IronFilm

With regard to VR, I've mentioned it before but if you ever get the chance to go to a 'VR Cinema' (just a big room with lots of swivel chairs so you can move around the image without moving) then it is really quite interesting.
It lends itself to short 15-20 minute documentary pieces and the ones I've seen were a far more visceral experience than if they were shot flat.
Its strange because although its a solo experience in one way its also shared because there are lots of you in there so when you take the headset off it sparks more post viewing discussion than a normal film as you have all experienced subtly or often dramatically different versions of it depending on how you were orienting yourself and how active you were.
Plus, no one can be stuffing their faces while they've got the headset on or talk to anyone so it removes the annoying pricks factor out of viewing stuff in a cinema as well
I think it actually lends itself very well to vlogging (not just for the overcapture/post shot framing aspect) but people really need to de-gimmick it to get it there.

Sounds like they're in full on troll / click bait / Canon shrill mode. 
 
Well as one of the youtube commentators said.... 

"They have already build a 500$ mirrorless full frame camera. And then they overpriced it to 1300$, because that's what they do."

Sounds like they're in full on troll / click bait / Canon shrill mode. 
 
Well as one of the youtube commentators said.... 

"They have already build a 500$ mirrorless full frame camera. And then they overpriced it to 1300$, because that's what they do."

False. So very very very false. On multiple levels. 

Just flat out false. 
 

f0 or it's trash mate.

It’s so funny that I was literally thinking that same thing! If we just flooded the JVC Facebook page and ask for the updated GYLS300!!! Lol I’m serious. 

What if we all just harass JVC on social media until they listen? ?
I kinda feel like it's a good sign of they're still featuring the LS300 at promotional events... 

There is a way of thinking that I find particularly useful for this stuff:
Think of a company / industry / or whatever that is/was big Think of the problem they solved or the value they gave customers Think of how you'd solve that problem with todays (or tomorrows) tech Think about what that means for that company / industry It sounds simple, but you'd be surprised how many Wall St big business folks can't do it.  A few examples:
Newspapers They curated and delivered content to people The internet now delivers content for free, but doesn't do a great job at curating it (fake news) The result?  Newspapers are all screwed.  Completely predictable, yet most didn't predict it.  
 
Record labels and record shops / motion picture industry and cinemas Curated artists, invested in making big budget productions up front (taking on risk), marketed the results, and distributed them Three scenarios: Don't curate or invest, just distribute = YouTube Curate and invest and distribute via internet = Netflix Curate and invest but attempt to monopolise distribution = illegal file-sharing Perfectly predictable (and the RIAA are basically just making tits of themselves fighting a non-winnable battle).  The musicians YT was Mp3.com and the musicians Netflix hasn't been worked out yet, but big companies are fighting over it (apple, amazon, etc) etc etc.
In terms of the motion picture industry, the major innovations go like this:
invention of motion pictuers Addition of sound Colour Home theatre (no longer only in cinemas) Virtual reality Interactive VR Interactive AR Potentially some kind of direct neurological connection after that, but it's still a kind of VR/AR

YT and cinema are different, but considering that "cinema" doesn't mean "big room" it means "video with your favourite famous people in it" or "video with your favourite stories".  Considering that Pewdiepie has 20 billion views on his channel, and many kids watch hours of YT a day, you can't say that this isn't having an impact on what they think.  My daughter doesn't care about going to see Rhianna in concert, but she just about turned herself inside-out to see Shawn Mendes (who got his start on social media) and when he came on stage she cried like people did when they saw The Beatles.  
Source.
Peoples music tastes tend to be most heavily influenced by what they're consuming at 13 (for women) and 14 (for men) (source) and the same mechanism is likely to be the same for other content.
Source.
We don't have TV in our house, and we don't listen to the radio, we have Netflix and YT and that's how the kids consume content.  Their heroes are youtubers and YouTubers aren't filming with Alexas in RAW or on film, they're filming with RX100s and GH5s and their phones.  Some are doing it with great lighting, nice production design, nice lenses and the rest, but not RAW, not 12-bit colour, and not with filters and careful adjustment of digital sharpening.

Skin tones that are exposed properly with soft light combined with everything else in the shot being exposed well. Most cameras have natural and nice color if exposed properly. Another thing is using quality light. A quality light source that isn't a mix of different temperatures. Make sure your light isn't being polluted by reflections that cause different color tints from a wall or the grass or whatever might be polluting your shot. I am not saying things can't be done in a cheaper quicker way, but that certainly isn't hollywood. Color correction is really only needed when things get f'ed up on set. 


There are exceptions like the Revanent mentioned above, but that's few and far between. Documentaries are certainly different. 

This is one of the reasons why the GH5 is so great. You can set it to 10 fps and it will also remove the audio automatically so that you don't have to do it in post. Truly cinematic results

Concept of "cinematic" image dictates high end cinema industry. There, I think, you have to recognize turning point of your question. Trying to run out of DR limitation of (unnatural contrasty) consumer cameras, lowlow budget indie creators - which predominate here at forum -  tend to prefer mellow look of film cameras, often to the level that IMO look retro bizarre. But modern cinema prefers and dictates more and more absolutely clean image as standard that, here in our popular pejorative translation, often looks "too-sharp" or "video-ish".
I think that Lubezki nicely summarized that turning point regarding challenge that he experienced:
"When I signed on to do The Revenant, I wanted to do all the day scenes on film, just because of the high dynamic range, and I wanted to do all the dusk and night scenes with a digital camera. That's because the digital cameras are more sensitive to light. They can see more in the shadows, and you can push them a bit. For example, let's say that Arri says their camera is ISO 800 native. You can shoot it at IS0 1600 and there's still no noise. You're able to shoot scenes at night with firelight, and you can capture the stars and the Aurora Borealis in the night sky - things that film couldn’t do.
I started doing a lot of tests while we were rehearsing the movie, and every time I went back to the lab to see the results, the images I was capturing with the digital cameras were more interesting to me because they had less noise or no noise at all. It was like opening a window for the audience to get them immersed in this world, whereas film still had that poetic or romantic look, and the grain and texture was making the world of The Revenantlook more romanticized. It wasn't really allowing me to get immersed into the world of these trappers the way the digital cameras did.
Little by little I realized that I didn't want to shoot the movie on film. For a middle-aged cinematographer who’s been shooting for so many years - that's a very hard call. It's like suddenly saying to a musician “You know, forget about your incredible piano, you're going to play this concert with a Minimoog.” It's heart-breaking, but the images spoke for themselves..."
In result, compare his nature image-depicting of The Revenant with that of, say, Almereida's in Heaven's days.

The golden age of cinema was truly something to be admired.  Here are the TOP SECRET insider settings that will MAGICALLY turn your camera into a CINEMA BEAST.
PROFESSIONAL CINEMATOGRAPHERS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS
We all know that you can't get cinematic video straight out of a camera, so most of these are in post.
Camera:
Shoot in NATURAL or the default style (LOG profiles are a trick to fool the try-hards) Set your aperture to F8 (that's why the most famous photographers say "f8 and be there") Film had a wonderfully organic resolution, so It's important to get the highest resolution camera you can - shoot 8K RAW if you can, 10-bit is barely a minimum, but 12-bit or 14-bit is better Depending on the aesthetic you want you can film at 23.976 fps, or less.  Ideally you would film at a rate that varies to simulate the camera operator turning a handle, but even the most expensive cinema cameras still lack this feature, even in 2019, it's madness but it's reality Post-production:
Set your Saturation to zero Lower your contrast until the whites aren't white, and the blacks aren't black, you want that soft look Highlight all your audio tracks and delete them, if you want you can add a single track back in and put in a single piano soundtrack, but silent is the most 'pure' Whatever frame rate you recorded at, you must play it back at 23.976 fps - this will give that classic "people walking as fast as ants" look Add noise, film grain plugins that have real digitised film grain are best - DO NOT GO CHEAP ON THIS When you output your footage it's important to get the settings right - the most important is to output in 1080 as a MAX (4K is totally out) Yes, I'm taking the piss, but actually if you want to replicate the silent film era then these are good instructions.  My point is that there is no 'cinematic' look, so the only place that you can be sure of that won't help you is anyone using the word "cinematic".  Seriously, cinema looks so great because it's a combination of every department doing their job really well.  We've been making movies for long enough to work out what matters and what doesn't, and anything that doesn't matter has been cut from the budget of film-making since before any of us were born.
What you really want is to make great looking films, which is really a personal thing that only you can find out what it means to you, and the only way to do that is to learn every job in every department of a film production and do them all really well.
Film-making is art that uses enormous amounts of technology - that's why is SO DIFFICULT IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Welcome to our pain, and our pleasure.

Maybe he meant to just saw Prores. 

I personally think you only need the DJI Osmo pocket for cinematic footage. 

Not in my experience...
I use the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 with the Fringer Pro adapter on my XT3 and the face & eye autofocus is pretty zippy and accurate...and that's before the firmware update in I think April that makes it even more sprightly.
I don't use it for stills only video and think it's a great combo. Used it most of last year with an XH1 which was OK, but the XT3 has better AF.

for what i have read 18 55 is a kit lens and it is really good, perhaps one of the best kit kens ever. it has ois and could be very useful for most situation. Then i know lens adpter can be used, surely for vintage ones, perhpas for m43 ones too, but not sure

..or all that effort goes to "waste".
Imagine if the rumors back in 2015 were right and Nikon and Samsung were co-making a Nikon NX1 camera. 2019 would have happened 3 years earlier.
Still NX1 has the best ergonomics in business and just lost its title as the best pro APS-C camera just recently. 73min continuous recording years before the GH5, DIS+OIS years before the Canon similar system, super Amoled screens and - still in my opinion - best in business touch interface, first H265 implementation, still most megapixels in business, unique lenses ("unicorn" 16-50mm 2-2.8f OIS, very cheap and good pancakes, stelar native and tiny fisheye!), better 1080p than all crop Sony's (almost film like) and better 120f e.t.c
JVC was very close to deliver an MKii for 3.5-4.000$€£, a workhorse camera not available right now and we missed that opportunity! I do not want/and I can not afford to give 9000€ for a C200, nor 8 for an EVA, I do not believe they deserve that kind of money in this economy and this era.
P4K and EZ are in the right direction though.

Well you get internal NDs. You also get 4k RAW 120fps and HD 240 fps. Nothing touches this in the price range. The Zcam does 120 4k but not even in prores and it's a smaller sensor. That said it doesn't sound like the OP needs something as powerful as the FS700. I personally would want something more compact for doc work.

You might be right, but we haven't really had a major sub $20k video camera announcement since C200/EVA-1, so it's definitely been awhile.
It seems like so much progress has been made in codecs (BM Raw, ProRes Raw, H265) and mirrorless tech (X-T3, S1) that it would be prime time to release some great sub $10k video cameras. 
 
 
 

I hate it when hu-mans stop when they are ready for their breakthrough.
Samsung stopped when they delivered their first and only professional camera, when it was obviously quite ahead of its time, and JVC stopped in their first attempt for an interchangeable Camcorder/cinecamera. What a pitty..
Thanks @BTM_Pix.

Had an interesting chat with JVC at BVE Expo today.
They acknowledge the LS300 is a cult classic, which is evidenced by them selling more now than they did at launch.
They had it on show with a Ninja V which again they acknowledge as the solution to the achilles heal of the viewfinder.
It looks very well matched with it actually.
The slow burn of the sales over such a long time hasn't resulted in mega sales in total and as it such an outlier of a product for them there seems little prospect of a follow up anytime soon.
 

Just a lurker. I don't think the delay with this Blackmagic release is worse than Red was. With a difference. For a fraction of the price.
When Panasonic will deliver RAW then we're talking.

Or just cut off the lens on the Panasonic DVX200 (replacing the lens with a MFT mount) and sell it at a suitably discounted price, and I'm sure such a camera would find quite a bit of popularity as well. 
Seeing as how no C100 has ever done 10bit at any resolution, I bet that the C100mk3 will not do 10bit 4K!!

Expect 8bit 420 4K 30fps from the C100mk3 (perhaps with some other weird crippling/limitation as well, like no DPAF with 4K, or only 4K with a big crop, etc)