# 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4



## MichaelTheMaven (Jun 24, 2014)

Hey guys, Im planning a comparison video between the 5Diii, A7s and GH4. I have gotten a lot of good insight from you all in the past, but I am opening this up to suggestions you might want to see?

I looked at the GH4 and have one now, it is very impressive for video work. (Like amazingly). It ran into issues with sports focusing. 

What tests would you guys like to in a match-up between these three other than the typical ones I normally do:

- ISO Noise
- Sports Shooting
- Dynamic Range
- HDR
- Portrait Comparison
- Video Moire
- Etc?

I thank you in advance!

Michael


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 24, 2014)

I liked the low light focus test you did with the 6D and D600. Seeing as how the Sony is supposedly the new king of low light, this would interest me.


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Jun 24, 2014)

I'd love an astrophotgraphy comparison, but that might be complicated. I'd love to see how each one does with say a 30 second exposure of the sky, in particular how high you can push it with the A7s compared to the others.


----------



## Renaissance (Jun 24, 2014)

Just make sure to specify how much sharpening you do in post to the 5dmk3 footage. 
I have been shooting it against the GH4 too, and I find that I prefer the 5d footage for portraits,
especially close-ups. Also, the 5d looks for cinematic and filmic, while the GH4 is looking too video-ish.
I like the GH4 though for high-detail nature work, or sports, but I don't prefer it for my style of narrative video work.


----------



## pedro (Jun 24, 2014)

Please do a High ISO noise test in RAW with the 5D3 and the A7s. With the 5D3 files downsampled to 12 MP. I'd be especially intrested in 25k, 51k, 102k streetshots...Thanks and great offer and idea! This must be a lot of fun. Regards, Peter.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Jun 24, 2014)

Thank you for the input everyone- I appreciate it. I have all over you suggestions on my list. 

I think the astrophotography comparison is a great idea, especially with the high ISO performance of the A7s. Ill do the low light focusing too (its rated down to -4 EV which is supposedly better than the 6D), and the noise performance tests. 

Ill post any preliminary stuff here for feedback as well.

Thanks again and keep the ideas coming if you have any more


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Jun 25, 2014)

Thanks very much! I really look forward to seeing how the cameras do 

If you happen to have an EF adapter for the Sony, it'd be interesting to see an auto focus test with an EF lens too. For a lot of Canon lenses owners who like the Sony, but don't want to switch all their lenses. I've heard the auto focus was very slow on the A7r, so I assume it'll be the same here.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Jun 25, 2014)

That is one thing I have already noticed about the E Mount, is that there aren't a lot of really wide aperture lenses for it, seems most of them are f4 or f2.8, only a handful of comparatively expensive 1.8s. 

I have actually 2 different EF adapters I am testing, one has Autofocus, I hear it is a little slow, but I will definitely test it, I have a bunch of wide aperture Canon glass Ill put on it. 

Now if only that Shogun Recorder was available....


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 26, 2014)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> That is one thing I have already noticed about the E Mount, is that there aren't a lot of really wide aperture lenses for it, seems most of them are f4 or f2.8, only a handful of comparatively expensive 1.8s.
> 
> I have actually 2 different EF adapters I am testing, one has Autofocus, I hear it is a little slow, but I will definitely test it, I have a bunch of wide aperture Canon glass Ill put on it.
> 
> Now if only that Shogun Recorder was available....



If you're willing to accept MF for WA purposes, that suddenly opens up a world of possibilities (and affordable glass)


----------



## Cheryll (Jun 29, 2014)

:

- ISO Noise (very interesting downsample to 12 MP)
- Sports Shooting
- Dynamic Range (Yes)
- HDR ( with internal HDR function)
- Portrait Comparison
- Video Moire
- Etc?

When you have done it, please post the link to the comparison here


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Jul 2, 2014)

I have the A7s in hand, also have a GH4 and 5Diii. I've done some initial testing and should have more show later tomorrow (July 2nd). 

I have mixed feelings, but in my limited time playing around with it here are some thoughts:

- Great ISO performance, but the higher ISOs are indeed pretty grainy.
- Incredible Low Light focusing sensitivity. More than anything I have ever tested, but only with native Sony lenses. 
- Im already wishing Sony had many more lenses made for it with very wide apertures
- Paired with the Metabones Speedbooster and wide aperture glass, it could be a low light monster, especially for video. 
- The Metabones Adapter, (not the speed booster) AF pretty much did not work, at all. I might have a bad copy. I hear it is slower, but is still supposed to work, but I had no such success with it. 

I was very impressed with the DR and colors it could see beyond my own eyes, as grainy as it was:

http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=3288&sony-a7s-low-light-portrait-test-maxed-out-at-iso-409-600

There will probably be a sweet spot for low light portraits, but I would imagine it is around ISO 25,600. 

Ill post the ISO charts later today.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 2, 2014)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> Thank you for the input everyone- I appreciate it. I have all over you suggestions on my list.
> 
> I think the astrophotography comparison is a great idea, especially with the high ISO performance of the A7s. Ill do the low light focusing too (its rated down to -4 EV which is supposedly better than the 6D), and the noise performance tests.
> 
> ...


why not give the 6D a cameo in this aspect of the comparison since its supposed to be better in low light than the 5Dmk3...


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Jul 2, 2014)

It is tempting to bring the 6D into the tests as the next closest competitor, the A7S is so good at low light focusing I am shocked. It has me loving it one second and being disappointed the next. Took it out for sports shooting this am. 1.5fps on servo focusing?? Really? The A7S is not a camera for sports. 

Ill have to redo the ISO noise chart of the A7s vs the 5Diii (a touch out of focus), but the A7S vs GH4 Noise Chart is now up. Huge advantage to the A7s. 

We resized the GH4 down to 12MB. Also, from what Ive seen, the A7s has about a 1 stop advantage over the 5Diii in higher ISOs when resized, Again Ill have the 5Diii ISO chart up soon. 

http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=3290&sony-a7s-vs-panasonic-gh4-iso-noise-comparison-charts

M


----------



## sdsr (Jul 2, 2014)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> - The Metabones Adapter, (not the speed booster) AF pretty much did not work, at all. I might have a bad copy. I hear it is slower, but is still supposed to work, but I had no such success with it.



AF on that adapter only works with a rather small number of lenses. A list is posted on their website (though I've found that one or two work that aren't on that list including 28mm IS and, weirdly, the new 10-18mm EF-S); maybe the lenses you used aren't included? 

(But even if the AF doesn't work, you should still get EXIF data and in-camera aperture control, which for me is the main use of that adapter because Sony's mirrorless bodies - like most these days - make MF relatively easy.)


----------



## Niki (Jul 2, 2014)

MichaelTheMaven said:


> I have the A7s in hand, also have a GH4 and 5Diii. I've done some initial testing and should have more show later tomorrow (July 2nd).
> 
> I have mixed feelings, but in my limited time playing around with it here are some thoughts:
> 
> ...



5d3 + m.l. for video and stills tests??


----------



## npherno (Jul 3, 2014)

Wow, I just took a look at the A7s, and am pretty amazed. The performance of that camera is remarkable! When your sensor can take photos in the dark at ISO 80,000, that is really game changing.
Canon and Nikon should be worried--Sony's 
Canon or Nikon would charge $10,000 for their camera if they had a product with these results.

Reviews-
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/07/01/the-sony-a7s-digital-camera-review-wow-period/
http://www.samhurdphotography.com/2014/gear-reviews/sony-a7s-review-sony-a7s-vs-a7r

From the WSJ:
_
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579376172286073420

Detractors say mirrorless cameras are another futile attempt to save the camera industry from smartphones. That doesn't mean they can't keep grabbing customer attention as the technology improves. A certain segment of consumers are always likely to want something better than the masses. That's where mirrorless could erode the high-end DSLRs that Canon and Nikon have banked on as less vulnerable to the smartphone trend.

The scope for disruption could be far greater than some expect. Sony is already offering mirrorless cameras with "full frame" image sensors as large as top-end DSLR cameras. That means it's plausible high-end hobbyists and some professional photographers will make the switch in coming years.

Nikon and Canon have one big advantage—their lines of interchangeable lenses that keep longtime users loyal. If the companies are smart, they will capitalize on this by building on their currently minimal offerings of mirrorless cameras that can use their existing lenses.

Japan's digital camera makers were blindsided by the impact of smartphones on the industry. They should have no excuse if they let technology pass them over again.
_

_
Luminous Landscape writes:

“DSLRs will diminish in market share and likely will become a niche product for wealthy enthusiasts. Mainstream enthusiasts will move to so-called mirrorless system cameras and the mass market will happily take pictures with their smartphones while uploading them in real-time to Facebook.
Sony has seen the writing on the wall better than most. So have Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic. Nikon and Canon have had an ostrich-like mentality and are therefore about to be side-swiped by a market shift of tsunami proportions. Unless their market planners grow the cojones needed to adapt to the changing marketplace, in a few short years there’ll be a lot of executives in Japan staring out the window at a train that has swiftly left the station.”
_

I can't find the article, but a Sony VP said that they wanted to be number two in the camera market in say 5 years. 

If they keep up the innovation, I think they have a chance. They are really making cameras people want, with great new technology. I bought a NEX5 for its size and image quality, and its great (save for the menu system).

Apparently I am not the only one wondering if my next camera will be a Canon.
Look here--
http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2014/04/18/sony-a7r/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/has-sony-finally-gained-the-right-momentum-to-challenge-nikon-and-canon/


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Jul 3, 2014)

Those are some great reviews you shared- thank you! 

The A7S is growing on me the more I shoot with it. Did lots of sports type tests and there are a few weird things Im seeing. Definitely not a sports shooting camera, but can be used for the occasional shot if you have nothing else. 

I did check out it's low light focusing ability again. Far off the charts of anything Ive ever seen or can measure with a light meter. It almost appears as if it is boosting the signal into live view and focusing off of the boosted signal. Only when I went into a very dark room with all the lights turned off did it actually start to struggle. 

M


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 3, 2014)

npherno said:


> If they keep up the innovation, I think they have a chance. They are really making cameras people want, with great new technology. I bought a NEX5 for its size and image quality, and its great (save for the menu system).



I think the same of my NEX-6; only wish it had the A7's menu structure because the menu structure is amateuristic and not user friendly if you need to change advanced options while shooting.

Sony needs more good (and reasonably affordable) lenses too; I'm not too impressed with their lens line-up and I'm getting to the point that I think I'll sell on my 16-50 & 55-210 OSS because I'd rather use adapted FD lenses.


----------



## npherno (Jul 4, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> npherno said:
> 
> 
> > If they keep up the innovation, I think they have a chance. They are really making cameras people want, with great new technology. I bought a NEX5 for its size and image quality, and its great (save for the menu system).
> ...



You see, this is where I think Sony is turning a liability into an asset. I also figured it would be hard to leave Canon because of lens investments. Sony seems to be encouraging third parties to make adapters to use any lens with their cameras, WITH AUTOFOCUS. Leica lenses seem to be what a lot of Sony users are using, but certainly Canon lenses would work well.

http://www.eoshd.com/eoshd-shooters-guide-sony-a7-a7r-lenses

I love my 50D, but Canon definitely annoys me with their constant arbitrary cutting features and segmentation of their products. They seem to never want to deliver their best, but simply what the market will tolerate.

Canon and Nikon both better wake up before customers leave in droves. Sony's cameras are still rough around the edges, but the features they offer are very convincing, especially when portability isn't an issue. I personally cannot afford a A7s now, but when I can, I think Sony will be ready for prime time, and will have smoothed those remaining issues (maybe one or two years).

Btw, my previous statement is correct--Canon does have a low light king-the 1DC and it is $10,000, lol. 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/13071/25-ways-sony-a7s-trumps-canon-1d-c


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 4, 2014)

npherno said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > npherno said:
> ...



It's great that you can adapt almost any lens to a NEX or a7*, but for the best AF performance you need native lenses.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Aug 7, 2014)

Been shooting with both cameras side by side for 6 weeks now. The lack of native focusing lenses, no internal 4K and the sports focusing sums up my gripes about the A7s. I was able to get some nice voightlander glass for the GH4, wow...what a difference that makes. 

Thought you guys might enjoy the final review, which summarizes how they compete against each other. Im still looking for a reliable way to test DR without needing expensive software. Any suggestions or recommendations are appreciated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMypfYrKgw

http://youtu.be/qdMypfYrKgw


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 7, 2014)

Adapting third party lenses sounds great in theory. But in all reality, it pretty much sucks compared to having native glass. I bought the A7r knowing that there would be some losses with the gains. 

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass. 

My belief is that the issues are caused by having to add a piece of hardware (adapter) in between the body and the lens which leaves a lot of room for variance and play. The other issue is the way the sensor is set up in the A7r body. The EF lenses were simply not designed to work optimally in this scenario (distances, tolerances, etc). Whereas when I mount the Zeiss 55, I know that it was designed specifically for the FE mount bodies and microlenses which translates into much better IQ. 

Prior to the A7r, I had already experienced issues with lens adaptation as I have used many M42 screw mount lenses on my Canon bodies. Many of those same issues have manifested themselves with the A7r + EF lens combos.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless. 

IMO, the AF retention feature is a mere gimmick to get our attention and I'm certain less than a ball hair of a fraction of the people adapting EF lenses are bothering with it vs just manually focusing.

I suppose my point is that while it is great that Sony is encouraging the use of adapted glass, the actual reality of the experience is trash (on the average) which means they still need to start producing some of their own quality lenses in FE mount.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 7, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Adapting third party lenses sounds great in theory. But in all reality, it pretty much sucks compared to having native glass. I bought the A7r knowing that there would be some losses with the gains.
> 
> After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.
> 
> ...



I still don't understand why they didn't not release FE UWA prime(focal length can be anywhere, from 16 to 20mm f4)


----------



## sdsr (Aug 7, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.
> 
> There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.
> 
> Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.



I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as the Canon lenses I've tried on my a7r and a6000 seem to produce results at least as good as (better, to the extent the extra resolution & dr matter) they do on my Canon bodies (I say "seem to" because I've not done anything resembling a scientific comparison, merely taken shots of similar things in similar conditions). And I'm very pleased with the results I'm getting with most of the old legacy lenses (various brands) I've been using, though with them I have nothing to compare the results to except the photos I've taken using them on my OM-D, where similar adapters are involved. 

But you're certainly right about AF - if you need to photograph moving things or use the camera in other situations when you don't have a few seconds to spare, AF with the metabones adapter is, as they readily admit up-front, useless. I don't think anyone claims otherwise. But if you're willing to wait, the AF is, in my experience, accurate and it's nice not to have to worry about AFMA. I tend to think MF is faster, though, and it's partly the opportunity to use old MF lenses easily that makes me a fan of mirrorless cameras, regardless of who makes them (I rather like the process of manually focusing, and good MF lenses are far nicer to use that way than any AF lens I've used). (And when you're photographing static subjects, I'm not even sure that AF, even with native lenses, is much faster, if at all, unless you already have a focus point over the subject - in the time you've moved the focus point to where you want it, you could likely have manually focused too, especially if what you're focusing on is small and located among other things that may distract the camera's AF).

In any event, no, these cameras certainly aren't for everyone....


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 7, 2014)

@ Dylan - Agreed, something wide would have definitely been nice to have at the outset.

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.

Regarding shutter speed, I was shooting in the backyard at no less than 1/400 and still got plenty of shake/motion blur on a relatively static subject. Not exactly sure what is causing it. But I do have my suspicions about the adapter, weight of the body, and shutter mechanism.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2014)

I think the A7s is great for video since that is almost always manual focus, but stills really needs good AF performance, which in this case means native lenses. Unfortunately there aren't many yet.

Sony is something to watch, and Canon has to respond to these innovations, and I think they will soon. The dual pixel technology is extremely promising, they just need to pull out all the stops on their sensor development.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Aug 8, 2014)

+1 on the lens selection issue. Sony has my attention now, but the lack of internal 4K, cost, sports focusing and lens selection make it hard to beat that $1700 price point of the GH4, which can do internal 4K. That Shogun external recorder is another $2000, Id rather have 2 voightlanders for the GH4. 

The 55 1.8 was by far the best lens i tested on Sony. Id even say that might be a better first lens than the 24-70 f4, which is ok, but the 1.8 was amazing. If Sony has a wider selection of fast glass they will be a force to be dealt with. I also tried the 12mm 2.8 Zoutt, was not impressed with it (the Panasonic 7-14 on MFT was actually wider @7mm (?!?)


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2014)

The dpreview comparison shots are really useful - you can compare at a common size, even better.

I was only personally interested in how the A7s compared to the 5D3, and it's pretty good. If I had the spare cash, I'd love to get one for experimental wildlife work, especially video, and low light events. Hard to say without many more shots, but I'd say for me, its upper limit for shareable photos is 51200, although the higher you go, the further it pulls ahead. Now I hope someone does comparison test shots with the 645z


----------



## sdsr (Aug 8, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> @ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.
> 
> For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.



Are your non-center focus problems via AF or MF? Have you had similar problems with other non-native lenses? (Unfortunately I don't own a 85L.) If this is mainly an AF thing, it's perhaps just as well I do MF instead! As for shutter vibrations, while I don't seem to have been as affected as you, it would certainly nice if Sony could fix this (it doesn't seem to be an issue with the other two A7 bodies).


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 8, 2014)

@sdsr - only manual focus for anything I've adapted so far. Only tried the AF for curiosity's sake. 

Regarding the vibration, I don't know that it is necessarily just the shutter or if it is merely one part of the cause. I just know I'm having issues with what appears to be slight motion blur even when my shutter speed is super fast on static subjects.


----------



## sanjosedave (Aug 8, 2014)

I'd like to see capture video, say, of a baseball game during the day, perhaps as the pitcher throws the ball and the batter gets ready to hit, and then pull a frame from the 4k video and present the still. Thx


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I'd like to see capture video, say, of a baseball game during the day, perhaps as the pitcher throws the ball and the batter gets ready to hit, and then pull a frame from the 4k video and present the still. Thx



Remember, whatever the resolution, video frames tend to be much longer exposures than stills for moving subjects. So at 30fps, you might have 1/50 for each frame. The ball would likely be a blur in every single frame, so not much use as an alternative to short exposure stills.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 8, 2014)

scyrene said:


> sanjosedave said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see capture video, say, of a baseball game during the day, perhaps as the pitcher throws the ball and the batter gets ready to hit, and then pull a frame from the 4k video and present the still. Thx
> ...


+1, For smooth video playback the shutter speed is typically selected as 2x faster than the fps so as to allow for enough blur in each frame for them to flow into the next. If you use an excessively high shutter speed then the individual frames would be sharper but the gap between exposures would be relatively long, so there could be a "big" difference from frame to frame resulting in a jerky/staccato feel to the playback.


----------

