leeys

Its a bit of a how long is a piece of string question but if you based it purely on this year's Oscars you'd say 'how many does the Alexa have?' which is 14.
Purely arbitrary though as, judging from that clip, I'd say you're doing just fine without the other 3

Yep the footage looks great. 
Most of the time it is the excessive contrast that is problematic. Also another aspect of the dynamic range is not so much the range itself as much as how the highlights (and color) rolloff to clipping. Hard clips with hue shifts are something that you rarely see in cinemas. Sometimes you even have hard clipping in the shadows but that is most often a fault of the processing of a camera and not the sensor. 
Once you have control of the lights dynamic range of the camera is not important. Even for outdoor scenes where there is a strong light from the sun you can use reflectors to balance the shadows. So I would say if someone wants a cinematic look the best way is to learn how to use light cause even 15 stops won't help  
In my experience for everyday use with no control of light, I would be happy with 12 stops and no hard clipping. 
 

It's real estate.  As they say: "Location, location, location."
Basically, it's even naturally lit rooms with lots of ambient light so you don't need 13 stops of DR.  I've shot similar with a lowly 5DII.  High end properties are designed by high end architects that know what they're doing.  Light is a very high priority consideration.  Thus, these properties just look awesome all around.  You're shooting in space that has already considered the stuff that makes for impressive visuals.
This is high-end marketing so they're probably on a really good camera, but I'm not seeing anything too surprising regarding some impressively extended DR.  In fact, looks like they're over exposing a bit to grab shadow details.

Time of day will be your friend. Doesn't hurt to have big windows like the ones on the first video.
On your work, some shots you have very hot buildings outside but not enough light inside to compensate, so you have to compromise.
Choose the time of day wisely and it will be easier to balance inside and outside. Don't fight the sun, use it.
 
 

It could be any combination of the following:
- Well lit houses with plenty of light coming from the large windows 
- Using lights to bring the inside/outside closer
- High dynamic range camera with log/Raw 
 
For example in my house, I can achieve this effect with fairly large and plenty windows + slog2 with A7rII. 

a7III seems most logical, though a7s2 prices are lower on the used market. If you go speed booster, it opens up Fuji and Sony APS-c.

Did the focal reducer for NX1 turn out to be viable? If so, that. 

Are there focal reducers for Fuji's X mount? I assume that, if so then go for this.

Otherwise ditch the obsession with "full frame" and go with a Panasonic G80/G85 for maximum bang for buck value. 
(or alternatively, is 4K *really* essential for the very low budget shoots? Then you could go for a Nikon D750 or Sony a7S mk2 etc)

^ This in spades. ^
I've learned this quickly over the years. So many people understandably focus on the camera, but really that's only half or less of the entire picture. 
In my view you want a tripod, a shoulder rig, a 3-axis motorized gimbal, a glidecam, a slider, a vest, a drone, a jib/crane, a gorilla pod. You want it all basically. It is not very difficult to find justifications to purchase or rent it. 
To not have it available to you is like a mechanic trying to fix everything on a car with just one socket wrench. It's not happening. 
This is an expensive field. You're going to be paying considerable costs for this interest and profession regardless how big or small your setup is. The tools of the trade are pricey, and if they're cheap they're pricey in other ways that make you uncomfortable on location or set. 
Give us your set up time. ?
Do you show up to the gig early or are you having the client waiting on you for setup? 
I always try to show up early. I personally hate having clients and talent watch me set up my rig and start asking technical questions, or look at me like, "Is this really nessecary, can't we just point the camera somewhere and hit record?" 
I worked recently with a very impatient Director. It was hell. Instead of mitigating the expectations of the talent on the ground, the director made setups much worse by trying to rush me through them and encouraging the talent (mostly amateurs) to start telling me what my job should intel and how long it should take. I mean, how much time does it take to whip out a smartphone and hit record, right?  
Lots of sighs and moans and sideway looks. It put a lot of pressure on me and ultimately the shoot suffered big time. Also, the Director didn't believe in blocking or storyboarding or anything that resembled planning.  
Never again. ?

Rent one and check for yourself.
A shoulder rig isn't just  about holding your camera..
You have 4 points where your body is connected to the camera, 2 hands, shoulder and your eye. This allows movement and a look you don't get with anything else.
You can attach a follow focus and pull focus without shaking.
You won't use it all the time- it's a tool for special scenes like a Steadicam or Dolly, you only use it when needed. (Or if you do like an event all day long)
If you like the feeling of your rented rig, don't buy a compromise- no gorilla pod and no rig with one handle or anything that costs less than 200 $ (new), you will get pissed of because of screws getting loose and things like that.
You always can atttach weight to a rig, but i recommend doing this after all is set up and you can balance it right.
 

You know I already find it pretty staggering the amount of patience shown towards Canon and their lack luster releases. It seems every other camera manufacturer can release products that their customers can get genuinely excited about. 

No DPAF in 4K too. The only good feature not working with the feature that many people want!

No DPAF in 4K too. The only good feature not working with the feature that many people want!

Me too, I'm curious as to how it missed in situations where it shouldn't; subjects lit by spotlight, in broad daylight, not even moving for that matter. I too have used the GH3 and still use the GH4 extensively and I haven't experienced what I did with the GH5. GH4 just snaps on to where I want to focus in photo or video mode as it should, I have lots of nice and sharp action shots, some of my all time favorite photos were taken with that camera. So naturally I assumed I would get the same performance or better with the GH5 but I'm left being more cautious on shoots now. Using lenses such as the 12-35, 35-100 and 75mm 1.8, either the AF was completely worthless and won't even let me get to take the shot, or it would just be inaccurate and focus slightly forward or behind, so for a while I was thinking those lenses were actually not very sharp wide open, or I thought it was something to do with the GH5's sensor design, as when I go to see GH4 shots the lenses were definitely sharp enough.

I was a Beta tester for Windows 10 hell 3 years ago it seems. I have Never had a problem with it after like Beta version 3. Windows 7 is like running windows 95 in this day and age. That was what I was running before 10. It is day and night different, but in a good way.
People complain about Bloatware. Shit it is that way since it has way more features. You think a program is going to get smaller that has more stuff to offer?  It is like the same crap people complain about Sony menus. It is Huge because it has a ton of features  most of the others don't have. Hell if you don't even have 4k, face detect, IBIS, EVF, on and on I can have a menu that is only 1 page!  Can it be better, well heck yes, but it Ain't going to be 2 pages long.
Get 10, it works and has worked for years now. It is sort of foreign at first, no doubt about that. 

In this case, Canon gave him money and the camera. 
I'm just curious how you managed to miss so many shots; my experience for situations using AF-S is that the Panasonics are very good. I used a GH3 for a couple of events (not my type of photography even) and it acquitted itself very well.

@Andrew Benton This is exactly the argument @Mattias Burling did with the T3i, but on the other way! 
If one can make a professional videography career out of a T3i (is this the 600?) in 2018, then surely one can make a photography one with the GH5!
That noone of these cameras are the appropriate tool for the jobs you have suggested, T3i for video, and GH5 for photography hasn't passed through your minds?
In the end, I thought we all here agree that anyone can use whatever for his own pleasure and work. I do not understand what is so bad about a GH5, while a T3i is so special.

Killing the GX8 and its potential upgrade makes a lot of sense. 
The camera market is shrinking. Panasonic don't need a pro and enthusiast DSLR style body, a pro and enthusiast rangefinder, pro and enthusiast compacts, and now specialty offshoots of the GH line as well. It's overkill. 
I don't think the GX8 sold well, and if the G9 really is replacing the G85 as has been rumoured, they need to focus something on the lower end of the market. Pushing a few models that each have a specific section of the market in mind makes way more sense than releasing a whole bunch that trample on each other's intended demographic. Makes it harder to market too. 

I'll believe it when I see it. 

Oh I dunno, maybe because Sony didn't make that sensor? 
https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=d850+sensor+manufacturer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=WZh3WvOQC6PM8gfdsZrwAQ
And according to this list (https://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/) some of the most important cameras Nikon has produced (The D3/s & D4/s which arguably pushed the industry towards low light ability rather than sheer megapixel count) were sensors designed in house. It goes against the grain of "Internet Wisdom", but Nikon has more of a hand in designing their sensors than anyone gives them credit for. In any case, shoot any two Nikons of the same generation and the files mix together just fine in the edit. So why does it count against them because they can get a Sony sensor package with Nikon specs and marry that to a Nikon processor and code that does the actual magic, and save themselves the time and cost of developing a sensor from scratch?  
 

For every blogger like you Andrew, there're 10 sponsored by Canon. Who's going to be louder? As I've said before (and you know too) Canon only works with those who're positive about them as much as possible.
Here's a new example: In a completely unrelated site, someone was saying that the best camera for vlogging is a Canon 6D because some YouTuber recommended it. Turns out Canon has been sending 6Ds to high-profile YouTube vloggers to push the camera for that purpose. You can't deny marketing like that is effective.

For every blogger like you Andrew, there're 10 sponsored by Canon. Who's going to be louder? As I've said before (and you know too) Canon only works with those who're positive about them as much as possible.
Here's a new example: In a completely unrelated site, someone was saying that the best camera for vlogging is a Canon 6D because some YouTuber recommended it. Turns out Canon has been sending 6Ds to high-profile YouTube vloggers to push the camera for that purpose. You can't deny marketing like that is effective.

Ooo, a reasonable discussion of this over here. It's hard to find one that doesn't involve mindless critic and studio bashing. Personally I was looking forward to watching it since fantasy cyberpunk is a genre very close to my heart. Some good comments in here and maybe I should watch it after all, even if it's not so good.

My feeling is that 'intellectual' works better in a subscription model like Netflix than in the Cinema. We see that 'intellectual' like some TV series or documentaries dont attract high audience figures but they do tend to inspire loyalty to the channel brand and anchor subscriptions. So on that note, we dont know 'how much' Netflix is paying Paramount 'NOT' to release it in the Cinema. Afterall Netflix spent over US$50m making 'Okja' last year (which I thought was excellent.)
Anyways, it is useless blaming 'bean counters' and 'studio executive' or 'youtube' when they are simply catering to audience demands. Considering that 'Fast and Furious 8' generated US$1bn faster than any movie in history, it is just heroically optimistic to expect a next Godfather movie.
 

At the same time, some of the most brilliant movies are considered great because they appeal to everyone at many levels of intelligence. Think of The Godfather, for instance. Cinematography nerds can love Gordon Willis' innovation of using darkness and top-lighting to establish mood in a way that was scary to Hollywood at the time. Writing and story buffs can enjoy every morsel of how Puzo and Coppola adapted the novel to screenplay form. The production design. How many times has Pacino's performance in parts one and two been called "brilliant"? I enjoyed the movie as a kid, as a teen, and now in my middle age just as much, but for different reasons. There are great popcorn moments in The Godfather just as there are deeper things you can think about for a lifetime - what does being an honorable son mean, for instance, or how does capitalism and loyalty corrupt one's ideals?
In the same way that using a lot of big words might make you sound smart but won't necessarily mean that you're a great communicator, I think the ultimate brilliance and intellectual challenge of making a film is how to talk about big ideas to a mass audience. Films like The Godfather do that. There may be audiences (albeit smaller ones) for stories that don't try, don't "pander", to people with low intelligence, and that's fine. But let's not confuse being intellectual with quality filmmaking.
The flip side of the coin, of course, is the lowest common denominator. The films that do well precisely because they do pander to the audience but don't stand the test of time due to their lack of depth and intellectual rigor. Think of films like Dances With Wolves, which won best picture the same year that Goodfellas came out. Most film buffs, even the dumb ones, have watched and talked about Goodfellas many times in the intervening 25+ years, but time has not been so kind to the other.
The studio system, and many such systems guided by groupthink and large investment dollars will often ferret out the most original ideas in favor of safe ones. Which is why we have so many sequels. But the alternative of making pedantic movies for no audience is just as dire for the audience.

If it's *just* about money, if the only votes that count are those of the shareholders, this industry is doomed. Applicable to everything. If we are measured by by the degree we can be exploited, our kidneys will be sold and the rest becomes soap. 
Watch The Cooler. The old casino mafia ruled this frivole business with cruelty - and passion. Then the bankers appeared and took over. And the world turned to shit.