aldolega

A speedbooster is basically a magnifying glass for your sensor, that bumps it up one size. So a m4/3 sensor becomes APS-C (aka s35), or APS-C becomes full-frame.
This is only possible with a mirrorless body (short flange distance) and SLR glass (long flange distance). The speedbooster fits in the gap in between.
The GH5 shoots 4K60 and has extremely good IBIS, better than the A9 you tried. And if you use it with a newer Panasonic OIS lens the two IS systems work in tandem and the stabilization becomes pretty incredible.
Photo IQ wise, the GH5 will come fairly close to your 5DII, just without that FF look. But If you add a Metabones "XL" Speedbooster, your crop factor would be around 1.3X, which is halfway between your 5D and the crop Canon bodies (7D, 80D, Rebels etc). The cheap speedboosters don't allow you to control the aperture on Canon EF lenses, while with the Metabones, you could, although AF will be mostly unusable in video, and slow (but usable) for stills.
The A9, 5D4, 1DXII all obviously have the FF look built-in, and are of course better photo cameras, as well they should be at 2-3X the cost of the GH5. None match the ergonomics and practicality of the GH5 for shooting video, though.
Actually, the 5D4 crops to about 1.7x when shooting 4K, so that doesn't even get you FF for video. The Canon MJPEG codec is also a lot heavier than I'd want for traveling, too.
Sony's lenses let you use their AF, obviously, but kinda suck for pulling focus manually, as they're fly-by-wire. They're also not much smaller/lighter than FF DSLR glass. If I was on vacation I wouldn't want to carry FF glass at all. I would want the GH5 with native glass.

A speedbooster is basically a magnifying glass for your sensor, that bumps it up one size. So a m4/3 sensor becomes APS-C (aka s35), or APS-C becomes full-frame.
This is only possible with a mirrorless body (short flange distance) and SLR glass (long flange distance). The speedbooster fits in the gap in between.
The GH5 shoots 4K60 and has extremely good IBIS, better than the A9 you tried. And if you use it with a newer Panasonic OIS lens the two IS systems work in tandem and the stabilization becomes pretty incredible.
Photo IQ wise, the GH5 will come fairly close to your 5DII, just without that FF look. But If you add a Metabones "XL" Speedbooster, your crop factor would be around 1.3X, which is halfway between your 5D and the crop Canon bodies (7D, 80D, Rebels etc). The cheap speedboosters don't allow you to control the aperture on Canon EF lenses, while with the Metabones, you could, although AF will be mostly unusable in video, and slow (but usable) for stills.
The A9, 5D4, 1DXII all obviously have the FF look built-in, and are of course better photo cameras, as well they should be at 2-3X the cost of the GH5. None match the ergonomics and practicality of the GH5 for shooting video, though.
Actually, the 5D4 crops to about 1.7x when shooting 4K, so that doesn't even get you FF for video. The Canon MJPEG codec is also a lot heavier than I'd want for traveling, too.
Sony's lenses let you use their AF, obviously, but kinda suck for pulling focus manually, as they're fly-by-wire. They're also not much smaller/lighter than FF DSLR glass. If I was on vacation I wouldn't want to carry FF glass at all. I would want the GH5 with native glass.

A speedbooster is basically a magnifying glass for your sensor, that bumps it up one size. So a m4/3 sensor becomes APS-C (aka s35), or APS-C becomes full-frame.
This is only possible with a mirrorless body (short flange distance) and SLR glass (long flange distance). The speedbooster fits in the gap in between.
The GH5 shoots 4K60 and has extremely good IBIS, better than the A9 you tried. And if you use it with a newer Panasonic OIS lens the two IS systems work in tandem and the stabilization becomes pretty incredible.
Photo IQ wise, the GH5 will come fairly close to your 5DII, just without that FF look. But If you add a Metabones "XL" Speedbooster, your crop factor would be around 1.3X, which is halfway between your 5D and the crop Canon bodies (7D, 80D, Rebels etc). The cheap speedboosters don't allow you to control the aperture on Canon EF lenses, while with the Metabones, you could, although AF will be mostly unusable in video, and slow (but usable) for stills.
The A9, 5D4, 1DXII all obviously have the FF look built-in, and are of course better photo cameras, as well they should be at 2-3X the cost of the GH5. None match the ergonomics and practicality of the GH5 for shooting video, though.
Actually, the 5D4 crops to about 1.7x when shooting 4K, so that doesn't even get you FF for video. The Canon MJPEG codec is also a lot heavier than I'd want for traveling, too.
Sony's lenses let you use their AF, obviously, but kinda suck for pulling focus manually, as they're fly-by-wire. They're also not much smaller/lighter than FF DSLR glass. If I was on vacation I wouldn't want to carry FF glass at all. I would want the GH5 with native glass.

No way you're realistically getting a Micro up and running for a grand. It needs a monitor at the verrrry least. More likely a speedbooster, cage, and lots of batteries/media too.

No way you're realistically getting a Micro up and running for a grand. It needs a monitor at the verrrry least. More likely a speedbooster, cage, and lots of batteries/media too.

The Panasonics are probably your main choice on that budget.
GX85- very good 4K30, good 1080p60. 4K has an additional crop compared to 1080p (2.3X instead of 2X, compared to fullframe. Your D5300 is 1.5x). Very small body. No mic or headphone jacks. Very good IBIS. Screen tilts but doesn't flip out. Doesn't come with Panasonic's flat profile, Cine-D, but user BTM_Pix just figured out how to add it. HDMI output stays on while recording. Good to very good rolling shutter performance.
G85- Same as GX85, except in a more DSLR-ish shape. Half-metal build is nice and solid. Has a mic jack but still no headphone jack. Has a flip-out screen instead of tilt. Comes with Cine-D.
G7- Same shape as G85 but plastic build. Otherwise pretty much the same except it doesn't have IBIS. HDMI shuts off if recording internally.
GH4- Bigger metal body. No IBIS. Has Cine-D and can be upgraded to V-Log. Slightly worse ISO performance than the GX85 and G85. Color science is also a tiny bit "worse" than the newer cams. HDMI stays on when recording, unless in 10-bit mode, then it's HDMI only. Much better bitrates for 1080p modes and has a VFR mode for up to 96fps, but it's pretty soft. LCD screen is nicer than the G cams. Battery life is phenomenal. Rolling shutter is a step better than the G cams, especially in 1080p.
With the Panasonics I would recommend going the Speedbooster route. You could keep your Tamron and then expand on it with some old AI or AI-S glass, for fairly cheap. Your Olympus 50mm won't adapt to a Nikon booster though, you'd have to use a plain adapter. Or just sell it and get a Nikon 50mm.
Photos with the Panasonics will be on par or a bit weaker than the D5300. The Speedbooster will help close the gap but you won't have autofocus.
You can also look at the A6300, but as said above, its 1080 modes are soft, no IBIS, battery life and rolling shutter sucks, dim screen, etc. But for some people the tradeoffs are worth it for the great DR and detail in 4K, and superb photos.

The Panasonics are probably your main choice on that budget.
GX85- very good 4K30, good 1080p60. 4K has an additional crop compared to 1080p (2.3X instead of 2X, compared to fullframe. Your D5300 is 1.5x). Very small body. No mic or headphone jacks. Very good IBIS. Screen tilts but doesn't flip out. Doesn't come with Panasonic's flat profile, Cine-D, but user BTM_Pix just figured out how to add it. HDMI output stays on while recording. Good to very good rolling shutter performance.
G85- Same as GX85, except in a more DSLR-ish shape. Half-metal build is nice and solid. Has a mic jack but still no headphone jack. Has a flip-out screen instead of tilt. Comes with Cine-D.
G7- Same shape as G85 but plastic build. Otherwise pretty much the same except it doesn't have IBIS. HDMI shuts off if recording internally.
GH4- Bigger metal body. No IBIS. Has Cine-D and can be upgraded to V-Log. Slightly worse ISO performance than the GX85 and G85. Color science is also a tiny bit "worse" than the newer cams. HDMI stays on when recording, unless in 10-bit mode, then it's HDMI only. Much better bitrates for 1080p modes and has a VFR mode for up to 96fps, but it's pretty soft. LCD screen is nicer than the G cams. Battery life is phenomenal. Rolling shutter is a step better than the G cams, especially in 1080p.
With the Panasonics I would recommend going the Speedbooster route. You could keep your Tamron and then expand on it with some old AI or AI-S glass, for fairly cheap. Your Olympus 50mm won't adapt to a Nikon booster though, you'd have to use a plain adapter. Or just sell it and get a Nikon 50mm.
Photos with the Panasonics will be on par or a bit weaker than the D5300. The Speedbooster will help close the gap but you won't have autofocus.
You can also look at the A6300, but as said above, its 1080 modes are soft, no IBIS, battery life and rolling shutter sucks, dim screen, etc. But for some people the tradeoffs are worth it for the great DR and detail in 4K, and superb photos.

Why would you want body-only anyways? It's only $100 more for the kit,and you can easily sell off the kit lens for ~$250. Instant $150 discount on the body.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

Why couldn't you use a vND with the 18-35? It has a normal filter thread.

Why couldn't you use a vND with the 18-35? It has a normal filter thread.

The field of view seems much smaller because of the larger difference in vertical height between the two aspect ratios (4:3 stills and 16:9 or 17:9 video). But they're all using the full sensor width.
Most photo cameras are 3:2 for stills, which is more rectangular than 4:3, and thus there's less of a vertical difference between stills and video.
The GH4 cropped/windowed into the sensor for UHD and C4K, but not for its 1080p modes, so there was a difference in width as well as height.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

I'm assuming the RX1R doesn't have a mic in, and that's why you use the Tascam? In that case, ShureVP83F. About the same size as a Rode VodeoMic Pro or your Sennheiser (so, fairly small), but it has a built-in recorder.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/966010-REG/shure_vp83f_condenser_shotgun_mic.html
Doesn't solve the deadcat issue though.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

Lens sharpness is different than electronic processing sharpness- which is what the GH's have always gone overboard with at default settings. They also do additional processing when you use native (electronic) m4/3 lenses, to correct each lenses' shortcomings (edge softness, CA, etc). Just turn the sharpness setting down and use your NLE to sharpen to taste, and/or use non-native (not Panny or Olympus) lenses.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

The 7D is a depreciating asset. I would seriously consider selling it off and getting an 80D to replace it, before the 7D loses any more value. The 80D image quality is better in photo and video, and its ergonomics are definitely better than the 7D's. It also uses cheaper media.
Outside of the camera/lens debate, I would concentrate on 1. audio and 2. support. What you get in each category will depend on what you're shooting and how you want to shoot it, but the basics I outlined above will apply to most any situation.

I would sell off the 7D (outdated IQ and ergonomics), 100-400 (longer than you'll need unless you're doing nature shows), and 135mm (duplicated length and aperture in the 70-200). Grab an 80D, a Rode VideoMic Pro, an acceptable-minimum fluid head (Manfrotto 500 or 504 or Bento S8). If you won't have an audio person then get a basic external recorder, mic, and boom pole. Maybe a small 3.5mm recorder and matching lavalier. Depends on what you're shooting.
If that leaves you with extra money, go for a C100 or C100II instead. Then look at sliders and stabilizers.
You could also look into switching to a Sony or Panasonic mirrorless cam, paired with a Metabones speedbooster, which will give you much better video IQ than the 80D, or even the C100 in good light.

Firmware 1.1 just announced, releases April 24th. Includes:
-10-bit 4:2:2 in 1080p
-4:3 anamorphic mode (3398x2496), also in 10-bit 4:2:2
-exposure adjustment problem in VFR mode (I'm guessing this is the darker screen when using shutter angle)
-V-Log high-ISO ghosting problems (doesn't this happen in normal profiles too? Hope this addresses that too)