IronFilm

Possibly because it kind of demonstrates that one of the least most important components of movie making is the camera itself?
Beyond a certain point. 
I’m sure they were not using the f4-5.6 kit lens but some 20k$ cine lenses and maybe less than in some other productions, but whatever lighting etc was needed.
We know that even just in commercial jobs, the type of camera you have can get you or at least deny you, the job.
’Average’ tool in skilled hands etc…
In terms of sensor though, just how far off a Venice is that of the FX3? Barely anything.

My bad! It's not a set of Panavision lenses we're currently using, it's Cooke Anamorphics:

Good points. The marketing-push regarding it being shot on the FX3 seems somewhat inorganic to me, and I say that as a massive fan of the FX3.
The other issue is that (based on the trailer) it does not seem like a movie that showcases the potential of the FX3 for low-budget indie filmmakers. This is on account of the dense, and expensive, SFX and post-production which does not represent features of the camera itself.
I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

Do guys think sony will charge $5000 for Open Gate license on Burano? ( its $5000 for unlocking open gate on Venice )

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke 
 

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. 
Camera gear is shockingly cheap to rent. I'm working on a low budget / self funded short film right now, which is using an ALEXA 35 with Panavision anamorphics. 
You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky, like when people want to be able to say we "shot it on an iPhone" purely for the sake of the marketing aspects for driving the film out there to be seen by the audiences. 
After all, would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead? 

Nikon started at 2018 and now has more 400mm lens than Sony has 40mm. Glass business is hard, and Canon/Nikon are basically optics company. Canon didn't start the full frame mirrorless transition with a bold sensor message, it started with a bold glass message: 28-70mm f/2.

Are polls still there? 
Maybe this topic requires a poll? With suggestions for the options, before the polls are opened.
Mine would be 'too slow to adopt PDAF', and 'abandoning small cameras like the GM/GX lineup'. 
Their supply chaim and marketing are also disappointing. 

https://www.aputure.com/products/amaran-200x-s/
https://www.aputure.com/products/amaran-300c/
https://www.aputure.com/products/amaran-150c/
Am looking at replacing my trusty but slightly cumbersome 4 and 2 bank flourescent tube lights (daylight and tungsten) with these new LED's from Amaran - the 200x S as my key light and a 150c or 300c as fill and versatile does it all light including colour backgrounds/washes if needs be. I will keep my Dedolight DH4 for hairlight, accents etc
I make documentaries mainly for galleries and museums so do a lot of talking heads, green screen, filming artefacts and also occasionally room settings/interiors
Just wondering if anyone has any experience with these LED's or if there are other lights I should also be considering?
Am often on my own filming lighting and capturing audio - be nice to be able to dial in colour temp, brightness etc all from an app on my phone as I set up, will speed up the process a lot and hopefully create better control of light, nicer images...
From what I've read the 200x S has better accuracy and skin tones than the 150 and 300 so that would be my key light when filming people. Is the 300 worth the extra over the 150 for when I occasionally film in large historical rooms and want to bring out features, am imagining a little more power is always good to have?
I love the soft light I get from the floursecents so would augment the LED's with softbox. Is the light quality similar, would the 200x S with softbox be able to light as much as a 4 bank floursecent? I also like hard light at times so will also use the LED's with barn doors. 
The floursecents would still be useful especially for lighting the green screen, am currently using some old photo lights with no control of spill and harsh hot spots. The floursecents would light the green screen more evenly and with more control hopefully, and use the LEDs to light the talent
Anyway am open to other suggestions and also best ways of transporting these lights, my bag for the floursecents is horrible - huge and falling apart, be nice to be a bit more streamlined whilst also keeping the lights safe. 
 

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke 
 

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/rogue-one-godzilla-gareth-edwards-201500503.html
That was an interesting read about how he go back the indie root of film making.
I totally agree about the huge bloated cost of blockbuster now, and the cgi still look crap.

Got to up your offer even further! Let your daughter borrow a Fujifilm GFX100 
 
Well, the GH7 will probably be at a higher price? 
And will likely have even more video features:
1) mini XLR??
2) mini SDI?? 
3) built in fan? 
4) 4K 240fps??? 
5) multi aspect sensor?? 
6) six channel audio recording?? 
 
True. Better to have a "do it all camera" than a specialist stills vs video mirrorless. 
Wish Panasonic would 

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke 
 

To me the perfect embodiment of the four-thirds mount was actually the original Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera, which technically speaking was only using the mount but equipped with a smaller sensor. The only true ‘pocket cinema’ in my book.
That camera was so much fun shooting.
It was imperfect, having to change the damn battery every 15 minutes, amongst other quirks and limitations. But the shooting *experience* was completely different from other cameras because it left out anything else and the interface was simple. 
The footage felt very…organic. Something I haven’t seen in their later products. Not sure what it is.

I used it often in combination with a pancake lens while having the flexibility to mount other lenses.
I have 4 lenses collecting dust (and a broken GH5 which died when I forgot to turn it off, using it as a webcam).
Why is no company making a new version of this concept? It’ll be optically superior to a phone.

I agree, the release of the G9mk2 with PDAF hints at the fact that there will be either a GH6mk2 (basically identical to the GH6, but with PDAF) or a GH7! (maybe even both)
If it is a GH6mk2 then it will be "soon" (maybe this year?? At least, "within a year" for sure), if it is a GH7 then it will probably be a bit further away when it happens. 
Hopefully it will be both? Like what happened with the GH5mk2 / GH6
My hope is they'll surprise us with the GH6mk2 (that adds PDAF, but otherwise makes zero changes to the GH6mk1) and at the same time as they release the GH6mk2 they say that the GH7 is "in development" together with some ground breaking features. (mini SDI, mini XLR, six channel recording, and eNDs pretty please! We could easily fit all this into a S1H sized body for the GH7) 

As someone who lives half his life at weddings, I can assure 'you' (ie, folks in general) it is extremely rare to see a guest toting anything resembling a camera at a wedding and it's been that way for quite some years now.
I might see the odd 60+ year old guest fumbling with an old DSLR or the occasional hipster with something Fuji flavoured, but otherwise nada, it's wall to wall phones and if they are not taking snaps with them, they are gazing at them for whatever enlightenment they individually receive from these devices.

Wish someone would bring out a 12mm to 120mm powered zoom MFT lens with that 10x zoom range (16x would be even better!) so as to make MFT that much better for such applications. As otherwise, the only reasonable way to do this is with adapted B4 lenses (where 16x lenses are quite common place). 

I agree with you except for the LX10 and LX100.
They are not cameras that fall into the category that can be replaced by a smarphone.
There is the whole audience of Youtubers/vloggers and both Sony and Canon have recently dropped machines aimed at this group of users. Basically a compact with perfect AF and good microphones.
Speaking of my niche: Sony has sold tons of RX100s (seven generations) widely used as compact solutions for underwater shooting. Panasonic proved that both the LX10 and 100 were far superior for underwater use but then they became obsolete and left completely the market to Sony and Olympus.
There are a lot of people who still use them with great satisfaction and would welcome an updated version that also competes with the newly released Olympus TG7 (another best-selling camera).
In short, it is true that smartphones have eaten a chunk of the market but there are niches where there is still great demand for more specialized tools.
Do all these users who buy action cams die with gopros or should they go straight to an R5C?

If the goal is to renovate all the cameras....
They started with the FF line. They probably were not ready for the flagship so they started with the entry level S5 model (perhaps the best selling).
They revamped the older flagship G9. In my opinion even if they had started with the GH6 the result would not have changed in terms of total destruction of sales of the other models.
Following this logic, the next step could be:
- a new PDAF machine in the rangefinder line (GX80 etc.) OR even in the smallest line, LX10 or LX100.
- new SH1x II flagships with PDAF

I understand the criticism of Andrew but rather true, kye : ) your voice, Andrew, is more prominent than any of us can estimate. And as you wrote, this format is much more important than people tend to see. Well observed. So, I don't exactly see it as a negative remark.
I guess Andrew is more disappointed with this specific camera release sorta glass half empty throughout their camera line and the way the management pursued by them along these years since the GH3 introduction, as exclusive responsibility of those who launched it, than anything else as far as this format concerns though. Or am I wrong on this idea of mine?

Respectfully, if you are a fan of the format, you wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops that it's dead.
I understand that tough love is a pillar of journalism (and one that is sadly lacking at the moment) but there's a point where it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your blog likely has more influence than you think, and if so, you're adding nails to the coffin instead of making it stronger.

I agree with most of your thoughts Andrew except possibly two…
The ‘chonky’ S5ii is fractionally smaller and lighter than the GH6, thought a tiny bit more than the old G9. 
Leading on from that, maybe…just maybe, they went with the S5 architecture because by doing so, it allowed them to develop the G9ii at a lower cost than with its own unique body? And they may even have not developed a G9ii otherwise and the GH6 might have been their last ever 4/3 body?
But otherwise yes, totally agree. I would also liked to have seen 4/3 be a ‘micro’ sized camera, especially when some of the larger sensor stuff is getting smaller. Lenses aside, just look at a GFX 100S or Hassie X2D next to a GH6. The Fuji is only marginally bigger and heavier but the Hass is smaller and lighter! OK, different beasts I know, but anything bigger than the OM-1 is too big IMO for a 4/3 sensor camera.

IIRC, around the time of the GH6 release (18 months ago), there was live stream/press discussion with some senior Panasonic people, where one of them basically said that including PDAF hardware on the sensor would have delayed the sensor development too much (for the GH6 timescale). 
So my take on it is the sensor in the G9ii is effectively the 'fully developed' version of it, and the GH6 has an intermediate version without the PDAF hardware capability. I think it would have been commercially crazy to not launch the GH6 with PDAF if they could have - they'd have sold more in the intervening months at higher street prices.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think there just has to be a GH6ii or GH7 soon.

It seems to me a suicide decision.
It is bad enough that cameras receive fw updates, let alone hw. It would be the first time in history.
I simply believe that the sensor is a derivative of that of the GH6 and the marketing sells itself that they are identical. But the devil is in the details.
I've read too that they have the same sensor but who is the source? I guess it's just a PR statement. Nobody disassembled it.

It's simply not possible thay are the same sensor. A modern PDAF sensor ha specialized pixels on it. It's not something you are adding later. Only old real DSRL had the space to implement PDAF out of the sensor.
If G9II and GH6 have the same image It means that the G9II sensor is a derivation of the GH6 sensor but it's a completely different one.
So I think I'll pass the mic to Harry Callaghan
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/124306/confusion-about-the-principle-of-on-sensor-pdaf-technique