bamigoreng

I think if you're doing mostly handheld work to stick with the 12-35. If you use a tripod most of the time and/or a shoulder rig then the Sigma will be a good choice, although you won't be able to go as wide on the GH4 with 18mm, even with a speedbooster.

Btw, Marumi DHG ND filter works for me:  http://blog.danfrei.com/2011/07/12/marumi-nd8-filter-review/

Nice! Canon 7D sensor size - 22.3 x 14.9mm. Nikon D3100 - 23.1 x 15.4mm. 

I'm certain it isn't worth three times as much. And with the overheating, I'm not convinced it's worth as much as the NX1... Certainly not if you're using it primarily for video.
Imo, the NX1 is punching way above its weight. While I was honestly hoping the A7rii would be an all around champ, the overheating issue appears real, and while it can be mitigated it cannot be fixed (an external recorder defeats the point of this camera). 
The main flaw of the NX1 H.265, is not really a flaw... It future proofs the NX1. 

Very intresting wolf33d.  My two cents is I would not trust a camera with a movable sensor for landscape photography.  There are heat dissipation issues and the slightest software/hardware glitch and the sensor become unaligned to the lens and you get blur.  Many photographs ALREADY go crazy with micro-focus issues with fixed lenses and sensors.   For centuries, it has been true in photography, and all machines, if it CAN go wrong, eventually it will.  This is ALL theoretical but in my "real world" I need to have the most confidence that the least amount of stuff will go wrong.  That's subjective, sure.  I pick up a Nikon and I get this sensation from the camera "I will always turn on.  I will always get you a shot quickly and competently."
The question is very simple and should be respected.  Are the trade-offs Sony made to get in-camera stabilization worth the risks one takes in long-exposure photography.  Unless one works in landscape photography opinions should be circumspect?  
Bottom line, thank you for having the guts to post your opinions in a "4K is the be-all and end-all of all things camera"  Forum.  I say that with Love for EOSHD
 

Actually, I always argue with box office, record sales, home improvement design, etc.  Creating materials and content for the largest collection of market requires a certain mundanity that allows for that broad appeal.
It's why comedy slapstick will never go away.  A 5 year old and a 95 year old can relate to it; Rich man or poor man.  It's not anything great, just silly.  Which is fine, but nothing that necessarily needs to be exalted and appreciated on a particularly impressive level.  On the other hand, you can't hand Faulkner to a 12 year old and expect him to have any profound self-reflection after reading through it.  You can't get most people to do that.  It's just beyond their grasp.  Thus, less accessible.  
Which book is more impressive and which has broader appeal:  http://tinyurl.com/ogmx44b or http://tinyurl.com/nc4n33d
Same concept goes for the cheap door you'd buy at a Home Depot or that new Taylor Swift album.
So, no, I don't readily agree that financial success is in any way a marker of creative success.  Not in this society.  The complete opposite.    

'Famous' 28mm (Super 35 film format) is around 39mm (35mm or FF equivalent FoV - appr. 1.4 crop factor). Films are shot in a Super 35 format (24.89mm x 18.66mm) and then converted, e.g.: Academy 35 film (21.95mm x 16mm). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35