Panasonic GH4 vs. Sony AX100/B: 4K Consumer Video Cameras

Status
Not open for further replies.

d_kuhn

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2002
243
0
18,830
0
Even assuming the output isn't so compressed that it looks like crap, theses are very much niche products... most consumers who purchase these cameras thinking "moar pixels... good" are going to be very unhappy with them, just working with the footage takes a high end machine. I have 4k cameras (Red Epic, Vision Research Flex4K) and have $15k in 2 PC's, 4k displays, and interface hardware (and 3 times that in enterprise storage hardware to archive footage) just to create infrastructure capable of efficient workflow (and I'm a scientist not a Cinema Pro... the pro's have even larger investments). A prosumer wanting to use these cameras will have to spend several times the cost of camera and lens (at a minimum) just to have a system capable of playing the footage at full resolution... and better figure on coughing up lots of $$$ for Adobe CC or Apple FCP and needed support tools. At the end of the day... $2000 or $3670 will be one of the cheaper parts of getting a 4k capable environment... heck I paid nearly $3500 just for a 60hz 4k display... ONE display.
 

Wild Biker Bill

Honorable
Sep 18, 2013
2
0
10,510
0
"...To roughly match the zoom range of the Sony, you'd need the $1,800 Panasonic 14mm-150mm DSLR lens (28mm-300mm in 35mm equivalent), plus Panasonic's $170 DSLR to micro four-thirds camera adapter."A couple of things wrong with this sentence.1. The referenced Panasonic lens is not 14-150mm, it is 14-140mm.2. It can be bought new for ~$630.00 USD, about a third of the referenced price.http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Zoom+Focal+Lengths_14-140mm&ci=17912&N=4196380428+4291296566+42612082143. It is native micro 4/3, so it needs no adapter to mount to the camera.Other than that the sentence was accurate.
 

frankbough

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2011
29
0
18,580
0
"Without seeing footage of both cameras, it's hard to know which will actually perform better."....if you can't compare footage then why run this comparison?
 

Goyoman

Estimable
Mar 11, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
"Full-frame DLSRs, for example, have sensors measuring around 860 square millimeters, though none of them shoots 4K video."WRONG! Canon 1D/C was the first and is still the best DSLR 4K camera and has been for a year and half. I've shot three 4K projects using this camera
 

JoelHornbarger

Estimable
Mar 11, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
This is an idiotic review. There are so many things wrong with it.These cameras are completely different. Their only similarities are their 4k capabilities and the fact that they are both cameras. It ends there.You gave a point to the Sony by saying it has more mega pixels. The Sony has 20mp covering a sensor half the size and therefore the pixels are super small. Why do you think the top of the line Nikon and canon cameras have 35mm sensors with half as many megapixels than their cameras that cost thousands of dollars less? Because bigger pixels are better! So not only is the gh4's sensor twice the size but so are its pixels!You also state that you can't get better codecs out of either camera other than avchd. Wrong again. You can attach an external recording device to the gh4 and get uncompressed 10 bit 422 apple pro res and that's all most videographers and cinematographers working on a really tight budget will want and use due to the cost of raw let alone 4k raw.focus peaking, wave form, zebras, SDI, xlr, pl mount compatible for true cine lenses, the fact that you can control focus at all! You can use any passive lens you want with the purchase of a cheap adapter and a few active lenses with more expensive adapters, large sensor that actually gives you dof control, and countless other things that make it a far superior more professional tool. Just the fact that you can throw thousands of dollars into one of the cameras and what you get is what you get with the other is telling.This is Panasonics top camera in their lumix line! And ever since the gh2 they've compared these models to the canon 5ds and 7d in the video realm.The gh4 isn't a professional camera but it will be used by professionals and that's a fact but not one pro worth his salt will touch that Sony or ever even know it exists.So please stop insulting the gh4 and do some research man! People apparently read your stuff so please don't lead the astray.It comes down to this. Do you want a camera that does everything for you and shoots crappy 4k or do you want control, a system to buy into with professional features that has the capabilitie to shoot uncompressed cine 4k.
 

Jonathan Miller

Estimable
Mar 12, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
Even assuming the output isn't so compressed that it looks like crap, theses are very much niche products... most consumers who purchase these cameras thinking "moar pixels... good" are going to be very unhappy with them, just working with the footage takes a high end machine. I have 4k cameras (Red Epic, Vision Research Flex4K) and have $15k in 2 PC's, 4k displays, and interface hardware (and 3 times that in enterprise storage hardware to archive footage) just to create infrastructure capable of efficient workflow (and I'm a scientist not a Cinema Pro... the pro's have even larger investments). A prosumer wanting to use these cameras will have to spend several times the cost of camera and lens (at a minimum) just to have a system capable of playing the footage at full resolution... and better figure on coughing up lots of $$$ for Adobe CC or Apple FCP and needed support tools. At the end of the day... $2000 or $3670 will be one of the cheaper parts of getting a 4k capable environment... heck I paid nearly $3500 just for a 60hz 4k display... ONE display.
Even assuming the output isn't so compressed that it looks like crap, theses are very much niche products... most consumers who purchase these cameras thinking "moar pixels... good" are going to be very unhappy with them, just working with the footage takes a high end machine. I have 4k cameras (Red Epic, Vision Research Flex4K) and have $15k in 2 PC's, 4k displays, and interface hardware (and 3 times that in enterprise storage hardware to archive footage) just to create infrastructure capable of efficient workflow (and I'm a scientist not a Cinema Pro... the pro's have even larger investments). A prosumer wanting to use these cameras will have to spend several times the cost of camera and lens (at a minimum) just to have a system capable of playing the footage at full resolution... and better figure on coughing up lots of $$$ for Adobe CC or Apple FCP and needed support tools. At the end of the day... $2000 or $3670 will be one of the cheaper parts of getting a 4k capable environment... heck I paid nearly $3500 just for a 60hz 4k display... ONE display.
Even assuming the output isn't so compressed that it looks like crap, theses are very much niche products... most consumers who purchase these cameras thinking "moar pixels... good" are going to be very unhappy with them, just working with the footage takes a high end machine. I have 4k cameras (Red Epic, Vision Research Flex4K) and have $15k in 2 PC's, 4k displays, and interface hardware (and 3 times that in enterprise storage hardware to archive footage) just to create infrastructure capable of efficient workflow (and I'm a scientist not a Cinema Pro... the pro's have even larger investments). A prosumer wanting to use these cameras will have to spend several times the cost of camera and lens (at a minimum) just to have a system capable of playing the footage at full resolution... and better figure on coughing up lots of $$$ for Adobe CC or Apple FCP and needed support tools. At the end of the day... $2000 or $3670 will be one of the cheaper parts of getting a 4k capable environment... heck I paid nearly $3500 just for a 60hz 4k display... ONE display.
 

Jonathan Miller

Estimable
Mar 12, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
Even assuming the output isn't so compressed that it looks like crap, theses are very much niche products... most consumers who purchase these cameras thinking "moar pixels... good" are going to be very unhappy with them, just working with the footage takes a high end machine. I have 4k cameras (Red Epic, Vision Research Flex4K) and have $15k in 2 PC's, 4k displays, and interface hardware (and 3 times that in enterprise storage hardware to archive footage) just to create infrastructure capable of efficient workflow (and I'm a scientist not a Cinema Pro... the pro's have even larger investments). A prosumer wanting to use these cameras will have to spend several times the cost of camera and lens (at a minimum) just to have a system capable of playing the footage at full resolution... and better figure on coughing up lots of $$$ for Adobe CC or Apple FCP and needed support tools. At the end of the day... $2000 or $3670 will be one of the cheaper parts of getting a 4k capable environment... heck I paid nearly $3500 just for a 60hz 4k display... ONE display.
Yeah that's what they said about HD when it came out, and DVD before that, and DV before that. The bottom line is you can never have too many pixels. If 4K is shipping then I want 8K, and I'm already thinking about 16K.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
B Streaming Video & TVs 0
eHx123 Streaming Video & TVs 1
N Streaming Video & TVs 9
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
P Streaming Video & TVs 5
P Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 4
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
C Streaming Video & TVs 4
D Streaming Video & TVs 1
D Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 1
L Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
A Streaming Video & TVs 3
P Streaming Video & TVs 5

ASK THE COMMUNITY