If they make them for Nikon F mount, I'd buy.
A great film takes what it takes. Stanley Kubrick could be notoriously difficult to work with. Would I (or even most of the crew who suffered under him) trade any one of his movies to take back their suffering? Nope. Many retrospective interviews have revealed that even the actors treated worst by Kubrick now respect him and his process.
Are there things you could complain about a director doing? Of course. There have been some directors who have gone too far—so far they probably should have faced criminal charges. But roughing it in the great outdoors, shooting in sequence, and shooting with natural light? Get over yourself. You've gotten too used to sipping coffee next to George Lucas acolytes while staring at the green screen monitors.
Stork says: "the new action films are fast, florid, volatile—an audiovisual warzone" as if that is a bad thing, and then cuts to a scene from Blackhawk Down, a war movie.
Audiovisual warzone in a war movie.
Audiovisual warzone war movie.
Warzone war movie.
Makes sense to me, what's the problem Stork? The fact that he cuts in footage from the Bourne trilogy as examples of the bad "new" action movie immediately disproves his own thesis just as thoroughly as his lack of awareness about the value of an "audiovisual warzone" in a war movie. The Bourne trilogy is easily my favourite action movie anthology, and any one of the Bourne movies ranks in my top twenty action movie list.
I think you have to read a few more books, watch a few more movies, and Google "Impressionism".
May I ask which Canon camera you are switching from?
Metabones has dumb adapters and speedboosters, the latter is what will give you an extra stop of light. For the GH4, you basically have three options:
Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster S
This one will decrease the crop factor of the GH4 by 0.71x. When shooting true cinema 4K, this will give you a crop factor virtually identical to the crop factor of APS-C lenses. For example, a 50mm lens (full frame) will become an 83mm (full frame equivalent), as opposed to 117mm without the speedbooster. It will also give you one extra stop of light, as you said, thus turning your f/1.4 lens into an f/1.0 lens.
Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T Speed Booster XL 0.64
This one is my personal favourite for the GH4. This reduces the crop factor even more than the one above (0.64x) to give you a wider field of view, which is closer to Super35 (commonly used in cinema) than APS-C; your 50mm lens will now be a 75mm (as opposed to 83mm with the other speedbooster). Furthermore, it will increase light transmission by 1.3 stops; your f/1.4 lens will now become a f/0.9 lens (as opposed to f/1.0 with the other speedbooster). Furthermore, the Metabones website says this adapter (unlike the first one) was "designed exclusively for the Panasonic GH4 and other selected Micro Four Thirds cameras" (http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT3).
and the yet to be released Metabones Speed Booster Ultra 0.71x
This one is the same as the first one except it is designed specifically for the GH4 with 4K recording in mind. I am not sure what other differences there are, and I don't know much about it because it is yet to be released. Perhaps it will be the best, but personally I much prefer the .64x crop factor and the 1.3 stop increase of the XL.
All comparisons of crop factor are specifically when using Cinema 4K on the GH4, the numbers are different using 1080p. I hope that helps!
I know you are trying to keep the cost down, but if you got a Metabones speedbooster for the GH4 (Nikon F/G to M4/3 is the cheapest I believe) and a fast lens, you could shoot in surprisingly low light. Then, once V-log comes along, you should be able to get high dynamic range footage under and lighting condition you encounter.
You're right, CGI was not the problem with the prequels. The movies could have been entirely computer animated for all I care (the Clone Wars animated series is far better than the prequels).
The problem was also not Ewan McGregor however. The problem was the shitty lines from the shitty script of the shitty story that McGregor had to try to deliver. Terrible, terrible script. I have never once had someone be able to explain the plot of the Phantom Menace to me, probably because it is an incoherent, nonsensical movie. Attack of the Clones is not any better. Revenge of the Sith is not quite as incoherent but still highly questionable and, given its confusing foundation, who cares by that point?
Screenwriting 101: don't make a one movie story three movies long. Anakin Skywalker's poorly done character arc would be more suitable for one movie than three, and then the next two movies (if they have to be made) could be spent exploring the results of his turn to the Dark Side (although I see no reason why the prequels should have focused on Anakin Skywalker at all).