fuzzynormal

There's a certain context there.  Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive."
I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so.
But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society.  And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset?
If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong?  Or is it only wrong when folks disagree with the new standards?  How we define these shifts in society is pretty important, I think.

This has been a really helpful thread with thoughtful responses. Thank you. For now, I’ll be pushing myself with the D850 for a better real-world understanding of its capabilities. And maybe borrowing/renting another cam to feel the difference in similar situations, and in the edit.

Perhaps.  Although if you watch some less remembered media products from the 1960's or before --I really think you're going to see the same ratio of mediocrity and sanitized stuff we're all still complaining about now.

Perhaps.  Although if you watch some less remembered media products from the 1960's or before --I really think you're going to see the same ratio of mediocrity and sanitized stuff we're all still complaining about now.

Think it’s any different now than, say, 1961?
Theres always been a big ratio between good and bad movies. 

Simply, I don't agree with the sentiment.  It's equating the pandemic response to being unjustly subjugated.  So, yeah, I don't see the response as being unjust like slavery.  If there was supposed to be more nuance in the initial metaphor,  I didn't read it.

Simply, I don't agree with the sentiment.  It's equating the pandemic response to being unjustly subjugated.  So, yeah, I don't see the response as being unjust like slavery.  If there was supposed to be more nuance in the initial metaphor,  I didn't read it.

Personally don’t mind staying a bit behind the curve. I picked up a Fuji XT3 with the f2.8-4 kit last year and still love shooting with it. Fuji updated the AF to give us eye af tracking in video. The colors are worlds better than I was personally able to get when I had the Sony a6500. Hoping to pick up a cheap viltrox af lens soon for it as well. All this to say, no shame in going behind the latest!

So I'm a big proponent of proxy editing and use it on huge documentary edits. You say transcoding isn't part of your desired workflow.  Any particular reason why you're dismissing this option and giving yourself a cheap and easy way to cut?

I learned how to use a cheap glide-cam rig a long time ago.  I kind of love it.  Works like a champ.  Never easy, but 100% reliable.  It's just metal, joints, hinges, and counter weights.  You'd have to run it over with a car to destroy it.  
And you're right, for the few times I pull it and use it, it delivers the goods.  Ain't that all you need from it? 
Also, there's an argument for having a piece of gear that will do something well, but is somewhat of a PITA to use; I find that it keeps you "honest" visually.  Do I REALLY want/need a floaty shot here?  Is that visually mission critical for the project?  If yes, then lug out the heavy glide-cam rig.  If not, then leave it alone. 
I have a colleague that spent thousands on gimball stuff.... guess what almost all his footage looks like now?  It looks novel, granted...but I'm not sold on it.  Feels like an lazy aesthetic style of this era....like bell bottom jeans; fun while they're around, but a little cringy looking back on it once everyone moves on from it.

As you say, 60fps, shutter speed of 60.

For me it takes the edge of of reality. It’s a visual pretense that tells you what you’re watching is a bit of a conceit. There’s some real psychological power in that. Assumptions and biases are made by the viewer. These are good things depending on what narrative you’d like to present. 
 
As for YT’ers. They’ll often mess up the shutter speed regardless of the frame rate, so I wouldn’t base any decisions about one’s video settings from random content creators. 

Yes, the waving the hand before your face test! I’ve done that with the X-T3 at 60p to see
what shutter speed mimics reality the best.
And the 180 degree “rule” fails completely here, the motion is too stroboscopic at 1/120th.
60p at 1/60th shutter works for me. It looks most like my real hand waving before my eyes as far as
motion blur is concerned. There are no small increments of time left out at that setting.
Just like seeing with the naked eye. Thats how I shoot at home.
But that’s not what we want for narrative story telling.
We want to be immersed in an alternate reality, and for us right now 24p works best for that.
And 16fps still works fine for Buster Keaton.
I find these frame speed opinions fascinating, its all about how the mind/brain works,
and our cultural training & history. If Hollywood had developed a 48fps standard, who would
want to shoot 24p? It wouldn’t look like Cinema!
Maybe we are all brainwashed by the mechanical & financial limitations of a small group
Of engineers over a hundred years ago.
 

For me it takes the edge of of reality. It’s a visual pretense that tells you what you’re watching is a bit of a conceit. There’s some real psychological power in that. Assumptions and biases are made by the viewer. These are good things depending on what narrative you’d like to present. 
 
As for YT’ers. They’ll often mess up the shutter speed regardless of the frame rate, so I wouldn’t base any decisions about one’s video settings from random content creators. 

For an older guy like me, these examples are the reasons I'm a bit loyal to this EOSHD.  It's a website, not a marketing "platform." And the way it's run reminds me of the young-information-super-highway-idealism of what the internet had potential to be. 
Also, I especially like the irony that the title of the website is now an anachronism...in less than a decade.  And that titular company is routinely and harshly critiqued here.  That's simply something backwardly pure.  That would never exist if it had to get filtered through a corporate system; probably would have ad 3 re-branding launches by now if that was the case.
EOSHD, I guess, is kind of like visiting an awesome chef-run-restaurant in a town that only has corporate fast-food franchises in it.  You can get fed in both, but you can only get a proper meal from one.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

None. 
I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick.  If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent.  If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks.  So-mo, heavy grading, etc.  Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production.  The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest."
Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore.  Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.

For an older guy like me, these examples are the reasons I'm a bit loyal to this EOSHD.  It's a website, not a marketing "platform." And the way it's run reminds me of the young-information-super-highway-idealism of what the internet had potential to be. 
Also, I especially like the irony that the title of the website is now an anachronism...in less than a decade.  And that titular company is routinely and harshly critiqued here.  That's simply something backwardly pure.  That would never exist if it had to get filtered through a corporate system; probably would have ad 3 re-branding launches by now if that was the case.
EOSHD, I guess, is kind of like visiting an awesome chef-run-restaurant in a town that only has corporate fast-food franchises in it.  You can get fed in both, but you can only get a proper meal from one.

I'm glad you're bringing attention to this, @Andrew Reid, as everyone should at least be aware of who is tracking them and why. I have two Firefox addons, one is uBlock Origin for blocking ads, and the other is Blur for blocking trackers. I can confirm that the EOSHD main site has those two Google trackers (which Blur blocks), and the forum has 0. Blur blocks 9 trackers on SonyAlphaRumors even after opting out of cookies, and 67 ads are blocked.
It's worth pointing out that even if you are okay with being tracked, the richest companies and people in the world make their money off analysis of your data. It's worth considering whether you want to freely donate your data (which YOU pay for with electricity and internet bills!) to the wealthiest people on earth.

Here's a fun anecdote.  In 2019 I did a "4-wall" tour of a doc my wife and I made.  I'd set up screenings with theaters in the area that were willing to rent out their auditoriums.  Basically we took it on the road to a bunch of local meet-ups with groups that supported the theme of the film.  We did this in conjunction with our film fest run so we were able to bounce in and out of region where the film was accepted.  The story had a niche appeal so we were able to pull about 50-75 people, on average, into the theaters wherever we sold tickets.
As such, I made a DCP.  Not the first time I did that, but it was the first time I traveled with the DCP and watched it on multiple screens in multiple theaters.
Here's the deal.  It looked different in almost every theater I took it into.  The variable of sound quality was even more intense; usually in an unfortunate way.  With DCP visuals at least , theoretically, you should be getting a standardized visual experience -- as the projectors and media are supposedly tightly controlled.
Well, nah.  Far from it.  For every theater that had well informed skilled people working the projection, just as many were kids with the priority job of selling popcorn.  Sometimes it was a struggle to to explain the concept of aspect ratio to the projectionist.  The state of their DCP equipment was all over the map too.  
Although, there was one grand old theater in upstate New York that not only sounded amazing, but had the best color rendition, biggest screen, and the sharpest resolution of them all.  That one? They didn't have a DCP projector. I played the film from a PC laptop off a 8-bit 1080p .mp4 usuing a high-end consumer projector.  I don't know who their technician was at that theater, but they REALLY had it dialed in.  Restored my faith in the movie-going experience, that show.
Point is, you can round and round about standards and whatnot, but you can't really adjust for the chance of what's going to happen in the real world.  After all, you can't really overcome ignorance you can only hope to alleviate it a little bit here and there.  So, yeah, fight the good fight if you want, but it's a war of attrition and the other side has more troops.