A7S and GH4 - what are your thoughts on them?

G

gorillaonabike

What do y'all think of the A7S and GH4? When I look at the footage, do you think it can realistically be used on a big screen? As an idea, I could clearly see the MkIII was just a DSLR on the big screen when back-to-back with Arris and Reds at the last film fest I attended.

Visually, I think both little cameras are good enough for the big screen.

And incidentally, the a7s is beautiful in the hands. It is fantastic to hold onto, really breathtaking. It is what I always dreamed of in terms of form factor - just fantastic.

Personally, I am put off going with a used FS100 as both the GH4 and the a7s look as if they can be blown up to a cinema screen with zero issues with the right lenses. And I can use them to take photos with!

BMCC is uninteresting (too much hassle), C100s now look a little pricey, FS100 ditto and the MkIII is just spurious given the quality of the images coming from the GH4 and as7. These just look so good!

What do y'all think of these two?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Very cool. I don't think you can go wrong with the gh4. But to get the SDI stuff and nice output, you need to buy the dock, so don't be too swayed by the price difference.

The biggest difference to me is the sensor size. I like larger sensors for the creative opportunities, but they are also harder to work with. I believe the Sony sensor has better exposure ability, so you can pull more detail out of the shadows.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cheeseandachallenge said:
The A7s certainly looks impressive for low light shooting - but that, to me, is moot, unless you're shooting no-budget and can't afford lighting (if you can afford a $2500 camera/are shooting anything more than a home video, this shouldn't apply) or are shooting a run and gun type documentary. Perhaps if there were scenes where you couldn't control the lighting (e.g. shooting guerilla on a street without permits at night), then the low-light capabilities would make sense.
Click to expand...

I actually think this is a misconception - low light performance absolutely has benefits beyond situations where you can't control the lighting. Greater light sensitivity means you can often achieve the same looks with fewer & smaller lights, which means less necessary support gear, less power draw and heat, and often less crew. That also means you can work faster, be more mobile, work in smaller spaces, etc. All of those aspects directly benefit low-budget production - it's not about not needing to light, it's about being able to light more efficiently, and often being able to make lighting decisions from a creative standpoint first rather than starting from what you need to achieve a minimum exposure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tbh, neither are that expensive to rent through borrowlenses. I would say, given the price of the cameras, it would be a worthwhile to invest $300 in getting your hands on both for a week and see which one you like better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
I actually think this is a misconception - low light performance absolutely has benefits beyond situations where you can't control the lighting. Greater light sensitivity means you can often achieve the same looks with fewer & smaller lights, which means less necessary support gear, less power draw and heat, and often less crew. That also means you can work faster, be more mobile, work in smaller spaces, etc. All of those aspects directly benefit low-budget production - it's not about not needing to light, it's about being able to light more efficiently, and often being able to make lighting decisions from a creative standpoint first rather than starting from what you need to achieve a minimum exposure.
Click to expand...

+1

Could be the difference between a truck with a generator or just plugging into the wall.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Definitely - take something like the balcony scene from Heat where they basically had to green screen the actors in order to have them lit properly with the lights of the city in the background. You could shoot a scene like that fairly easily now with something like the A7s because it wouldn't be difficult to light your actors at the appropriate level for the background exposure, and at an aperture which would let you keep the background somewhat in focus. I've seen several examples from the camera at night where the subject is lit correctly and there's bokeh from stars in the sky behind them - it's just something that never would have happened before. But that kind of thing is the obvious example of what a low light camera can achieve, and I think people don't often think about the fact that low light can also mean a fully constructed lighting setup that just doesn't have to be very bright overall to produce an adequate exposure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
Definitely - take something like the balcony scene from Heat where they basically had to green screen the actors in order to have them lit properly with the lights of the city in the background. You could shoot a scene like that fairly easily now with something like the A7s because it wouldn't be difficult to light your actors at the appropriate level for the background exposure, and at an aperture which would let you keep the background somewhat in focus. I've seen several examples from the camera at night where the subject is lit correctly and there's bokeh from stars in the sky behind them - it's just something that never would have happened before. But that kind of thing is the obvious example of what a low light camera can achieve, and I think people don't often think about the fact that low light can also mean a fully constructed lighting setup that just doesn't have to be very bright overall to produce an adequate exposure.
Click to expand...

Now I'm all excited for you (and for us). Don't take too much time sharing your results with us when you get your A7s. =)

By the way, is moire and aliasing a thing of the past with these newer cameras?

WalterB said:
Imagine shooting a scene with aurora borealis (northern light) as light source :P
Click to expand...

That sounds like a wonderful challenge. Make it happen, okay? =D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
richy said:
Now I'm all excited for you (and for us). Don't take too much time sharing your results with us when you get your A7s. =)
Click to expand...

Trust me, I'm excited too! It may be a little while though, only footage I've shot so far is from a friend's wedding, which was just a chance to get familiar with the controls (but I can tell this camera is going to be huge in the wedding video world). Trying to put together something a little more formal (no pun intended!) later this month.

By the way, is moire and aliasing a thing of the past with these newer cameras?
Click to expand...

Maybe not entirely, but it's been reduced quite a bit. I haven't seen any yet in my footage, but occasionally I see minor aliasing on other people's stuff. It also seems to be affected by what mode you're shooting in - for instance, the GH4 still has it when you're shooting 1080 but not in 4k, and the A7s shows more when you're shooting full frame vs. APS-c (I'd expect it to be minimized when shooting external 4k). Basically the limitations of on-board downscaling still have the potential to introduce it, although it's significantly better than previous generations of cameras.

gorillaonabike said:
However, the choice on offer is a good low light camera vs a good 4k camera. My choice is 4k over low light.

Now about that Atomos...
Click to expand...

For me the low-light performance was something I knew I could take advantage of in many situations - 4k was less immediately useful. I figure I can always rent or buy the shogun in the future, and it's likely that by this time next year there will be a lot more options for external 4k at various price points.

The other consideration for me was that working with 4k would require either replacing my 4-year old macbook pro, or getting a desktop system just for editing. Right now my current laptop works great for my paid work (which isn't video-related), so it's harder to justify laying out another chunk of money for a dedicated post system - I'd rather put that money toward lenses in the short term. I'm also in the early stages of planning a feature project, so I feel like it makes sense to hold off until that actually becomes a reality to upgrade everything.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've only shot with A7 but I think it' s a better camera. It's a bigger sensor, in fact it's FULL FRAME, that's a huge thing. It's light gathering ability is crazy good. Skin tones look better IMO as well. I wouldn't worry about 4k vs 1080p if the issue is theatrical projection, 99% of the movies you've ever seen in a theater are 2k. 1080 is proven for theatrical. It's a tough little camera that sony. GH4 is endlessly versatile though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top