IronFilm

Believe the random DPR commenter!

6) a $250 mic (a not uncommon price for a lav mic) is going to sound worse than a microphone that cost six times more. 
No, you do not just "forget" about it, you stay monitoring it and ready to troubleshoot any issues at a moment's notice. 

And that experience which you mentioned.... that takes YEARS to build up!

Editing PCs are a rather extreme niche of a niche, but the good news is there is a MASSIVE overlap between what makes a good gaming PC and what makes a good editing PC. 

Thus reading how to build guides for the optimal gaming PC at the moment for a given budget, often gets you 90% of the way to figuring out a good and close to optimal build for an editing PC. 

Yeah, I didn't misunderstand you, I got your point, I agreed and just enhanced that view.
I have put lavs a few thousand times myself. You never forget the lav, you constantly monitor and it is very stressful, especially if you have more than 10, as I was doing political talk shows and I had 10-15 people miked at all time (the good thing is I didn't have to hide them, that is always a plus).
As good as you have place it, there is always a chance to something go wrong, and you need only 1 second of bad sound to ruin the take/interview/scene etc. 1 mistake is too much, while an experienced booman can always perform 100% right. This is my 19 years sound experience.
Most people believe that a lav is the only think they need for sound. That is not the fact.

No sound man in his senses would prefer a lav to a properly positioned normal form factored mike.
If you think that "you just "mike the guy" and forget about it", you haven't miked a few people on a very important shooting or TV series/Film.
Why? Mostly physics.
1) size. There is so much you can do to a wee tiny capsule to achieve great sound. The good ones, are really expensive (DPA are my favorite)
2) Placement takes time, huge amounts of experience, and always, some luck.
3) Cloth/hair/movement noises
4) wireless have frequency issues from wi fi/mobile phones/whatever - cable is limiting and can be the worst solution of the 3 (boom/wireless lav/cabled lav)
5) change of sound depending of the talents movement

Not sure any sound guy would consider that an upgrade... lavs are "easy", as you just "mike the guy" and forget about it, but sound quality of a proper boom is better (super cardioids are usually more flattering for speech than an omni lav).

@Kisaha
For sure, but with if you mount it on a appropriate rig and use it with a IS-E-mount lens, it's definetly usable on your shoulder. It will not be stabilized like a modern shoulder camcorder, but it works. I tested also the La-EA2 adapter with a A-Mount lens, the AF worked impecably without hunting (because of the used phase detection) and I was though wondering about the good AF of a that "ancient" camera. AF and spot focus ("tap to focus") worked too (with E-lens --> only contrast AF), though they were tested by daylight in contrasty scenes...So, not bad for requirement Nr. 1 - quick jobs, many times as one man band...
Yeah, the LS300 is at the end of the day much cheaper than a FS700-package (FS700 + 7Q+), BUT it has no RAW option...And I'd like to get in using RAW...
@IronFilm
Sorry, no, IronFilm...It was HIS footage, not mine. This cameraman is just an long time and very experienced Cinealta user and an excellent grader, not only with Sony footage. I was simply impressed by the RAW quality and his "quick grade". I just was very happy to see the work of an experienced pro...Not that I would believe, I could do the same after 2 days of use, but he will help me to get in (S-LOG x shooting, grading, etc.), if I buy the FS700 + 7Q+...I'm aware of the fact, that the RAW S-Log shooting and post are much work for me to learn and get used to...

A minor segway for people who wonder why the hell anyone would shoot on nikon still: I was editing stuff from my last shoot yesterday. Interior shot exposed for the exterior sky (so there was just a tiny bit of data in the blue channel).  Flat profile on nikon d5500, as flat as possible on the gx85.  Blue skies recoverable from both shots, interior on the gx85 absolutely unrecoverable, no problems on the d5500 (and if only they had a decent codec it could be pushed much further).  I dont know how the gh5 and log will compare, but the *usable* dynamic range on the nikons is still better than I've seen in this segment.  
I love my nikon gear, I also want them to be around in 10 years time :/

Yes they are very committed to this camera which brings a sense of security and it shows they stand behind their products! If nothing significant is highlighted at NAB, then I'll buy another LS300. 

Give it an improved EVF and internal 10 bit 4K and I'm in. 
The ability to use MFT and super 35 format lenses on the same camera without adaptors is a great feature.

You may want to check out the a5100 instead. It's a little cheaper, plus it has touch screen PDAF with native lenses.

Nonsense - nothing wrong with overclocking if done properly within the manufacturer's limits for voltage and temperature and lots to gain from faster processing. 

I'm still seeing user reports of a6500 occasionally overheating.
 
And even if it didn't.... Thus then you could use it as your A cam for weddings, where oh where are your cheaper B cam options?? They don't exist! Not like the G7. And if you purchased 3x a6500 that would totally blow your budget.

I can't do $500, as I only have $499.  Could you do that instead? Just first send me $1, and then after that I'll be able to then send you back $500.

I'm still seeing user reports of a6500 occasionally overheating.
 
And even if it didn't.... Thus then you could use it as your A cam for weddings, where oh where are your cheaper B cam options?? They don't exist! Not like the G7. And if you purchased 3x a6500 that would totally blow your budget.

Ohhhhh.... !!! Exciting!
But they have very tough competition however vs FS5/FS7/C300mk2
It will take a *lot* to drag away owner ops from the brands/models that producers/directors trust.
But if they can launch it at the same price as the LS300 arrived at, but with internal 4K 60p 10bit and the ergonomics of an FS5/FS7, then they might have a hit on their hands!

I wouldn't even want to do a wedding with only one shooter...  Most weddings have two shooters filming it. (A few with 3 or more...)
But I understand if some low budget shoots might do it solo.
But for the ceremony and reception you absolutely want at least two more cameras rolling on a tripod. One a big wide shot to capture everything. And another tighter shot on the couple.
Then you'd roam with with your A Cam on a monopod, capturing all the juicy spontaneous moments.
If you can get more extra cameras... That is good too! Then you can put one tighter shot on Bride side and another on Groom side, and another pointing backwards at the guests.
I've shot weddings with half a dozen cameras rolling at once. 

I've shot heaps of weddings and I'd never go in with only one camera.
 
Thus I recommend the GH5 (or G80) as your A cam,  with a couple of G7 cameras on tripods for your B cam coverage
 
a6500 lacks this choice of excellent 4K cameras at dirt low prices which you can match easily to your A cam
While Panasonic has the G7

I wouldn't even want to do a wedding with only one shooter...  Most weddings have two shooters filming it. (A few with 3 or more...)
But I understand if some low budget shoots might do it solo.
But for the ceremony and reception you absolutely want at least two more cameras rolling on a tripod. One a big wide shot to capture everything. And another tighter shot on the couple.
Then you'd roam with with your A Cam on a monopod, capturing all the juicy spontaneous moments.
If you can get more extra cameras... That is good too! Then you can put one tighter shot on Bride side and another on Groom side, and another pointing backwards at the guests.
I've shot weddings with half a dozen cameras rolling at once. 

I wouldn't even want to do a wedding with only one shooter...  Most weddings have two shooters filming it. (A few with 3 or more...)
But I understand if some low budget shoots might do it solo.
But for the ceremony and reception you absolutely want at least two more cameras rolling on a tripod. One a big wide shot to capture everything. And another tighter shot on the couple.
Then you'd roam with with your A Cam on a monopod, capturing all the juicy spontaneous moments.
If you can get more extra cameras... That is good too! Then you can put one tighter shot on Bride side and another on Groom side, and another pointing backwards at the guests.
I've shot weddings with half a dozen cameras rolling at once. 

I'll throw in the first suggestion:
Be able to toggle on and off the vector scope and the waveform while shooting--like Sony cams can. And also show the vector scope and waveform on an external display--like Canon does.

I found the original Red (pre-MX) to be borderline broken. I think I used one of the first ones a few months after it came out and everything about it was awful, ergonomics were horrible, color was a complete joke, incredibly noisy except when rated at around 250-400 ISO which meant it clipped faster than a Canon dSLR and it did not produce an acceptable image in tungsten light color because it was too noisy under any conditions when starved of blue light, very soft OLPF that made it softer than most 1080p cameras today, and even when they fixed the color processing in redcine it still had a green tint to tungsten light. I would rate it at about the same dynamic range as a 7D and much slower, but with a good smooth image with nice tonality and absolutely zero aliasing. In full day light you can get a nice image from it but with very limited dynamic range. But look at the Informant, every tungsten-lit scene is bright orange for a reason, they had to process 3200K-lit scenes at 5600K or else the image would have been unacceptable. That said, the movie looks decent overall. With heaps of light it had a better image than you get today from dSLRS etc. But it was essentially broken out of the box, which makes it more impressive to me that the Dragon/DXL is pretty darned great now (minus some color issues that remain, but which a talented colorist can largely fix)!  The Red has a bit of a more digital look than the Alexa and I think in the long run the digital look will be more popular than film, sharper and punchier color, more familiar to YouTube audiences while still very high end and impressive. The new Red stuff has a more digital look in arguably a good way, just not my style. 
I also feel the Red One was harder than an Alexa or F55 for a one man band to operate (I think two people could effectively use an Alexa on a slower-paced set, you just need a full team to move as fast around a narrative set as possible) because it takes 90 minutes to boot up and has short battery life and crashes a lot. But with new firmware, etc. I bet it's usable now. I think you can get a slightly better image than a GH2, for instance, under similar conditions, but that it's not worth the effort. I would rather have a CX00 or any Sony cinema camera that shoots RAW or at least properly implemented 10 bit SLOG3/SGAMUT3 (because their color is broken on their cameras that don't) by far though. The F5 and F55, neither of which I particularly like, are orders of magnitude better than the original Red, and slightly beyond the MX. Their RAW is competitive with the Dragon, even. The Alexa doesn't need RAW its image processing is so advanced and refined.
The Red MX, while still clunky to operate, is still quite formidable, however. Social Network looks good. Fincher processes all his films through a very expensive post process (Lowry process) that costs up to seven figures per feature, and that's one reason those movies look so smooth and so good and clean, but he still shot them on just a regular Red MX. The image is nearly on par with the C500 but it is softer, with worse color, etc. but also a little bit less of a digital sharpening edge. 
I wouldn't want one for free lol but other people like them! The Red One MX is a pretty solid performer, however, and potential bargain for someone with the time to babysit a slower-to-operate camera, you might love it. The original I think is just too clunky.

@tupp every single example where you state there's a difference between the two images is related to optics, not sensor size, or the tester didn't/couldn't set the systems up for equivalence. The differences between the Fujinon lenses is one has the APD filter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodization) and the other doesn't, which explains the difference in bokeh. Nothing to do with sensor size.
Are you familiar with the scientific method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Your conjecture is as sensor size gets larger <insert specific properties which can be tested and characterized here>. Your Null Hypothesis is thus, "Sensor size has no effect by itself on the captured image". Now do your experiments using the scientific method. Do you own a camera and lenses? If not can you rent them? I only ask because you've never posted any of your own work.
In your experiments you'll try your hardest to show that sensor size has no effect, eliminating as many variables as possible. Only after rigorous testing to try to eliminate sensor size as having an effect, can you then reject your null hypothesis and form a predictable theory which accurately describes the effects sensor size has on the captured image, and most importantly your new theory will be able to make predictions which can then be tested to further validate that your understanding of the system is correct. And that, brother, is currently the best process human beings have for understanding what's real, or not.

I used to read Cinema5D articles quite regularly, previously. But ever since their bluff has been called about their obviously biased reviews, I avoid them like the plague.

Different sensors sizes provide different pixel sizes and resolutions and abilities to use different lens sizes. Smaller sensor cameras tend to be more compact and lower cost. Nothing magical happens with DOF as sensor size increases. I got killer shallow DOF with the Voigtlander F.95 25mm on the GH4. Is the 50mm F1.4 or F1.2 shallower on the FF 5D3- sure, but these shallow DOFs aren't usable very often for video, right? And just being shallower isn't a special, magical property.
The Alexa looks killer because of the ALEV III sensor design and associated image processing and color science. They used S35 as that is the standard for filmmaking and for lens compatibility. If a larger sensor size would create a magical image better than a smaller sensor size, ARRI would have made it, right? What about the Alexa 65? That's just their way of using the ALEV III sensor (3 of them rotated 90 degrees) to get higher resolution without changing the sensor, pixel size, image processing, and color science. It's about resolution, and that's it. Nothing magical about the sensor size by itself.
If larger sensor sizes produce a better DOF look (vs. just shallower via available lenses), it should be easy to prove. The reason there's no proof is it's a myth.