No offense but that can be any one of those cams under 10 grand. But for the sake of your post Im gonna say the gh4 because it had that clean sterilized look.
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I'm gonna guess that your point is to see if people can really tell the difference in image of different cameras, to see if price differences are justified.
I'm definitely not one of those "the camera doesn't matter" guys. It definitely does matter, otherwise we'd all be shooting on a three hundred dollar dslr.
But here's the thing... Cameras don't always matter in regards to image quality. If your goal is to find out whether the price points are fair, then the problem is there's so much more besides final image that affects the price.
So while this is a fun game, I honestly don't think it's a proper evaluation of whether we can "see" the price differences on screen, from a fifty second single shot clip.
This was shot on the GH4 at 60p (VFR mode), Natural profile, 12mm (Panasonic 12-35 F2.8, IIRC stopped down a bit to try to make sure model was in focus as we moved), a gen 1 77mm Fader ND with step down ring, and a Flycam Nano DSLR steadicam.
This shoot was planned for the A7S after the shipping notice last Tuesday, however the shipment never made it out of the B&H warehouse (some folks got theirs early).
I used the new masking features of Premiere Pro CC to bring the sky down to blue and to apply creative lighting and blur to the shot. As some pointed out, I'd need to do more time-consuming variable blur to better simulate camera blur (including roto-like masking of the model and the background).
I also applied Neat Video, then added uniform noise everywhere but the actress: after uploading to youtube there was banding in the shadows (the added noise helped reduce it).