IronFilm

Gaming has been here for decades. Younger audiences are used to and have seen a lot of HFR.
Several very top shelf filmmakers have TRIED. Digital means there’s no cost difference to shoot HFR.
It failed every time.
It’s not just legacy. 

I guess you're in the 1% who actually liked the horrendously artificial movement fluidity of the movie.
And that's coming from a guy who has read every Tolkien book and movie ever produced (yes including the animated ones).
The contraste between the CGI and the real-life characters of The Hobbit is jarring and imposible to "un-see".
Progress is great except when it makes something worse, friend. 

Exactly.

Pre sound there was no standard.  18FPS was kind-of the default.  Most hand cranked cameras did 9 frames per crank, so two cranks per second becomes the defectors about standard.  
16FPS is about the lower threshold where you start to not perceive continuous motion.
24 FPS only became the default with the introduction of sync sound in the late 30’s that required a slightly higher / faster playback.
The first thirty years of cinema HAD NO STANDARD frame rate.  They could have, and DID shoot a huge number of variations of frame rates.  Just like we do today (for slow mo or under cranking)
It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama.
 
 

Maybe you should lead with that instead of making troll-baiting posts with a title of “24p is outdated”.
You can’t even tell when watching the difference between 24P and HFR.
It’s an objectively wrong statement. End of story. 
 

OK
 
You just screwed your own argument.  Titanic was photographed at good old 24 FPS.  You can’t even tell.  
Maybe just turn the fluid motion feature on your TV on and be happy.
Avatar is a 3D cartoon.  Perfect for hyper realism.  Great use of HFR for that specific story telling example.
Hobbit was a disaster.  So much that they CHANGED the approach back for subsequent films.
You’re alone in this opinion.

I just got home from the Porsche garage without the 911 I ordered. Someone on the bus there told me that petrol engines were outdated… 

Fair enough! I took the opposite path: as soon as I got my first CD player, I took all my LPs down to the local music store, sold them, and bought CDs to replace them. It took almost a decade to replace everything, but I eventually did.

F3 would be my second choice. I have only used it for one test and internal Slog 420 look pretty awesome. Best internal 8bit 420 colors I have ever seen. But thing is cumbersome and heavy enough to not to get picked for a walk.
I would take all three of my cameras I mentioned above. After all entry cinematography tools are my passion.
I could widen the question, what would be your theoretical dream camera. That does not necessarily mean it has to be maxed out in all specs.

Why do we almost never film only with a normal field of view? 
Why do we purposefully distort reality by choosing these range of other focal lengths to film with? 
Why do we light scenes in a manner that you're highly unlikely to come across randomly in real life in a natural manner? 
Why is 180VR massively unpopular vs conventional films when 180VR is so much "closer to realism"? 

In the UK there are big cash back reductions at the moment S5ii works out at £1299, that's amazing value and there are great deals with lenses included too

Agreed on going the used route with MPB or one of the companies that sell used gear. Most of them will include a warranty, and some even offer extended warranties. MPB I believe includes a 6 month warranty, for example. 
The FX30 is about $1600 in like new condition here in the US on MPB. 
I would save up and just go the FX30 route. 

Every movie that I really enjoy and watch over and over has elements that are purposely unrealistic, whether in the image, the staging, or characterization. I'm not talking about technical story unrealism, like elves or warp speeds.

^ Here, it's not the image quality, considering the time it was shot. However, the staging of the actors is unrealistic. The way they pose, the dialog--no one actually does that or speaks that way. One of my top 5 films, and perhaps my favorite opening scene ever.
 

^ Have you ever seen a toy shop organized like that, with those colors and lights? I picked Hugo because, seeing it in 3D, I was blown away by how they changed the interpupillary distance for different scenes to get different moods, using unrealism as part of the craft. And it's an easy segue into the highly creative movie it revolves around. Even in 1902, they could have made the moon more realistic!

 
Specifically on the topic of framerate, Spiderverse did a fantastic job using different frame rates to convey different moods. Some of it is explained here:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN5sqSEXxm4
^ This is another favorite movie (and it's recent--they could have shot digital or HFR if they'd wanted). Everything works because of unrealism, from the costumes, to the sets, to dialog, sound, delivery.
 
I would argue that purposely making films look or act realistic results in boring content.
 
I don't necessarily disagree. Good movies transport me to that world with perfect clarity, but the world may not be realistic. When I watch the Third Man, I'm there, in black and white, with the grain, and the film noir corny dialog, and Orson Welles' overacting. That's the world I'm in.

Nah it looks like crap. 
 
What’s dated is that this keeps coming up as being an issue that needs to change, that only dinosaurs shoot 24 and we’re all out of touch blah blah.  
 
This argument is decades old now and guess what?
The audience knows. 
 
So far it hasn’t worked in a cinema. Many have tried. Many have spent a lot of money. 
 
AUDIENCES don’t want it for DRAMA. 
 
You may delude yourself that your YouTube channel is empirical evidence of HFR take up but let me know when I can go watch a MOVIE of your YouTube channel in a CINEMA and I’ll let you know if it’s filmic. 
 
If HFR really really truely was better the audience would know. We have had HFR for DECADES with gaming, a whole generation that SHOULD prefer it but they freakin don’t. 
 
Theres nothing at all stopping you making a killing with your HFR on YouTube right now.  Make a movie for YouTube and let us know how it goes.  

I really do think there is something non-subjective to our current state of frame rates. This is coming from someone who likes to push the norms and who would have no problem filming in higher frame rates if I thought they looked good. As someone said earlier, I really think the motion blur of 24p emulates the dream state, it puts us into a state of believing the world we are immersed in as fake as it actually is. 30p is smoother and more realistic, but realistic has its downsides. If I wanted my films to look realistic there are a heck of a lot of things I would do differently other than frame rate. 
To me, content shot in 60-120p look nauseating and fake, I can't stand the look personally. I know this is somewhat subjective, but there are quite a few film goers that experience this. 
30p looks realistic, but watchable. I run a fairly successful YouTube channel with news commentary studio style and we opt to shoot 30p for most of that content. 
24p just looks magical, dream like, immersive. I shoot all of my cinematic documentaries and more dramatized emotional content this way. 
At the end of the day this isn't about conserving or progressing. The looks are different, they do different things to the viewers. People keep saying that we need to leave the old ways behind and "progress" to higher frame rates. Progression is fine, but when you want to change something that has been working for generations, the burden of proof falls on you to prove the progression is actually better. Many successful directors have tried this with the examples others have mentioned, and overall it seems like people have not appreciated the experiment. 

Everyone is complaining about their EVF and LCD screens, but she's not!

Better this than being the old lady front and centre capturing everything with her iPad.

I can't seem to see any news about a new camera module?? Not sure what OP is referring to. 
There is no CinePi 3. 
Even if a 1" CinePi 3 comes out, I reckon a person would be still better of with a secondhand P4K if they value their own time at anything above minimum wage.  
As the out of pocket differences between a possible future CinePi 3 and a secondhand P4K (the fact it is "secondhand" is irrelevant, it would still be more reliable than a brand new "CinePi 3"!) would only be a few hundred dollars, which would be completely swallowed up when you consider the many hours you'd have to put into getting the CinePi3 up and running from scratch 

Yes, "The Hobbit" was more than just "a few years ago", and it has decisively proved the case against higher frame rates than 24fps. 
You'll be shooting yourself in the foot if you film and release a film in 60fps. It's not what people want. 
You might believe millions/billions of people "are wrong", but this is what reality it, and you're not going to change this by yourself. 

I think I'm floating dangerously in the middle between those two groups, straddling both worlds. 

Filming for social media has been also one of the biggest factors in making 4:3 popular. 
 
Exactly, most of us are not filming nature documentaries where we want a 100% accurate reflection of the real world. (heck, not even nature documentaries want that!) 

And after a century plus of films being in 24p, then all of us have had our brains trained to think 24p = voila, cinema!
You'd not going to undo a lifetime of conditioning of the brain for everyone in the world. 
I'd say just move on, and fight a different battle that's more winnable. 
 

Is that you @zlfan? 
Because their entire workflow is set up for that, they're not going to ditch millions/billions of dollars worth of gear just so that they can embrace 24p. 
Don't try to fix what is not broken.
 

Nobody sane is shooting news with RED ONE MX 

I have no idea! If I knew, I’d buy it. 😂