@DouglasHorn If you're not completely writing off the RED line, then keep in mind that the Dragon has the widest dynamic range of any camera tested so far. Personally, I don't often find the colors of a given camera to be a major issue (exempting some major over-saturation in a handful of super inexpensive ones), but then I make my evaluations after the graders are finished, not off the raw footage (which can vary much more widely). In terms of the post-workflow for RED, I like the compression characteristics of the codec a lot and really the only that's in the same league for me is Cineform RAW (which unfortunately is only used in a handful of cameras). Both of them use so much less space than Cinema DNG but I honestly do not have the experience with ARRIRAW to talk intelligently about it one way or the other.

Anyway, that's enough of my rambling - good luck with the project either way. :)

Perhaps give a second look at the Sony A7s? (remember, you don't have to shoot it in FF mode. You've got the option of APS-C)

Not for its low light ability, but for its combination of dynamic range and low weight. Which I'm getting the impression is two of the most key factors for you.

A few things to keep an eye on in the coming few weeks during the early part of next year:

1) Panasonic bringing out new firmware for the GH4, a log profile is rumoured to be in the works.

2) Sony's frantic pace of new cameras! Seems like every time I blink I then discover they've got a new one in the works. Most recently they released the A7mk2 which has IBIS! The A7S is still the better camera for filming with, but I suppose whenever they get around to a new A7Smk2 (probably only a few seconds away.... :-P ) that will get IBIS too (and internal 4K I'd presume?) which will make it an even more drool-worthy camera! They also have been shipping out their new FS7. And early next year there should be the new pro level A9 (and A7000), but also new camcorders coming too (which could make for a lighter/cheaper option to the FS7): http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-ulterior-confirmations-new-camcorders-at-ces-and-new-cameraslenses-at-cp/ http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-new-sony-camera-to-be-announced-the-first-week-of-january/

3) Nikon D7200 which is coming out, I doubt it will be revolutionary. But who knows! Nikon has lately really been lifting their game when it comes to video in their cameras. (such as with their D800, D5200, D750, etc) http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/15/nikon-d7200-rumored-specifications.aspx/

4) The Atomos Shogun is now as of today finally shipping: http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/12/17/atomos-shogun-4k-recorder-finally-ships-playback-function-to-be-enabled-later-with-firmware-update/

@DouglasHorn That's definitely very helpful in terms of getting a bit more concrete in terms of recommendations. Keep in mind that this is my own perspective as someone that spent a lot of time helping test custom settings in-depth for DSLRs but has only shot a minority of my work on more expensive cinema cameras.

While your points one and two might vary a bit depending on expectations and demands, your third, fourth and fifth criteria really help to zero in a bit.

4) DR - If video dynamic range is a priority, then that greatly narrows the playing field. My first thoughts are Sony's higher end models, the RED range (which doesn't work well for you in terms of colors, so we'll rule that out), the ARRI range, the Canon C500 (less for the dynamic range in general and more for the highlight roll-off, which I listened to graders wax rhapsodic about) and certain members of the Blackmagic range. Depending on how soon you need it, the KineRAW and Panasonic Varicam 35 options might be worth considering - but I'll treat this as an "already in the field" comparison for now.

5) Codec Robustness - Honestly, this is where I would express a strong preference for some flavor of RAW or wavelet raw (like REDRAW or Cineform RAW). I'm not sure if onboard recording is important to you, but I'll mention the models that support this first. Since we've ruled out RED in your case, that leaves some ARRI models with native ARRIRaw support (the ALEXA XT range), most of the Blackmagic products (the BMCC and BMPC4K seeming the most appropriate in your case). Once a recorder gets thrown into the mix, Sony has some powerful RAW options available in their higher-end offerings and while the Canon C500's are less impressive (white-balance is baked in, etc.) I've seen some very good grading done with it.

Since you said neither 4K nor lowlight performance was much of a concern, we can't rule out much based on that. But so far we've been able to rule out the DSLRs and most of the least expensive cinema cameras (exempting the Blackmagic range). This brings us to point number three.

3) Operational - I'm not sure what your ACs have been accustomed to in the past, but if it was a cinema camera wasn't a Blackmagic camera, then they might be happier with one of the non-Blackmagic offerings (more familiar workflow, etc.) if the difference in price wasn't an issue for you. If you can kit the it out a bit (external screen, etc.) it might help smooth the transition a bit but it's worth keeping mind. If your crew is used to working with something other than DSLRs, then 3 might be as much a reason to avoid them as 4 and 5.

So far that leaves the ARRI ALEXA XT range (if you don't want an external recorder) and the Sony high-end range (if an external recorder isn't an issue) as the two most straightforward options in your case if money's not a concern. If money's more of an issue and/or your team is happy working with the Blackmagic range, you could save a lot of money that way and work with lighter cameras. And the C500 is worth a look to see if you like highlight roll-off, etc.

I would say that the ARRI ALEXA XT and Sony high end range offer very clear advantages to the project you specified over the GH4 if neither the larger camera budget nor the larger camera size are an impediment. The same might be true of the other cameras I mentioned if the caveats aren't an issue.

The GH4 is a very powerful camera for the money with a lot of great strengths but they really don't seem to be consistent with the priorities of your project.

I hope that helps at least a little. I make no claims of hand-on expertise with the cameras I'm recommending - this is based on my interpretation of a combination of the readily available specifications and comments passed on to me by my peers. My own needs on a project would be very different and I might very likely choose a different camera, but the ones I suggested seem well-suited to what you specified.

@onion @chauncy That was my post from a few months back. Turns out his "review" was nothing less than a total hit piece on the GH4. He showed absolutely no willingness to listen to any of the commenters who disagreed with his opinion in lieu of their own hands-on experience with the camera. His answer was basically "don't believe your lying eyes... I'm more experienced than you... 5DMKII blows this thing away." Basically an insult to anyone with eyes, a brain and nerve enough to question his results.

I prefer the Sony A7s and the AX100 to the GH4, but there's lots of choices for "cheap high end." They are all way better than what we had a few years ago, and lighting and sets and other production factors are going to weigh more than sensors and lenses. If the Canon MKII was good enough to film House, the A7s is good enough for megahaus.

There is, I didn't have time to fix it last night. Will put something new up tonight.

I mentioned ages ago that I would post some footage for a couple shorts I DPd with the GH4, I haven't gotten permission for the longer one, but the shorter one gave me permission for a couple shots. I have included some of the daytime ext. shots (run and gun, available light).

Also some shots, lit only by campfire, ISO 800. I was surprised by it's low light performance in these shots, if I had taken half a second for a backlight, and to bounce some fill light in, it would be an incredible shot.

All things considered, this would be the camera I would go to if I had up to a $50,000 budget for a indie feature (with a shogun). Anything above that I would opt for a higher end camera. But IMHO to say this camera isn't ready for a feature is an inaccurate statement.

EDIT: Hold the phone, just saw that vimeo really did a number on that compression, uploading in a more favorable codec. Un momento!

Interesting comments all around. I have shot two shorts on the GH4 now, one around 30 min TRT and one about 10 min TRT. Both look pretty incredible and filmic. I am not saying this in a toot my own horn kind of way, the camera really performs. I will ask the directors if I could submit some samples of the films to demonstrate my point. One is in post and the other is up for festivals.

I am actually incredibly impressed with it's low light capabilities, and all depends on the glass you use. We shot 90% on FD glass with a speedbooster, and that extra stop on the low end is exactly what this camera needs. We shot some footage with lit only by a lighter, or a flashlight with some pretty incredible results.

The biggest weakness during both of these productions was steadicam work, the camera is so damn light that it took forever to get a good balance after switching a lens. This is easily remedied with a good rig to support the camera.

I think once the shogun comes out this will be a feature ready camera, I think the 4:2:2, 10 bit color will bring this camera home for me. Plus with the shogun you get gen-lock timecode which makes this camera a fully featured cinema camera.

Plus the possibility of V-Log. I believe 6 mos from now this camera will be on a whole new level. I wouldn't plan on using it for this feature, but definitely keep investing time in learning the camera, because what is coming for this camera is going to be amazing.

@endotoxic - Here's a list of some of my work. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1187456/

It's not the most extensive resume around, but hopefully the fact that I've directed two features in release plus the TV producing and the rest (plus all the corporate and commercial work not on IMDB) explains that I do have some solid technical knowledge here.

I'm really not saying that the GH4 is or isn't a good camera. In fact, I think I was just raving about the GH2 over the 5D. I've used the GH2 on short films and other projects and love a lot about it. I think full frame is overrated. And I've probably said a few times on this forum that the hacked GH2 is a better camera than the Sony CineAlta I used for my first feature film. So, a lot of the assumptions you seem to be making about me must come from somewhere else.

To me, this is a pretty concrete question (although I know it's opened up a bigger question on the topic). But I'm looking at an actual opportunity for making a film. The project will have outsider expectations on it that I would need to address before using a camera system like this.

There are pros and cons to the camera--lightweight, maneuverable, easy to fly on a -copter or gymbal, cheap in case one gets destroyed in a stunt--those are good. Not set up for proper AC-based operation, lower DR and poorer low-light performance, are not good. Noise, moire, post-production workflow -- those were question marks for me but I think I'm getting a better handle on it.

Based on all that, more reading here, and some of the discussions in this forum, I think that the GH4 doesn't really work for theatrical at this time--for me. It's pretty close and a film that wasn't going to have a lot of night shots or daytime exteriors in harsh environments, maybe. The questions are very different when there is OPM on the line and the amount saved on cameras buys very little elsewhere these days.

Thanks for reminding me about the BMCC I'll take a closer look there, too. I've shot with REDs before and I'm not a huge fan of the look or post workflow. What made the GH4 so attractive, really, was its small form factor. I'd love to find a camera about one step up in quality and cost that had the same size. But I suppose that's one of the things that makes this camera stand out is there really isn't anything close in size that can do what it does. (I just wish it was a -little- bit more.)

Thanks all, for helping me think through this.

Yes, of course the GH4 is feature ready. The cost savings therein may result in a better looking film due to the additional funds available to pay the lighting crew and post, if you follow me. The Amira gives a much richer image, and industrial reliability, though can't 'fly' on lightweight rigs. You'd need a special issue Alexa for that. Also, Upstream gives a bad impression of what the GH2 is capable of. Visually, it was a middling effort, with lackluster grading.

If money is even remotely an issue, owning GH4s for the production is a wise move. You could still rent Arris for a couple days on those special scenes if you wanted to(slo mo climax etc.)

@caveport

Use faster lens,use faster aperture, maybe add speedbooster to it, use ND filter and there is your "look"

The real issue is form factor for focus pulls and easy operation. I love what I can achieve with my GH4 but it's not the right tool for serious drama shoots.

I read Shane Hurlburt's review (thanks for posting it!) and the comments. I think it does give me some clarity. I like a lot about the GH4--the lightweight 4K and relatively cheap bodies would help a lot on a particular project I have coming up, but all told, I don't think it has enough quality in a variety of real world shooting situations for me.

So what is the next step up? RED Epic? I love Arri Alexas but I think that's probably a little big and heavy for what I have to do on this project.