maxotics

Get a used C100 and something like the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8.  Even without much light, it will shoot beautiful images indoors.  Use your MFT camera outside for b-roll.

For $299 these work pretty well for 1080p (I added the heat sinks mentioned in the comments (just using rubber bands to hold on): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I16VQOY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00
For 4K and USB 3.0, this works well with the A7S II and GH4 in 4K: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01H3Y3IL8/.

Saw this on YouTube. Fascinating.  NOT FOR THE TECHNICALLY FAINT OF HEART.  But if you're comfortable with TCP/IP then this is very interesting.  Essentially, what Danman has figured out is that this HDMI extender transmits the HDMI signal through standard TCP/IP packets.  He discovered that VLC, ffmpeg, etc. will read the stream fairly well, and most other software that will display a network stream.  From there, you can save to any video CODEC they support (which is almost every one) There are various hacks to get around some issues (like multi-broadcasting to your whole network) which seem pretty well documented.  I suggest watching the YoutTube video by OpenTechLab.  The only gotcha for you EOSHDers is the latency, which is about a second and half.
https://blog.danman.eu/new-version-of-lenkeng-hdmi-over-ip-extender-lkv373a/
Here's what I believe is the right thing on Ebay.  Remember, you want the TRANSMITTER.  Not the receiver.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LKV373A-V3-0-HDMI-Extender-100-120M-HDMI-Extender-Over-Cat5-Cat6-Support-1080P/191750919298?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=490770381286&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649
 

First, Bioskop and CPC thanks for joining the conversation.  Because of the way LOG extends ISO I've never doubted for a second that there's be more noise in the image.  "add[ing] a colour chart to the test" is exactly what I've been trying to do.  First I used one-shot charts where I noticed that aggressive LOG recording gammas reduced the pre-grading color palette by a very large amount.  The gentler LOGs are another story.  Some people in the thread believe the LOG method of capturing color improves perceptual image quality, even if there is data loss compared to the "linear" profile.  In the end, they may be right!  But I want to see for myself through some tests
In order to test the color issue in more depth (AGAIN THANK YOU BIOSKOP for recognizing this should be a TO DO for anyone interested in this subject) I set up to compare how different gamma settings will capture all 16 million colors (assuming the camera is 8-bit).  First, I sliced apart full RGB images which you can get here https://allrgb.com/.  Here's a comparison of capturing part of this image on a monitor in EOS Cinema on the C100 (letting PS auto grad)

Now with EOS standard

If I'm just using my eye, I can't see much "artistic" difference between EOS std and Cinema.  So I can see how, in the "real world", filmmakers like @Oliver Daniel find this subject too technical because the differences aren't great enough to effect the final product.
I then wanted more control over the colors.  So wrote some Python/PIL scripts to generate 32 1920x1080 frame of all colors (4 pixels a color) where the colors are sorted by luminosity because what I really want to know is where in the DR LOG shooting plays games, so to speak.
Unfortunately, the aliasing issues of shooting RGB screens with RGB sensors have set me back.  There are too many artificial colors and noise for me to get at what I want.  Here's a graph of the screens and shooting with the A6300 in PP1 and PP5 

The original BMP of 32,410 colors.  32 frames of these are captured, 5 seconds a piece, by the A6300

PP1

PP5

The data suggests that PP5, or Cine 1, is capturing more color than Sony's PP1, which is pretty close to its standard profile (I believe).  So is @cantsin correct?  Is there an improvement of color using a LOG profile?  I still don't know.  Because both captures are recording more colors than the screen is meaning to display (it should create only 32,401 colors in our eye), due to re-mixing of RGB values, I can't tell which colors each gamma recording is getting from the proper RGB mixes, and which are essentially false aliasing colors.
To my eye, Cine 1 is loosing color fidelity, but I can't prove it with the data I have.  
To continue, I will need to created larger, probably 1-inch blocks of color on the monitor and average down to a hopefully noise-insignificant value. I'll also need to program stuff to put that data in a database and compare displayed color to captured. Don't know if I'm going to continue here.  That method will need hours of capture time (to go through the screens of color)  The really shrewd here might know what I could do, IF I could do this, so that is some motivation.  We'll just have to see.  

To add to the mystery, there is the possibility that someone within Canon leaked the possibility of 10 and 12-bit RAW video the ML forum.  That effort had been dead-as-a-door-nail for a long time.  If it wasn't for that anonymous tip, which is VERY technical in nature, we'd never know that Canon cameras can essentially record a kind of compressed RAW video; that is, much less than the current 4 gig a minute.  Even without 12-bit RAW, I don't understand why Canon doesn't  allow 4-minute RAW recording on their 5Ds.  The only real worry is temperature and they can easily fix that with a limit.  Bottom line, Canon could put 12-bit RAW on their cameras today.  The ML devs have recently proven that.
As for the C100/300/200 line, I no longer see a threat from their consumer cameras even if they had 4K.  The cinema sensors are built for cinema, that is, video resolution with large pixels, so you wouldn't get the same low-light video with your 80D 4K, say, that you would from the C100.  Then, of course, all the buttons, XLR, etc.  I've never bought the argument that Canon would hurt their cinema business no matter how powerful they made their consumer cameras.  Of course, that might not be the case in Canon.
In fairness to Canon, Sony can't seem to do 4K in-camera downscaling to 1080 well (at least in my 6300).  However, I can't see how they can't output 4K in teh 6D II and let those who are inclined, downscale on their PC.  So I see some merit in the argument that Canon is very dismissive of enthusiast video users.  They seem to take the position that unless it can be done in camera, they're not interested in what happens to video downstream.  
The 4K coming out of the A6300 and A6500 is incredible, to me.  And they're great cameras, period.  Sony keeps releasing more lenses.  Once you look at 4K out of those cameras next to Canon video it's hard not to see the difference. 
 

These LOG problems/misunderstandings seem to be appearing a lot recently. I've read through most of the thread & there has been some really useful information put forward, some useful links (more or less). The main point that keeps coming to mind is, Has anyone actually tested the DR of their camera with & without the LOG profile? I know this might seem such a basic thing, & might be insulting to some, but it is the thing that is screaming out to me if you want to know how a LOG profile bahaves.
You read time & time again how professional DPs test cameras, so perhaps this is what you need to do to understand how the LOG profile behaves & so understand how to use the LOG profile. Simply put, the easiest way to do this is to test the DR of the camera with & without the LOG profile.
The following quote came from another forum & was suggested by David Mullen (a professional DP) as a simple way to do this:
"Put a white card and a black card on each side of an 18% gray card -- under and overexpose in whatever increments you want until you can't see a difference between the white and gray card at the overexposed end and between the gray and black card at the underexposed end. Make sure you shoot at whatever is the widest dynamic range recording format the camera offers (raw, log, cine gamma, hypergamma, etc.) but also test it in the narrower Rec.709 display gamma range just for comparison."
You can, of course, do this anyway you want & test all sorts of different aspects of the camera - you can test how different ISO/ASA behave, how different F stops behave etc... I'd suggest that you use a Histogram & Peeking (make notes of the values at which the camera over exposes/under exposes - all of them). You can use ND filters, but make sure if you use a Vari-ND that it has markings.
You can, and considering the topic at hand, should add a colour chart to the test - but if you do this White Balance the camera to the white piece of card (with BM cameras you'll need to test the various WB presets). You should also try to make sure the Black card is as black as possible - "The black card should be as black as possible, some people create a recessed box lined in black velvet".
Just remember that not all recording formats are equal e.g. 8bit vs.10bit or H264 vs. ProRes (do the test with what you'll be using). And do the test using your equipment & how you intend to shoot.
Having done this simple DR test you should now know how the LOG profile of your specific camera behaves, compared to the preset profiles (Rec.709). If you make careful notes then you'll know what to do with your camera in a variety of situations.
Finally, please remember LOG isn't RAW & you don't need/have to use either of these recording profiles to get great images!
Oh, and sometimes you might have to make a choice & crush blacks or blow highlights.....

I don't know how many times I need to say that I too believe all LOG recording gammas have their place in the filmmaker's toolkit.  A really experience/serious filmmaker is probably not going to use a camera limited by 8bit video, as @cantsin has pointed out and can use a LOG gamma in a scene near rec709 and not worry about it too much.  For one to say, "in the real world filming the benefits of using X___ is worth over its weak spots" is a subjective judgement, right?  The benefits may be worth it to you, not to someone else.  We can never know what we'll want when we shoot.  I'm trying to figure out the differences between LOG and non-log shooting in the A6300 for example.  
I've done tests similar to the one you suggest, but i wouldn't be telling anyone here anything they don't already know!  There are some disputes about where the noise comes from, but no one disputes that LOG shooting introduced noise somewhere.  And most don't feel the noise is a big problem.  
Aren't you even a little bit interested in the JUST HOW MUCH mid-tone information is lost in LOG.  Even if it's small, even if no matter what the number, you're going to keep shooting it, wouldn't you like to know?  I would.  Unfortunately, it's proving very difficult to get at that data.  I've spent hours writing scripts and developing techniques but am hitting technical difficulties which many try to help me solve by saying, 'don't bother, we know everything.'  I'd be fine with that if they shared their statistics.  Just tell me the numbers.  How much noise is introduced by various LOG recording gammas?  How much color information is lost in the mid-tones in LOG.  How aggressive will a LOG need to be to introduce visible banding?  
 

I think this is very interesting and thankfully there are filmmakers like you willing to figure out the intricacies for other filmmakers to benefit from.
The term rabbit hole has been used on a few occasions in this thread and I would think at every turn or discovery, you will go further down it.
Since you're a Sony user, obviously sLog is the choice of Log you are using for this experiment, but with all of the customizations available with sLog, to be truly accurate, you will have to go further and further down that hole.
@Geoff CB came upon excellent settings for sLog2 with his GFilm and then there's the sLog2 Flaat settings that are also very good, so there are already tweaked sLog2 settings that help to deliver both maximum DR and color fidelity. To test every single variation against Rec709 seems like a daunting task.
Perhaps discovering the best, possible out of camera settings for dynamic range and color information in 8bit sLog2 would be a great place to start, before comparing it to Rec709?

Only if shooting in a scene that would best fit a Rec709 profile.
No, I haven't concluded anything!  Based on some initial tests against 1 million sample colors it looks like LOG loses about 35% color in a Rec709 case.  I am posting here for people to help me get to the bottom of this.  I posted another quick test looking at "banding" which would be expected IF LOG lost 35% of color in a Rec709 case.  
 
Do any of you go out and buy a camera because the guy at the store says it captures the best image IF you know how to grade it?  Of course not.  Everyone here tests their cameras, looks for new techniques to get better images.  That's all I'm doing.  My acid test would be, after all the work is done, someone like @Oliver Daniel would say, "that's useful information to keep in mind"

Only if shooting in a scene that would best fit a Rec709 profile.
No, I haven't concluded anything!  Based on some initial tests against 1 million sample colors it looks like LOG loses about 35% color in a Rec709 case.  I am posting here for people to help me get to the bottom of this.  I posted another quick test looking at "banding" which would be expected IF LOG lost 35% of color in a Rec709 case.  
 
Do any of you go out and buy a camera because the guy at the store says it captures the best image IF you know how to grade it?  Of course not.  Everyone here tests their cameras, looks for new techniques to get better images.  That's all I'm doing.  My acid test would be, after all the work is done, someone like @Oliver Daniel would say, "that's useful information to keep in mind"

So again, maybe I'm missing things, but let me try and focus (for myself, mainly) on what is at issue here... There are a bunch of questions, and I think different people are answering different ones. I'm going to simplify by saying "rec709 scene" to mean a scene with no more dynamic range and colors variation than can be captured by the rec709 spec. In other words, a scene that looks like pointing your camera at your tv or monitor.
Question 1: How often in real world situations do you find yourself shooting a rec709 scene?
My answer: in a controlled studio environment with expert lighting people - yes. Outside, on a really overcast day - maybe. Inside or outside, in "normal" conditions - never.
Question 2: If confronted with a rec709 scene, should you shoot with a rec709 gamma?
My answer(s): yes, if you are really good at your job, because you will get the maximum, densest information possible given your codec etc. No, if you are in a rush, or less than 100% confident in your technical skills, or if you just want to be careful because there are a lot of other people working that day whose work product (or wedding...) depends on you doing things right with no reshoots. If the dynamic range I encode exactly matches the dynamic range of my scene, and I misexpose at all, then I will have clipping at one end or the other. And (in my opinion) clipping is way worse than faint banding. Still photographers, even really good ones, bracket for a reason. Or have gear and raw formats good enough that they have sufficient margin of error so they don't have to.
Question 3: If confronted with a rec709 scene and I shoot with a wider-dynamic range codec, will I end up with a "worse" image?
My answer: duh yes. In some sense, I must. I am spending bits to encode details that don't exist in the image - lots of zeros. I am spreading the ability to discriminate much more thinly over the part of the scene where all the action is. That, mathematically, must have consequences.
Question 4: How much worse?
Worse mathematically does not necessarily mean worse visually - that's why lossy compression, on which the entire existence of digital video depends. And "worse in the real world" is not the same as "visually detectable in a scene with continuous color gradients not found in nature."
I think the goal of the OP is admirable - to try and quantify this. I just see so many variables (per camera, per camera setting, per what differences actually matter) that the task seems next to impossible.
Question 5: Is there something about "consumer" cams (hybrids, still cameras that also take video) vs "professional" cams (dedicated video cameras) that makes a difference here, relevant to the merits of log?
My answer(s): yes and no. If we are talking sensors, there is lots of variation and a lot of reasons why a dedicated video chip might be better, but the bottom line is that any consumer camera that is capable of taking raw images, even sucky raw images, is capable of capturing way, way, way more information than is available in rec709. There haven't been rec709 limited sensors in 40 years.
If we are talking codecs and data limits, then of course. The more data you throw at the scene (given equally efficient codecs) the more discrimination you get. Pro cameras often throw more data at the problem. So the big question is: given current codecs and processing limits, do consumer cams have the data rates to support log shooting? Which gets us to...
Question 6: Should we be shooting log on current 8 bit cameras if we are delivering rec709?
My answer: depends on the camera, the videographer, the colorist, and the project. If people deliver results that are better than otherwise available, then the answer is yes (for that setup and those skills) and if they don't, the answer is no.

Hi Ethan, couldn't agree with you more!   As soon as I get a break from my "real" work I'm going to fire up the C100, A6300 and a Ninja Blade so I can analyze un-compressed HDMI data, as Eddie suggests.  We all want the same thing.  We all agree high dynamic range shooting in 8 bit has issues.  How much?  That's the question.  Again, for all I knew when I started this post, I'm completely off.  But I think the issue remains so I will continue work on it with everyone's help here.

It's similar to VR- lots of hype but until certain elements are massively improved, these technologies won't be desired by the mainstream. There will be casualties along the way, though neither will completely disappear. At some point in the future, when VR gets 3D without glasses and computational cameras produce quality HDR 3D video (from high quality 3D depth data), they'll get married and everyone will be happy.

I do like the FS5 and what it does. 
At the moment, it's playing 2nd fiddle to the A6500, as I'm using that on a Zhiyun Crane. 
As I'm now focusing a lot on camera movement, and with the fact I'm not going to be using the FS5 on a gimbal, I might have to concede that it's no longer the right tool for the job. 

Sadly the director on the feature film I worked on recently believed the exact OPPOSITE, and constantly wanted me to "hide" my boom pole and blimp. 

@maxotics well it makes you wonder why none of the major camera manufacturers have implemented Raw video into one of their cameras. We already know it's possible, so for Nikon that does have that rich heritage in photography, if they were to introduce, even 720p, Raw into one of their consumer/enthusiast cameras, I would be one of their first customers.
I had the NX500 and now have a D5500 and although the NX500 wins with resolution, the D5500 I still own.
As much as I wish Nikon would introduce more features and make the video process easier, every time I get those humble files into FCPX, I am blown away by the latitude of its Flat Profile. I don't know the technical intricacies of the curve, but I know I can easily push the image to a modern or vintage look with cold or warm colors. The image will break much quicker than other footage, with better bitrates but it's amazing what a simple curve adjustment can do with a Nikon.
If a beginner came to me and asked me to recommend a camera for video, without a doubt I would recommend the D5500, or D7500 if they want 4K. The NX1/500 would be at the bottom of the list. But this is just my opinion and in no way am I even suggesting that the NX1 or NX500 are bad cameras... they're just not a Nikon.

"and is still about 8MP short on resolution"

A 16 percent linear resolution increase is effectively nil. And pushing beyond 24mp at APSC will decrease your high ISO dynamic range - which is one stop less than D7500.

It's all about tradeoffs
Do you know why the d500 has a 2x crop? Because it reads the 3840 lines from it's center section, which eliminates aliasing and moire.

Do you know what doesn't eliminate aliasing? Pixel binning 5568 into 3840 lines.

Do you know what causes the a6300 to overheat? Downsampling 6000 lines to 3840.

You cannot cheat maths and physics. Everything is a tradeoff. You can say I WANT THIS and I WANT THAT. But these aren't 8mp video cameras. You're complaining about one of the best APSC sensors in the history of photography in the D500 - a true marvel of high and low iso tradeoffs and autofocus speed. A truly professional APSC body for a low low price.

The D5's low ISO dynamic range is obviously a trade-off for it's ability to maintain good dynamic range at very high ISOs. It's one of the very best on the market in that respect. Don't like it, don't buy it.

As far as the D7500 is concerned, don't take Dx0marks scores for gospel. The larger pixel pitch of the D7500 gives it much better dynamic range from ISO 400 onwards than the SAMSUNG.

Dx0mark's maths is massively biased towards high res sensors. And doesn't take into account DR at high ISOs. The sports score is also effectively meaningless as a result

What's the difference between a score of 1300 ISO and 1400 ISO. less than 1/6 of a stop??? how is that a  useful metric? When the d7500 is a full stop ahead of the SAMSUNG in dynamic range at high ISOs. They've gotten their maths all muddled up in the color depth scoring (which is heaving biased to high res camers), which has a big effect on the sports score.

We're talking about difference here of 1/3 to 1/6 of a stop in DR, and about APSC sensor that are closing in on their theorital limits between trade-offs of SNR and pixel pitch. This is a pointless discussion. When all APSC nikons have been more than good enough since the D7000,

Hi Ethan, couldn't agree with you more!   As soon as I get a break from my "real" work I'm going to fire up the C100, A6300 and a Ninja Blade so I can analyze un-compressed HDMI data, as Eddie suggests.  We all want the same thing.  We all agree high dynamic range shooting in 8 bit has issues.  How much?  That's the question.  Again, for all I knew when I started this post, I'm completely off.  But I think the issue remains so I will continue work on it with everyone's help here.

Hi Ethan, couldn't agree with you more!   As soon as I get a break from my "real" work I'm going to fire up the C100, A6300 and a Ninja Blade so I can analyze un-compressed HDMI data, as Eddie suggests.  We all want the same thing.  We all agree high dynamic range shooting in 8 bit has issues.  How much?  That's the question.  Again, for all I knew when I started this post, I'm completely off.  But I think the issue remains so I will continue work on it with everyone's help here.

I think we all want to be agreed with   That said, why is it I who is not listening?  What am I wrong about?  He has said himself he doesn't dispute much of what I've said.  He says that compression has more to do with noise than shooting S-LOG, fine, but that's his opinion!  He hasn't shown me any of his tests.  Why should I take his word for it over my experience?  Anyway, I've had to challenge him (us) to get that articulated.  We still have a ways to go because so far there are no facts about that, that we can both agree on.  We're getting there.  A little piss never hurt nobody   If I have to play the bad guy in this thread, so be it   I'm sure he's happy to continue playing the good guy!

If one is an audiophile, and one can afford the extra $500 or so, the sound quality alone provided by Sound Devices verses the others is totally worth it (listen to the examples in this post):
Digital limiters are just slightly above useless. If the sound level barely kisses the limit, a digital limiter might be able to not destroy the take. Sound Devices analog limiters will not clip, even under crazy high levels (there are some side effects if you do this, but the result will be very usable, as shown here:)
 

I see that 10bit is better than 8bit, certainly, only pointing out that it doesn't bring one closer to RAW in color depth (in my experience).    Can we see a wider color gamut than REC709?  We can certainly see one in nature because things can be brighter than 6 stops, say, and our pupils dilate, but in the real world, our displays and needs don't exceed it?
I want to make a point again, that you can get beautiful footage from S-LOG, I'm not talking about subjective benefits of S-LOG.  Or to put it another way, if all cameras started with S-LOG and today they introduced standard profiles everyone would be like "Wow, look at all those rich colors!"

Yeah, their earlier years were sketchy to say the least. Some of their designs sailed close enough to the wind in similarity to people like Aphex and Drawmer (to name but two) to be actionable and thats before we get to the build quality. It wasn't uncommon to have to buy and return several examples of a product before you got a good one.
Its changed over time though, particularly with their manufacturing when they built their own plant in China, and the tipping point for me in acceptance was their X32 digital console. I think they've sold in the region of 50,000+ of that and it variants and its a superb product. I don't think anything they make is going to make you go wow (aside from the X consoles) but they're fall less likely to make you go ouch than they were and certainly will never make you go ouch when you look at the price tag.
With regard to MIDAS, its relative I suppose. Compare two Behringer products that have their own pre-amps in with the variant that has the MIDAS ones in (such as the ADA800 8 channel A/D and the MIDAS equipped ADA8200 version) and there is a difference. Its often related to changes in surrounding components as well to be fair to incorporate the MIDAS design but the overall end result is the same in terms of improvement. As I say, thats only relative to Behringer's 'own' design pre-amps though so whether it actually makes them better than other manufacturers is a lot more subjective. Its not just a marketing gimmick though to be fair, as the designs are genuinely still coming from within the MIDAS design team.
 
At the risk of sounding like a Behringer shill (  ) there's quite a lot of side by sides on YouTube with the U-PHORIA where it doesn't disgrace itself.
Gearslutz.com is a good resource for blind comparisons between lots of different interfaces too. Often these are conducted by - how can I put it politely - people with more recording experience than some of the enthusiastic YouTube 'Hey whats up guys, Ched here with another of my famous shootouts that you folks have been asking me for' ones. Ched with his 19 subscribers there.
 

Thoughts? Maxi, the legend is back! Awesome. Glad to read you again, Max!