maxotics

Almost everything we experience/measure, is either counting (linear) or some form of exponential (log).  We measure the sensor by counting (linear); that is how many photons have hit the sensel, but we generally express/measure the amount of light exponentially, like f-stops 1/1, 1/4, 1/9, 1/18, 1/32, 1/64 etc. (we put fractional stops in between).  That is, if we count 100 photons at one pixel, and 200 photons at another pixel, we generally don't come to the conclusion that the difference in light, measured through the inverse law https://petapixel.com/2016/06/02/primer-inverse-square-law-light/ is double in the second pixel. Double would actually be 400 photons!  In the real world, light behaves exponentially.  In our data world, we measure/or store number in a linear space.  Put another way, humans think in numbers for counting.  God thinks, or nature behaves, exponentially.
@cantsin can explain better than I why measuring light linearly, or I should say, using the sensor's linear readings at the low and high end generally mean you end up with a lot of useless data.  
Many of us have hashed this to death.  The core problem is you can't save 12 stops of full-color dynamic range in an 8-bit space.  It doesn't matter how those numbers are represented, LOG or otherwise.  The 8-bit space was designed for our viewing, not for our capturing.  LOG can't magically "compress" the sensor data into an 8-bit space.  It can help in telling you where you can trade off some data in one area for another, as Don mentions above, but the rub is the area you're getting a lot of noise is also the area you can least afford to lose if you're extending beyond the 6-8 stops you can capture in 8-bit!
LOG is also used in video processing to distort data into an 8-bit space.  Just to 'f' with us humans, LOG also does a better job of explaining light as we really experience it   Unfortunately, our computers, which are binary, don't work with data (like RAW sensor data) in LOG, let alone the decimal system   
As a side note, Canon RAW, being saved in 14 bits created huge problems for me (and others) in software development.  Everything in programming makes it easy to work with in bytes.  All electronics are based around that. It's easy to say, get me this byte, or two bytes.  To say/program get me this 14 bits...no fun.  Take my word for it !!!!  My guess is most cameras are based around 8-bit (1 byte chunk) storage.  The RAW ML works with is just a stream of bits, which again, you have to parse out into 14-bit chunks.  To make the data easy to work with in camera, or PC, they'd really need to make them 2-byte (16 bit) chunks.  Well, most small electronics do not use 16-bit processors.  You'll read many conspiracy theories about this stuff, but the mundane truth is our electronics aren't up to working with 12-stop (12 to 14-bit) dynamic range data.
 
 

If I may embellish.  I suspect many people are confused about 10-bit video.  When we look at a colors on our 8-bit screen we're looking at 256 shades of each primary color, R,G,B.  The dynamic range is generally around 6 EV between darkest and brightest.  In 10-bit compressed video, like that of the GH5, We have 1,024 shades of colors, but STILL IN THAT 6 EV dyamic range.  What this means is that if you shoot a wide DR shot of the sky and some people under and umbrella, you can't bring back more detail from the clouds in 10-bit then you could in 8-bit.  The only real benefit of 10-bit compressed video, that I could see, is banding  where there are fine gradations of color.  And that benefit, is almost impossible to see in a moving image.
In 10-bit DNGs, that Andrew is mentioning above, you're getting 1,024 shades OUTSIDE that 6 EV gamut, so you can recovered highlights or shadows.  If all ML did was get 10-bit RAW to work on the 5DIII, that alone, is worth the guide right there!!!   
As soon as they port this stuff to the 7D I'll buy that guide immediately!

He charges $700 for his online guides. That is enough to make anyone into a jealous communist!
I charge $20 for mine!
Maybe I should start LeicaScientology.com

I find him being a scientologist to be more of a barrier to be honest.

I made the mistake of telling my other half how much a Leica Q was when we saw an unpriced one in a cabinet while I was buying an ND filter in a store a few months ago.
So what I'm personally scared about with regard to the emotional truth of photography if I ever rang up to order one would be this.

I'm 56 and have been doing photography since early early teens--you'd think I'd get good at it by now  I appreciate your knowledge, I do, but it's confusing the issue here, which is what the filmmaker should focus on.  The stuff you're pointing out, true as it is, is in the weeds.  Like many others here I used to focus on how much DR I could get in my image.  Then I had the epiphany that I was thinking outside in (physical world to viewing world) when improvements can come by looking at it from inside-out (viewing world to physical world).  That is, by thinking about what the viewer ultimately sees, and how that image can be the best, I can understand what's important and what isn't.  I wasn't trying to start a debate 
It's like Plato's cave.  Everyone wants to talk about the metaphysical forces that create the image on the wall.  I enjoy doing that too.  But much can be learned by talking about ONLY what we see and what makes for good quality there.

What ML has done with Canon cameras is simply amazing - they've taken a camera with great colour science, a really shitty delivery codec & given it a greatly needed shot in the arm!
But, and it is a big but, RAW can be a real pain in the arse - with my set up, I need to transcode the DNG files with RPP (it's great as it can batch stuff, has 3 different LOG settings & loads of JPEG/TIFF settings), then I need to wrap them in a QT PR .mov file & then i can edit them.
Personally, H264 is dead to me & all i want is a sturdy codec with which to play with in post - PR422 HQ or above is more than good enough for most things. RAW is only useful when you come across a difficult scene that needs some extra care/attention in post - DR to you guys.
However, if I was given the choice between the 5D3's internal codec & RAW (regardless of bits), then I'd certainly choose RAW everytime - so some of the ML flavours might not have as much DR, but come on, you don't or won't need that amount of DR all the time. I know it might be a bit old fashioned, but the rule of thumb should be to get it right, as close as possible, in-camera & then all you'll need to do is tweek in later - personally if you're spending more time in post than actually filming, you're doing it wrong.
What Andrew shot (see vid above) really shows the strengths of what ML has brought to the 5D3 table - if you can't see it, then i feel really sorry for you. It isn't an ideal situation, but if you have a 5D3 you should be jumping up & down with joy - so many choices are now available to you!
If you're still using a camera with an H264 delivery mode, I'd be pulling what's left of my hair out!

People talk about only "8 stops of dynamic range" as if it's unusable.  I love following Andrew's and everyone else's analysis of how to maximize various camera's potential, but we sometimes let things get out of perspective.  The order of important in my experience is 1. Lighting 2. Focus/stabilization 3. Lens 4. Sensor 5. Ergonomics 6. CODEC.   Yes, we can't control the lighting all the time, but we also have to compare cameras in how they do in properly lit scenes; that is, scenes at/under 8 stops of DR.  Here's my take on why we must never forget that shooting scene with more than 8 stops of dynamic range is something we really want to avoid.  No camera can truly save it.  It becomes a calculus of atrocities.  
 

Well, getting back onto the subject of the 10bit and 12bit lossless 3.5K raw on the 5D Mark III, I can safely say it's the best QUALITY dynamic range I've ever used in post. I can correct for huge exposure differences and there's no crushing of the shadows / blacks at all.
So I agree in that I'd rather have a high quality 10 stops or 12 rather than a compressed to hell 14 stops that's for sure (*cough cough* S-LOG 3 *cough*)

Choose 10bit or 12bit then
This isn't North Korea.

The thing is Magic Lantern's option for 8bit RAW at ISO 6400 makes perfect sense as the sensor isn't delivering more than 8 stops dynamic range at that ISO any way
So to cut the data rate and save some card space in low light it is a good option.

Didn't read every posting in this thread, so maybe this was already covered. I mean the part about EditReady. There is a much more powerful tool that does a lot more. It's called Kyno. A beta version for Windows (free) is announced. Didn't look too spectacular to me initially, but now I've bought it, and I think it's fantastic. Plays all* media (you can filter by video, audio and stills), dives trough folder structures (called drilldown-mode), allows to import, trim (> subclip), batch-rename, tag (Premiere: mark), transcode, wrap and copy directly from card. Allows to send data bases to FCP (shift cmd f) and Premiere (shift cmd p). 
*well, no raw video for now, they're working on it.

Yes but that DR is at the expense of something else.... Which is what I am telling you guys all along!

Perfect isn't an option all the time... Nature doesn't always give you perfect lighting.
If a controlled interior scene is lit for the narrower dynamic range of a Rec.709 8bit image you can get it looking good, as the guys with the GH2 showed in the famous Zacuto shootout that had Francis Ford Coppola fooled.
If you try to pack too much dynamic range into the frame then colour is going to suffer with 8bit.
That is why the 1D C has good colour but not 14 stops DR
And it is why 14 stops DR in S-LOG doesn't have good colour
And it is also why Canon LOG on the 1D C never quite regains the punch of the standard picture profiles if you want to keep your extra highlights and shadows intact.
It is all the fault of 8bit.
I foresee BIG gains for Sony colour if they do the entire imaging pipeline 14bit -> 10bit on a future A7S3, along with the improvements to the colour science evident from the A9's JPEGs.
Isn't that what I am saying?
Well there's lossless compression which means you don't lose any visual information, the structure of the file changes, but the end result is the same.
Compression can be lossy... meaning you throw stuff away in the image.
LOG is lossy in 8bit, you are throwing away fine gradation and colour information to make room for more dynamic range.
Honestly it's easy to see
When you tweak the shadows and highlights in 10bit RAW on the 5D Mark III it maintains the natural, realistic still-life look of the shot, smooth roll off between two subtle tones in the shadows like a dusk sky and the street... whereas in 8bit on a lossy camera it turns to Digital Sick™
 

If you are careful you can manually do a vertical or horizontal pan with a shift lens. One thing to avoid with shift lenses and video is moving the camera - panning while having a lots of shift as the aparent movement in the shifted corners can be quite excessive. They are best used for locked off shots. Also If your clients are architects they won't understand a world that is not in 2 point perspective............ 

Apart from the fact that the small sensor makes the OP's existing wide shift lenses near useless.........

If I may embellish.  I suspect many people are confused about 10-bit video.  When we look at a colors on our 8-bit screen we're looking at 256 shades of each primary color, R,G,B.  The dynamic range is generally around 6 EV between darkest and brightest.  In 10-bit compressed video, like that of the GH5, We have 1,024 shades of colors, but STILL IN THAT 6 EV dyamic range.  What this means is that if you shoot a wide DR shot of the sky and some people under and umbrella, you can't bring back more detail from the clouds in 10-bit then you could in 8-bit.  The only real benefit of 10-bit compressed video, that I could see, is banding  where there are fine gradations of color.  And that benefit, is almost impossible to see in a moving image.
In 10-bit DNGs, that Andrew is mentioning above, you're getting 1,024 shades OUTSIDE that 6 EV gamut, so you can recovered highlights or shadows.  If all ML did was get 10-bit RAW to work on the 5DIII, that alone, is worth the guide right there!!!   
As soon as they port this stuff to the 7D I'll buy that guide immediately!

It's more of a marketing thing than a principle... The purity of the camera as an artistic photography tool is tainted when you put modern stuff like video and wifi on it. And the association most 'purist / traditional' photographers make with video is that video is something you do with an iphone, point and shoot, or something you do with a film crew at an extremely high level that has nothing to do with being a lone photographer / artist... So they don't feel it has a place on a traditional photographic tool like the Leica M, and I totally understand that, right tool for the job, etc.
However for me it's nice to have on even the most photography focused body... Even if you'd be crazy to pick an M for video over a SL or GH5... It is the convergence of stills and video that is the future for me, more than the segmentation of tools into pro stills cameras and pro video cameras.

Leica removed video from the M10 due to photographers complaining.
Old men huh!?

I agree, its my favorite interchangeable lens Fuji of all time. Very nice and intuitive. Gets out of the way.
Plus it made me look pretty cool on the cover of a newspaper this weekend 

My goal was "Hollywood" in my 20s (did work there a bit) but ended up in financial software/data for the past 30+ years. My guess is DP work is similar. My experience.
1. Film/Photography/Video, has always been a near impossible field to make a living in.  My observation 30+ years.  Unless you specialize in a very complex area where a shortage of talent develops.  In photography and film, bad news, those areas DO NOT EXIST   There is always an excess supply of talent.
2. One's availability today is worth more to a prospective client than someone else's genius available tomorrow.  Don't kid yourself.  Whatever the client says, you're replaceable and a minor part of their world.  You can be a raving egomaniac in your domain, but get in the way of someone signing your check and no amount of genius will save you.  Make yourself available.  
3. A client only needs 10% of your skill.  When you try to give them more, it confuses them and can work against you when they want to hire again.  Understanding and matching a client's priorities, which will ALWAYS be slightly different than your expertise, is paramount.  Anticipating the client's needs, which may be some form of "cleaning the windows" is 90% of completing a success project.  Keep your head out of your head out of your ass.
Does all this mean you shouldn't become the most skillful DP possible?  No, but you learn for YOU, for your pride in your work.  Do not connect skill with ability to get work.  It will have very little to do with what work you get.  I know that sounds unbelievable.  I don't quite believe it myself.  Yet if I objectively look at all the work done out there, it seems random, the scale of stuff, from bad to great.  In other words, the quality should be better IF THERE was a meritocracy.  There is simply too much poorly done stuff, in my eyes, in all areas of tech, to indicate that quality is the prime factor to employment.  Good quality stuff is there by luck.
Human endeavors are complex, emotionally laden efforts to give meaning to our lives.  What gives you meaning, say great lighting, doesn't give the actor meaning, or the producer, etc.  Be compassionate to others.
Bottom line, if you're thrilled to have the opportunity to even get coffee on the set you'll find a place.  If you're thinking about "saturated markets" and "making money" clients will pick up on that and get someone they think will work for free, because yeah, we all just suck!  It's just a job.  Money is always an issue.  9 out 10 pats on the back you must give yourself.
 
 

You're probably looking under HFR.  They don't list it because at this point Sony takes 4K for granted in all of their cameras   It's essentially a stripped down RX10/RX100

No.  You can take great photographs with any camera.  But almost all serious "model" photographers use Nikon or Canon full-frame, if not medium format if they can afford it.   Not Sigma, they're too slow.  That's a fact, take from it what you will   Sigmas appeal to two types of photographer in my experience.  1) The ones who come from film and are very fussy about color (though Foveon has trouble with red).  2) photographers who are super picky about printing and deplore bayer color artifacts.  The question for you would be is full-frame good enough that you don't need that extra clarity of a Sigma?  So, I suggest you borrow/rent a full-frame and try it out.  Even an old one.  If you don't see a difference between that and your GH5 then I'm fairly certain you'd find the Sigma camera a complete frustration.  As much as I love the Sigma look, if size/weight isn't a factor, a Nikon D810 is close enough for me.  IF I want something small with the best look possible, and I can take my time, then Sigma is the way to go.

Finally. Slog on the a9!

Every time. It doesn't matter how many new cameras gets released.
Every time we have to go through the same debates based on clips like this where some guy is hand holding a long focal length in a store. And people base opinions of the gear from it... instead of trying it first.
Or someone sees a promotional video and say "crushed blacks"...
And every time we wait a few months and every single commenter changes their minds in silence when they see what actually can be done with the gear.
So like every time before my tips are,
Promotional videos always crush blacks on purpose. Some dude in a store shooting with the camera attached to a cable isn't a good sample. Wait. Try it first. Promotional pictures are often very mainstream and stock photo looking. Wait. For gods sake wait!
There is no rush. A new camera is released again tomorrow