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?

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?

It's my same conclusion: I would have a GH4 with the 1080p of Blackmagic, maybe with at least 60p

​In the proper hands telling the right story, either one could make a Billion Dollar Award Winning Film, or a Billion Dollar Loser.      The rest is just specs and camera nerd talk.  

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.