fuzzynormal

Well, there's you go in regards to Olympus. 
Personally I'm still hoping they're gonna try to do a little Japanese corporate tap dancing and attempt to wiggle out of letting their camera division go...but that still doesn't excuse their numerous mistakes running the company. 

Ding ding.  Upscale your vids for online platform viewing.  Take advantage of whatever IQ edge you can squeak out of their systems.

Ding ding.  Upscale your vids for online platform viewing.  Take advantage of whatever IQ edge you can squeak out of their systems.

I was going to buy a used Gx7 for $100 more than I got my waranteed/refurbished EM10iii. 
Its a good value for $300, yes. 

Using my em10iii today on a paying gig. 

I bounce on and off YT.  Never followed anyone, probably never will.  I know channels exist with lots of info relevant to whatever you may like, but paying close attention to any of them seems like a chore.  Besides, it's a destination, on the popular side, mostly for those that are easily influenced.  The ones pulling cash on the platform are not called "influencers" for nothing.  
Pop culture is never as interesting as it pretends to be.  It's not designed to be that way.  And exceptions tend to prove the rule.

I bounce on and off YT.  Never followed anyone, probably never will.  I know channels exist with lots of info relevant to whatever you may like, but paying close attention to any of them seems like a chore.  Besides, it's a destination, on the popular side, mostly for those that are easily influenced.  The ones pulling cash on the platform are not called "influencers" for nothing.  
Pop culture is never as interesting as it pretends to be.  It's not designed to be that way.  And exceptions tend to prove the rule.

I recommend you giving me $6K so I can but that lot.

Maybe the image is horizontally flipped. [you beat me to it]

I recommend you giving me $6K so I can but that lot.

FWIW, my understanding is that corporations are basically told by their legal team to never apologize about product lest they open themselves up to class action lawsuits.  They might apologize for "feelings," but usually not about stuff like this.

I've used it in a horror movie to put people on edge a little bit.

Yeah, that's my thing too. 
Give me a person manually hunting for focus if need be.  It's actually a pleasant aesthetic, I think.  I'm not knocking anyone that uses AF.  My wife does, for example, (she's stills oriented) but I'm just not that into it for motion pictures...and when I see many cool hybrid cameras passionately dismissed because they lack high-end AF capabilities, I'm curious about that rationale.
An affordable FF camera like this S5 --made affordable because it's without all the bells and whistles sounds pretty great to me.

You're not wrong.  Good specs help sell cameras.  People like me say they don't need it, but in a few years when all manufacturers offer it and it's decent across the board even on middle and low-end models, I'll end up with it --and when that happens I assume I'll find the same practical use for it as everyone else, for sure.  Just not going out of my way to acquire it right now.

Yeah, that's my thing too. 
Give me a person manually hunting for focus if need be.  It's actually a pleasant aesthetic, I think.  I'm not knocking anyone that uses AF.  My wife does, for example, (she's stills oriented) but I'm just not that into it for motion pictures...and when I see many cool hybrid cameras passionately dismissed because they lack high-end AF capabilities, I'm curious about that rationale.
An affordable FF camera like this S5 --made affordable because it's without all the bells and whistles sounds pretty great to me.

As you implied, some of your issues are that you're hoping shots not well exposed can be successfully manipulated into a gratifying image. 
What the photons are doing in your frame to begin with seems to be the bigger problem than the grading.  Your reference image of the town from above is a good example of that.  Early evening light creates more drama than a midday overcast shot. Sometimes with certain footage, you're never going to get it where you want it to be.  In that case you need new footage or just accept it wasn't shot well enough to begin with.
As someone that does the latter all the time, I've learned to know when I get a good shot and when I'm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I think there are two kinds of film-making, each with a different set of criteria for equipment.
The first is controlled situations, where for a camera the following criteria are what is important:
Image Image Image How difficult it is on set to get that image How easy it is to deal with it in post The second is uncontrolled situations, where for a camera the following criteria are what is important:
Can you use it at all? How good is the image in difficult situations? How good is the image inn easier situations? The BMPCC and BMMCC are designed for the first situation.  People HAVE used them for the first, but they're DESIGNED for the second.
We talk about cameras like it's a popularity contest, it's a beauty pageant, it's a stock portfolio, its a ticket into a club, its a fashion accessory, or it's a phallus extension.  This is all crap.  Cameras are ugly, expensive, fragile and fiddly and it shouldn't matter what your mates think, how much they retailed for, or what colour they are (even if they're fricking gold plated - Nikon).  A camera that shoots 1080p RAW and various flavours of Prores is either worth $500 to you or it's not, and I'd suggest that if it isn't then it's either because you have a different camera that already does what you need it to do, or it wasn't designed for you.

Sure.  As mentioned it's shot with vintage glass on a cheap speed booster.   Um, what else... "Natural" color profile, no tweaks, no color correcting.  Auto-WB so you can see how it'll drift into strange colors every now and again.  4K Frame rate is 29,97 and I believe I was shooting with a 40 shutter speed.  Did a few 1080 60p shots in there. I guess that's pretty much it.  Focal Length is 50mm x 0.7.  
When I open that lens all the way to 1.4, it really fringes and halos.  Pretty wild.
I've also shot a bit now with my Olympus 12-40mm 2.8 Pro Lens.  That's a whole 'nother look completely.  Much more sharp and clinical.
https://vimeo.com/path88/review/444427937/9888f03bd9
 
 

If anyone wants to see cam test of EM10III footage with vintage glass, autoWB, and a speed booster:  https://vimeo.com/path88/review/444427937/9888f03bd9

I bought a refurbished EM10III on eBay for $300.  Warranty and all.  5-axis IBIS and 4k.  Battery life is impressive as is the IQ.  Also shot a bunch with GX85's.  Comparable camera to the EM10III, but the IBIS ain't quite as good.

I've recently been developing 120 film shot with a 70's Mamiya.  You're right.  Those that like analog will hew to the aesthetic.  I don't mind people doing stuff with what they want to do stuff with; got better things in life to worry about.
I'm fascinated by technology.  It's fun to see advancements even if I'm not benefiting from the latest and greatest.
For instance, I found Ang Lee's last film to be a cool aesthetic choice, but my latest favorite film is "The Lunchbox," and a lot of that film looks as if it's shot on a Hi-8 camcorder... 

The race to the most ultra clear, pristine image will continue but there will always be a niche that prefer (at least sometimes) an older picture or ergonomics. 
I got a Leica M9 some months ago which lacks live view, autofocus and a decent sensor but even that was not enough to satiate my analogue fever. I ended up getting a Nikon FM3a film camera a month later and have been using it since. Meanwhile I've been using a 4k HDR tv recently and marvelling at the 4k footage I'v captured with past cameras. 
My theory is that it has a lot to do with money tbh. When people are young they don't have much money and so they use whatever they can afford. As they get older, they buy better technology. However I don't agree with your assessment that interest in low-fi is increasing. Most people are shooting with phones and they keep making the cameras on those things better because its the only thing that really drives sales.

My anecdote is simple. 
I moved from a GH5 to a cheap EM10III.  The GH5 is awesome, but it's more than I need.  I also didn't like that I was resorting to shooting slow-mo a lot.  FWIW, I made a doc film 6 years ago on a GX7 and GM1.  Looked better than anything I've done in the 6 years since. 
It's certainly not the gear making my stuff better or worse.

BTW, a simple solution is to own a camera that has audio input and a headphone jack.  ie.: The GH5.  However, this still presents an issue in that you're only recording audio when you're recording video.  As a documentarian, I really would rather have audio recording non-stop...just to make sure I get all the audio, you know.  Still, the GH5 is a good half-measure.
I recently transitioned away from the GH5 to an Olympus EM10III with no audio recording options, so now I'm curious for the type of device mentioned above.  
Always something about hybrid gear not quite doing what you want it to, but I'm glad I'm shooting with a smaller camera.  That's my preference.
You can imagine that I think this is a fine idea; probably not alone in this either.  Good luck.

That's my hope, that they simply sold it off to JIP so that then JIP can do their dirty work for Olympus to massively streamline the business to trim off all the fat, then returns it to Olympus (with a generous profit in the sale given to JIP as their fee for turning around the division).