Caleb Genheimer

Obligatory NX1 owner post, I'll admit, but that doesn't make it less true:
I shoot weddings, corporate, music videos, and other random things as a Ronin operator. The AF capabilities of the NX1 in this application simply cannot be overstated. The only thing I could possibly say it is lacking is 4K 60p, but then, that's an unfair gripe considering that wasn't a spec even on the radar for mirrorless cameras at the time of the NX1's development. Sure, the Sony claim to fame is shooting in the black of midnight, but on most other fronts you have to work hard to get what I would consider a pleasing image.
Until these next-gen cameras can match or exceed the NX1's AF capabilities, I have zero reason to upgrade. 
There are specs that matter, and specs that don't. Sure, it can vary depending on the application, but there's no replacement for skill behind the lens. Some features just make the job easier, and unnervingly good AF for gimbal work is one of those features.
I'll have to try Canon's DPAF, see how it stacks up. But I have other misgivings about diving into Canon's ecosystem, nevermind if Samsung's is now DOA.

2real4me. 

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

It's still one of the best 4K cameras out there today, period. A dial each for shutter, aperture and ISO? Well ain't love grand! An entire wedding day at 60p on on 64GB card? Cut off my legs and call me shorty! 4K for corporate? Startin to see pictures, ain't ya? Yeah, but you think your Sony/Panny/Canon has better color? No sir, sorry bushwhackas!
Maybe the now-jailed fella was responsible for the NX1's untimely demise. Or we go by my theory, which is the ugliest guy did it.

It's still one of the best 4K cameras out there today, period. A dial each for shutter, aperture and ISO? Well ain't love grand! An entire wedding day at 60p on on 64GB card? Cut off my legs and call me shorty! 4K for corporate? Startin to see pictures, ain't ya? Yeah, but you think your Sony/Panny/Canon has better color? No sir, sorry bushwhackas!
Maybe the now-jailed fella was responsible for the NX1's untimely demise. Or we go by my theory, which is the ugliest guy did it.

The blueness of those coatings makes me want to vomit. There's far more complexity to good anamorphic flares than the coatings that SLR Magic has been slathering on their otherwise exemplary optics. I also consistently find the images out of 1.33X systems to come off as awkward: not clinical enough compared to good spherical, but not unique enough compared to a good 2X Ana. Just.... Awkward looking, checking all the boxes on paper but missing the mark in practice. There's no reason not to shoot 2X now that 4K is so accessible. 

I got mine almost exactly 5 years ago (16-H), and prices haven't changed as much as you might think, not for that lens. It's up USD $100-$150, but even mine was $450 if I remember correctly. 
 
On a side note, yeah. 16-H has proven to be on the true shortlist of top-quality anamorphic lenses. It really is down to personal preference at a certain point. The Moller, the Iscos, and Lomo are the rest of that list, and the Lomos are really not adapters, but full-on cinema lenses. A Kowa 16-H is still an incredibly smart buy. All the camera specs in the world are no substitute for good glass.

16-H and SLR Magic Rangefinder.

16-H and SLR Magic Rangefinder.

16-H and SLR Magic Rangefinder.

Mine was meant to be humorous too, so if my snarky attitude came across wrong, apologies ?
 
Concerning "resolution" IMO there are two ways to cut it: numerical/objective resolution, and perceived/subjective resolution. One can be defined by calculating how many practical points of information are in your image (in our case, pixels). The other is based on how much detail the human eye perceives, and with anamorphic especially, the two are at odds. 
Objectively, you may say that by stretching a digital file by a factor of two, you have halved your numerical resolution. It is half as sharp. The catch is, though, top to bottom you have lost no sharpness. The image still has the same number of "lines" (in the case of 4K, 2160 lines). At this point, the temptation is to say, "ok, I may have lost half my resolution, but not half my sharpness. I've probably lost 1/4 of my sharpness." 
But subjectively, as the eye sees, the loss is even less. Because your vertical lines of resolution are all still there, you still have very near the original sharpness in many parts of the image. The eye picks this up, and the brain is frighteningly good at filling in the rest. Add to this that the images are changing constantly, and (all else being equal), you won't loose much perceived resolution at all over shooting spherical, even at 2X. 
The by-far most important thing has already been stated though: If you're delivering to web it doesn't matter. Most web watchers are in their phone or tablet, most of which are not 4K, or even 1080p. The minimal loss in sharpness/resolution won't even make it past the compression to be honest, but the stylistic differences in the image will. That's why I prefer 2X, as it can be more pronounced. But 1.5X also looks great, it's just a preference.

Mine was meant to be humorous too, so if my snarky attitude came across wrong, apologies ?
 
Concerning "resolution" IMO there are two ways to cut it: numerical/objective resolution, and perceived/subjective resolution. One can be defined by calculating how many practical points of information are in your image (in our case, pixels). The other is based on how much detail the human eye perceives, and with anamorphic especially, the two are at odds. 
Objectively, you may say that by stretching a digital file by a factor of two, you have halved your numerical resolution. It is half as sharp. The catch is, though, top to bottom you have lost no sharpness. The image still has the same number of "lines" (in the case of 4K, 2160 lines). At this point, the temptation is to say, "ok, I may have lost half my resolution, but not half my sharpness. I've probably lost 1/4 of my sharpness." 
But subjectively, as the eye sees, the loss is even less. Because your vertical lines of resolution are all still there, you still have very near the original sharpness in many parts of the image. The eye picks this up, and the brain is frighteningly good at filling in the rest. Add to this that the images are changing constantly, and (all else being equal), you won't loose much perceived resolution at all over shooting spherical, even at 2X. 
The by-far most important thing has already been stated though: If you're delivering to web it doesn't matter. Most web watchers are in their phone or tablet, most of which are not 4K, or even 1080p. The minimal loss in sharpness/resolution won't even make it past the compression to be honest, but the stylistic differences in the image will. That's why I prefer 2X, as it can be more pronounced. But 1.5X also looks great, it's just a preference.

Best lens so far for me has been a Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 pancake. It's cheap but no joke, works wonders at f4.

I use NX1 with a Kowa 16-H/8Z. My personal opinion is that 2X looks by far the best. Otherwise, just shoot spherical, crop, and add some barrel distortion in post.
with the UHD capabilities of the NX1, cropping off the sides to get 2.35 or 2.66 is really no great loss. 
The Kowa is among THE best anamorphic glass, period. Full stop. Add a Rangefinder or Rectilux, and it also becomes a versatile and useable professional tool.

Consider the Samsung NX1. Ignoring all the crap about it being discontinued, it's a great camera and always will be. The color is pleasing, and the 4K provides lots of information to work with when craving an image. Add to that the recent support via FilmConvert, and I think it might have a lot of what you're looking for.

Kowa 16-H 2X anamorphic, outfitted with Redstan front/rear clamps and an SLR Magic Rangefinder. The "taking" lens is a Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8.
A bit of a heavy load for the Ronin M, but that gives it a Hollywood style handheld look to the movement.

I've never checked the minimum, but it's near a foot possibly less. Max is around 9 feet as you said.