So here's what I don't get about this discussion -- and please, somebody explain to me if I'm missing something! It would be one thing to think of this as some sort of (strict) 'requirement' if 4k was a significant imposition. As far as I can tell, it's not. You can go right now and buy, let alone rent, a 4k camera for $1,300 at B&H or wherever [NX1]. (Sort of an aside, but it's on top of that more like a 6k sensor.) After that you've got tons of options; the obvious dslrs, Black Magic, you can get a RedOne on ebay for $6,000, etc. -- all in the few-thousand dollar range. What's really most important is what Ed David is driving home: how's your camera system compressing footage, and so forth. I find this really funny with the GH4/A7s debate, for instance. Sure, GH4 has internal 4K, but if you're downresing it to 1080p in editing, it's no different than the A7s which gives you straight-1080p based off of a full sensor readout. If you're going for cinema quality (4:2:2) then you'll need an Atmos Shogun in either case; so why all this talk about GH4 having 4k being any sort of advantage? Whatever, I digress. I assume you're posting this topic because you want to make a film, or have one already made you want to distribute. If you already have made something, then I think, since Zak Forsman has generously taken the time to share his experiences, it's not a big deal. If you haven't shot anything yet, then I'd say get a 4k camera. Your time on a film is so much better spent thinking about story, character, etc., than what seems to me a pretty solvable problem. If you have a specific non-4k camera you want to use for some very specific story/mood-driven reason (like Bolex monochrome or something) then I say your filmmaker's instinct should be: damn the consequences I want to make the best movie possible and this is my camera. In which case, again, it's a non-issue. Damn the consequences.