IronFilm

And budget for several lighting trucks. 
And budget for a six figure sound package. 
And budget for all the crew, and actors. And feeding them. 
And budget for all the locations. 
  
Yiiiikes, that doco starts out harsh
"There is no reason this shot ever has a boom shadow", the director shouts while pointing an angry finger at the Boom Op. 
Poor guy

Yeah, who the hell needs 4K 120fps anyway??? Not me

Not at all true, I'll commonly be suggesting mid range to premium grade cameras. Such as FX6 / FX9 / URSA Mini / etc to ALEXA Classic / Varicam LT / etc (when it is appropriate)
The thing though is that there is a much much broader range of camera prices, and the level for "acceptable" reaches down far far lower than for audio.  (such as Unsane and Tangerine, which were shot on an iPhone, yet still used a Sound Mixer with $50K+ worth of audio)
So there is a huge range of pricing with cameras that could be used, while I'm going to bring a pretty much similar audio package to a shoot no matter if it is being filmed on a P4K/FX3/GH6 or FX6/C70/URSA Mini or VENICE/ARRI/Varicam
Prosumer audio recorder will cost about $1K ish, give or take a few hundred. 
Prosumer wireless will cost around $600 ish. 
Professional wireless will cost over $1K per channel for the receivers, and about $1K ish to $3K ish per transmitter
Professional recorders will cost around $5K ish to roughly double that (except for the outlier that is the Aaton Cantar X3, at over $17K)
Professional mics will cost from around $1K ish, to about roughly double that. 
It's a much tight spread in prices than for cameras and lenses. 
 
It's no secret MSM are some of those feeling the most crushed of crushed budgets. 
But anyway, their sound needs have always been low and basic for many instances of basic reporting. Using for instance just a handheld mic, or a hardwired lav. 
As you've typically got one (maybe two) people talking on camera, mere feet away. With low expectations for audio quality. 

With the boom in vlogging and social media it's insane to release a camera without at least a 3.5mm mic jack 
Hmmm... I should check out the Sony ZV-1 if I'm foolish enough to buy another camera in 2024

I wonder if Panasonic would be crazy enough to bring out a GH5 mk3, that is simply identical to the GH5 mk1 / mk2, but with DPAF added! Especially if they could hold the price the same, or even better drop it slightly to fall under the magical US$1K mark. Could be a smash hit then. 
(although, I would dream that they make one more addition to the GH5 mk3: add timecode support! At least like the GH5S has)
The GH7 can get the kitchen sink at it, but let the GH5mk3 carry on all that is great with the GH5, but with PDAF

I wonder if Panasonic would be crazy enough to bring out a GH5 mk3, that is simply identical to the GH5 mk1 / mk2, but with DPAF added! Especially if they could hold the price the same, or even better drop it slightly to fall under the magical US$1K mark. Could be a smash hit then. 
(although, I would dream that they make one more addition to the GH5 mk3: add timecode support! At least like the GH5S has)
The GH7 can get the kitchen sink at it, but let the GH5mk3 carry on all that is great with the GH5, but with PDAF

That's true for 90%+ of cameras released today that are priced over $1K

I cannot say much but give you two dear forum friends a hug in spirit and from my heart. This forum has been a comforting place for me as well. A puny little camera, nobody took serious back then for video, but you image lovers did, was my rock to hold onto in the roughest of my times, a black small GX85, my dearest trusty video mate. I filmed butterflies with it and my parents garden. I will never make fun of anyone filming flowers, except when they do it with a Leica.:)

And budget for several lighting trucks. 
And budget for a six figure sound package. 
And budget for all the crew, and actors. And feeding them. 
And budget for all the locations. 
  
Yiiiikes, that doco starts out harsh
"There is no reason this shot ever has a boom shadow", the director shouts while pointing an angry finger at the Boom Op. 
Poor guy

Plus I hate change...though it is inevitable for some things.
The key to what I do though is making everything as simple as possible and as bulletproof as possible.
The Rode stuff I use is 'prosumer', but in something like 200 (?) jobs, it's earned a place with me.

I was just skimming the news this morning and the verdict was:
Ukraine vs Russia
South vs North Korea
Israel vs Hamas...and maybe others
China vs Taiwan/Japan/US
A straw thatched buffoon vs an old man
The United Kingdom.
YouTube comments
Other assorted fuckwits
Random shit
I think I'm going to go back to doing what I did during Covid and that is stop looking at the news completely. Because it's utterly depressing.

I would still like to see the 2 forum members who were fairly dismissive towards my suggestion their video work or ideally their reels. I’ve seen some stills of Tom’s work and here and he is more than able to produce great images, so I think his opinion is definitely worth reading.
to clarify my suggestion, which imo, I shouldn’t have to do to this extent, my reasoning is simple:
- op was considering an fx9 originally, and i think ironfilm recommended an fx6 at some point.
- We know that the p4k uses a sensor from the same family of sony dual iso options, and that they perform about the same in non raw codecs (and you can easily find that on cined too). 
- braw has a highlight recovery option, which can yield you an extra stop of highlight data, which means its actually better performing than both those (and i can actually speak from experience. Way easier to blow a highlight on an fx6 than a pocket cam). The DR argument is now invalid
- in regards to rolling shutter: from what i’ve read, the p4k performs about the same as the c70 from what ive read. The fx6 performs better, and the rolling shutter on the fx9, which is what op originally considered, performs way worse. so what’s the point of bringing this argument up? 
- what is the point of a bigger sensor if you want more reach and don’t care about super shallow dof on wide angle lenses? Its easier to get those results on mft.
- why are you already thinking about upgrading to different lens mounts? This person might quit within the year? What end result is a potential upgrade going to bring?
 
i dont have any experience with canon cameras. Im sure the c70 is great, but it seems like a waste of money unless you’re a docu DP who already has a bunch of bigger canon cameras and you needed a slightly smaller one as a bcam.

Give a serious thought to the Deity Theos system it's only just came out. It's very affordable, not much more expensive. (especially when you factor in the extra cost factor of buying lavs for the Rode GO)
More range, better design, more features, also is internal recording (for non-Americans, such as yourself). 
https://deitymic.com/products/theos-digital-wireless/ 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1779378-REG/deity_microphones_dtu0253d56_theos_digital_uhf_wireless.html
 

Are you referring to Jedi Master's thread? 
He doesn't need any of the professional features required by productions. 
Just needs a sensor to capture pretty landscapes in a slow paced chill manner on the weekends. 
That's like expecting someone to read an article before commenting on it on Facebook! Totally unrealistic expectations. 
 

Have you considered a C500 MK2 

6k, Internal ND, Great lowlight performance, great latitude and good dynamic range, internal RAW and 10 bit capability. 

Pretty well designed package that works great for building up or building down, good battery life. 

To me IQ/usability wise it would be the C500 MK2 or the RED Monstro. In that price range they are the top performers. With the Monstro you have to deal with 8k but you have tons of compression options. You're getting better dynamic range and color depth over the C500. Only downside is no internal ND's, probably more expensive media (redmags), and power consumption is higher(though not terrible). 

I see some mentions of the S1H. I think it's a great bang for your buck camera. Great battery life, great sensor. They sell used now for incredibly cheap.

Downsides are the HDMI out latency is terrible, slow rolling shutter, no internal 12 bit/RAW, and color isn't the greatest compared to higher end cameras. Again you can get great images out of it and for a hobby camera it would excel. If you are looking for a more high end experience I just don't think that would be it. In terms of value it is incredible though. 

I might also suggest an ARRI Alexa XT, but that might be too far into the too heavy spectrum. It's quite a beast. 

The Pocket 4k has BRAW which means you get 1 stops more in the highlights with highlight recovery in Resolve. The Red Komodo does this internally to get its 12.5 stop rating ( a $6000 "cinema" camera). That makes around 12.6 stops for the Pocket. Also the C70 only gets 12.3 stops in RAW, because it has no NR. Again you can get an additional .5 stops or so out of the Pocket with NR. 

The comparison between a RODE wireless GO and the Pocket 4k makes little sense to me. 

Also the Pocket has held its value pretty well over its entire lifetime. Hardly a waste of money. I still see them making money all the time on different projects.

M43 mount is hardly dead. The GH6 just came out with a brand new dual gain sensor, Z-cam is putting out a new global shutter M43 camera with higher dynamic range. Z-cam didn't likely design that sensor, probably made by Sony, which wouldn't be designing and making M43 sensors if there was no demand. 
But it doesn't really matter. If you aren't shooting for clients the camera you have is irrelevant outside of it giving you a usable image, which almost any camera on the market in the past 5 years does. 

Recommending a cheaper camera is not dissing someone's abilities. Award winning films have been shot on a GH2. The Pocket 4k is very capable. 

Anyways the Pocket 4k wouldn't be my choice in camera. Something like an S1H, FX30 would be as they are more run and gun friendly. My reason for not getting something "high end" for hobby uses is not because I don't want to spend money. It's because such tools are inconvenient and annoying for doing anything non work related. But that's me. Maybe you like to move slowly for your hobby uses an a big ass camera rig works for you.

Even a DSLR for photos is annoying, would rather have the smallest APSC or M43 mirrorless option that I can at least sort of fit in my pocket. 

Sorry to hear about your medical issues and great to hear you are on the road to recovery.
I echo your thoughts about this place.
My last few weeks have been spent at my Mother’s bedside as she drifted away to her passing.
In times like that of huge change and trauma we look for constants to keep us connected to “normal” life.
In that respect, checking into here every now and again to find everyone having the same circular arguments was oddly comforting.
And I honestly mean that with love.

Absolutely, but when will it be here? I mostly have EF lenses, though I may consider the Sony FX9 II if that comes along sooner and has the better features/price. The FX9 already looks great with the in-camera 10 bit:
And, with the RAW expander, it reproduces some beautiful colors:
Sony's advantage is that they don't need to introduce a new mount at this stage and have a better native and 3rd-party lens selection.

^ in that case i can still safely recommend a pocket 4k 

Is my memory wrong, but can't you have two external sources plus two internal scratch mics? That's a good enough compromise in my opinion 

im not yelling? i could make the argument that this consumerist driven attitude is more toxic? 

i think the 50/100k arri/venice setups are actually necessary for the context theyre made for, and i think there’s a decent argument to be made in regards to getting those and making a profit from renting those out.
Almost every camera now performs almost exactly the same. this means that theres no little to no difference in image quality between the lower budget options (pockets, fx30s) and the mid tier (canon c-whatever, fx9, red). you’re not going to see that price difference in the end result.
if you’re going to be shooting basic stuff in nature where you dont need a bunch of bells and whistles, you might as well get the lower cost options that let you record in a good or decent codec, which also happen to be light. your back will be much happier afterwards. you can save some money with which you could buy a decent set of lenses, nds and a great tripod.

I too was tempted to go give a lol reaction instead a like
But I support @QuickHitRecord on their impossible mission!

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.