smuncy

It won't be more profitable in the long run when people are too afraid to buy a Sony camera for fear that in 2 months they will make it obsolete.

Of course it's a successor. It was most likely developed side by side with the A6300 - with the A6300 playing the role of a stop-gap-measure until they got the cooling and 5-Axis stabilisation right.
It's also most likely a response to the X-T2.
The constant releasing of new bodies from Sony is really ridiculous. Sony needs to release lenses for APS-C - especially given the A6000 is their most successful camera to date.
If they would release a 16mm 1.4, 24mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4, and 60mm F1.4, something akin to Fuji's fast XF line, to go along with their APS-C cameras, instead of a new body, I can guarantee that myself, as well as many other Sony APS-C shooters, would appreciate it.
Hell, make them all F2 with weather sealing and faster AF motors. Just give us some professional lens options that don't carry the price and weight of FF lenses.

If they don't, than hopefully Sigma will. I recently purchased the Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN for my A6300. Insane performance - especially for the price.

There's been quite a lot of people comparing the A6300 and the GX80. Here are my thoughts:
I considered the A6300 back when it was introduced, but I concluded that it just had too many problems (they have been mentioned before in this thread). The killer for me was the price in mainland Europe... for some reason, Sony wanted us to pay a much higher price. I thought the G7 or even a 3-year old GX7 would have been a better value choice. I ended up getting a GX7, but the GX80 was announced; so, I sent the GX7 back and got the GX80. I'm quite happy with it now. I'm sure the A6300 is a competent camera for stills and video, but at that price with all of its problems? No thank you. One could also make an argument in favor of MFT for the lens choices too. Hope that help anyone looking to choose.

X-Pro 2 4K - 80% said they don't need it, so Fuji didn't flick the switch in firmware. They ask a bunch of hardcore stills people if they want video and surprise surprise most of them don't.
How are Fujifilm supposed to expand their customer base with new people if the keep asking their existing ones what they want?
This is why camera companies keep serving up the same-old same-old every year... they never reach out new markets, because they only listen to the needs of their existing one.

What if there were no 4K available in cameras today? Would you still recommend an A7something, GH4, NX-1, based on their other features? I like some of the high FPS slow motion coming out on new cameras, but not enough to be the sole buying point.
I need to record video for work - A few talking heads, how-to steps, finished product, QA testing, etc. It will never be at a theatre near you. I do not need 4K, just clear quality and pleasant colors. Used models are also fine.
Staying at 1080, what camera system would you recommend based on quality, features, workflow, codecs, etc. ?

Hand puppets.
High end - Nikon D750 and Sony A7S (D750 is easier to get nice colour out of, the A7S is more feature packed), Sony FS100 (used price quite low now)
Mid range - Nikon D5550, Sony A6000, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, used 5D Mark II (raw is lovely if you can do the workflow justice)
Cheaper end - Panasonic G6, Nikon D5200, GH2
GH4 and NX1 are all about 4K, their 1080p is nothing special

read a book.
 
you don't think you need to make the jump to 4k, or you can't handle 4k? Are you asking if, for instance, shooting 4k on the nx1 has advantages other than the 4k itself since it won't really matter in the final image? (e.g. would you turn down 4k if it really was the best setup considering everything everything else? - but not filming IN the 1080p option of the camera?) Not trying to wrap around to the argument you really do need 4k, just wondering if this is a philosophical question or a practical one . don't know if it's helpful to say 4k is sometimes more easy to grade, punching in advantages, and better image by using more of the sensor.

It seems the op is trying to get us to consider the other qualities of a camera aside from 4k. But this is really a mute point, because there is 4k.

there are aspects of a camera that might get left in the dust because everyone's chasing after 4k, so I get the question from that standpoint. also I personally cannot handle 4k video editing on my crappy pc, so

good 1080p is better than mediocre 4k.  Grab an A7S and shoot internal 1080p with a cheap 50mm prime like a contax 50/1.7.  nothing will come close for the money.  full frame for most stuff, aps-c crop for close punch ins.  

Aren't the A7RII crop and the NX-1 native the same? I would expect very similar output from the two.