kodakmoment

This whole discussion goes the way discussions like these tend to go. It starts with a claim like "your $1500 camera is better than the Alexa". Then someone points out that there is more to an image than vertical resolution (that would be me), then folks react claiming rightly that one can produce great work with any camera, especially the GH4. All true, but why wasn't the mentioned "Ida" shot on a GH4 wich also has a 4x3 photo movie mode? That film surely had a great script, director, DP, cast, crew etc. The production company could have paid better wages, donated a significant amount of money to some human rights organisation or bought three dozen GH4 and donated them to aspiring filmmakers. (Should I point out to those who aren't getting it that this is meant ironic?) If EOSHD had been modest and written a subheading like "The GH4 now offers anamorphic shooting to low budget productions". But that would have been less catchy, wouldn't it?

​My original intention was to point out that touting the GH4 is besting the Alexa in vertical resolution is a bit silly. As if vertical resolution would make it a better camera. But that's the usual EOSHD style of exaggeration. Besides that, no doubt that one can produce great work with the GH4. The camera has a lot of impressive specs, just the image itself has its limitations. Two steps up on the price scale the FS7 is a rather similar package of many features and a so so image. I have used the GH4 for some projects and switched to a BMCC and Pocket, trading specs for image. I still wish I could get the GH4 specs with a BMCC image.

What's cinematic is subjective. The videos you linked perfectly show the shortcomings of the GH4. It produces an okay image if one does not encounter any high contrast or low light situations or scenes with a lot of detail that forces the high compression codec past its limits. But I must admit that I don't get the fascination with an anamorphic image. I am more fascinated by preserved highlights and absence of compression artefacts. It's a matter of personal taste.

"With this update the Panasonic GH4 will have more vertical resolution than the Arri Alexa Studio for anamorphic." But unlike the Alexa the GH4 has a rather limited DR and a video-like look, anamorphic or not...

Always nice to see lens comparisons based on actual pictures. However, when comparing a 40 year old lens design with inferior coating to a brand new lens design it is no surprise that the new lens wins. It's like writing "Nissan beats Porsche" after comparing a Nissan 370Z with a Porsche 924 and then touting Nissan has beaten Porsche. That would be a pretty silly headline based on a rather unfair test. How about comparing the new Sigma lens with a contemporary Leica Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH II? Or how about comparing the Sigma lens with a circa 30 year old Leitz Summilux-R 35 mm f/1.4 which at least has a similar maximum aperture. I would provide my own lens for a shoot out.