Aussie Ash

The best part about this new Fuji imo is that it spawned this article: https://www.fujirumors.com/photographers-anonymous-hate/

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 5x crop, 17Mbit MJPEG and 30i, which you have to deinterlace in post
Got to stop all those C300 II PL mount owners being tempted by a compact!

Yeah I doubt it is TowerJazz. Seems like Sony's upgrade to their 42MP BSI CMOS to me. Has all the hallmarks of one. The real puzzle is why Sony keep giving their main rival the absolute top spec sensor, whilst putting older tech in their own.
The 46MP sensor seems to have more dynamic range, lower minimum ISOs, more resolution, faster readout, possibly even onboard moire reduction in pixel binned 4K mode from 46MP and then the D850 uses XQD cards as well - another Sony tech, which they can't be bothered to put on their own cameras!
You don't need it.
Live-view feed is crystal clear, super sharp and detailed, big screen and very high res panel. It's better than D750 and that was already good to start with.
I believe the Sigma ART lenses for Nikon mount focus the same way as the Canon versions... so there's a solution!
Definitely the new tech should filter down to a D5700 or D6000 of some sort. No crop. No moire. Just clean 4K with flat profile and super clean codec, Nikon colours, etc. It would be very popular under $800.
It's easier...
Enable peaking in stills mode, focus, then flick the switch to movie mode to record.
The flick to movie mode has zero lag or black out. No mirror flipping, or refocussing.
Peaking looks lovely in stills live-view...pro-video quality.

Fujifilm have always put effort in to skin tones,you seem to be forgetting the Fujifilm S3Pro (2004) that was favoured by wedding
photographers for nice skin tones.

If you look at this Gallery and can call the colors natural well. And I doubt DPR fiddled with the color output. Colors are a bit over the top. Olympus was the same way at the time. I am not saying a lot people didn't like it, but they sure were not accurate, at least to me. But you are right a lot of weddings were shot with a Fuji at the time. But there is a reason Canon has been the 800 pound gorilla. Their color science is pretty accurate other than a hint of Orange in Reds. But I am really more of a Nikon color fan than Canon most of my life. I think they strike a good balance between the two. Wow if there was a ML Raw Nikon D750 I would be all over that!
And at the same time the original Canon 5D was the king of weeding photographers and I would imagine the 5D mk IV still is.still is. I used to use the original 5D for Model Portfolios and friends weddings as a guest for years. I just was never a fan of Fuji colors. Now for landscape most armatures like a Fuji because there is not much you need to do for printing. But that does not make them ideal for true color. I have never been a person that likes HDR photography and that is sort of what the output of a Fuji looks like to me. Not my cup of tea.
https://***URL removed***/sample-galleries/3299540988/fuji-finepix-s3-pro-review-samples/6308448159

1.) Rent a very expensive cine lens the size of a small canon, probably on a PL mount.
The lens gives the image a personality or character. You are actually mostly looking for imperfection here.
2.) Good diffused lighting, staying away from extreme contrast ratios and harsh shadows with short falloffs, especially if you're shooting in 8/10 bit in camera. 
3.) Camera settings. Go flat if you can't shoot RAW. Turn down or off internal sharpness and reduce contrast. Saturation can be left at default. 
4.) Set a custom white balance using a white or 50% grey card. This will help you greatly in post get an accurate color balance. You should fair well with your Fuji. 
5.) Subtle grading. Most ppl want to fill up their entire waveform chart and have deep contrast, but I think the sweet spot in emulating film is sitting 10-15% below 100 and 5-10% above zero. This is obviously subjective and contextual, and rightfully should be. Learn about qualifiers. 
6.) Tiffen Pro Mist 1/4 (or silimar) helps reduce digital sharpness. Industry even uses them on $60k cameras. 
7.) Aviod handheld with cameras that have bad rolling shutter and jitter. If you need that look add it in post with tracked camera shake presets. You'll spend much less time not having to fuss with warp stabilizer, which in practical terms is no magic pill. 
8.) Movement/Composition/Line/Texture/Contrast ratios/Lighting/Visual Narrative/Sound/Musicality. Study up on these subjects. They will boost your production value x10 even on a Dora the Explorer Fisher Price camera. Swiper, no god damn swiping!
 
Looking at your details and plight, I honestly don't see a strong case for you to upgrade either. You would be gaining minimal improvements over your current setup. I would instead invest any extra cash on other gear. 
I hate how these manufacturers make people feel like they MUST have the latest and greatest. If we thought of these cameras in terms of say a cresent wrench, would we "upgrade" so often? 
I have a question for everyone. How do you purchase your gear? Cash? Credit? If it's credit, is the upgrade honestly worth going into debt over? 
I spent considerable money on my current gear in the last couple years. Now that the spending frenzy is over I'm looking at all this gear and I'm in disbelief. The odd thing is I knew I was on a spending high at the time and I did it anyway. Spending money is a high and one can get addicted to it, even going into considerable dept.
What's the saying, "The eyes are bigger than the stomach"? 

Apparently the same --- 25% of the color information available*. But I don't take those numbers as accurate: 3:1:1 is a middle way towards the 4:2:2 from 40% ratio instead.
HDCAM 3:1:1 format is actually 75% from horizontally 1920 pixels (so 1440) and a third chroma sampled (480 for a quarter of 1920), but it is full vertical resolution (1080) rather than a half for 4:2:0 on chroma side, even though with chroma subsampling going with half from full horizontal HD (aka 1920), so here you have for your maths now ;-)
In a line? :D Take a look on this article by Barry Green:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/
 
*
https://wolfcrow.com/blog/chroma-subsampling-numbers-explained/
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling

Decide yourself?
 
 
Shot with a Sony CineAlta HDW-F900, which has 3x CCD chips of 1920x1080 (one for each of RGB).
 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633399-REG/Sony_HDWF900RPAC1D_HDW_F900R_CineAlta_24P_HDCAM.html
 
Very weirdly enough, you can still buy it??? (well, the "R" version, which is very similar) 
For a sweet $80K

Or you could just buy it secondhand, right now for around $1K or $2K for the body:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=sony f900r&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

The non-R original version you might even find for sub $1K
Lots and lots of films have been shot on it (for instance "Quantum of Solace" had part of it shot on a Sony HDW-F900R, and that film came out in 2008. Or "Four Lions" which came out in 2010):

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900-camera

Some other discussions on it:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330231-Sony-hdw-f900-Today
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?7478-How-does-RED-One-compare-with-Sony-HDW-F900
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/2990-how-george-lucas-pioneered-the-use-of-digital-video-in-feature-films-with-the-sony-hdw-f900
 

I dont think it is designed to compete with a GH5. I think it is a genuine 'hybrid' camera (for those that shoot 60%+ stills). By that I mean it is a no compromise stills camera (as good as the XT-2) that shoots excellent video. It competes with the a6500 or a7riii rather than an A7sii/iii in the Sony world. 
The GH5 isnt a true 'hybrid' camera in my world view (and the GH5s far less) on the basis that it is oversized compared to its sensor and overpriced compared to its sensor for stills - it is bigger and heavier than an A7riii that has a 4x larger sensor. Dont get me wrong. The GH5 is probably the best videocentric ILC on the market but it isnt really a 'hybrid'.
How does it stack up against the A6500?

After an extensive test in Alaska...I found that the Canon 6D Mkii SUCKS BALLS!
Casey Neistat and Peter McKinnon are SO wrong. This camera is total garbage. 
I can't believe Canon would even release a camera like this with the price being what it is. Totally unacceptable. 
No ALL-I, worse ISO performance than 80D, No headphone jack. 

Its a total POS.
 Let me know your thoughts. 
 
 

I am guessing even indoors it was freezing cold that far up north where he was staying?
Every episode of IT Crowd was gold, but that episode was extra memorable:
Although for a little back story:
 
 
 

Thank you Dave. Canon really does need to be called out for being the laziest camera company on the market. Like you, I am a long time Canon owner, and love my 1DC.  Over the years I have owned the c300, c100, xc10 and various 5D iterations. I spent huge amounts of money trying to chase Canon's differentiation strategy...this camera for stills, this one for good video, this one for compact portability, etc. When in truth all I wanted was a Sony A7r/s or GH5 with Canon color (and I have owned Sony, Samsung and Olympus as well).  
No more. I am done with Canon.   I am tired of a company that so aggressively handicaps its products...5D IV's crop and no IBIS, fixed screen,  6D Mark II's 1080p (forget 4k) which is more like 720p and lack of dynamic range,  the C200's lack of middle ground codec below RAW at that price point.  I still love my 1DC, but it is 2018 and I want good 4k with IBIS, good video focus, touch screen and a smaller form factor.  Sony, Panasonic and Olympus actually seem like they try to make good products for their customers, I just don't like their color science (I know others feel differently and they are getting better).   I have been slowly selling off my Canon gear.  If the Fuji XH1 is what it is rumored to be I am pretty sure I will finally have the camera I want: 4k, log, IBIS, good focus, touch screen, reasonable form factor and great color science.   I could wait for the rumored mirrorless option from Canon, but I think its safe to assume with metaphysical certitude that Canon will do something to handicap the camera (weak codec, no ibis, weird lens adapter for EF...something).  That is their thing, it is in the very DNA of the company at this point.   I am sure they will remain #1 in sales, but they won't be doing it with my money anymore.  I will give it to a company that is actually trying to compete and not just rest on the halo of their brand from previous eras.  I am definitely going to be tracking the XH1 announcement next week.  

I saw the movie last year, and it is really a good movie, there are some painted scenes very well achieved and of course other acted scenes, in general was a pleasant experience, the cinema was full, most of the people were from 60+ age....

My wife saw this and was raving about it for at least a fortnight.

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.

https://www.fringeradapter.com/#for-x-mount
 

I find all this 8 bit vs 10 bit talk a bit silly. 10 bit gives you only an incremental increase in grad-ability -- if your workflow requires heavy grading then RAW is where you need to be. And if you're not shooting RAW and you think you need 10 bit over 8 bit, I think you need to ask yourself why. 10 bit isn't going to help if you shoot in crappy light. 10 bit isn't going to help you rescue a shot 4 stops over. 10 bit isn't going to give you the malleability to create an interesting look from a badly lit scene. I know all this because I shoot mostly uncontrolled/run-and-gun and I've owned both a GH4 with VLog and a Shogun, and a BMMCC, and I can tell you that if the scene looks crap to your eyes there's no rescuing that even if you'd shot on an Alexa. And if you're good enough to grade beautiful cinematic scenes then you've got the know-how to fake it with a decently shot 8 bit file. 

None of this is to say that you should or shouldn't get a C200, because you need to take into account the way you shoot. I chose a C100mk2 because the package has everything I need to work solo, but I wouldn't chose that camera if I had the budget for crew. I chose to buy the cheapest camera that has everything built in so when I shoot I can concentrate on telling the story.  I'd like to get a C200 when the prices come down because it would fit on a gimbal better, and the autofocus is better. I love Canon's DPAF system, it increases my hit rate and helps me shoot more efficiently. Canon Log is super easy to grade and work with as long as you protect your highlights -- half stop over and the highlights are cooked, but I've brought back shots that were 2+ stops under (because I forgot to change my ND setting, duh!) with barely an issue. 

 

Kinefinity and BlackMagic are doing the same thing RED did for the industry a generation ago - putting cinema-capable tools in the hands of filmmakers at a fraction of the mainstream industry's price structure. Would Panasonic, Sony, or Canon be offering Raw recording in their sub-$10k cameras without those two brands pushing the envelope? Heck, would Red have even released the Scarlet package without the downward price pressure of those two brands? The big players have had the technology for years. Protecting the higher-priced models explains the strangely handicapped C200 - you can have massive Raw files or an 8-bit codec (?!? what? ) but if you want a decent codec and Raw you still have to pay for the next tier up. Are Kinefinity or BM perfect, no? But BlackMagic made a much better camera than AJA, while using the same sensor as the aforementioned AJA Cion. The difference? Both BlackMagic and Kine have excellent color science. As evidenced by the Cion, color science is not an insignificant part of making a camera.

Stumbled across there two articles which I felt are interesting enough to share, as Art Adams goes into amazing detail in his break down of the demo reels. Fascinating how much info he can draw out of a video!
 
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/a-critical-look-at-cions-new-demo-reel.html
 
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/panasonicp2hd/a-critical-look-at-varicams-latest-demo-reel.html
 
 

it means theyre gonna fuck us again! ?

according to "canon rumors"
Canon is sending out “very elaborate” invites to select dealers and VIPs for a mirrorless camera announcement next month.
The invitation was described as being very high end, printed on heavy glossy paper and showing a silhouette of a camera shaped like the EOS M6 with a hole cut out (similar diameter to a dildo)

Obviously Canon pushes everyone to EF lenses (Sony took a good lesson from this Canonikon approach). Never did much for EF-S, nor M.
The 22mm, 11-22mm, kit lens and a 55-200 are just perfect for most amateur's uses. M bodies aren't capable for pro jobs anyway, so no point in professional grade EOS M lenses. In my opinion Eos M system can be all an amateur want. For me, was never an option, because of the limited eco system. Even the dead NX is miles ahead. That hole probably is a full frame sensor.

Since releasing their first Mirrorless camera in June 2012 Canon have produced
two primes
EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. ...
EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM.
and five zooms for mirrorless.EOS lenses can be used with an adaptor as well but this
is not making advantage of size and weight advantage of aps-c mirrorless .

according to "canon rumors"
Canon is sending out “very elaborate” invites to select dealers and VIPs for a mirrorless camera announcement next month.
The invitation was described as being very high end, printed on heavy glossy paper and showing a silhouette of a camera shaped like the EOS M6 with a hole cut out (similar diameter to a dildo)