IronFilm

I just got a D750 yesterday and I'm very impressed with it's performance. Lots of detail, no moire, great dynamic range. I have it matched with the optically stablized Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 and the results are excellent.

1 year too late. I'm sure Panasonic will release a forward thinking camera this year that will render the Canon competitor irrelevant.

​this Fairchild LTN sensor is a dream for a camera manufacturer, with its 4608x2592 pixel count,
it scans images from which you can extract  4096x2304  Super35  16x9 images for 4K delivery
while you send to the viewfinder the entire non cropped image displaying the standard +12%
out of frame field of view that all professionnal filmmakers request.
When designing the Aaton Delta Penelope, to clearly differentiate the extra field image
from the recorded one we were showing it in +/- bright b&w as shown in the attached image.
It would be good if a manufacturer could offer that option which better emulates a film camera OVF.

I'd also consider the LX100.

I'd also consider the Nikon 5300. Love the Nikon look straight out of the camera and you have a fantastic choice of lenses. And I second the RX10 as being a great all in one solution.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys.  At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes]
Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people.  Such as a RED.  It's so great.  And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it.   
If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff.  
Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever.  As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box.
And you'll never make money!  
As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use.
Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous.  Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs.  If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone.  As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear.
My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

Works fine for me and is very useful.
I have the original, not the MKII - you really need to do some tests with the unit - my meters are very conservative, and if I set levels at what seems proper, I have pretty weak tracks. The self-noise of the 60D is fine, but I'd really like a beefy waveform. Set it to really hit the peaks and use the minus-6 backups.
The limiter is very natural sounding - I use it all the time. It's not a total brickwall, but it helps.
One of those Anker USB phone batteries will power the DR-60 for hours or days. The the 60D is very picky about internal batteries and will report "dead battery" for batteries with a lot of juice left, esp. with rechargeables. Any USB power source (like a little phone charging brick) will power it via USB if necessary when you're in the studio.
One final tip - just do the quick format for cards - the full format, myself and many people give up after ten minutes or so and disconnect power.

Once again MX Mount is getting no love  :-/

Might be a controversial choice, but at that end of the budget scale I'd be tempted to a Sony RX100 MK 2 or 3 and little vari ND.
Screw a little handle into the bottom and away you go, stabilised and easy. Very unobtrusive so people don't get intimidated. I used to use one before I had a C100.

I would suggest something like the Sony RX10 or Panasonic FZ1000 if you don't want to go with a traditional video camera. Both use the same sensor, have mic inputs, the Sony has the faster lens, the Panny shoots 4k and had a fully articulating screen. If you're dipping your toes into doc work, these are great options. 
Bob Krist is a National Geographic photographer and he shoots a lot of his stuff with the RX10. Here's a couple good reads from him.  Check out his Vimeo page, stunning work, lots of it shot on the RX10.
http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/four-great-still-shooting-feats-my-sub-1k-mirrorless-can-do-that-my-3k-dslr-cant/
http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/mirrorless-mirrorless-on-the-wall-2/#more-538

​....and you could buy two of those in almost new condition for £500, or one and a good used lens - the G6 is an underrated camera, it's got some features (like focus peaking) that the GH3 doesn't even have. Unfortunately the GH4 is well beyond the budget of the OP.
In low light with the G6, I use a second-hand Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (non-VR, Nikon fit) on a cheap Camdiox focal reducer to get the equivalent of a 12-35mm F2.0 zoom - total cost about £220, and it's easy to manually focus with the aid of focus peaking.

​Well yeah, every option should (although some only ever so briefly) be considered.
But we're not talking price range here per se. It's mostly because they are comparable to a considerate degree. Both are 4K capable hybrids, with built-in stabilization and they share the fact that they're non-interchangeable lens systems with flexible optics. And then you're going to throw a 1080p RAW recording cinema camera in the mix that doesn't even take stills or includes glass with a decent range of coverage and sensitivity. If you're considering the LX100 and the FZ1000 I don't really see how you think the BMPCC fits in there in terms of comparability. Sure; from a price point they're close, but they're different sorts of cameras altogether.
The LX100 is nice as allround everyday camera. Don't add no nothing, just have it with you (perhaps some neutral density filters) and go about your day, always having that little powerhouse with you if the occasion arises. Same goes for the FZ1000, though it's more an allround travel cam with a higher degree of flexibility, but with some added chunkiness to it. Both have their ups and downs. Surely you can use them in a production environment as well. Though perhaps in limited capacity and rather as added specialty to another camera that's being used as main cam.
Sure, you can consider numerous other cameras, like the BMPCC, but then you might as well consider everything... from the GM1, GM5, G6, GX7, GH3, NX500, A5100, A6000, D5300 and D5500 all the way to the GoPro Hero4 BLK or everything upwards from that for that matter, GH4, NX1, A7S, D750, D810, 5DmkIII, 1D C and upwards of that even. And actually. You should. You should consider each and every single camera out there. Might even throw in the E-M5II, don't know why one would, but you can consider it for a brief second. Same goes for the Arri Alexa Mini, although it might be entirely out of your price range (but hey, renting is still a thing). Or hey, forget what I said, just use your smartphone instead!
The BMPCC is great because it's pushable due to its RAW recording possibilities. It's small and easily adaptable within a modular system. Footage looks great. Nice 'n flat, pretty great dynamic range for such a sensor. And... and... em. Hum. Well. Em. What's not to like, really? Well... perhaps... it's not for stills, so forget hybrid use. No built-in stabilization. Bad crop/difficult to get wide shots. Doesn't come with glass, you probably end up buying a couple of primes and having to swap 'em all the time. Not particularly high frame rates. Fills your cards up rather quickly. Goes through batteries like it's nothing. Screen isn't the most ideal. This is not a point-'n-shoot, you need to carefully set-up your shot. No blind use with mode and setting dials and tons of (customizable) buttons, just some navigation buttons. Not to mention it's all rather just basic functionality. Audio handling is poorly done. Oh. And last summer it was on sale with spectacular prizes. People were anticipating a successor soon... or a catch. Nope. Nothing of the kind. But the knowledge of putting down money for a camera, of which the amount months back would've bought you 2 of 'em (with no apparent reason other than the fact they can), that kinda stings, doesn't it? Anyways. In the end... it's great if you use it purposely. But it requires a very different approach than the LX100 or FZ1000.
Listen, I have the BMPCC... but not instead of the LX100 or FZ1000. They simply can't replace one another. That's why I have all three. And the GH4. And the GH2. And the E-M1. And the D5300. And several action cams. Although, surely that's the most ideal situation: not having to choose one to stick with, just have plenty of tools so you can put each tool to each specific use without compromising due to of the drawbacks a single solution would bring with it. Bit tougher if you have to pick one. It will depend on how you use it. Hybrid (stills/video) or not (video only)? Does size and weight constrict you? Do you need an all-in-one solution with a spontaneous point-'n-shoot character? Do you mind swapping out lenses and rigging your gear? How are you going to handle power supply? Are you going to use it in a production environment? Quality requirements? Gradeability? Need for slowmotion? Storage/archiving? Would you need specific system requirements for quick editting turnarounds? There's a lot that can make you go one way or another. There isn't a universal solution that meets the requirements of all shooters out there. Pick something that suits your individual needs the best... which can be any camera, really... just not sure if you want to take a too long look at the BMPCC, when you were thinking a LX100 / FZ1000 would nicely fit in your way of shooting. They might be similar at initial purchase, but are pretty much worlds apart. And with the BMPCC you're not even there yet after getting the camera itself...

For that low, camera like the Nikon D5300 would be very good compared to the Canon 5d2 because of no moire aliasing and better resolution. It will have a big advantages compared to gh3 (and most low cost m43 and Sony cameras) in low light. You will be getting 5d mark 3 low light quality out of it and that is very very important for Doc work. Super DR and colour is also two other advantages. It does have two drawback like absence of peaking and you will have exit video to change aperture. Those can be mitigated with a good viewfinder loupe for about $ 60 and buying older Nikon lens with aperture ring. You have 50 years of lens to chose from and it will be a lasting investment because they will mount on about every camera brand. One thing not to forget about when doing doc is investing in at least some good microphone and recorder.

The moire filter is going to add to the cost. The video quality is very primitive and unless you want to use ml raw (not really suited for documentary) any recent camera is much better.
gh3, d5200, etc...
Welcome to the forum 

As the house is probably burning at night, AND the a7s cost more, I'd of course grab the Sony!

As the house is probably burning at night, AND the a7s cost more, I'd of course grab the Sony!

Your post is 2013 new review difference is really small and personal choice  which one to get
http://blog.josephmoore.name/2014/11/01/comparing-focal-adapters-the-metabones-speed-booster-vs-the-rj-photo-lens-turbo/

I've found the key to getting accurate skin tones on the A7s to be ALWAYS do a good manual white balance, and using the right picture profile.
Like you, I do corporate work where you can't get away with arty skin tones. When required you need a straightforward look that just looks right and doesn't draw attention to itself.
I tried S-Log and I'm still finding my way into it, but I'd recommend Kholi's picture profiles from another message board. I won't link to it here as I'm not sure if that's against the rules, but you can find it easy enough with a google search or drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction.
This profile really gave me colour which matches almost exactly with my 5D mk2. It's from a guy called Spreeni who slightly modified one of Kholi's profiles. It's a cine2 profile which is relatively flat but perks right up with minor colour correction and is much easier than S-Log 2 to deal with. Try this out before you drop your A7s altogether. And remember to do that white balance! I recently got an Expodisc 2 and it's really helped a lot.
 
Black Level: -11
Gamma : Cine2
Black Gamma > Range: Wide , Level: +7
Knee > Mode: Manual , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid, Manual Set > Point: 105%, Slope: 0
Colore Mode: Pro
Saturation: +6
Color Phase 0
Color Depth > R+3, G-3, B+1,, C-3, M-1, Y-0
Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0
 
White balance: No Grid setting needed !

I recommend RJ Lens Turbo, it costs a mere fraction of the Metabones standard 0.7x focal reducer. And yes, it comes in C/Y mount (or you could use a dumb EF, which they sell too). RJ Lens Turbo is what I use myself on my BMPCC (RJ Lens Turbo is really the only good Chinese alternative focal reducer for m4/3. as I'll agree all the others are rubbish! Except for Mitakon if you're looking for one for Sony E mount). 

Otherwise, splurge out and get the dedicated BMPCC Metabones speedbooster, but just remember you won't be able to use it on a GH4 (or GH5...) if you get one of those in the future. 

​It's a storm in a yorkshire teacup!
It goes without saying bullying and fist fighting are unacceptable. You're absolutely right, if the producer had hit Clarkson he would be dead and buried. Career over.
But if the Queen smacks Prince Philip in the mouth if he hasn't cooked he goose properly, you don't throw out the entire royal family.
The producer and Clarkson until last week had had a happy working relationship for a decade.
James May says he can't remember what happened because he was "blind drunk" as a result of that drink in the pub on an empty stomach.
 
In the 70's and 80's we had professional snooker players swigging beer on TV during the world championship. In the modern professional climate, a hellraiser or firebrand is considered someone who pops outside for a cig break occasionally.
The BBC needs its hellraisers like Clarkson. Otherwise blandness will ensue. I'm tempted to say it already has looking at 99% of their presenters.
The BBC are indeed between a rock and a hard place politically on this one, they had to act.
Agree 100% for them to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour now would be political suicide given the current climate.
However you have to give creative license to your hellraisers and some leeway morally, as inevitably they occasionally throw a wobbly or cause a fracas.
He's not the pope. He's not an Ambassador for Good Manners. Clarkson's responsibility to us is to entertain us, not morally reinforce our values.
He should absolutely 100% apologise to his producer, take him out for a lunch and have a hug in front of the cameras on the next episode as well.
It really should be that simple. Otherwise, he will be off to Sky like half the BBC F1 team. Jobs will go. Extreme Facilities supply Top Gear with GH2 / GH4 drones for example and their contract is with the BBC. Sad to kill such a consistently creative and popular show over a bit of bad behaviour.
If Clarkson is not bigger than the show, as the BBC claim, then pulling the show because of Clarkson implies the opposite.
Also I was really looking forward to the Ferrari vs McLaren vs Audi shootout
I'm not even a petrol head. I like the humour. I like the bravado and the journeys. It's a travel adventure and spectacularly filmed in parts.
Of course some of the blog post is speculation, none of us are truly a first party to what went on. We get our info through the papers and the internet. Therefore we have to remember that there's a whole section of the left wing political spectrum out to get Clarkson because he's a buddy of Cameron. Most of the earlier Top Gear controversies were hyped in just the same way, in order to damage Clarkson and Cameron's popularity with the public. In some ways, Clarkson actually doesn't deserve the reputation of oaf. In real life I expect he's a caring dad. He's playing it up for the cameras in the same way an actor would play a character. At this rate we'll be hanging Eastenders characters in the street when they murder someone! Occasionally a flippant remark will be attributed to him rather than to the script. Nobody is going to be pitch perfect over a thousand hours of scripted television especially when it's also improvised on top of that. You are going to have a joke go wrong or cross a line or go creatively wrong and it's simply unreasonable for the BBC to have no tolerance and to pander to every person who might be offended because they claim "Clarkson's a racist dickhead". That isn't a sustainable way to run a broadcaster. They had 150,000 complaints over the way a dog was handled on Crufts! A bloody dog show!! Looking at the numbers, you have to say Crufts is cruel and should be taken off the air. At this rate the BBC will have a lot of empty spaces in their schedules....

​There's a big difference between the narrow definition of something and the affects the manifestation of that thinking has upon society.
I see it as beginning to mimic what George Orwell wrote about in 1984 regarding acceptable and unacceptable language with what he called 'Newspeak'. Certain words were deemed unacceptable so as to limit freedom of thought. In a similar way today certain 'memes' are considered unacceptable by the 'politically correct' middle classes in their attempts to not offend anybody. To talk of some of the 'memes' is pretty much social and political suicide. For instance mentioning a meme regarding 'victim mentality' and race will get you labelled a 'racist'. Mentioning the meme 'doubting the validity of Anthropogenic Climate Change' will have you labelled a 'denier'. Being identified with anything like that is political suicide for a politician and so they naturally fall in line with what's 'politically correct' because after all they need to be seen as reasonable, fair and caring individuals to win our votes. Thus you have the crazy situation of spending all that money on changing our flag, not for the benefit of the indigenous minority that supposedly this is about, but actually to satisfy the political correctness of the guilt-ridden white majority in order to win votes. If you were to ask Maori I'm sure most would want that money better spent by feeding their children.
I hope that makes things a little clearer.
Regarding Andrew, how can you say that when he states things such as:
"In an effort to be transparent and impartial the BBC and other companies have opened their doors to any life-form on earth who happens to be offended by any-thing.
This is creating a culture in the TV and film industry which is anti-creativity and anti-risk but most damagingly it’s anti-personality."
and
"Giving people something to laugh at and bringing some fun onto the screen is where Top Gear’s remit should end, but management everywhere now have ideas way beyond their station.
Apparently, if you’re making a magazine show about high performance cars, you have to cure global warming too. If you run a sport called Formula One for 40 years, suddenly you need to put eco friendly engines in the cars. If you produce a long-running comedy panel show or quiz, now you need to equally balance the number of male and female guests in every episode to reflect society itself. If you produce a program about politics you need to give as much air time to racist skinhead candidates as you do to the prime minster. It’s all for the sake of ‘balance’ and ‘impartiality’ and ‘curing society of all its ills’. Strangely, I thought it was just entertainment.
It seems middle-management pursue a moral crusade and a message in every single piece of content in our homes.
I am sick of it." 

I'll make a specific post regarding the Top Gear incident.
Like others I can understand the need to suspend Clarkson if he's actually punched a Producer. Having said this though I can find no news report stating a punch up, they state a fracas which may have been just verbal.
What I do not understand though are the incidents leading up to this sad state of affairs - the bad comments, racial slurs etc. In these circumstances one must surely question the good taste and competency of the Producer and Director involved because these shows are highly scripted and set up with multiple takes. If Clarkson said something offensive why didn't the Producer or Director call him up on this in the field and do another take leaving out the offensive words. Even if this wasn't picked up in the field, why was it left in the edit that was broadcast - one can always cut around such things and as a last resort even completely remove the offending piece. Clarkson himself stated with the 'eeny meeny miny moe' piece there were other takes without the 'n' word and he emailed the Producer asking them to swap it out.
This all sounds to me like a bit of a stitch up with a Producer trying to make an edgy controversial show. Perhaps some of the source of friction between Clarkson and him?

​But god forbid you show a (female) nipple.

​
‘Political correctness’ can be very bad especially if it flies in the face of common sense. 
 
To give you an example, I live in New Zealand which like many western nations is suffering from ‘nanny state’ malaise. I recently read an article about a Northland school that decided to ignore the ‘politically correct’ compliance laws regarding child playground safety because they simply couldn’t afford it anymore. This became an interesting social experiment. The children were allowed to play in the type of school playground that used to exist when I was at school, without extreme safety padding and measures, and without constant adult supervision. They were allowed to explore and make mistakes, challenge one another and sort out their own social hierarchy. Sure it produced a few more scraped knees and bruises but what was interesting was that bullying became almost nonexistent (before they had a very high incidence of bullying). What is more, vandalism at the school dramatically dropped, students became far more engaged and academic achievement skyrocketed! 
 
Having said all this, I’ve been amazed by many of the children in Indonesia while on film shoots there. They are like 'mini-me' adults. They do chores, wield knives, hunt, haggle, take responsibility and enter conversations with adults much like an equal (many of the things we wouldn’t allow our children to do in the west because we’d consider them incapable and some of the tasks too dangerous). They do all this because it’s expected of them since they could walk. No wrapping in cotton wool like many of our children, yet they grow up to be socially well adjusted adults.
 
Also in the name of political correctness my country will be spending billions to change our flag (removing the Union Jack so as not to acknowledge our colonial past) and changing all the mapping so that the North and South Islands are named by both their English and their Maori names - the North Island being ‘Te Ika-a-Māui’ and the South Island being ‘Te Waipounamu’. This is at a time when the aforementioned school has between 60-70% of primary kids being sent to school without breakfast and the school having to provide food for hungry children. This is what I mean by political correctness flying in the face of common sense. In the case of the renaming, while they are lovely names, they are expected to be in common use and used interchangeably with the English. What a source of confusion! How many of you overseas people would understand if you asked me where I was from and I told you “I’m from Te Waipounamu, in Aoteoroa”? Imagine the potential confusion in the postal service, especially with letters or parcels from the US! We’ve already had Americans arrive in Auckland from LA thinking they were on a domestic flight to Oakland! “Goddamn, I never realised it was such a long flight to Oakland! And haven’t our domestic airlines really gone to the dogs, employing so many illegal immigrants with such goddamn strange accents!”

​By minorities Andrew isn't meaning racial minorities, he's talking about minority opinions - at least that's the way I took it.