TrueIndigo

Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday (no plot spoilers in my observations). This is a generally well-realized near-future sci-fi film, as many of the modern fully-funded Hollywood blockbusters are (this one is estimated as costing between $150-185 million depending on what you read). But it does seem somewhat formulaic, lacking any special distinction or energy. It pays homage to the advertising nightmare rainy city as before, and in the breakers yard wasteland goes for a more Mad Max vibe. But non of it has a truly unique knock-out experience as the earlier film managed with less advanced effects. Seeing Blade Runner in 1982 was nothing short of a cinematic revelation about what was possible, given the commitment of various art departments through sheer force of personality and vision. And since things have moved on so much now (the artistry of the CGI people is incredible), it does not give anything like a new version of that sense of wonder which jolted me in the eighties.
The sound design follows the trend of many modern action films in being set at a painfully high level - the sort of film in which just putting a drink down on a table sounds like a firecracker going off, and drawing on a cigarette briefly sounds like a bush fire. On this film, a gun shot was as loud as an huge explosion, taking me out of the story every time because of the discomfort. And this was more easy than it should have been, because the story itself felt confused to me and several times I found myself wondering how much longer the film was going on (never a good sign). Although the trailer gives the impression of a sophisticated fast-paced action thriller, in fact everything takes a long time, and is not particularly worth waiting for. Unfortunately it's not very sophisticated either, with uninspired dialogue. I did actually feel mildly bored, which surprised me - I didn't think they would make that mistake - because the overall drama remained cold and uninvolving. Non of the characters turned out to be anyone I could care for, compared to key scenes in the original, such as when Rachel starts playing a piano (and says: "I didn't know I could play."). With the original the audience felt like crying, in this new one some of the characters cry, but it doesn't ring true. It's a bit like watching a full-on romance movie in which it is obvious there is no chemistry between the two lead actors - all of the humans watching such a movie know it immediately: that these two people are only together because they have been badly cast in a movie. In the same way the new Blade Runner story continues with the theme of what it means to be human in a difficult future world of synthetic people, yet tells it with little show of the humanity which is supposed to be so important.
Seeing the original movie in the cinema was a life-changing experience, and I eagerly bought the VHS, then later many versions on DVD, etc-etc. It was a way of keeping in touch with a dream, but I have no interest in watching this one again - in any formats that may exist in the future. I opted to see the 2D version of the film because the movie was shot in 2D - ironically, the 3D version has been synthetically processed to give a 3D effect. It's not that I dislike this movie because I liked the original so much, my reaction would be the same if the original never existed. Because it's a disappointing movie in its own right, though obviously without knowing that I had to see it out of a slight hope there was something of the mesmerizing quality of Rachel's self-realization. But of course there is only one Sean Young.

Yes, the GH5 is second.
 
For sure, the 5D files have much more malleability than 10bit VLog. You can really go to town on Magic Lantern RAW - it's a much thicker file. It's almost pristine (except for ugly shadow noise).
 
But I think that it is actually a testament to the GH5 that I can do that. And what I've presented here is only the realisation of my preferences. The point that I want to make is that the 10bit 422 files are robust enough to undergo a fair bit of colour correction / grading. To me, the VLog coming from the camera is a "raw" material with massive potential, as the (properly) RAW footage from the 5D3 is a beginning, and not an end in itself. In the main GH5 thread you mentioned that there was a range of quality in the posted videos for the GH5, from video-ish to something more satisfactory. Believe me, if Magic Lantern RAW was accessible to the same kinds of users - and in the same numbers - as the GH5, you'd see a hell of a lot of bad 5D3 ML videos.
 
Exactly. You need 12 nodes or 20 minutes work to match this with that. But when the groundwork is done, you're in business. Today I made a nice lut that combines the Canon-like colour with a Lightroom film emulation preset. I loaded this into the camera as a monitoring lut and exposed until it looked good in the viewfinder. Came back and slapped the lut on and each shot was perfect. It took as long as it does to Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.... with maybe a small WB and curves adjustment beforehand This is the look that I'm into at the moment. In a year's time I might be into something different.










 

Big time!
 

I decided a while ago that for short narrative films, there isn’t a better option, unless you want to go the BlackMagic Pocket/Micro route, but even then the FF sensor of the 5D3 and the native lenses with OIS wins, IMO. 
With that being said, I’d hate to discourage younger, newer filmmakers from going out and making a movie if they want to but cannot afford a 5D3. For me the best option is the 5D3. If you have a smaller budget, then there are a lot of options.
The idea that you need Raw or 4K to shoot a good narrative short film is pushed by people that lack creativity. The best advice is to buy the best camera you can afford, learn how to use it and make the best film you can with the resources you have.

I am a screenwriter before I am a filmmaker. One of the reasons I began with screenwriting is because I always had ideas for movies but never the money to make them. So I may look at the storytelling process differently but for me it always begins with a "What If?" 
I've also always been a people watcher... always curious who is who and what is what. So being in tune with your surroundings and asking rhetorical questions about what you see can also be helpful. 
There are ideas all around you, they just need to be grabbed. By knowing the types of stories you want to tell helps your brain weed through the irrelevant ones. 
Also like the old editing adage... if you can't solve it... dissolve it, for storytelling... when in doubt... adapt.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of public domain stories, poems and songs that could make interesting modern stories. Since there is no such thing as an original idea any longer, we as modern storytellers, need to embrace that the only key to an original piece of work is our own take on a tired tale. 
Also, although confusingly named, this subforum is designed to show finished work, so you may want to ask a moderator to move this thread to the main board... especially since, sadly, this subforum is rarely visited.

Yeah, it's my "big" and "serious" project this year and will actually be submitted to film festivals. I like to shoot an actual short to test a camera so I can actually get a realistic idea of how footage will look when actually lit and shot the way I do. It's a good way to put it through it's paces in a real shooting situation, when you don't have time to overthink the lighting and camera placement/movement as you might when shooting test footage.
Of all the cameras, I think the G7 is the one I love the most. I can get great footage out of it, and I can use it without rigging it up (the monitor is the best built-in monitor I've used on a DSLR/Mirrorless camera--I can always nail focus with it) and it feels good in my hand (not too chunky for me as it is to others). The a6300 Slog2 footage was a joy to grade, with a nice amount of DR, but you can get ugly chroma noise in underexposed areas and the monitor sucks (I almost never shoot without an external monitor with it). I rebought the Canon EOS M again recently because the Canon color always tricks me into buying their cameras, but the nasty aliasing and chroma noise makes me regret it. It's weird because I love the look of the two videos I've shot with it, but those were shot all hand-held and for some reasons when I shoot static close-up shots, I get aliasing in eyebrows and facial hair. At the very least, it'll be useful in trying to find the best settings on the G7 to match the Canon colors (well, to get as close as possible) and also matching a friend's 7D when we shoot multi-cam stuff together. What I love about Panasonic cameras in general is that I never even have to think about moire or chroma noise (Panasonic just has nice, fine luma noise that looks sort of film grain-ish) and I don't have to switch to a c-mount lens and crop mode to avoid aliasing. Nikon was fine, but wasn't very inspiring to me. I think the BMPCC still shoots somewhat better footage than the Panasonic cameras I've owned, but I hate NEEDING a cage and NEEDING rails and NEEDING a huge external battery and NEEDING an external monitor every time I want to shoot just about anything.
I say be ruthless in editing, but allow the film to be whatever length it needs to be. I can't wait to see it.

I wanted to see which Picture Profile on my G7 give the best skin tones, as well as the general differences of each one. All profiles are set to -5 Contrast, -5 Sharpness, -5 NR, -1 Saturation (except Vivid which is -2). The only grading is a contrast curve (I also added grain). Lens: Canon FD 28mm 2.8 w/ Focal Reducer (shot wide open). Shot in 4K, 500iso, 3200k color temp.
CinelikeD seems to yield the flattest image and maybe the most dynamic range, and it's the profile I've used the most for that reason, until now. I kinda think CinelikeV might have better skin tones. Aside from Vivid and Monochrome, most of the others barely look any different from each other. All of this is subjective of course, but I thought other G7 uses might be interested.

There's something about the older cameras, isn't there? :-)
 

Recently visited Weymouth again and shot another test there in the harbour, this time with the Panasonic G7. The lighting situation was a very bright day with hazy blue sky, and I kept an eye on the live histogram to avoid highlight clipping as much as possible. Most shots were made with a Panasonic 25mm lens, and a few close-ups using a vintage Panagor 135mm - both lenses were at f2.8 throughout the day with 3x stacked ND filters (2x ND4, 1x ND8). The 135mm shots looked a bit soft compared to the very sharp and modern 25mm, so I sharpened those a bit in post so they would not look so different (they still do, though!). Made some very slight luma channel changes to a few of the shots, but there's very little colour changes here - saturation looked good straight from the camera and I was happy with the white balance choice. I attempted to compose similar shots to the camera test I made here several years ago (using Magic Lantern RAW on the old Canon 50D), and thought it might make an interesting comparison. With that earlier RAW video test, I'd been impressed that Adobe Camera RAW could effortlessly bring blue skies out of a seemingly plain white skyline. Though this time (perhaps by having the in-camera curve set to -2 Highlights, and helped by the ND filters) I thought the G7 image straight from the camera held together quite well in this bright and contrasty situation. My camera settings are still in a state of flux, but the essential details of this test were:
Picture profile: Natural (Contrast 0, sharpness -2, NR +5, Saturation -3).
White Balance: Kelvin values (4,500, Green +3).
Highlight and Shadow: Highlight -2.
ISO: 200 (for all the shots).
Here is the YouTube link:
 
In case of interest, here is a link to my previous Weymouth Harbour camera test shot in ML RAW on the Canon 50D:
 
Music comes from Eric's collection - the track used is 'Bitter-Sweet-Goodbye'. His EOSHD thread is here:
 

I agree, its my favorite interchangeable lens Fuji of all time. Very nice and intuitive. Gets out of the way.
Plus it made me look pretty cool on the cover of a newspaper this weekend 

Taking the liberty to post the trailer for a short film we shot a week ago. 
 

Thanks for starting this great thread!
I first heard of Patreon when I used to read interesting 'Doctor Who' articles by someone who was on it! It's an interesting idea: contribute to the person rather than the particular project.
A film-specific crowd-funding community I found (but haven't used yet myself) is Seed and Spark:
https://www.seedandspark.com/
Here's an article by Kevin Kelly about fan bases (probably a bit out-of-date now) called "1,000 true fans" which I found quite interesting when I first read it:
http://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/
And also another by him about the nature of distribution in the age of 1:1 digital copying versus the era of precious copies:
http://kk.org/thetechnium/better-than-fre/

TrueIndigo
"I did lapse recently though, and got the G7 because there was a good deal going on it, presumably because it's now an outgoing model. At £380 for the body, I think it must be the cheapest new camera I've ever bought. After experimenting with various Mods to the Natural picture profile and Daylight white balance, I'm seeing an image not so different from the Nikons which I love. Way back I bought a GH1 when it first came out, so I still had a lot of MFT lens adapters and enjoy using my vintage Nikon AIS prime set. My main reason to buy it though (after a long time shooting video with DSLRs) was not so much about image, but a usability consideration: the opportunity to have a high res EVF for hand-held shooting (using a pistol grip to hold it to my eye). Feels like shooting Super 8 all over again, and I actually enjoy using this little camera.
I think you can't underestimate how important the usability and pleasure of actually picking up a camera becomes, now that image quality is so good on almost everything. "
Kubrick loved his Arriflex 35-2C because it was so portable.....the jolly thing weighs 7kgs(14lbs) with 200 feet of film  !!!
We take for granted camera and lens under one and a half kilos and small enough to be inconspicuous in public places

I also think the Panasonic G7 is an important low cost UHD camera.
During the period when I was making decent money, I used to buy a new camera every year, as a personal exploration which I enjoyed. Last few years though I had to stop that, but strangely didn't miss it. I sold off a lot of stuff (currently down to five stills cameras and two camcorders) and spent more time exploring the cameras I already had, rather than exploring yet another camera. Because I really think we have been in the era of "good enough" for some time now. We can make a solid starting point for colour grading and using creative LUTs which can radically change the look of the final image anyway.   
I did lapse recently though, and got the G7 because there was a good deal going on it, presumably because it's now an outgoing model. At £380 for the body, I think it must be the cheapest new camera I've ever bought. After experimenting with various Mods to the Natural picture profile and Daylight white balance, I'm seeing an image not so different from the Nikons which I love. Way back I bought a GH1 when it first came out, so I still had a lot of MFT lens adapters and enjoy using my vintage Nikon AIS prime set. My main reason to buy it though (after a long time shooting video with DSLRs) was not so much about image, but a usability consideration: the opportunity to have a high res EVF for hand-held shooting (using a pistol grip to hold it to my eye). Feels like shooting Super 8 all over again, and I actually enjoy using this little camera. I think you can't underestimate how important the usability and pleasure of actually picking up a camera becomes, now that image quality is so good on almost everything. 

Yup +10 for this thread. A few months ago, after I sold my GX85 and before I bought my 5D3, I was unsure what route to go, so I was just shooting with my humble D5500 and I found it liberating to try silly shots and experiment.
I missed the GX85's 5-axis so much, I used my Benro monopod, the one with the swivel ball feet, and pressed it against my shoulder as a make shift shoulder rig.
With that freedom, the low hanging sun of mid winter, 60p and a fast 35mm lens, I started walking around and shooting. This what I came up with...
There was something interesting within the way the bokeh and the branches and the sunlight/shadows worked within the confines of D5500 slow motion... obviously it's just a little slow motion, who cares, but I found it pretty fun to push one of the cheapest cameras I have ever bought and I may be the only one, but I like what came from it. 
Disclaimer: it is long and possibly boring... so proceed with caution... ? 

Just for the heck of it. Here is the same cameras doing what cameras do best.. pet pics
Fuji XT2

 
Sigma DP2

 
Sigma SD Quattro (BTW click on this one and full ress. The colors.... yummy..)

I also think the Panasonic G7 is an important low cost UHD camera.
During the period when I was making decent money, I used to buy a new camera every year, as a personal exploration which I enjoyed. Last few years though I had to stop that, but strangely didn't miss it. I sold off a lot of stuff (currently down to five stills cameras and two camcorders) and spent more time exploring the cameras I already had, rather than exploring yet another camera. Because I really think we have been in the era of "good enough" for some time now. We can make a solid starting point for colour grading and using creative LUTs which can radically change the look of the final image anyway.   
I did lapse recently though, and got the G7 because there was a good deal going on it, presumably because it's now an outgoing model. At £380 for the body, I think it must be the cheapest new camera I've ever bought. After experimenting with various Mods to the Natural picture profile and Daylight white balance, I'm seeing an image not so different from the Nikons which I love. Way back I bought a GH1 when it first came out, so I still had a lot of MFT lens adapters and enjoy using my vintage Nikon AIS prime set. My main reason to buy it though (after a long time shooting video with DSLRs) was not so much about image, but a usability consideration: the opportunity to have a high res EVF for hand-held shooting (using a pistol grip to hold it to my eye). Feels like shooting Super 8 all over again, and I actually enjoy using this little camera. I think you can't underestimate how important the usability and pleasure of actually picking up a camera becomes, now that image quality is so good on almost everything. 

I also think the Panasonic G7 is an important low cost UHD camera.
During the period when I was making decent money, I used to buy a new camera every year, as a personal exploration which I enjoyed. Last few years though I had to stop that, but strangely didn't miss it. I sold off a lot of stuff (currently down to five stills cameras and two camcorders) and spent more time exploring the cameras I already had, rather than exploring yet another camera. Because I really think we have been in the era of "good enough" for some time now. We can make a solid starting point for colour grading and using creative LUTs which can radically change the look of the final image anyway.   
I did lapse recently though, and got the G7 because there was a good deal going on it, presumably because it's now an outgoing model. At £380 for the body, I think it must be the cheapest new camera I've ever bought. After experimenting with various Mods to the Natural picture profile and Daylight white balance, I'm seeing an image not so different from the Nikons which I love. Way back I bought a GH1 when it first came out, so I still had a lot of MFT lens adapters and enjoy using my vintage Nikon AIS prime set. My main reason to buy it though (after a long time shooting video with DSLRs) was not so much about image, but a usability consideration: the opportunity to have a high res EVF for hand-held shooting (using a pistol grip to hold it to my eye). Feels like shooting Super 8 all over again, and I actually enjoy using this little camera. I think you can't underestimate how important the usability and pleasure of actually picking up a camera becomes, now that image quality is so good on almost everything. 

Good point. I never intended to be a filmmaker, let alone a considerate one. I keep trying, some days it pays off, some days it doesn't. Every day I learn something, usually through my failures more than my successes. 

A rather quick edit of a short sailing trip in The Hague:
Again I am really satisfied with the quality. The Summilux really sings. Stupidly enough I did not bring my field recorder so I had to rely on the built-in mic of the GX80, which I only could use in the beginning. The lack of a mic is is really annoying me, my next camera really needs to have have a mic in. I even considered checking out the A6500 but gave it up quickly after hearing about the dimmed screen issues.

That's a fair price for it though. So good on you! I love mine. This is the first time in a long time where I haven't felt like an incompetent shooter/colorist... so I can only imagine what some of you guys can do. 
Also looking forward to testing the 4K Raw next week. 

So as some already know, I recently purchased a 5D3 primarily to shoot Magic Lantern Raw. Well this week I started my first short film with it. It was definitely a learning experience but I really don't know of any camera where I would have achieved such pleasing images. I also purchased the Canon 24-70mm f/4 lens and I am consistently blown away by what a great lens it is and the OIS is so damn good, even at 70mm, that the majority of my short, thus far, has been shot handheld.
With the recent 4K Raw developments, I figured I would post some pros and cons in case somebody else is looking to pick one up.
Well the first pro is that shooting Raw could not be simpler with it. Set up Raw histogram with the overexposure hint and when it shows your color channels are starting to clip or the word "over" appears on the histogram, then just dial back your exposure a touch.
Another pro is that there are a bunch of people on this forum still shooting with the 5D3 and everybody is helpful. If you have a problem about any aspect of the process or workflow, there are plenty of other ML shooters around here that go out of their way to answer even the stupidest of my questions... not nearly as daunting as the ML forum.
Now a couple cons... you need a bunch of cards... or a computer and hard drive to offload your footage... 12 minutes on a 64GB cards gets filled quickly. Even with 3 cards, and trying to be conservative with my shots and shot ratios, I still ran out of space 3/4 of the way through my second day of shooting.
Converting the footage is a bit tedious. The RawMagic route of converting the MLV files to CDNG is fairly fast but then you still have to process the footage through Resolve or After Effects before really seeing what you have. I really like the MLRawViewer program, but although you get to preview your footage, the conversion is slow and after I updated my Mac to Sierra, the version I have does not work with it, but I believe there is a newer version,  so hopefully it will work then.
I guess that's about it for now, so I'll leave you with a couple graded screen grabs, from a couple shots I briefly messed around with yesterday...

I can't remember when I actually made the switch from being a consumer to being a creator. All I knew was that when I was a kid I was fascinated with TV shows, old Hollywood movies and European art house films, so it seemed quite natural to want to create something that would have a similar effect on other people. My parents bought me a second hand Standard 8 cine camera, on which I shot home movies and animated toys on the carpet. This was followed by a new Super 8 camera, which I hard-matted with cardboard to fake the look of CinemaScope. I didn't realise then how important the fun side of things was to me. By the time I went to art college I had a 16mm Bolex, which kind've slowed me down because the stock costs were too much for pocket money. I used the 16mm cameras at the college for the course projects, but never really used my own camera very much, and eventually sold it about 10 years later (it had become just a wonderfully built ornament on the shelf).
I followed my college friends to London and worked for a film and TV company for many years, working non-stop on TV series and that eventually wore me out -- I made a few personal projects along the way, but the joy of story-telling with film (as in those Standard-8 days) was just gone. I was also becoming tired of the city, too, so went back home where I can just go for a walk in the fields when I want to. I continued to work in multi-media, laying out books and magazines for a publishing house, then doing fine art printing for a gallery. I never forgot film making, though, because it was in me, but I wasn't doing anything about it. But then DV camcorder technology and affordable computer editing we're growing up together very nicely, and I was shooting just for the fun of it again. It was portable, it was cheap, it was available and eventually it was even full HD. And when the still cameras started recording video, well, there was a welcome filmic glamour to the video image that was quite exciting.
Coming more up to date, I was a full-time staff video editor for a small local video production company, though after five very busy years, I've since gone freelance. Doing much less work (and pretty broke as a result), but I have more time to work on my own projects. After an abortive start on one film, I'm currently making the props for another feature length no-budget project. I just can't seem to shift the idea that film making is something I have to do. I recently wrote a novel, based on a character from one of the scripts I wrote about twenty years before, so that was me genuinely trying another medium. And the freedom of writing, compared to all the hoops you have to go through even for unambitious and informal film making like mine, is quite remarkable. I've now written half of the sequel, so I must enjoy it, but, there's something about film making that really means something important to me. Perhaps it's because I like working with people on a collaborative art project, whereas writing is a solitary experience. Or maybe it's just that you never really forget your first love: Watching mysterious and surreal TV series like The Avengers, or 1940's American film noirs, and wondering if I too could create such atmospheres and involving entertainments.

I can't remember when I actually made the switch from being a consumer to being a creator. All I knew was that when I was a kid I was fascinated with TV shows, old Hollywood movies and European art house films, so it seemed quite natural to want to create something that would have a similar effect on other people. My parents bought me a second hand Standard 8 cine camera, on which I shot home movies and animated toys on the carpet. This was followed by a new Super 8 camera, which I hard-matted with cardboard to fake the look of CinemaScope. I didn't realise then how important the fun side of things was to me. By the time I went to art college I had a 16mm Bolex, which kind've slowed me down because the stock costs were too much for pocket money. I used the 16mm cameras at the college for the course projects, but never really used my own camera very much, and eventually sold it about 10 years later (it had become just a wonderfully built ornament on the shelf).
I followed my college friends to London and worked for a film and TV company for many years, working non-stop on TV series and that eventually wore me out -- I made a few personal projects along the way, but the joy of story-telling with film (as in those Standard-8 days) was just gone. I was also becoming tired of the city, too, so went back home where I can just go for a walk in the fields when I want to. I continued to work in multi-media, laying out books and magazines for a publishing house, then doing fine art printing for a gallery. I never forgot film making, though, because it was in me, but I wasn't doing anything about it. But then DV camcorder technology and affordable computer editing we're growing up together very nicely, and I was shooting just for the fun of it again. It was portable, it was cheap, it was available and eventually it was even full HD. And when the still cameras started recording video, well, there was a welcome filmic glamour to the video image that was quite exciting.
Coming more up to date, I was a full-time staff video editor for a small local video production company, though after five very busy years, I've since gone freelance. Doing much less work (and pretty broke as a result), but I have more time to work on my own projects. After an abortive start on one film, I'm currently making the props for another feature length no-budget project. I just can't seem to shift the idea that film making is something I have to do. I recently wrote a novel, based on a character from one of the scripts I wrote about twenty years before, so that was me genuinely trying another medium. And the freedom of writing, compared to all the hoops you have to go through even for unambitious and informal film making like mine, is quite remarkable. I've now written half of the sequel, so I must enjoy it, but, there's something about film making that really means something important to me. Perhaps it's because I like working with people on a collaborative art project, whereas writing is a solitary experience. Or maybe it's just that you never really forget your first love: Watching mysterious and surreal TV series like The Avengers, or 1940's American film noirs, and wondering if I too could create such atmospheres and involving entertainments.

All I know is... my D5500's video looks more cinematic at 1080p than the G7 looks at 4K. The LX100 and it's 12MP sensor has more mojo than the G7 at 16MP. Now I'm not picking on the G7 or Panasonic or anyone else, but when a conversation arises about good, clean 1080p, the D5500 and the D750 always gets mentioned. And who cares about MPs? 21 MPs are more than enough.
I am excited for the D7500. The 4K video I've seen from the D500 looks great. The 1080p I've seen from the D500 with it's IS looks great. 
@jhnkng recently posted a video from the D500... I thought it was shot in 4K but it was actually shot in 1080p.
Yeah the crop could be better, but it's basically the same as the GH4 and IMO, the D500 has better 4K than the GH4.
But I do wish it had peaking. 
In the end, the cream rises to the top. And any camera from Panasonic, Sony, Canon or Nikon, etc... can be used to make a fine film.
A couple months ago, I told a story about how I was at the movie theatre over the holidays and the projector went haywire and the menu showed on the screen during the trailers. All of the trailers were being projected at 720p. Last week I worked a trade show and on their theatre sized screen, the video was being displayed at 720p video and it looked amazing.
So we should probably stop worrying about this spec and that spec and instead work on making better films.

Yes, I know what you mean about batteries - over the years, moving through various models and brands, you can't help feel being held to ransom by it. These days though I factor in the cost of every new camera purchase to include a battery grip and several batteries. Ultimately, I don't want the batteries to dictate what camera I buy.  
I've enjoyed using the D5500 and feel the 1080p from it is possibly still amongst the prettiest you can get in H.264 8-bit colour (I haven't tried the Fuji X-T2, though). For usability I have ISO mapped to the FN button for quick changes. The pre-set WB options are pretty good in most situations (personally, I've modified Daylight and Cloudy a bit along the blue axis to be closer to what I want), though if you need to set your own Kelvin values, yes, that's where the low price of the D5500 begins to show.
When it comes to image quality I really do think we've been in the era of "good enough" for some time now, and it was relatively cheap cameras like the D5500 that brought me to that conclusion. Even this camera probably exceeds my current skill set; certainly, I don't feel held back by it! Be interesting to see what Nikon does next...