4K Panasonic GH4 Gets a Price, Pre-Orders Start Today for $1,700


Pricing and availability information for the Panasonic GH4 are official now, and unsurprisingly, the 4K mirrorless system won’t come cheap. In fact, it’ll cost you as much to buy this shooter as it will to get the full frame Sony A7.

For those of you unfamiliar with how much the A7 costs, that means that the Panasonic GH4 (body only) will run you $1,700, making it the most expensive mirrorless system that isn’t full-frame but still keeping it well under the promised “less than $2,000″ mark.

If you want to add the huge YAGH pro audio/video interface unit to your purchase (pictured below), you’ll be able to buy it with the camera in a kit for $3,300 or on its own for $2,000.

Panasonic_GH4_Digital_Camera_front_with Audio

This will inevitably leave some people torn. For a 4K shooter it’s practically a steal and the sample footage out so far seems to indicate that it performs very well indeed. But $1,700 for a Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera body only is going to strike anybody NOT concerned with video as outrageously steep, no matter how good pros who have tried it say the stills are.

What’s your take? We always knew this camera was going to be close to the $2,000 mark, now that the pricing is official would you consider buying it? Let us know in the comments and then, if you’re interested, head over to B&H to pre-order your own. Shipments are expected to start going out in April/May.

  • greenarcher02

    Why would a person NOT concerned with video be ever considering this camera??? There’s always the E-M1… or something way cheaper, with similar stills IQ.
    That’s seriously a flame-bait right there.

  • Lando

    I just don’t understand the appeal of the SLR form factor. No one is going to buy this as a still camera; why not integrate the A/V interface, make it look like a video camera, and just charge 3 grand (this assumes you would save a ton of money by not having to make two devices dock together)? That would make a low-priced 4k video camera, and you could still keep it open to shooting stills; it would just be awkward to use for the 10% of the job that needs stills, rather than the 90% of the job that requires video.

    *posted as someone who shoots video on an SLR and really misses form factor and controls of an actual video camera

  • greenarcher02

    SLR form factor isn’t unusable for video, and you can mount this on a rig. There are people who use more than 10% for stills. That’s why this ‘hybrid’ has a very strong following, because of them. In the strictest sense, this is a ‘both’ camera… no one 100% for stills and no one 100% for video is going to ever consider this camera.

  • dyna

    For video, I can see it as a bargain in comparison to cameras like the 5DMkIII or A99v (don’t care about the depth of field difference, performance is everything and the GH4 looks like it has it in spades) but the still photographer would be foolish to purchase this at or near the price of either A7 or the A7r, in my opinion. The image quality and versatility of file from the E-mount full frame system just leaves the M4:3 factor in the dust. Still, I have to give Panasonic some kudos for seeing their niche and seizing it. Some folks in mirrorless (Canon) just continue to scoff. And fall ever further behind.

    Now we need to discuss this massive Kodak dock they’re wearing ;)

  • J. Brisbin

    I’m considering this as an upgrade to my APS-C Canon 7D. I do a variety of shooting, from portraits to weddings to documentary to sports. The thing that interests me most about the GH4 is that it’s an extremely capable hybrid.

    The autofocus capabilities just keep getting better with every generation and from what I’ve read so far, the GH4 has the capability to surpass the SLRs I’ve been using for doing sports and low-light photography. For sports, I do mostly small-school high school football. The stadiums are generally poorly lit so I end up shooting at high ISOs, which has been a chore for the 7D, which is disappointingly noisy above ISO 1600.

    I also have the Sony NEX-5n, which I really like for the more intimate styles of shooting. From my POV it seems that selling off my Sony and Canon and going with a GX7 and a GH4 would complete an excellent system. The GX7 would give me the discreetness of a quiet and small camera for those times when a Leica-style camera is needed and the GH4 could be the go-to portrait, sports, and documentary camera when sheer power, FPS, and video is needed.

    I don’t do a lot of video yet, but I see the trend for documentary shooters to be “go hybrid if you want to compete”. I think the days of all-stills documentary work is probably waning. Just look at the large newspapers that have shifted their priorities away from pure stills shooting to hybrid work.

    I also think there’s room in Fine Art work for hybrid shooters. Think about what you see in large offices now: large LED TVs with motion graphics and hybrid imagery. It seems that replacing a paper canvas print with a monitor and a hybrid video/stills Fine Art work would be compelling to clients looking for a little “more”. Granted these concerns are a little beyond the prosumer but isn’t that where this camera is squarely aimed? Just above prosumer level but also accessible to discerning amateurs?

  • dyna

    The idea that something WAY cheaper is going to have similar stills ability is a bit of a flame bait, I’ll agree. This camera ain’t no Rebel. And thank the gods for that. Tired design, archaic tech… At least the GH4 is innovating. But you ARE correct. For the still cat looking for their meow, there will be more cost effective products for them. The Sony A6000 looks to be an impressive piece of kit for $800 and the Fuji XT-1 ain’t no slouch, either (the Sony will actually produce respectable 60p1080 as well so not exactly shabby but not 4K, either). The only reason a still-centric photog would pick this up is if they had an inkling of becoming a multi-media magician. And then they’d have something to consider.

  • Lando

    Not arguing that the SLR form factor is unusable, just not terribly comfortable. I love that my SLR is 1/5 the size of the smallest ‘real’ video camera I’ve used, but by the time you attach an external recorder and accessories, you’ve lost so much of that convenience and form factor.
    I’m just saying 3 grand for a 4k video camera with a big sensor would be pretty appealing next to, say a C100.

  • greenarcher02

    I mean, they’re paying for the option of 2 extremes. For those wanting both video and photo, next to a DSLR, This is very appealing.

  • SeoulFood

    Mr. Brisbin,

    Prepare for the firestorm about to come your way from the Canon/Nikon FF community. Good luck to you and may God have mercy on your (online) soul.


  • J. Brisbin

    I can handle them. :)

    Truth be told, I have very little time or patience for fanboyism. My Canon 7D has been a good camera for my needs so far and has served me well, just as my Nikon D80 did before that.

    But there’s no way to objectively argue that the GH4 isn’t a superior camera to the 7D in almost every area. Better noise handling at high ISO, better dynamic range, better video, better autofocus, WiFi capabilities, etc… The GH4 is also 4 years newer, which is quite a long time in terms of sensor R&D, user interface sophistication, and interoperability with other devices.

    Bottom line for me: the MFT vs FF sensor size religious wars do not interest me in the least. I’m looking for a camera system I can buy into that has multiple models all using the same lens mount that fit different styles of shooting. Canikon can’t compete with MFT in this regard. In fact, the “big guys” don’t seem to be innovating much at all in this area.

  • Conqie

    I don’t see any market for this whatsoever, we are not even shooting films and publicity in 4k. Why would you want to do budget videographing and offer 4k? Just get a 5D..

  • dyna

    Agreed. It’s been years since Canon or Nikon innovated in any direction. Canon’s dual-pixel AF compromised image quality and the GH4 will still outperform the “game changer” in AF by a long, long stretch.

  • dyna

    Just the focusing advantages alone for half the price of the 5D make this invaluable to some.

  • wishinghand

    Easier to edit a high resolution file than a low resolution file. Future proofs a work in case 4k tvs and monitors become a thing.

  • Gabriel F

    Well, there are few things you can do with 4K capability even though you do not have 4K monitor or “Interested” in 4K:

    Photo: You can now shoot (frame grab) 8 megapixel photos 24 frame per second without time limitation;

    Video: Downsample to 1080P for even sharper image and you could reframe your shot; Also as EOSHD previously mention you “could” convert 8bit 4:2:0 4K to 10bit 4:4:4 1080P

  • Gabriel F

    Well, $1.7k/3k is budget “4k video shooting” compare to 30K C500 or 15K 1D-C :))

  • Sky

    “Canon’s dual-pixel AF compromised image quality”

    Oh did it? Last time I checked – noone complained. It’s purely speculative just like OSPDAF compromising image quality. Theory is decent but in practical use there is no problem regardless of circumstances.

  • Kyle Clements

    Good, now let’s get working on a DMC-G7 that repackages the GH3 in a $600 body, like what they did with the GH2 and the DMC-G6.

  • Nuno Ferreira

    Although it’s still a great camera, the main disapointment to me is the price tag for the audio/video interface! It costs more than the camera!!! I guess I’ll quit thinking about buying this one.

  • Gabriel F

    Seriously, why would a non-commercial use hobbyist videographer care about XLR input or HDMI out designed for HDMI recorder?? And if you buy it for commercial use, 3.3K is a bargain for 4K recording.

    1.7K is pricey for hobbyist but still affordable. If they charge something like 2.5k for the camera alone, although still a bargain for 4K recording, i doubt they could sell as much as they could.

  • benji dalton

    8 Megapixel at 30 frames a second = best burst mode ever. Actually it’s better than any burst mode as it’s contiuous.

  • jamescurran

    At least its ceaper than the sony ax100 (2000 $), has higher bitrate options , and takes better stills