Richard Bugg

Sometimes the most interesting and useful insights (like this one from Andrew) require traversing some difficult ground to get there. With this sort of reflection the preceding discomfort is almost always worth the effort. 
To explore Andrew's thoughts here a little further: perhaps in addition to being a rather poor 'facsimile' of life, it seems to me the internet becomes at times a powerful and distorting "amplifier" of people's emotional states, but mostly only of those frequencies that deal with anger, fear, rejection, resentment etc. I don't think anyone is immune from this effect, and I suspect the more invested in a community or issue, the more pronounced the effect.
I agree that the internet's amplifying effects can have far reaching ramifications, especially when taking into account that the responses are preserved in writing, and when multiplied across thousands and perhaps millions of people on any given issue. This must at least be part of the reason for the recent exacerbation in polarisation that we see in politics (uh oh - sorry to mention the "P" word).
But more to the point, perhaps it can help us to simply understand the sometimes difficult dynamics of communication from a human perspective, and especially of online communication where our brains lack the important cues given by real face-to-face interaction. Perhaps the lesson is that in understanding what is happening, it is easier not to put too much importance on the details of what is said, and to recognise that we are all basically the same in this regard. In acknowledging our nature as fragile humans it is far easier to be forgiving on ourselves and others for apparent transgressions, to allow some breathing space for reflection, and then to get back to the task at hand.
So Andrew, in regards to the camera in question, I think that if there are matters about its quality and usefulness you would like resolved, it would not surprise me at all if you do get your hands on it one way or another. And if and when you do, I'll look forwards to your insightful review of it.

Sometimes the most interesting and useful insights (like this one from Andrew) require traversing some difficult ground to get there. With this sort of reflection the preceding discomfort is almost always worth the effort. 
To explore Andrew's thoughts here a little further: perhaps in addition to being a rather poor 'facsimile' of life, it seems to me the internet becomes at times a powerful and distorting "amplifier" of people's emotional states, but mostly only of those frequencies that deal with anger, fear, rejection, resentment etc. I don't think anyone is immune from this effect, and I suspect the more invested in a community or issue, the more pronounced the effect.
I agree that the internet's amplifying effects can have far reaching ramifications, especially when taking into account that the responses are preserved in writing, and when multiplied across thousands and perhaps millions of people on any given issue. This must at least be part of the reason for the recent exacerbation in polarisation that we see in politics (uh oh - sorry to mention the "P" word).
But more to the point, perhaps it can help us to simply understand the sometimes difficult dynamics of communication from a human perspective, and especially of online communication where our brains lack the important cues given by real face-to-face interaction. Perhaps the lesson is that in understanding what is happening, it is easier not to put too much importance on the details of what is said, and to recognise that we are all basically the same in this regard. In acknowledging our nature as fragile humans it is far easier to be forgiving on ourselves and others for apparent transgressions, to allow some breathing space for reflection, and then to get back to the task at hand.
So Andrew, in regards to the camera in question, I think that if there are matters about its quality and usefulness you would like resolved, it would not surprise me at all if you do get your hands on it one way or another. And if and when you do, I'll look forwards to your insightful review of it.

Context is everything.
Here's an interesting article illuminating how the alt-right (in this case) have selectively use past internet comments to sucker-punch their enemies, including Gunn's employer.
It's worth being very familiar with the tactic, so that it's more easy to identify and to see when your own viewpoint is being manipulated. It's a subset of general propaganda, given additional potency by the reach of the internet.
The mock outrage is systematically deployed in a way that will co-opt (infect) the target -  i.e. the general population, and vulnerable/fearful administrators and managers, to result in additional leverage against opponents.
The 2016 US election was rife with it.

Did you try using the H1's internal mics for a stereo setup? Alternatively, you could probably use an external stereo mic, something like the Rode NT4. It's got fixed XY stereo, with 9V battery for phantom, and a 3.5mm input that would plug into your H1. An external mic like the NT4 would provide a considerable upgrade to the H1's internal mics. If you placed it quite close you could reduce the gain a little and thereby cut out ambient noise quite well while maintaining a reasonable spread with the cardioid pickup pattern. A little ambient sound can give a sense of place. Either way you'd need a fluffy for the wind of course, and if the day is relatively calm they can work well. Experimenting with careful placement and gain would be key to getting a good result. A decent microphone and careful placement is likely more important than the recording device.

Right, you weren’t specifically referring to the GH5 as much as you were referring to any modern camera with modern conveniences but you have been known to defend the GH5 to no end... which is cool, I do it with my 5D3 as well.
It doesn’t much matter anyway, this thread has nowhere to go until some footage is released and some cameras are released into the wild.
With that being said, I really do appreciate John Brawley’s contributions to this site. The discussion I had with him the other week regarding his experience on the production of The Resident was insight rarely received from a pro to an aspiring director. And he seemed more than happy to offer it.
So maybe it’s a little unnecessary to pick apart the minutiae of every sentence and every word he ever posted on this forum to “win” an argument?

There is one thing for sure, and that is that contentious people like LvT promote robust discussion. And I would say that is probably a positive outcome. I don't agree with the key premises of Andrew's argument, nor the conclusions that follow, and I think it is reasonable to contest the argument on that basis. Perhaps I have missed something as well and I can learn from the discussion. But I'm not sure that personalising things is particularly useful, more of a distraction. Sometimes, a different conception of the problem leads to different conclusions.

I think it might have been your use of the phrases  “your upbringing” and “personal trauma”  which lends itself to “personalising things”?

There is one thing for sure, and that is that contentious people like LvT promote robust discussion. And I would say that is probably a positive outcome. I don't agree with the key premises of Andrew's argument, nor the conclusions that follow, and I think it is reasonable to contest the argument on that basis. Perhaps I have missed something as well and I can learn from the discussion. But I'm not sure that personalising things is particularly useful, more of a distraction. Sometimes, a different conception of the problem leads to different conclusions.

“What I do support is the freedom of the filmmaker to make a film of his choosing without censorship.”
The danger here is that this statement is difficult to distinguish from:
”...is the freedom of the person to behave in a way of his choosing without censorship.”  That is anarchy. In a JCSesque happy psycho-utopia it might work but in practice there is no evidence that it can or does or has.
In a civilised society there are - and must be - certain moral standards and rules which govern the behaviour and actions of individuals. Those who break those rules are liable to sanctions. And that, in my opinion, has to apply to “filmmakers” just as much as a school teacher or any other occupation or label. Yes, “creative types” push, bend and test the rules - but that is an entirely different statement than to suggest that a filmmaker should be allowed to operate entirely out-with any moral boundary. No one individual or category of individuals deserves to be exempt from the moral control which “society” - broadly understood and interpreted and not even necessarily universal -  deems appropriate. Remember Zach? I’m sure he described himself as a “filmmaker”.  He wasn’t allowed to express his creativity in the way he thought appropriate because he “breached” the “rules” of a “community”.
Note that, as far as I am aware, no one proposed that he should have been stopped before making the film. He had the “freedom” to make it - society retains an assumed  moral authority and freedom to respond in whatever way it seems appropriate.
Freedom - the key word here possibly - is never unrestrained or unqualified or independent of a given framework.
”He is here to trouble us and to prod, to get us out of our comfort zone and possibly even to give a few of us nightmares.”
Would that justification also apply to a terrorist? 
Once the statement is qualified then it inevitably acquires an unresolved ambiguity and “dies the death of a thousand qualifications”. 
An interesting and thought-provoking article. 

You pose that as a rhetorical question, as though the answer is self-evident. But it is a very relevant question. How do you define violence? Is it aways physical? What is the impact of witnessing extreme violence, real or depicted? Can showing a violent film be a form of violence itself?
You have already alluded to how films might provoke a physiological and psychological response (nightmares), and have suggested that films like this should be kept from children and "idiots". Why do you suggest these films be censored for some people and not others? Aside from the fact that you have qualified your own argument about censorship in this way, I presume it's because you recognise that exposure to screen violence might have some deleterious effect on at least some people? A cursory examination of the published literature suggest that this is indeed likely to be the case.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29093050
This film has been made. You have linked the trailer, which itself depicts graphic and extreme violence. You suggest that this is for an "art house" audience, but here it is on the internet.  It will be downloaded into people's homes, not confined to carefully chosen audiences that have weeded out the vulnerable. So children, youths, "idiots" and all manner of people will watch this trailer, and will watch this film, because in this day and age it is easily available, and because parents don't always take proper care or don't always understand the effects of such films on their children's and their own development. And who knows what effect these films have on the psyche of the general community over time. We are running that experiment now. People used to think smoking and asbestos were harmless.
The real question is this: Is curtailing individual freedoms in some instances justified due to probable harmful effects on the community?
I think in most rational and civic minded communities the answer would be yes. People who call themselves "Artists" are no exception. This is not sinister big government at play. This is about building civil and healthy societies. Where that line is drawn is a matter of debate. But to argue against any form of restriction is to neither accept nor care that some forms of expression might be harmful and might have harmful impacts on others.
This NYT article on the current controversy provides some interesting insights. Based on the final chilling paragraphs LvT may well be sociopathic. I certainly wouldn't want him as my banner boy for freedom of expression, but then again if you argue against censorship in any form then you are arguing not only for LvT's work, but also for far worse. Good luck with that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/movies/lars-von-trier-the-house-that-jack-built-cannes-film-festival.html
 

You pose that as a rhetorical question, as though the answer is self-evident. But it is a very relevant question. How do you define violence? Is it aways physical? What is the impact of witnessing extreme violence, real or depicted? Can showing a violent film be a form of violence itself?
You have already alluded to how films might provoke a physiological and psychological response (nightmares), and have suggested that films like this should be kept from children and "idiots". Why do you suggest these films be censored for some people and not others? Aside from the fact that you have qualified your own argument about censorship in this way, I presume it's because you recognise that exposure to screen violence might have some deleterious effect on at least some people? A cursory examination of the published literature suggest that this is indeed likely to be the case.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29093050
This film has been made. You have linked the trailer, which itself depicts graphic and extreme violence. You suggest that this is for an "art house" audience, but here it is on the internet.  It will be downloaded into people's homes, not confined to carefully chosen audiences that have weeded out the vulnerable. So children, youths, "idiots" and all manner of people will watch this trailer, and will watch this film, because in this day and age it is easily available, and because parents don't always take proper care or don't always understand the effects of such films on their children's and their own development. And who knows what effect these films have on the psyche of the general community over time. We are running that experiment now. People used to think smoking and asbestos were harmless.
The real question is this: Is curtailing individual freedoms in some instances justified due to probable harmful effects on the community?
I think in most rational and civic minded communities the answer would be yes. People who call themselves "Artists" are no exception. This is not sinister big government at play. This is about building civil and healthy societies. Where that line is drawn is a matter of debate. But to argue against any form of restriction is to neither accept nor care that some forms of expression might be harmful and might have harmful impacts on others.
This NYT article on the current controversy provides some interesting insights. Based on the final chilling paragraphs LvT may well be sociopathic. I certainly wouldn't want him as my banner boy for freedom of expression, but then again if you argue against censorship in any form then you are arguing not only for LvT's work, but also for far worse. Good luck with that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/movies/lars-von-trier-the-house-that-jack-built-cannes-film-festival.html
 

Rather than a new recorder, what about adding an XLR preamp to your existing setup? 
If that might work this review by Caleb Pike compares some relatively inexpensive (+ one expensive) preamps.
In a couple of other videos here Caleb shows a way to use and modify the Saramonic SmartRig XLR Preamp ($23).
I understand the camera's mic input still passes through the camera's internal preamp and you can't actually 'bypass' it - just turn it down and make it less pronounced by using a stronger - and ideally cleaner - input signal.
The $23 Saramonic setup does look workable, lightweight, simple, cheap and creative, and presumably the 3.5mm output could be split with one of these or similar, to send an input signal to a recorder (e.g. DR-10L/LS-7 which could otherwise double as a pocket recorder if needed) as well as a signal to the camera for scratch or backup audio.
The audio quality seems pretty reasonable, but in the video it sounds like the Saramonic setup loses some of the lower frequency sounds compared to the C100 XLR preamp, which by contrast sounds somewhat 'richer'. I wondered if there was an inbuilt low cut filter involved with the Saramonic. The Beachteck looks like a better quality option, but is a little more bulky and expensive. However, it can be bottom mounted which is a plus. Either way, at $23 and $140 respectively the Saramonic and Beachteck options are considerably cheaper than the Zoom H5 at $270, but with the downside of having to connect your existing recorder, which is more fiddly and prone to disconnecting, but nothing you couldn't work around.
When all is said and done, cameras come and go, cheap gear breaks and often disappoints with it's compromises and lack of performance. But a quality audio setup will last a long time. That said, I'd personally consider selling anything I didn't need, throwing in the extra cash and buying a MixPre3 and not have to worry about audio recorders for another decade or more. If you look at it like that the MixPre3 is a bargain.

Rather than a new recorder, what about adding an XLR preamp to your existing setup? 
If that might work this review by Caleb Pike compares some relatively inexpensive (+ one expensive) preamps.
In a couple of other videos here Caleb shows a way to use and modify the Saramonic SmartRig XLR Preamp ($23).
I understand the camera's mic input still passes through the camera's internal preamp and you can't actually 'bypass' it - just turn it down and make it less pronounced by using a stronger - and ideally cleaner - input signal.
The $23 Saramonic setup does look workable, lightweight, simple, cheap and creative, and presumably the 3.5mm output could be split with one of these or similar, to send an input signal to a recorder (e.g. DR-10L/LS-7 which could otherwise double as a pocket recorder if needed) as well as a signal to the camera for scratch or backup audio.
The audio quality seems pretty reasonable, but in the video it sounds like the Saramonic setup loses some of the lower frequency sounds compared to the C100 XLR preamp, which by contrast sounds somewhat 'richer'. I wondered if there was an inbuilt low cut filter involved with the Saramonic. The Beachteck looks like a better quality option, but is a little more bulky and expensive. However, it can be bottom mounted which is a plus. Either way, at $23 and $140 respectively the Saramonic and Beachteck options are considerably cheaper than the Zoom H5 at $270, but with the downside of having to connect your existing recorder, which is more fiddly and prone to disconnecting, but nothing you couldn't work around.
When all is said and done, cameras come and go, cheap gear breaks and often disappoints with it's compromises and lack of performance. But a quality audio setup will last a long time. That said, I'd personally consider selling anything I didn't need, throwing in the extra cash and buying a MixPre3 and not have to worry about audio recorders for another decade or more. If you look at it like that the MixPre3 is a bargain.

Rather than a new recorder, what about adding an XLR preamp to your existing setup? 
If that might work this review by Caleb Pike compares some relatively inexpensive (+ one expensive) preamps.
In a couple of other videos here Caleb shows a way to use and modify the Saramonic SmartRig XLR Preamp ($23).
I understand the camera's mic input still passes through the camera's internal preamp and you can't actually 'bypass' it - just turn it down and make it less pronounced by using a stronger - and ideally cleaner - input signal.
The $23 Saramonic setup does look workable, lightweight, simple, cheap and creative, and presumably the 3.5mm output could be split with one of these or similar, to send an input signal to a recorder (e.g. DR-10L/LS-7 which could otherwise double as a pocket recorder if needed) as well as a signal to the camera for scratch or backup audio.
The audio quality seems pretty reasonable, but in the video it sounds like the Saramonic setup loses some of the lower frequency sounds compared to the C100 XLR preamp, which by contrast sounds somewhat 'richer'. I wondered if there was an inbuilt low cut filter involved with the Saramonic. The Beachteck looks like a better quality option, but is a little more bulky and expensive. However, it can be bottom mounted which is a plus. Either way, at $23 and $140 respectively the Saramonic and Beachteck options are considerably cheaper than the Zoom H5 at $270, but with the downside of having to connect your existing recorder, which is more fiddly and prone to disconnecting, but nothing you couldn't work around.
When all is said and done, cameras come and go, cheap gear breaks and often disappoints with it's compromises and lack of performance. But a quality audio setup will last a long time. That said, I'd personally consider selling anything I didn't need, throwing in the extra cash and buying a MixPre3 and not have to worry about audio recorders for another decade or more. If you look at it like that the MixPre3 is a bargain.

Rather than a new recorder, what about adding an XLR preamp to your existing setup? 
If that might work this review by Caleb Pike compares some relatively inexpensive (+ one expensive) preamps.
In a couple of other videos here Caleb shows a way to use and modify the Saramonic SmartRig XLR Preamp ($23).
I understand the camera's mic input still passes through the camera's internal preamp and you can't actually 'bypass' it - just turn it down and make it less pronounced by using a stronger - and ideally cleaner - input signal.
The $23 Saramonic setup does look workable, lightweight, simple, cheap and creative, and presumably the 3.5mm output could be split with one of these or similar, to send an input signal to a recorder (e.g. DR-10L/LS-7 which could otherwise double as a pocket recorder if needed) as well as a signal to the camera for scratch or backup audio.
The audio quality seems pretty reasonable, but in the video it sounds like the Saramonic setup loses some of the lower frequency sounds compared to the C100 XLR preamp, which by contrast sounds somewhat 'richer'. I wondered if there was an inbuilt low cut filter involved with the Saramonic. The Beachteck looks like a better quality option, but is a little more bulky and expensive. However, it can be bottom mounted which is a plus. Either way, at $23 and $140 respectively the Saramonic and Beachteck options are considerably cheaper than the Zoom H5 at $270, but with the downside of having to connect your existing recorder, which is more fiddly and prone to disconnecting, but nothing you couldn't work around.
When all is said and done, cameras come and go, cheap gear breaks and often disappoints with it's compromises and lack of performance. But a quality audio setup will last a long time. That said, I'd personally consider selling anything I didn't need, throwing in the extra cash and buying a MixPre3 and not have to worry about audio recorders for another decade or more. If you look at it like that the MixPre3 is a bargain.

This bloke shows how he bought a mid-tier 2017 iMac, pulled the screen off then replaced the CPU with an Intel i7, added an SSD and 64GB RAM to apparently achieve faster performance than any other 2017 iMac. Perhaps this is the type of hybrid Hackintosh that makes most sense for the DIY handyman.

If you decide on the 5d3, don't worry - you are in good company; the most used camera in the 2017 world press photo awards was the 5D3, as this illustrates: https://petapixel.com/2017/02/16/cameras-captured-winning-shots-world-press-photo-2017/ Given your lens set and experience with canon, that seems like a pretty good bet.
However, the D750 has an articulating screen. 5D3 doesn't. This is handy both for video and stills.
More important to me, the D750 appears to have markedly superior shadow recovery vs 5D3 https://petapixel.com/2014/10/14/nikon-d750-review-nikon-youve-created-monster/ The ability to lift exposure on the D750 is an excellent feature.
I'm not sure how AF compares.
It will probably be cheaper initially to go with the 5D3 given your lens set, but if you are considering a lens upgrade in the short to medium future, possibly with an eye on the D850 when the price drops, that's not relevant.
For me, I'd probably go with the crowd here and opt for the D750, based on shadow recovery and tilt screen and a future Nikon. But if you got a good deal on the 5D3, you get access to ML and you will probably win a world press photo award.
 

I picked up an Octava Mk-012 on ebay (and yes, I researched the Chinese fakes).  It was supposed to be the "movie" kit with a hyper, but it came with a cardioid.  Still sounds pretty damn good to me in my tiny little 8x10 room that I call my office.  But I'm going to send it back or sell it, because I found another one on ebay with all three capsules for $200, and I had to jump on that.  Should have it by next week.  

So, my audio kit has gone from basically an H4n and whatever I can borrow to a Zoom F4, UWP-D11 kit, and the Mk-012.  Total expenses including cables, a decent pair of headphones, and a few odds and ends = $1300.

I'm confident that this project is going to sound significantly better than it would have with an H4n and AT875r.  Thank you folks!  The back and forth has actually been helpful.  Lots of things to consider from a lot of different perspectives.

Richard, what do you think you're doing trying to bring rationality into a discussion that's basically turned into 'I'm more of a professional than you' contest. 

The M3 (cardioid) option might work well enough if you can find a quiet environment. The environment needs to be quiet since a cardioid will pick up a lot more background sound than a shotgun or hypercardioid. The indoor cardioid option can also work ok if you have two people sitting side by side for an interview as you can place the microphone between the two of them and it will pick up both pretty well. This can simplify the setup. I've used cardioid microphones for voiceover and for side-by-side interviews and they can sound good. Again, however, they are very prone to picking up unwanted sounds.  Wearing decent closed-back headphones to hear exactly what is being picked up is important here as background noise can be pretty distracting and very difficult or impossible to remove once there. The analogy with lenses pointed out by Kisaha is apt - having a few options is always helpful, sometimes necessary.

You already own a camera that shoots 12 stops of dynamic range, but you are offered, gratis, to use a premiere industry camera that shoots 16 stops of dynamic range.  
With the first camera you have the real potential to capture a compelling story that makes your audience laugh, cry, and empathize with a subject they never imagined they would care about.  You get paid nothing.
With the second camera your job is to shoot a corporate speaker delivering a powerpoint about 3rd quarter margin calls.  You would make $2K for the day.
Both situations are happening simultaneously.  
In which scenario would you decide to work?

The Ira Glass team use some decent but not too pricey gear to make pretty compelling radio documentaries. Here, Ira describes using the Marantz PDM661 recorder and AT8035 (and similar) shotguns for this very long running and wide-ranging show. One could quibble over audio quality at times, but there is the law of diminishing returns at play here: for a reasonably modest price you can achieve good, and often very good audio in a wide range of settings, including indoors. For a lot more money, and with a wider array of microphones you can get some incremental, and occasionally significantly better sound. But since it isn't Hollywood, does the expense-for-limited gains make sense? With a documentary, it's about the story, and some slightly imperfect sound is usually well tolerated as long as the story is good. The H4N would seem good enough for the task. For a microphone, I'd probably stick with a battery-operated shotgun like the Audio Technica AT897 or Rode equivalent. If you are likely to be in a very reverberant indoor setting, simply go somewhere else with curtains, carpets, etc. If you can't do that, spring for something like the AT4053b (hypercardioid). I'd probably go for second-sound into the recorder, rather than straight into the camera, since if the camera switches off you might miss some important audio that could otherwise be included in the final documentary albeit covered by cutaways. Use the camera's audio for sync.

The Ira Glass team use some decent but not too pricey gear to make pretty compelling radio documentaries. Here, Ira describes using the Marantz PDM661 recorder and AT8035 (and similar) shotguns for this very long running and wide-ranging show. One could quibble over audio quality at times, but there is the law of diminishing returns at play here: for a reasonably modest price you can achieve good, and often very good audio in a wide range of settings, including indoors. For a lot more money, and with a wider array of microphones you can get some incremental, and occasionally significantly better sound. But since it isn't Hollywood, does the expense-for-limited gains make sense? With a documentary, it's about the story, and some slightly imperfect sound is usually well tolerated as long as the story is good. The H4N would seem good enough for the task. For a microphone, I'd probably stick with a battery-operated shotgun like the Audio Technica AT897 or Rode equivalent. If you are likely to be in a very reverberant indoor setting, simply go somewhere else with curtains, carpets, etc. If you can't do that, spring for something like the AT4053b (hypercardioid). I'd probably go for second-sound into the recorder, rather than straight into the camera, since if the camera switches off you might miss some important audio that could otherwise be included in the final documentary albeit covered by cutaways. Use the camera's audio for sync.

More than any other, this one blog post helped me master professionalism and bokeh, and avoid legal pitfalls.
http://www.27bslash6.com/photography.html

That last pic is porn.