IronFilm

Yup, which is why I said ‘lighting’ not ‘lights’ as in ‘how scenes are lit’ whether that be indoors or out.
Flat light, hard light, side light, back light…to me, lighting is the biggest and best palette we have to play with.
Cameras etc, they are all pretty much the same in comparison!

Rules are meant to be broken and Von Trier & Vinterberg did so by the early 2000's. 
Their first films under Dogme95 were shot using MiniDV and they later quickly embraced RED/ARRI digital cinema.
Breaking the Waves was shot on 35mm but digitally scanned to process it in post and give it an aesthetic. Basically early modern color grading.
All movies shot on film today are scanned digitally and graded. 35mm usually scanned at 4K-6K and 65mm/75mm 8K and beyond. Projection is also digital. Its a fallacy to think film is super soft with lack of detail.
People romanticise old 35mm movies but they were usually scanned at 480p/720p for TV, VHS, DVD.
Most of the time from from second or even third gen prints not even original film negatives or masters.
Maybe you are into soft grainy contrasty Lo-fi analogue aesthetic and that's fine but you can emulate that look pretty well today in Davinci. Personally I embrace digital cinema and how its democratised filmmaking on a lower budget.
And while I do have a deep appreciation for analogue medium in general (especially as a musician, engineer) I recognise it is more about the tactile experience and workflow than sound/image quality which can be closely emulated today in digital. 

Yeah.  Totally not depressing, that.

A well known tendency 
https://nofilmschool.com/second-screen
And this in Italian can be easily read via Google translate:
https://www.ilpost.it/2025/02/03/netflix-serie-secondo-schermo/
The dialogues of many Netflix-produced series are often didactic and informative: it frequently happens that a character summarises what has happened so far, or anticipates some future plot development in a more or less arbitrary way. They are written in this way to allow the most inattentive viewers to pick up the thread at any time, without having to go back or interrupt their viewing.
Productions that include dialogues of this kind are usually associated with the expression 'second screen', because they are designed and written in such a way that they can be easily followed even while attention is focused on a 'first screen': that of the smartphone.

Agree with what everyone has said regarding there being many poor looking film movies that we forgot about, many great looking digital movies, and everything in between.
I believe a better thesis would be, "movies looked better before smartphones were invented"
A big reason that mainstream movies look bland is because they are no longer designed for a giant screen in a dark theater, nor even on a big flatscreen in your living room. They are increasingly consumed on 6" screens in broad daylight (as well as theaters and living rooms).
 
Now to go on a sight tangent, the same can be said of writing. Often when I talk to friends, they'll say, "oh yeah, I saw that movie. It was on netflix in the background while I cleaned my house" To some degree, it's not that writers are worse, it's that modern writing is designed to be consumed at 50% attention with chunks missing. The percent of audience that watches every second at full attention is simply getting smaller.
I don't believe that shift has anything to do with filmmaking technology.

Exactly.
The viewer does not give a damn how it was made. A film or documentary must move feelings or make people think. If they do, who cares about the technical details? Only the insiders.
 
 

This take is a bit much. Plenty of bad films were shot on film, and plenty of great ones were shot digitally. It’s not the format that makes a movie good or bad it’s how you use it. Preferring film is fine, but saying digital ruined cinema is extreme. 
That said, I’m interested in Fuji’s upcoming Eterna film camera. If it delivers high quality in camera color, it could push DPs to lock in the final look while shooting, which is an interesting approach.

This. Yeah, we can look back at older films and remark about how nice they look, but I can name you just as many (and, frankly, probably more) that look like absolute dog shit visually. Ironically, some of those are my favorite films! But most of them weren't made to intentionally look that way, they just did because of budget limitations. There is a lot of really bad looking films out there though.
In fact I'd say most films from the film era aren't any more remarkable looking than what is filmed today digitally. There certainly are exceptions, which is why I do agree to a certain extent that it's unfortunate that most everything has moved to digital, but I can't say that every film I watch today would look substantially better if it'd been shot on film, especially lower budget ones. It's really easy to look back with rose tinted glasses and say "everything looked better back when it was shot on film."
I think the bigger issue with the move to digital is how disposable images have become in general. We all shoot thousands of pictures on our phones every year but most we never look at again after taking them. In fact, most of the time we put little thought into taking them. Or at least I am guilty of that. They just sit on our phones, taking up digital space waiting for the day when maybe we remember that we documented this moment or that moment. Whereas with film, or even video tape, aside from the camera itself, you were limited by how many pictures were left on the roll, how many rolls you could afford to buy, and then the cost of developing them. You also didn't get that immediate feedback of looking at a photo you just took to see how it turned out, instead you had to wait until it was developed.
I remember going to sports events as a kid with my camera and only having two rolls of film. That was roughly what, 50-60 pictures total? I had to choose carefully what pictures I took less I run out of film and miss something extraordinary. I couldn't just waste pictures! Now though I'll take 60 pictures in the span of 5 minutes with my phone! Taking photographs or moving images was a much more thoughtful experience in the film days.
Today that doesn't really exist, because content is so disposable. Even if you are fortunate enough to create something that breaks through, something else rapidly comes along to take the viewers attention away. With the rise of TikTok it has gotten even worse than it was during YouTube's peak. 15 seconds and then it's on to the next thing!
Still, that isn't to say it all is bad. But it's not all good either.

Might be a bit of survivor bias here. 
The older movies that were shot on film might seem to be of a nicer IQ standard, but those are the ones that are still acknowledged.
As an dude that went to the local 1$ 'grindhouse' theater rather regularly as a kid, I assure you that the quality of the image for the forgettable films were often nothing remarkable. 
However, I will say that the darker, deeper, contrasty look that was in fashion among better cinematographers back then is something I miss.  Less is more.  Too much detail in a scene can be a detriment at times. All that dynamic range often is not needed. 
Spielberg's West Side Story looked remarkable and like shit simultaneously, imo.

I kind of agree, but 2 things initially spring to mind.
Thing A, a roll of film would need to revert back to costing 5 dollars instead of whatever it costs to buy & develop these days.
Thing B, good luck trying to get this implemented.
I feel the same about the other side of my own work, ie, in photography. I would LOVE to go back to being a pure film photographer but the single reason why I do not is a simple one and that is financially it would not fly today. Why, because around 75% of my turnover per job would go straight back out of the door and have to go on buying & processing film and at today's rates. I'd be out of business. Or double my rates and also go out of business because no one booked me.
And then 2 other things.
Thing C = not all older movies look great. Some...a lot even, look shit to my eyes.
Thing D = not all modern movies look shit. Some...a lot even, look superb to my eyes.
Summary, I think there is too much rose tinted spectacle nostalgia about 'The Good Old Days' and that everything today is trash. Everything today is not trash, - it's just different times.
I am currently re-watching Ripley on Netflix. To my eyes, it is one of the most superb and cinematic creations ever made.
Arguably it is not a movie per se, but a series, but actually it's a 6 hour movie in 8 parts. Almost every single frame looks superb. It's a modern day film noir that makes most older film noir look incredibly dated.
OK, some of it is actually CGI. The boat scenes with (no spoilers), Tom & Dickie has a huge amount, but that's just a tool available to the modern filmmaker.
Anyway, just my opinion. 
They also make a lot of shit today. Probably 19+ out of every 20 movies released today I would not wish to see, but they do still make some gems when the right people are involved.
 

Fujifilm X-M5 would be the winning for top notch image quality and maximum discreteness / compactness. 
Don't forget the light you remove is just as important as the light you add! (especially these days with our very sensitive cameras)
Is why I included a few floppies and C Stands from B&H in my previous post in this thread. 
Also, bouncing a light can often be just as good / better than adding an extra light. 
I get it, but you can fine tune almost any image in post, as long as you have enough light in a shot. 
99% of people watching on YT can't tell the difference between a well-shot GH2 and an ARRI Alexa. 
An iPhone will be a sufficient camera for YouTube. 
Every point about audio, also applies just as well to cameras 😉 
We will have to wait for a FX30mk2 (or maaaybe a FX3mk2 might have a big enough knock on effect) before the FX30 prices will come down 😞 Because the professional range of Sonys are just in too much high demand. 
Or the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 I reckon is even nicer, slightly wider, and even more reach while staying f2.8
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1609642-REG/tamron_afb070s_700_17_70mm_f_2_8_di_iii_a.html 
Takes a lot to learn how to use them well though 

Fujifilm X-M5 would be the winning for top notch image quality and maximum discreteness / compactness. 
Don't forget the light you remove is just as important as the light you add! (especially these days with our very sensitive cameras)
Is why I included a few floppies and C Stands from B&H in my previous post in this thread. 
Also, bouncing a light can often be just as good / better than adding an extra light. 
I get it, but you can fine tune almost any image in post, as long as you have enough light in a shot. 
99% of people watching on YT can't tell the difference between a well-shot GH2 and an ARRI Alexa. 
An iPhone will be a sufficient camera for YouTube. 
Every point about audio, also applies just as well to cameras 😉 
We will have to wait for a FX30mk2 (or maaaybe a FX3mk2 might have a big enough knock on effect) before the FX30 prices will come down 😞 Because the professional range of Sonys are just in too much high demand. 
Or the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 I reckon is even nicer, slightly wider, and even more reach while staying f2.8
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1609642-REG/tamron_afb070s_700_17_70mm_f_2_8_di_iii_a.html 
Takes a lot to learn how to use them well though 

I've cycled through a lot of cameras to get here (including Blackmagic, Sony, and two REDs) and ended up selling off about a dozen cameras last year. I think I'm finally happy. I can't think of anything else that I really want and I haven't purchased a camera in almost two years, which is a record for me:
WORK/DOCUMENTARY/NARRATIVE CAMERAS
Canon C70 x2 FUN/EXPERIMENTAL CAMERAS
Canon 5Diii with ML Canon EOS-M with ML Lumix GH1 (hacked) Lumix FZ47 STILLS CAMERAS
Canon EOS-R Olympus E500 Fujifilm E900 Canon Elan (Film) If I could snap my fingers and add a camera to this list, it would be the Ikonoskop A-Cam. Or, I'd probably buy an Octopus16 if they ever get around to releasing it.

Apparently they're working on it, with Z6iii senaor tho
https://nikonrumors.com/2025/03/13/new-nikon-z-video-oriented-camera-rumored-to-be-announced-later-this-year-similar-to-the-sony-fx3.aspx/

If you wait a month or two, the S5 will probably be on sale new at B&H for $999. It's hit that price a few times in the past  6 months.

Possibly very slightly over budget then…
How much are used Sony FX30’s?
Pair one of those with Sigma’s excellent and tiny 18-50mm (27-75 in FF equivalent) f2.8 and that would be a superb pairing.

Still about $1500!

I think pretty much any sector on social media (unless it's very, very niche) is going to be saturated with content. All you can really do is make your content as interesting and easy to watch as possible. If you are going to be on-camera and/or talking to the audience it'll probably take lots of practice and time to develop your 'presentation style' unless you have a natural talent for it. Those things are far more important than small differences in picture quality between cameras etc. that your viewers won't notice. Don't over-think the hardware side of things and buy extra stuff that you think you *might* need (and then waste time working out how to use it) - the KISS principle.

I'm hoping that isn't a huge issue as pulling the clay is not crazy fast, and I try not to make those mistakes that often :).
Yeah I am not sure I need 10 bit log tbh. Don't think intra frame compression matters either if the wheel is just rotating in place. How is the color SOOC with minimal editing for the Panasonic vs Nikon?
Somehow the Fuji XT-3 is around $850 in the US due to all the Fuji hype from YT :(. It was my first thought too 
Hmm Anamorphic seems interesting to play around but in the far, far, future
I think main problem with S1 is size (would like to be able to take the camera to galleries or on the street) and +$250 in price. Is manual focus such a huge issue with focus peaking and a static subject? I plan to tape where the tripod sits and mostly never move it. 
Eventually I would like to film some interviews/short studio tours with artists when I go to Asia to visit family this summer but I am not so sure I need AF for that. 
Also thank you everyone for the suggestions. I think I am going to pick up the S5 from B&H this weekend unless there is a huge difference to the Z6 in terms of color science. 

Yep I already am doing that with my iPhone 13 Pro and planning to use that as my A/B cam to start (most likely to get hte wide angle shot). Altho I need to get a new tripod and phone mount because the one I bought in Japan for $15 disintegrating. I just loathe the lack of manual adjustability on the phone. Pottery (vlogging) on social media these days is also kind of saturated. I am not looking to become a vlogger but I am hoping filming with more careful framing, lighting, and depth of field.

Good idea. I hadn't even thought of that option but I will definitely get one!
Thanks for the advice. I think a time lapse feature would be useful for hand building but for throwing its a bit too slow to match the movement. I will definitely try to post a video here once I get up and running.
That guys seems to be right up my alley with the janky alternatives lol. Hmm definitely leaning towards the S5 then if record limit is not going to be an issue. How are the colors SOOC? Like I said to start I tend to overthink things so hoping to get a few videos out there with minimal editing/setup and learn the more advanced stuff as I go.

To go a different way, and I don't think I saw it suggested yet, why not just get a tripod mount and a decent modern iPhone?  On 15/16, you can easily record nice quality ProRes/log to an external SSD (or even to CF with a USB-C to CF adapter).  Combine it with a decent mic and you're set.

You'll be amazed at the quality of 10bit H.265 LOG at low bitrates, even as low as 50Mbit/s
Unless you're doing very heavy VFX / grading / lifting shadows 5 stops for HDR puke look - it looks excellent.
The Z6 and a7 III have a similar image, similar spec, same sensor, it comes down to price, lenses, mount, and if the a7 III is as high as $1k I would choose the $750 Z6 instead. The s5 has 10bit LOG, as long as you're happy with a much worse EVF and autofocus than Z6.
One of the cheapest and most capable 10bit cameras under $700 is the Fuji X-T3.
The Z6 has no N-LOG but you can install my own EOSHD Z-LOG profile and use LUTs.
If you absolutely need 10bit LOG rather than 8bit Panasonic is pretty much only full frame choice for very cheap under $800.

As it’s the current obsession in camera world, I’m trying to work out what would happen if you used a camera with terrible rolling shutter when filming pottery throwing when it starts to go awry on the wheel and gets the wobbles.

 
Will it make it look like a lava lamp or will it go the other way and cross the streams in the Steven Wright “I put instant coffee in a microwave and almost went back in time” way ?