A Sony A7r - Panasonic GH3 file comparison - Part 2 - Video - More gear musings about m4/3.

This is a comparison between the Sony A7r and Panasonic GH3 for video. Both shot at 25fps - Full HD. I managed to get the AVCHD files from the Sony into iMovie by shooting at this frame rate. I used my Nikon Series E 100mm f/2.8 on the Sony and Nikon 50mm f/1.8G on the Panasonic. I've included just two clips, but everything else I shot produced similar results. The GH3 clips obviously have greater DOF with the 50mm lens (all clips were shot at the same aperture f/5.6 approx. via Metabones adapters and ISO 400) and are sharper and look nicer to me. The A7r footage is fine, but the GH3 is still the better camera I think if you are a 'hybrid' photographer / videographer, with the emphasis on the latter. Which camera you choose, if you are choosing between these two, depends I guess on whether stills or video are your primary interest. Certainly the GH3 is easier and quicker to use and the fully articulated screen is really useful. Plus no AVCHD files to convert on a Mac. Another advantage is that with the 14-140mm zoom, like the Fuji X-E2 and the 18-55mm, I get this really superb stabilisation for hand-held video. Now the Sony has the 28-70mm zoom available, but I don't really want to buy one of those. All the Sony zooms I ever had have been somewhat disappointing. The Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 might be an option bearing in mind the cost and my general lack of enthusiasm about Zeiss badged lenses, but I'm not in any hurry with that. (Good job since it's only available next year and given Sony's history with making lenses like that available, who knows when I could get one anyway)

So like my last post on my Fuji X cameras, just because the A7r produces such amazing still images doesn't mean that the GH3 isn't useful for me for lots of reasons. There is of course that increase in depth of field that is possible, which is very useful for my landscape work. Though I've enjoyed being out with the A7r, I have had to think about my compositions with the camera. Like most landscape photographers I'm not fond of large out-of-focus areas. The people who buy landscape photography don't like them much either. A solution with the A7r is obviously narrower apertures, but that means slower shutter speeds and higher ISO's and there is quite a significant difference shooting landscape on 35mm and m4/3 sensors. Landscape and deep focus with m4/3 cameras is very easy to achieve and one of the reasons I've used the format so much over the years since it first appeared. And as long as I keep to low ISO settings the quality is there also.

I'm still thinking that working with the three different formats, 35mm / 'full-frame', APS-C and m4/3 would be an interesting way to go for a while. I may decide that I don't want to do it after a time and we'll see just how keen I am to take each camera out. If something is continually getting left on the shelf, then it's probably destined for ebay. However I would like to see if the different options they give me is something I want to persevere with. The cameras are so light that it's perfectly possible to take two out at the same time. I'll see how that goes. But it's certainly nice to be able to have these alternatives at my disposal. 

For my continuing SONY A7r OWNER ASSESSMENT - Click Here

All original material on this blog is © Soundimageplus

N.B. to see more on the cameras and lenses featured in this post click on the relevant labels (tags and keywords) at the bottom of this post.

For comment and discussion join the Soundimageplus Blog Readers Group at Google+