sam

Just hung this up in the living room.   A 4k Hdr tv that looks like a picture/art frame on the wall. It displays an image  as long as motion is detected and adjusts its brighness to the ambient light.   Extremely believable and love this feature.   The reason I mention it here is the 4k hdr.   Horrible.   I come from a panny plasma and a 65" 4k hdr lg oled.  I assumed a 4k hdr panel from samsung would look somewhat respectable.  Nope.   Turned off all the typical motion, sharpening,  contrast,  etc...  Still horrible. Oversharpened with terrible motion. If this is the type of image folks are used to viewing,  no wonder no can ever agree on what cameras look good. Drastic difference in the look of shows I know and you tube camera tests.  Shocking a $1400 panel can look this bad in comparison.  

Unless you're renting an entire set there's not much point.  Low end modern zeiss glass isn't very exciting (even the cinema variety).  Until you go to Ultra Primes or Master primes they're all pretty dull and lifeless.  
Rent a 28mm Otus instead.  Now that's a cool lens on both aps-c and full frame!

As always, I think the experiences are largely going to  be dependent on your market. I'm based in Vancouver right now. Definitely plenty of folks making money solely with photography and video. I'm far from rich but I've managed to pay my bills doing nothing but freelance video work for 5 years now.
It's funny because there's more competition than ever thanks to increased desire and the low cost of equipment. But there's also more video/photo media than ever. It's possible to find your way, but it certainly won't be easy. 
I can also only speak on the industry in the last 8 years or so, since I'm in my mid thirties. I have noticed on a pattern on forums like these, where the older folks in their 50s and 60s have a different view on the current market. Seems it was easier to make a solid living then, where-as now it seems like there's the high end and a tooooooooooooooon of work at the low, barely scraping by end. 

Ebrahim Sadaawi.

Not me. Just a phone and computer monitor. I should be investing in an 60" OLED HDR 10bit 4k TV though, I mean if I'm serious about this filmmaking stuff and being relevant in the future. ?

hence Kyes current thread.  just look at the post yesterday about the 1dxii vs 1dc.  or before that newcomer Dave Altizer noticing the 1dc. these posts happen repeatedly  about the 3 or 4 cameras mentioned far more than any other since the beginning of eoshd. (other forums as well)  I read one thread about a very knowledgeable dp debating ridding himsdelf of his 16 bit raw shooting  sony F55 for the ancient F35 because of the image it produces.
   what is this "something" that folks consistently and repeatedly notice and comment on in regards to the image produced by a very select group of digital cameras?   
one idea: two of the most talked about cams have charge coupled device sensors, which is the type of sensor used to scan/digitize the film in a lot of the shows/movies  we've watched.   
 

Ebrahim Sadaawi.

I don't know man... you seem to be settling-in.... you know.... in that comfortable - convenient zone.
From full frame to mft.... from leica primes to 1 standard zoom.... pretty soon a point and shoot would be good enough... dare I say it? An Iphone will be good enough?
Add the 1dc in there too for good measure and we are golden.

This.
The thing to look for isn't so much Mojo but Mego as in it makes you want to go out and use it.
That's what concerns me about the A7iii as its a great spec but the only thing I ever feel like shooting after picking up one of their cameras is myself, with a large calibre pistol.
 

mojo is a sexiness. a cool factor.  a near universal appeal, regardless of tastes. again think of Austin Powers. 
it is if your Ed David!

Is the Red One MX fifth?

Ebrahim Sadaawi.

On the multiple forums for making moving pictures I've frequented over the past decade, There are three cameras that are talked about in terms of "mojo" than any other.
  1. Sony F35.
  2. Digital Bolex. 
3. Canon 1DC.

Funny how this is a hot topic, with almost no information at all!
I put C100mkII and NX1 there, and just in memory of the camera that started it all, I will put the 5DmkII as well, but I had to use it a few times the last couple of years, and I hated the experience.
Mojo for me is not only the picture you take, but to feel confident while in hard working hours, and to feel that everything is right in place (I know a lot of people will spell simply "ergonomics", but it's not even that, it's the mojo on that!) and that you will do the job, whatever the circumstances and the difficulties. These cameras haven't failed me repeatedly, for many years now, and while I am working with a lot of brands and models per year, these are my workhorses, and favorite ones to work with.
 

On the multiple forums for making moving pictures I've frequented over the past decade, There are three cameras that are talked about in terms of "mojo" than any other.
  1. Sony F35.
  2. Digital Bolex. 
3. Canon 1DC.

okay I stopped at 3.  bmcc 2.5k definitely takes number 4 spot.

What no love for the 2.5K BMCC?

Ebrahim Sadaawi.

I think the ES that @jonpais is using is "Errata Sendorum", which is an old Latin phrase used in English contract law in reference to failing to deliver an SLR Magic Rangefinder

Nope, Portrait mode is for stills only. As is HDR. Also, the Portrait mode is far from perfect, often blurring what should not be blurred. It's far easier to just use a dedicated camera with a fast lens. Doing so will work in stills and video. 
Smartphones are great, and I really like the idea of integrating some of these smart features into cameras. That's what Samsung was starting to do with the NX1, and frankly that camera had one of the best UI I have ever used on a dedicated camera. All of this tech can only be better when upscaled to full sized cameras. My modern smartphones handily outperform my 11 year old Canon point and shoot. And I would imagine that in 10 years modern smartphones will outperform most of todays dedicated cameras. But think of what the dedicated cameras will be like in 10 years?
Interesting times. 

@sam I just love this discussion, although for fairness to the OP, it probably should be made a new topic.
But I will briefly say that on some level you’re right... it’s just where your level begins and ends. For YouTube videos, I would agree that at $500 or less, the iPhone is probably good enough if you’re only making videos for YouTube. But at a higher price point, the differences in IQ will be obvious, even on a small screen.
I view all videos from every camera on my phone first and then I’ll watch them on a 40” TV to see how they hold up. Surprisingly, a lot of cameras look good on a smartphone. And surprisingly... a lot don’t.
An iPhone will not compete with a 1DC even on a 3” screen. But other, less expensive cameras will close the gap. But very few sub $3000 cameras will have the mojo the 1DC has... big screen, little screen... any screen.
So to keep this on topic and to offer advice to the OP from someone who has never used either camera but has watched tons of videos from both... the 1DC has some special sauce that is missing from the 1DXii. But the 1DXii is no slouch and I have seen some gorgeous, next level videos shot with it. So it really comes down to features... if you need great AF at up to 60p 4K... it’s pretty simple.
Now I’m sure a lot of people are familiar with this guy’s work, but every time I watch this video, I am mesmerized...
And that one leads me to this one from the same filmmaker...
I know which one I would pick, but every body’s needs are different. 

I think that it is very self'-deceptive and even pretentious to think that anybody can discern fundamental quality/beauty distinction between modern high quality cameras just at the base of one single, from clip extracted image that is treated even with slightest elemental channel manipulation. Matter becomes even more serious (or funnier) with 1280x720 image that survive tone of stylistic finessing and software manipulations.
More over - we are constantly faced with claims that something is "cinematic" or not without explanation what exactly someone see, and what with "cinematic" is called. Just from the last years Oscar examples - Moonlight is cinematic, The Revenant is cinematic - do their global artistic directions image-character wise have anything in common? I think that we too much relay our self-esteem on subjective premise that we know/see better than someone else what mysterious "cinematic" is.
I'd like more that everybody spend few minutes and indicate/explain what he/she actually like in given example - instead of repeatedly operate with one single word as argument comes from real or imagine professional heights. Lets prove our eyes, knowledge and taste indicating exactly what we see and why we think it is important.
(Btw - If, in incredible case, someone is interested - above presented short called Valentine is shot completely at Voigtlander's 0.95 f value, I asked DP and he answered at his channel.)

I hear what your saying and understand taking color out of the equation. same settings for all.   it's just that for example, if the the test uses a led with missing spectrum or a spike, it won't just affect color.  noise and tonality in a certain color channel can be affected, which can hurt one camera and not the other. Have you seen the video from Arri where they show their skypanel vs their own tungsten lamp?
 another example.  will a camera manufacturers idt be used inside of aces to transform to rec709, p3, rec2020, etc... or will manufacturer provided luts be used, or just by eye or?  will the proper levels ie video vs data levels be properly set and maintained on both ingest and output? if luts are used, will adjustments be made before or after the lut. and then what's the method for going monotone and then who decides contrast?   video i.o. card or is monitor hooked up straight to gpu?  many, many other technical details if you want to truly compare.   

there are so many variables that would need to be accounted for any semblance of fairness in a blind test for the pixel peepers on a budget users here.  As you alluded to above, certain variables might drastically benefit one cam or another.  light source type, software, workflow, display used for grading, displays used for viewing, compression, streaming, output format, native Iso, format equivalence, lens quality, camera white balance, matching exposure, etc.. etc... if it's just so you you can decide if apple or panny takes your money, thats a little easier?.   
 

True.  I ruled them out due to no autofocus, but you're right that the image quality is better than the other options.
Regardless, I think that we've gone a little off topic, and although phones are very capable devices and can be kitted out with rigs that make them almost as useful (and almost as large) as a DSLR, I don't think that anyone would make the case that a phone is a suitable alternative to a 1DC or a 1DXII..  at least not until the RED phone is released