I have not shot anything in a couple of years and am dusting off my boots to begin shooting a documentary out of the country. My previous feature was shot in the early 2000s on a Panasonic DVX100. Then I've been shooting off and on a GH2 and an EX1.
My question is this. I have access to an EX1 (which I am very comfortable with) and a GH2 with a Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 lens and the panasonic kit zoom lens.
However, there is a slim possibility that I may be able to borrow a Sony AX100 4K camera. I'm not positive that I will be able to but with some effort I may.
I ran into this issue several years ago and started shooting a project after my first feature but started on the DVX100 (because I still owned it). Then returned to my subjects a year later with an EX1. It has haunted me ever since because I got some great footage on the DVX that first year but wished I had shot this on the EX1.
I'm wondering, for broadcast purposes, festivals should I be gravitating away from the EX1 and use the AX100 if I can get hold of it? Likewise, if I am unable to get hold of the AX100 would the GH2 be better for any reason instead of the EX1? I'm going to be doing verite run and gun, and some interviews.
In short, should I not worry too much about shooting in 4K or is it really worth the effort in getting this camera? The intended goal of this film would be a documentary feature for festivals.
I think you need to decide on your final output and display. From my perspective, EX1 if you do not need 4K display at the end, or AX100 if any of your screenings are 4k capable. I think you will get better color from the 3CMOS ex1, than the single chip ax100 in the same 4:2:0 colorspace. The AX100 does include the ability to shoot slow-mo at 120fps over the EX1. The Z100 would be a 4k camera more like the ex1, with the ability to shoot at true 4K@10bit 4:2:2 intra-frame XAVC. I do not like DSLR for run and gun due to poor focus assist, unless you have full time 1st AC.