noone

$150-$220 USD.

Yeah, I don't have more than the slightest clue what's going on, but I think V Log 640 ISO is a lower ISO with a big digital push. Anyway the S1 dynamic range (not sure if you own one or not) is excellent.
+1 
Also worth noting that the default Alexa LUTs Arri and Adobe distribute throw out about as much extra highlight detail as the Alexa has over other cameras. On a standard display you're going to struggle to have a 14 stop image that looks good. I miss t2i neutral more and more.
But it is weird, one knock against the S1 is the GHX series has better skin tones for some reason imo...

Nah.       I watched it out of curiosity.     Those two just looked nice to me in that setting.
I do not need any new lenses and non I really want in that focal range.
I have gotten rid of a lot of gear lately (given away) and have come to realise I could be very happy with just a handful of lenses for my (mostly stills but some video) uses.
I could probably actually do 90% of my shooting with just my 17 TSE and 55 1.8 and 75% with just the TS-E (or at least almost all of my photos used by others are with the 17 TS-E).
I do still want an AF portrait lens of some description (85mm plus).       My little RX100 iv has taken care of a lot of other use now.

@tupp
You raise a number of excellent points, but have missed the point of the test.
The overall context is that for a viewer, sitting at a common viewing distance, the difference won't be discernible.  This is why the comparison is about perceptual resolution and not actual resolution.
Yedlin claims that the video will appear 1:1, which I took to mean that it wouldn't be a different size, and you have taken to mean that every pixel on his computer will appear as a single pixel on your/my computer and will not have any impact on any of the other surrounding pixels.  
Obviously this is false, as you have shown from your blown up screen captures.  This does not prove scaling though.  As you showed, two viewers rendered different outputs, and I tried it in Quicktime and VLC and got two different results again.  
Problem number one is that the viewing software is altering the image (or at least all but one that we tried).
Problem number two is that we're both viewing the file from Yedlin's site, which is highly compressed.  In fact, it is a h264 stream, and 2.32Gb, something like 4Mbps.  The uncompressed file would have been 1192Mbps and in the order of 600Gb, and not much smaller had he used a lossless compression, so completely beyond any practical consideration.  Assuming I've done my maths correctly, that's a compression ratio of something like 250:1 - a ratio that you couldn't even hope would yield a pixel-not-destroyed image.
The reason I bring up these two points is that they will also be true for the consumption of any media by that viewer that the test is about.
There's no point arguing that his test is invalid as it doesn't apply to someone watching an uncompressed video stream on a screen that is significantly larger than the TXH and SMPTE recommendations suggest, because, frankly, who gives a toss about that person?  I'm not that person, probably no-one else here is that person, and if you are that person, then good for you, but it's irrelevant.
You made a good point about 3CCD cameras, which I'd forgotten about, and even if you disagree about debayering and mismatched photosites and pixels, none of that stuff matters if the image is going to get compressed for digital distribution and then decoded by any number of decoders that will generate a different pixel-to-pixel readout.
Essentially you're arguing about how visible something is at the step before it gets put through a cheese-grater on its way to the people who actually watch the movies and pay for the whole thing.
In terms of why they make higher resolution cameras?  There are two main reasons I can see:
The first is that VFX folks want as much resolution as possible as it helps keep things perceptually flawless after they mess with them.  This is likely the primary reason that companies like ARRI are putting out higher resolution models.
The second reason is that electronics companies are companies, and in a capitalist society, companies exist to make money, and to do that you need to make people keep buying things, which is done through planned obsolescence and incremental improvements, such as getting everyone to buy 4K TVs, and then 4K cameras to go with those 4K TVs.  This is likely the driver of all the camera manufacturers who also sell TVs, which is....  basically every consumer camera company.  Not a whole lot of people buying a GH5 are doing VFX with it, although cropping in post is one relatively common exception to that.
So, although I disagree with you on some of the technical aspects along the way, the fact that his test isn't "1:1" in whatever ways you think it should be is irrelevant, because people watch things after compression, after being decoded by unknown algorithms.  
That's not even taking into account the image processing witchcraft that things like Smooth Motion that completely invents entirely new frames and is half of what the viewer will actually see, or uncalibrated displays etc.  Yes, these things don't exist in theatres, but how many hours do you spend watching something in a theatre vs at home?  The average person spends almost all their time watching on a TV at home, so the theatre percentage is pretty small.

Awesome...  next steps are:
figure out of there is a cheaper way to get that glass, perhaps in a consumer lens figure out if there is a different way to get the same optical recipe (for example the soviet lenses are famously replications of the Zeiss recipes that the soviets took from Germany at the end of WWII) figure out what the image qualities are that you like from those lenses and work out if there is a way to replicate them in other ways, like diffusion filters, streak filters, etc

Two stand out lenses for me in that test (the 40mm Baush and Lomb and the Cooke ....then i looked at the prices... OUCH!

There are a number of blind camera tests around the place, and I find them useful to compare your image preferences (instead of the prejudices we all have!) so thought collecting them in a single thread might be useful.
To get philosophical for a second, I think that educating your eye is of paramount importance.  It's easy to "train" your eye through the endless cycle of 1) hear a new camera is released, 2) read the specs and hear about the price 3) build up a bunch of preconceived notions about how good the image will be, 4) see test footage, 5) mentally assume that the images you saw must fit with the positive impression that you created based solely on the specs and price, and 6) repeat for every new camera that is released.  That's a great way to train yourself to think that over-sharpened rubbish looks "best".
The alternative to this is evaluating images based solely on the image, and to go by feel, rather than pixel-peeping based on spec/price.  To this end, it's useful to view blind tests of cameras you can't afford, lenses you can't afford, and old cameras you turn your nose up at because they're not the latest specs.  News flash, the Alexa Classic doesn't have the latest specs either, so how many cameras have you dismissed based on specs but were making an exception for the Alexa all this time?
Also, although you may find that you like a particular cine lens but can't afford it (or basically any cine lens for that matter), often the cine lenses have the same glass as lenses that cost a tenth or less of the cine version.  Furthermore, you may be able to triangulate that you like lenses or a camera / codec combo that gives a particular image look, and perhaps that look can be created by lighting differently, or using filters, or changing the focal lengths you use.  Educating your eye can literally lead to you getting better images from what you have without purchasing anything.
To kick things off, here's Tom Antos' most recent test, with Sony FX3, Sony FX6 BM Pocket Cinema Camera 6K Pro, RED Komodo, and Z-Cam E2 F6
Test footage:
and the results and discussion:
Here are his tests from 2019 - BM Pocket 6K, Arri Alexa, RED Raven, Ursa Mini Pro
Test footage:
and results and discussion:
Another blind test from TECH Rehab, comparing Sony F65, Sony F55, Arri Alexa, Kinefinity Mavo 6K, BM Ursa 4K, BMPCC 6K, BMPCC 4K
Test footage:
and results:
Another test from Carls Cinema, comparing OG BMPCC 2K and BMPCC 4K:
Another test from Carls Cinema comparing OG BMPCC 2K to GH5:
A big shootout from @Mattias Burling comparing a bunch of cameras, but interestingly, also comparing different modes / resolutions of the cameras, and also paired with different lenses because (hold the front page!) the camera isn't the only thing that creates the image.  Shocking I know....  
I won't name the cameras here, as not even knowing which cameras are in there is part of the test.
The test footage:
And the results and discussion:
More camera tests:
Another great camera/lens combo test, this time from @John Brawley:
 
And a blind lens test:
If anyone can find the large blind test from 2014 (IIRC?) that included the GH4 as well as a bunch of cine cameras, it would be great to link to it here.  I searched for it but all I could find was a few articles that included private vimeo videos, so maybe it's been taken down?  It was a very interesting test and definitely worth including.
If you know of more, please share! 🙂

It's in-between the 1/1.2" and 1" on this chart, so practically 1" as near as makes no difference. Bit like Canon APS-C is still APS-C even when it is a 1.6x crop vs 1.5x crop.
How long before Micro Four Thirds sensor in a smartphone? 🙂

Like everything in life, context is paramount. The example of the ursa/a7sII is (without context) quite misleading. First it depends on what Ursa, 4k, 4.6k, pro, g2. Second it’s not useful to compare one shoot with one camera with a shoot (even if it’s the next day) with another camera (unless you are shooting exactly in the same conditions. And thirdly, I wouldn’t use an ursa for any shoot that I would consider using an a7sII, the Sony in log starts at iso1600, most ursas you wouldn’t want to use 1600 for anything. The size and weight of both is a great differenciator for the types of use of each one.
On the other hand, I agree resolution isn’t everything and a 1080p image of anything blackmagic is quite a good image, mainly (for this tread about “k”s and resolution) because it’s not as compressed and in every ursa, it’s downsampled from bigger sensor resolutions. And that’s precisely why I bought the a6300 in 2016 for, it downsampled 6k sensor info to give a 4k image, which at the time I wanted for a 1080/2k delivery. Now the context is this: I use anamorphic lenses and they are not “sharp” and with a 2x lens in a 16:9 sensor you crop a lot on the sides and I wanted as much resolution as I could cheaply get for that. The gh5s was not out yet, the bmpcc4k was very limited in dynamic range or iso, there was no 4k mirrorless canon, nikon or Fuji cameras. 

Unless it's Wonder Woman 1984 when just watching the trailer only (ie, not the movie) is your best course of action.

A friend recommended a movie to me, but it looked really long.
I watched the first scene and then the last scene, and the last scene made no sense.  It had characters in it I didn't know about, and it didn't explain how the characters I did know got there.  The movie is obviously fundamentally flawed, and I'm not watching it.  I told my friends that it was flawed, but they told me that it did make sense and the parts I didn't watch explained the whole story, but I'm not going to watch a movie that is fundamentally flawed!
They keep telling me to watch the movie, but they're obviously idiots, because it's fundamentally flawed.
They also sent me some recipes, and the chocolate cake recipe had ingredient three as eggs and ingredient seven as cocoa powder (I didn't read the other ingredients) but you can't make a cake using only eggs and cocoa powder - the recipe is fundamentally flawed.  My friend said that the other ingredients are required in order to get a cake, but I'm not going to bother going back and reading the whole recipe and then spending time and money making it when it's obviously flawed.  
My friends really are stupid.  I've told them about the bits that I saw, and they kept telling me that a movie and a recipe only make sense if you go through the whole thing, but that's not how I do things, so obviously they're wrong.  
It makes me cry for the state of humanity when that movie was not only made, but it won 17 oscars, and that cake recipe was named Oprahs cake of the month.  People really must be stupid.

Nice play on words no0ne 😀
Bizarrely I am considering how I might accomplish such a thing. First thought was a ex meth lab flask 😉 with maybe a simple lens at the end to help focus and a pinhole to top things off. Food for thought.
Perhaps the next challenge should have a home made component to it.

For Leslie it is probably more important if it is wether resistant?
 

For Leslie it is probably more important if it is wether resistant?
 

kye, in keeping up with the spirit of your reply. May i suggest, light as air, Flares like a beast, takes that digital edge right off, sadly no aperture. A man of your talents should have no problem mounting it to your camera of choice. 😉

It's even got a nice pincushion distortion as a slight nod to the vintage anamorphics of old...  I love it!
If we fill it with Helium then it can be even more uplifting, raising the entire production value!
It is weather resistant?

Hahaha..  I think that this is regarded as a bit of an outlier in terms of the demand placed on the colourist and post-production, but yes, being a professional colourist isn't top of my career choices either!
I'm less familiar with the inner workings of how Steve works in post, although I get the impression that although he has very specific requirements, he's also much more hands on during that process, so it's less of a case of making specific requests of others, but once again, I haven't seen anything one way or the other.
@noone
I watched a great panel discussion between a few industry pros (I just had a look for it and unfortunately can't find it) debating resolution, and the pattern was completely obvious.  The cinematographers wanted to shoot 2K, or as close to it as possible, because it makes their life easier and the films are all mastered in 2K anyway.  The post-production reps wanted as much resolution as possible (8K or even more if possible) because it's really useful for tracking and VFX work, which they said is now pretty much a fixture of all productions these days.
So in that sense, I think it's just about what kind of production you're shooting, and once again, being aware of what you're trying to accomplish and then using the right tools for the job.
You can't make comparisons, discuss, criticise, or even comment on something you haven't watched.
As someone who HAS watched it, more than once actually, I found that it worked methodically, building the logic one step at a time, taking the viewer through quite a complex analysis.  I found it engaging and was surprised that it didn't seem to drag, and found that it covered all the variables, including all the nuance of various post-production image pipelines, including the upscaling downscaling and processing of VFX pipelines.
Your criticisms are of things he didn't say.  That's called a straw man argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I'm not surprised that the criticisms you're raising aren't valid, as you've displayed a lack of critical thinking on many occasions, but what I am wondering is how you think you can criticise something you haven't watched?
The only thing I can think of is that you don't understand how logic, or logical discourse actually works, which unfortunately makes having a reasonable discussion impossible.
This whole thread is about a couple of videos that John has posted, and yet you're in here arguing with people about what is in them when you haven't watched them, let alone understood them.  I find it baffling, but sadly, not out of character.

I guess there are a couple of different segments. 
At his level, I guess you can pick and choose your camera for each job so to me it would be something like....  Choose resolution as an easy first step for the required job, then pick the lenses and the rest to achieve that and not worry about resolution any more.
For most amateurs who are going to own their gear and for who it will be a major purchase, I guess many will want the latest, greatest they can afford and latest greatest for many will mean higher resolution as a by product (though many will chase the more is better thing).
Full HD is still all I need for video still and 8mp for photos is just fine most of the time (which means 4k video too when I need it).
I have just got rid of most of my cheap cameras (film and digital) and am down to just three digital cameras... 20mp, 16mp and 12mp and they all have their uses ... A superzoom 1/2 inch 16mp used at 8mp most of the time....(only full HD video), 20mp 1 inch sensor (has 4k but i never use it) and my 12mp A7s (lovely full HD and has 4k to a recorder but I have never tried).      I can not afford anything else now other than cheap fifteenth hand stuff from Ebay.     Most of my videos will never be seen by an audience not held captive though. 

For me, he effectively demonstrates the insignificance of taking professionally prepared 4k+ content, downscaling it to 2k, and upscaling it to 4k again. The resulting images, even when compared A/B style, don't show any difference. I'd love for you to prove otherwise. I really didn't think of it like this until after watching him. Again, his point wasn't necessarily this though- it was to show there are many other considerations BEFORE pixel count that show significant importance as long as the detail threshold is met.

After watching the video, I was surprised how many localized edits were made, incredible amounts of finessing the image. The director doesn't like pink; so, we choose a color-space with less pink, but still has significant color saturation and separation. Of course, they shoot it HDR too, but Fincher doesn't that kind of look. "Arduous" was the right word. However, when I watch the Steve Yedlin video, I really don't get the same impression. However, not knowing the entire process, it might be the same. The video you linked makes me never want to be a colorist!

Any camera is a good camera if it fulfils your purpose.
I think we get into trouble when either 1) people don't actually understand what impacts the end result (and therefore rely on rules of thumb that are often not true) or 2) people don't understand that your needs or goals or priorities aren't the same as theirs (and therefore just tell you that you should do X, and/or that you're wrong for choosing something other than their suggestion).

As almost no one consumes imagery in print form, the issue of megapixels is completely mute nowadays. Any camera is good enough and will satisfy any non-forensic based analysis. Your A7s should do a splendid job. You just can't crop the hell out of it without AI upresing it if you don't think it'll satisfy people. As I remember it, the only thing you need to "worry" about with that camera is highlight fidelity in jpeg's and video with its tendency to go cyan.

More so the more pixels = stills camera thing.
Even in this forum I have been told many times my (now aging) A7s is not a photography camera.   
To me as long as you have ENOUGH resolution for either stills or video, that is all that matters.
My best photos have been taken with the A7s including reasonable level photo competition (highly commended) shots and use in newspapers, and now by the Australian national portrait gallery (not portraits).
Enlarging software for stills has also gotten very good lately not that I have had any need for it to date (is there such a thing for video using AI yet good enough to end this debate?).

After deep reflection, I've concluded that I want my lenses to weigh almost nothing, and yet have diameters like saucers and be almost 100% full-by-volume with bulbous glass elements.  
If anyone has seen that then please let me know immediately.

The lenses I like to shoot portraits with are generally older than the (adults) I like to shoot!