Bioskop.Inc

And the great thing about the Pocket is that you don't even have to shoot RAW (& if you do, its a lot less hassle to process than ML RAW), as it provides you with a very healthy 10bit ProRes HQ mode!
You really need to use a BMPCC to understand why its so good at its price point & most people (professionals & amateurs alike) think it produces the best image of all the BM cameras.
There are so many BM haters out there & they simply haven't a clue of what they're missing out on!

What editing program are you using, because when i've cropped anamorphic footage using FCPX it stays exactly the same sharpness.
What you need to do is make a custom timeline & then stretch the footage by 200% - the timeline will cut the edges off for you & you should still have the option to move the image from side to side to re-frame.
Personally, i'd stick with your Animex & the Pocket. If you need slow-mo, then you could always ramp the fps to the max & still achieve something ok. I've tried the slow-mo feature in FCPX with 24fps footage & its not too bad - but i hate slow-mo, its over-used & most of the time it doesn't add that much (its become a gimmick at best).
Anamorphic obsession/curiosity can take you to interesting places & you can spend way too much cash just experimenting on failed projects. You've already got a good set up, so use it - it really isn't going to get better than the BMPCC, with or without an anamorphic lens.

It is a pretty special camera. Those f#@&in batteries though. Stoked for the Canon batteries on the Micro.

if low light is your main shooting scenario I'm certain the bmpcc and speed booster 0.58x has the edge - particularly if you want deeper dof.  a native iso of 800, increasing to 'quasi 2500iso' when used with the speed booster is only matched by the a7s - which IMO doesn't touch the bmpcc for out and out image quality.   The pixels are rather large on the bmpcc - almost as large as those found on the a7s as it happens.  add the incredible 275% gain in transmission from the speed booster and it's a no brainer.
 
zeiss 35mm/1.4 on pocket + speed booster will provide the same fov and double the dof as a 5dmk3 with a 50mm/1.4.  but the 5d will need to be running at 2500iso in order to match the bmpcc running at its native 800iso.   even pushed to 1600, the bmpcc holds up.  to match this a 5dmk2 will need to be running at 5000iso.  if a 5d user wants to match the dof of the bmpcc setup above he'll need to close the aperture down to around f2 meaning iso needs to be ragged to 10,000iso!  
 
when you start adding the sigma 18-35/1.8 into the equation, the bmpcc literally kills anything a 5D user would need to use in order to match the out and out usability of the bmpcc+sigma+speed booster in a real low budget shooting environment.    
 
The bigger the sensor, the longer the lenses, the shallower the dof, the higher you need to push iso, or the more light you need.  since this is not a forum full of guys with budgets to light for the 5dmk3 at f4-f5.6.  The BMPCC + SB0.58x is definitely the best low light camera at the moment  
 

Re: BMPCC low-light performance, let's break it down this way.

The Pocket's native ISO is 800. Using a Speed Booster, you gain 1 2/3 stops of light, effectively bringing that native ISO up to 2500. 

Since most of the Pocket's DR lies in the shadows, it can easily be pushed 2-3 stops in post with acceptable results. (Ctrl+F "underexposure." https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/06/director-of-photography-blackmagic-cinema-camera/)

Therefore, using the same full frame lenses, you can shoot the Pocket at an effective 10,000-20,000 ISO with acceptable results--the same or better than the A7S in S16 mode, according to Ebrahim--but with the added benefits of 10-bit 4:2:2 and RAW.

I don't claim the Pocket is the best low-light camera out there, but it's much more competitive than sensor size snobs would have you believe.

With fast primes and a Speed Booster, the BMMCC should perform like a champ in most any environment. 

Optics is mostly simple, with some occasional complexity thrown in to make it interesting.  In fact, I've almost completely forgotten all the fancy math I learned after high school, since by and large all the math you need to know to be a successful lens designer is geometry, trigonometry, and a bit of algebra.
In your case, assuming that the anamorphic portion is working at infinity (i.e., parallel light in and parallel light out) the aperture of the optical system is determined by the diameter of the iris diaphragm in the taking lens *unless* there is some other limiting aperture in the system.  Imagine that you take a pin and poke a tiny hole in a large piece of aluminum foil.  Next, open the f/1.2 taking lens wide open and place the aluminum foil in front of your Rectilux so that the pinhole is centered on the optical axis.  Clearly, in this case the f/# of your lens system is determined by the diameter of the pinhole and not by the diameter of the taking lens' iris diaphragm.  So we would say that the pinhole is the limiting aperture in your lens system.
In your case the clear aperture of the back of the anamorphic section is 43mm in diameter (assuming it is round and not rectangular).  This means that the collimated on-axis beam of light exiting your anamorphic section cannot exceed 43mm in diameter, and may be less if any of the other optical surfaces in the Rectilux or your anamorphic group are limiting apertures.  The entrance pupil diameter of your 85mm f/1.2 taking lens (most likely 1/3 stop faster than f/1.4, or f/1.2599 in reality) is 85/1.2599 = 67.5mm.  Since 67.5mm is bigger than 43mm you are underfilling the entrance pupil of the taking lens.  As a consequence, you could stop down the taking lens until its entrance pupil is reduced to 43mm, and have no impact on the actual f/# of the system.  In your case, the actual maximum f/# would be f/(85/43) = f/1.98 ~ f/2, and not f/1.2.  Again, this assumes that the limiting aperture of the system is the rear aperture of the anamorph, and not some other surface in the Rectilux or the anamorph.  If either of the latter is true then your true f/# would be slower than f/2.

All the Meyer-Optik lenses produce great round/soap bokeh - the Troplan is the king.
Its a bit like the Helios 40-2 is the king of swirly bokeh for the Russain lenses, but the Helios 44-2 also produces swirly bokeh.
I got some really good soapy Bokeh from the Lydith 30mm f3.5 recently & the Orestor 100mm f2.8 is an amazing lens - the 135mm Orestor is known as the Bokeh Monster!

Yep, those Impulz LUTs sure look good!
However, I'm not a sharpness freak, so I take all talk of that with a huge grain of salt - just does nothing for me, a bit like 8bit 4K.
Really liked VisionColor for their Canon Picture Profiles - still use them for stills, as they are just the best. So no surprise that their LUTs are amazing.
I only bought FilmConvert because at the time FCPX had no way of loading in LUTs. I think the mistake most people make with FC is leaving the sliders at 100% & the grain for Web upload has to be 150% or over for it to actually show up in any meaningful way (best grain out there, as kidz has said). And Ed was a life saver recommending the ARRI profiles, as the BM ones just annoyed me no end.
 

Out of focus areas are a dream with the Meyer's, so for morph they are ideal - round/oval bokeh all the way!
And its tiny!

Well its a lot smaller than the 135mm, that's for sure. I really use it for photography & haven't really gone morph with it much.
Just looking at it now, the coating is a faint purple. I just bunged on my Kowa B&H & shone the iPhone light at it - it does flare, but not crazy mad stuff (you get the 2 horizontal, which looked a bit muted colour-wise - green & gold).
The good thing is that it has loads of markings in ft, due to the long focus through, so it matches up to the markings on the Kowa B&H really well - no guess work or struggling to get perfect focus.
I really like the lens & am not that crazy about flares anymore (unless they are internal) - what you will get is really nice bokeh & a lovely vintage creamy image.
Hope that helps?

All the Meyer-Optik lenses produce great round/soap bokeh - the Troplan is the king.
Its a bit like the Helios 40-2 is the king of swirly bokeh for the Russain lenses, but the Helios 44-2 also produces swirly bokeh.
I got some really good soapy Bokeh from the Lydith 30mm f3.5 recently & the Orestor 100mm f2.8 is an amazing lens - the 135mm Orestor is known as the Bokeh Monster!

I did a bunch of grading - checking out Impulz vs Filmconvert
 
Overall filmconvert feels more forced, retains less detail. Impulz luts gives a better starting point - more image detail retained in ut - to play with - to shape it and move.
I also just did a rec 709 conversion and graded - and it's a lot harder to work with to get to where I want to go.  So if you don't like luts, good for you.  For me, it gets me there faster.  And then I tweak and tweak and tweak.  The overall image, then skin, then lips, everything.
Also now being able to shoot pro res 444 12-bit from the sony f35 to the odyssey 7q is really, really nice.
 
Mixed lighting test - sony f35 to convergent design pro res 4444 - with overhead crappy 4000k fluorescents - shooting s-gamut then with p3-dci gamut
the lighting is all over the place - crappy overhead flourescents - 4000k mixed with more crappy flourescents and in some scenes led glow from macbook
the p3-dci definitely falls apart faster.
s-gamut - with pro res 4444 - very clean secondary color correcting and stress to push pro res as far as it needs to go.
shot underexposed 1 stop. amazing how clean can make - used neatvideo on impulz footage

I'm not set yet since I haven't tested the others yet, but the Rectilux didn't let me down on anything I tried so far.
Talking to John about the f-stop value, as long as the lens is wide open, the math is simply dividing the focal length by the anamorphic's rear element diameter, so the 50mm is still at f/1.2 (50/43 = 1.16), and the 85 is actually (85/43 = 1.97) around f/2. Once you start closing the iris, the math is different and I didn't get to that yet.
I don't think that affects the sharpness of the resulting image, though, but definitely affects vignetting. I had some issues with the Isco Pre36 paired with Contax Zeiss 85/1.4, which has a huge front element. These issues aren't noticeable when I pair it to the Jupiter 9, which is f/2 and has a much much smaller front element (65mm vs 45mm). There's also a way to determine the fastest f-stop of any given focal length based on the front element diameter - which is why these super fast lenses tend to have much larger front elements.

I guess so, but don't say it out loud, I want to buy an iscorama 54 for cheap sometime.
 
The second point is that basically the further away the aperture is from the optical center, the more problems you get with vignetting, even if the aperture is large enough.
I also found that when I place my isco ultra star back element touching the taking lens front element, the fieldcurvature blur you get at the top and bottom of the frame suddenly vanishes and the image gets very sharp.

Is it possible that you are underfilling the entrance pupil of the 85/1.2, and hence not actually shooting at f/1.2?  For example, if you were shooting with an iscorama-36 the limiting aperture would be the 36mm diameter at the rear of the anamorphic section, thus giving you a maximum aperture of f/(85/36) ~ f/2.4

Thanks for this, it looked really great. I think this is some of my favourite GH4 footage & it certainly has a lot to do with the Baby Hypergoner.
I especially loved the seagull shots!

The best low light camera on a restricted budget? - Is the one you can afford, pure & simple. (800 euros was the amount mentioned)
There is no best, just buy something, shoot loads with it so that you can learn its strengths & weaknesses.
As far as the OP is concerned, all concert, theatre & ballet venues have lights, to varying degrees - never heard of a pitch black event, never.
If you've been hired by someone to shoot an event, then you'll have full access to the stage etc... So you'll be able to shape the light (whatever the brightness/quality) to your advantage & you have to learn to be adaptable!
The first gig I was hired to shoot was in a pub, with very few lights & the band were squeezed into a very tight space. I told them that video would be out, but could take some photos - they understood & were amazed at the pictires that i gave them.
The last gig I filmed, the lights were too bright!!!!!! Had my ND filter on the whole time & I still had to stop down.
If you just want to shoot things for fun, then you're screwed really - bands, venues etc... don't want anyone filming, taking pictures on big equipment (they hire people for that). If this is you, buy something small & compact or just use your phone.

Man, if the film is anything like the trailer...classic!
 
Oh, I see you...that's my real problem!
We need a sticky on this forum, so we can 4chan-ise.....

Man, if the film is anything like the trailer...classic!
 
Oh, I see you...that's my real problem!
We need a sticky on this forum, so we can 4chan-ise.....

Man...Loved the B-Movie vibe, really good!
(Ignore the crazy guy, cause he's crazy!)

Man, if the film is anything like the trailer...classic!
 
Oh, I see you...that's my real problem!
We need a sticky on this forum, so we can 4chan-ise.....

Lol whatever, I'll leave the thread to you so you can write in it like a journal and keep the lenses thread free of your new discoveries.

Here's the trailer for a movie I shot last year using an Iscorama/helios/jupiter9/minolta 35mm and FS700 with Blade recorder. It's a no budget, lowbrow, dark comedy. It's no Oscar winner, but it's my first feature film and it's almost ready for distribution(hopefully). 

Man, I shoot several theatre events a year - music shows, band gigs, concerts (from local guys to smaller indie stuff) and they're rarely situations I think of as "low light". The only times they're low light is a band playing the bottom-of-the-rung live clubs with no lights or no stage. If someone wants to **pay me** to shoot like that, I bring a DJ truss and a dozen 300 to 650 fresnels. 
D7100 frame grab, this camera had an old push-pull 80-200 2.8 on it (yeah, that's Emmylou, and yeah, at 68 she still gives you chills):
(EDIT: this was video not a still)
 

I've no experience with a stylus, but the era of the Mouse is dead for me. I've been using the Magic Trackpad for over a year now & it has revolutionised the way I can communicate with my computer - its fully customisable.
But a stylus would be a really useful addition thing to have for editing, so you could properly isolate a particular object in order to use a mask more accurately etc... Obviously, they already exist (Intious 5 etc...), but in conjunction with a touch screen, such as an ipad, that you could link to your computer properly would be amazing.
I'm stuck in a Mac rut & I really hope that Apple will see the future sooner rather than later - I really would like to see a properly spec'd Mac Mini server model interacting with a larger screened iPad. Its a real shame when you can see the future & the companies just want to hold you back. It's like fast, cheap Broadband in the UK - they could do it without ripping people off, but the monopoly of companies won't allow it!