So I made a thread about buying a GH4 but I came acrossed an FS100 for around the same price of a GH4. I film a lot of sports, football, car racing, skiing and basketball.
What is everyones take on buying an older FS100 or a new GH4?
plorrThe FS100 is a great camera with a lot of useful features but its very dated these days. The GH4 is going to give you better image quality for the price. Spend a few hundred bucks on an external recorder and you can get 10 bit ProRes 422 which is ass loads better than the internal codec of the FS100 or any DSLR.
SourSteezlefs100 if you're planning on doing any long shoots, or anything that requires XLR inputs and easy audio capture. GH4 if you're mostly shooting ski edits/short edits that don't require long battery life or long take clips. FS100 is an amazing camera for the price right now, the only thing I really wish it had was built in NDs and a better LCD
RW_VisualsThanks for the insight...... I tend to film all day but there are times when I am filming for a short amount of time, it really all depends on the job.
I have been leaning towards the gh4 but I do not want to be screwed when it comes to needing xlr inputs along with the struggles of low light situations. I have a t2i which blows in low light compared to the gh4 but I do not know how much better if at all the fs100 is. 4k is also an appeal but if the quality of 1080 is incredible I do not really see the need for 4k besides the fact for editing and down scaling the footage.
Dub_DigitalI would have to disagree and say that the GH4 batter (i have agh3, but it's the same batter) lasts extremely long. I can shoot 7-8 hours on one battery, and the off brand batteries on amazon are just as good. Also you can record for a long period of time on the gh4. Once it's over a certain size the camera does split it into multiple files, but the recording never stops.
SourSteezleDamn, good to know. Didn't mean to misinform, just figured since it was such a small body it wouldn't last as long as a FS
Dub_DigitalI'm actually not sure how long it lasts compared to the fs, so maybe I shouln't have said that. But I do know in general the gh4 batteries are some of the best out there, even when I'm shooting in the cold I can get 7 hours off of one....from what I've heard s100 batteries don't last particularly long
eheathMy fs100 batteries would last me 2-3 days of shooting, like at WCS I'd charge a battery every two days, solid 4-5 hours of shooting per day, and I'd have like 20-30% battery left but I just didnt wanna take my camera up the next day with that low of batts.
My gh3 batteries are pretty solid too, but id say a batt would last one day of shooting, itd probably be 2/3 done and could bleed into the next day, but not worth risking/if you can charge your battery why wouldnt you?
As for fs100 vs gh4 thats an tough one. Honestly, if you don't need 4k I'd say fs100. Im not sure who was saying it, but the fs100 is NOT dated. It shoots 1080p60 and other than not having s-log, it has everything you need. I loved my fs100, shit I almost bought one a month ago but realized I didn't need it haha. The gh4 does have some mego mo options, if thats something that tickles your taint, but in reality you could find an fs700 for like $3k and that would be the BEST option IMO.
Also consider an a7s, with the mark 2 coming out they will be easy to find for cheap, no 4k but a comparable camera to a gh4. If you really want a pani/lumix camera wait for the gh5.
RW_VisualsThanks for all the help! I think I am leaning towards the fs100. 4k does draw me in but besides the ability to downscale and crop to fit 1080 I am just not drawn to the gh4.
Could that be different if I had about 10k to spend to buy a fs7 or something along those lines, absolutely. I think at this point having a video camera, not a dslr, is the best choice especially since I will be keeping my t2i as a secondary camera.