features like FF, amazing ISO capabilities, SLog-2, the GH4 only carries it high price tag!
Yes, GH4 carries a high price tag that is much lower than A7s. And a flippy screen, and better battery, and better performance, and better c-af, and better speed/fps) and much smaller lenses, and internal 4k, and 96fps, and 10-bit output, and better ergonomics, and a touch screen, and more resolution, and lenses than can properly manual focus (unlike fe lenses), and much more native lenses, and I can keep going if you’d like.
You may not care about all this, or you may not agree, that’s fine. But some do.
Now, we just wait to see a 125cc scooter compete against a Yamaha V-Max. Do not mix here cherries and oranges please, you risk to “look” ridiculous.
How about comparing the Pana LX100, to it?
It’s all about compromises. No matter how you twist it, the laws of physics apply both ways. A m43 sensor will never equal a ff sensor image quality, and a 90mm f/3.8 ff lens will never be as small and good (at same size) as the Olympus 45mm f/1.8.
Just like in music formats, just like in cars and many other things, it’s a question on when the image quality, the performance and the size is good enough. And that is something nobody can answer for you, because we all have different wishes, different needs, different interpretations.
He, he, I like how you mention there “f/3.8”, but thats how it is with micro sensors …
This dosen’t change the fact thet the GH4 is overpriced for what it is, you can get much better cameras for its price. While the A7s provides a set of features not found anywhere else which makes its price fully deserved.
And when you talk about how small and unbeatable the micro 4/3 Oly 45/1.8 is, perhaps you havent heard of the Pentax APSC 70/2.4 Limited which is even smaller and insanely good:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-70mm-F2.4-Limited-Lens.html
I am not saying that everything with Sony E mount is rosy, that’s why I keep mentioning the Pentax Limited series of lenses, hoping someone at Sony will notice them …
And thinking that this legendary company Pentax was sold about a year ago for only about $10mil.
No it is not smaller, and it is not cheaper. And if there aren’t tradeoffs why nobody made more lenses like that ? If you want to believe there are no tradeoffs when going big, but there are when going small, go ahead. I wish things in life work like that.
I think fanboism is bluring your vison if you saying the Zuiko 45/1.8 (56mm long) is smaller than the pankake Pentax Limited 70/2.4 (ONLY 25mm long).
Even if you add the longer Pentax K mount flange distance (45mm) vs the M43 (20mm) you still end up with a shorter combo (for Pentax 25 + 45 = 70mm) vs (56 + 20 = 76mm)!
And on top of this the Limited 70/2.4 produces a larger image circle and of better quality. Yes it is more expensive, but nothing excessive and is FULL METAL and smooth mechanical focus vs the plastic pseudo metal Zuiko with fly-by-wire focus!
I think you need to check your facts, if you saying the Zuiko 45/1.8 (56mm long) is smaller than a proper pankake – Pentax Limited 70/2.4 (ONLY 25mm long).
Even if you add the longer Pentax K mount flange distance (45mm) vs the M43 (20mm) you still end up with a shorter combo (for Pentax 25 + 45 = 70mm) vs (56 + 20 = 76mm)!
And on top of this the Pentax Limited 70/2.4 produces a larger image circle and of better quality. Yes it is more expensive, but nothing excessive and is FULL METAL and smooth mechanical focus vs the plastic pseudo metal Zuiko with fly-by-wire focus!
First – Enrique never stated what lenses or adapters he used for his tests. So I don’t know how it can be qualified as a equal comparison especially when he has been sponsored by Sony.
Second – Funny how the resolution he attempts to show here has the field of view exactly the same. The m43 sensor would never look exactly like a FF sensor without adapters to manipulate the crop. So without us knowing what was used it’s hard to judge. Sharpness affects resolution and crappy adapter or glass could’ve been used.
Third – Quite a few reviews comparing the 2 cameras are out there and easily accessible. But when I’ve read or viewed other reviews of both cameras the GH4 usually came out on top or at least held its own.
http://cameras.reviewed.com/features/the-mirrorless-4k-showdown-sony-a7s-vs-panasonic-gh4
So how is it that this review had it so different?
Last – And why can’t a m43 compete with FF? Only area that the A7s is the clear winner is in ISO performance and it currently kills all other cameras. But that’s not the whole package and doesn’t make it better. I’ve seen great video come out this camera and great pics as well that will stand up against any FF out there.
I personally think it’s a preference. I chose the GH4 cause of the overall package. The idea that everything could be kept easily portable but still give me all I need.
The Pentax extends quite a lot, it’s a pancake only when no using it. And no id does not produce better quality. And I ask again, where are the other lenses of this kind ? Talking about fanboism….