meanwhile

I understand the “mojo” thing. Mojo is vaguely undefinable, unquantifiable personality due to artifacting. Lots of audiophiles prefer gear with added “mojo” like tube amps, turntables, wacky accessories, etc. Nothing wrong with this preference for more rather than less artifacting until people start describing mojo as being somehow better, or closer to the source. 
The reason I prefer the image from the GX85 to even the best hacked GH2 is because the GX85, especially with CineD, comes closer to a modern digital cinema camera look. Much closer. The hacked GH2, no matter what patch you use, has a look, definitely. Whether you prefer it or not, whether you call it “mojo” or simply less well-evolved color science, is your prerogative. But for me, I far prefer the cleaner and more tonally natural footage of the GX85. Comparing Vimeo clips is meaningless. Apples and oranges. I defy anyone to shoot a controlled comparison of the same subject in the same room, as I did, with the two cameras and come away preferring the hacked GH2. Unless of course you don't care for a cleaner and more color accurate image, and are looking for more “mojo” to add character and “filmic” to your hobby of playing with cameras and trying to make short Vimeo clips look like someone's idea of exaggerated 80s film stock.
 

I have no idea at all why you think someone writing an article that technical doesn't know what a curve is just because he doesn't discuss them in an article where they are largely irrelevant to the point being made - which is that Bayer sensors, film and Foveon have different highlight behaviour, and the last two are more organic. Ditto white balance. 
..If everyone writing an article about anything stopped to point out every possible related point, no matter how obvious... Well, it might help some people, but it would be a drag for the rest of us.

Here is a pretty good blog post, which is similar in nature but broadens the discussion to include microphones, with a bias towards ambient recording (stereo) for those who are interested.

I rank the Sound Devices MixPre 3/6 above the Zoom F4/F8 for pure sound quality: smoother, fuller, more natural sounding, more analog like, and of course the amazing analog limiters. I base this on owning a Zoom F4 and a Sound Devices USB Pre2 (which has the same audio topology as the 744T, meaning it sounds as good as the higher end SD recorders) as well as the YouTube/SoundCloud comparison videos:
Couldn't find any comparisons of Sound Devices to Zaxcom, Nagra, AETA or other high-end recorders. It seems sound quality doesn't improve after Sound Devices, only features (channels etc.), power system, and size? (that's what I got from a quick peek at Gearslutz.com).

I will always throw the Marantz PMD661 into threads like this. No question Zoom's has got the market cornered with their name and features. And I will say their pre-amps have gotten consistently better over time (I was down with Zoom for a minute. Had the original H4 and then the H4N), but they still don't have sh*t on the 661. 
Basically if audio quality is your priority then imho the Marantz PMD661 (Version 1 or 2) is a hugely slept on option (unless you need more than 2 XLR mics). I think it's mostly because it came out before the indie/DSLR revolution, but the PMD661 is still kind of the standard in the public radio broadcast world where audio quality is really all that matters (it's the standard recorder at the CBC in Canada, and I know This American Life and other PR shows swear by it).
Anyways, just my 2 cents but the PMD661 (for what you get in pre-amp quality, IN/OUT options and overall sound quality) is hugely slept on in the indie video world, and available used nowadays for $300 easy (just sold one of my units for that price). AND if you're lucky enough to get one of the OADE Mod'ed units, you're taking that thing to a whole other level.
https://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-661MODS.html
It's also bigger than a lot of the newer recorders out there, but realistically I don't see how it's size is really an issue beyond the optics of it being `bigger than' as opposed to it actually being big.

The Tascam DR-10CS/DR-10L is even smaller. It only records mono, but I like using it for lavs or shotgun mics which are mono anyway.

Wrote up a little guide for people new to this and looking to buy their first recorder. And is the way I see the world of low budget recorders is they're ranked like this (starting from worst/cheapest to best/expensive):
Tascam DR22WL / Zoom H1 (I'd suggest skipping right over this tier of recorders! But hey, my first ever short film I did years ago was with a chinese shotgun running straight into a Zoom H1!! :-o Shocking but true... everyone starts somewhere!)
Tascam DR60D mk2 (the DR60D mk1, before the mk2 came out, is what I myself started out using for no budget shorts as a budding location sound recordist)
Tascam DR70D (the *minimum* I'd recommend for a location sound recordist, even if you're just a student / no budget guy. Although in desperate cases, you could scrape by with getting the DR60Dmk2, but doing the opposite and stretching for an F4 is very worthwhile. Certainly, I could travel back in time I'd just have gone straight for the Zoom F4 from the starts! *Except* the F4 didn't come out until a few years later...  you live in a very lucky time with so many wonderful options to choose from!) or Tascam DR680 (these can be found at bargain prices secondhand, which is what I did before I then later on purchased a Zoom F4 once that came out & I spotted an F4 at a good price)
Zoom F4 / Zoom F8  / Sound Devices MixPre6 (I skip right over the MixPre3, as the MixPre6 is very similar yet does so so much more at only a relatively small extra cost. Also I regard the three of F4/F8/MixPre6 as all on broadly the same level to each other, just varying slightly from each other in one area or another that ones might have a small lead over the other one. This is the tier where I'd see you're now reaching the semi-pro level)
Sound Devices 633 / Zaxcom Maxx / Sanosax SX-R4+ (finally you have now got up to the "industry standard" when it comes to recorders people use for small shoots, especially when mixing from the bag. If you're doing this full time as your job or hiring someone who is, then likely this is what is being used. Either that or similar gear, or even something better above this)
And if you considering ones priced above those last three....  you're surely doing this full time as a sound recordist and getting a healthy income from that, so why are you asking us here on Frugal Filmmaker? ha! :-P But yes, tonnes and tonnes more options exist at the higher end as well!
Finally, if you're considering something in the budget range within what I just covered, but isn't one of those that I mentioned, then it probably is *not* a good idea to buy if you're intending to be a location sound recordist. 
Something else only might *maybe* make sense if you've got in mind some other purpose for it, such as perhaps you want to record a band in a studio (which has very different needs / constraints), or you're the rare exception which proves the rule, or you are getting lucky finding some amazingly priced deal which can make an otherwise bad purchase decision then make sense if "the price is right".
For instance I didn't include the Roland R88, as I feel it is extremely poor value for money in 2017! However.... there was a time at the end of 2016 when the Roland R88 got a huge price drop because it was being discontinued. Even with that massive price drop, the Roland R88 probably still wasn't a smart purchase vs the Zoom F8, but the big drop in price at least made the R88 a somewhat competitive option worth mentioning in a round up of all the various choices. However, that sale is now long since ended, and the prices I see on eBay for a Roland R88 is even higher than what you used to be able to buy it new from B&H Photo! Clearly those eBay sellers are dreaming. 
Anyway, that was just one example which might have been applicable but isn't now, so I don't rule out the possibilities of something like that perhaps popping up again in the future especially if you very keenly look around for secondhand deals. But for over 95% of people reading this, that won't be applicable, and just stick to going with one of the main ones I mentioned earlier.
 
http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/

That's because what those charts test isn't resolution but resolution of high contrast information. A lens or sensor designed to test well may sacrifice resolution of lower contrast information to do that. 
..Then there's the issue of highlight spil and roll-off, which none of the test sites even consider, but which have a huge impact on "aliveness". Film and foveon sensors handle them more or less as the eyes does, which is their images look better when highlights are in frame
http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html
Film tends to handle low contrast resolution better than digital, which is another reason it look can more natural
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

Yeah, exactly. I don't know if you can use auto ISO in video mode with the GX80, but if you can, then yes if you want to shoot semi auto. 
The a6500 has a cool feature that you can use auto ISO and then set a minimum and maximum ISO, but the cool part is... when in this mode you can use exposure compensation in manual mode and it will ride the ISO. With sLog it's important to stay about +1.7 stops because of noise issues. There are a lot of little tricks around for most cameras. 

Let me see if I can understand - shutter priority is better than A because if shutter speed changes relative to frame work then motion will become staccato (too fast a shutter speed) or unreal and dreamlike (too slow)? Which is generally more noticeable than a change in dof?
..What if you use manual and exposure compensation, but set the camera to auto ISO?

Yeah, use shutter priority at 1/50th and then adjust your exposure compensation down a notch or two.

Different worlds, unparalleled results, despite any effort to match the obvious that economy rules over all of it and state-of-the-art is meaningless when one is wholly meaningful over the other.
E :-)

Well said.
In any case, neither resolution is the opposite of a good picture outcome as much as people tend to see it.
A sort of tennis match ; )
That said, long life to higher hopes on resolution... LOL
Large formats might never be less welcome.
Or... there's somehow uncertainty that our content may surpass the time and be future proof ;-)
 
Lots of FUD over this topic as usual seen when conservatism defeats pragmatism :-)

And when you have an easily comparable number, everyone builds their marketing around it.

Do you understand the limitations of Panny AF? If you want anything like broadcast quality you are either going to have shoot with no follow focus for each cut or use lenses with the right sort of manual focus control to allow you a chance at doing follow focus. See -
Of the lenses you name, I think only the 12-40 has that potential.
As someone who has just done similar research, I really think that you are asking the wrong questions and doing the wrong research. You need to start by discovering the absolutely minimum quality needs for the market you want to sell to, a lot of which are about audio. You shouldn't even think about what camera body you should buy until you have budgeted for audio. For example, have you realized that you might easily have to spend $1000 on microphones? You also need to think about how you are going to function as a one man crew trying to do audio - to broadcast standards - and video at the same time.  Eg If you need to record groups then you may have to operate a boom mic and leave the camera on a tripod:
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/record-indie-filmmaking-audio/
I'd start by researching how one man crews function
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/filmmaking-tip-gear-for-a-one-man-documentary-crew/
and what HBO want quality wise. Not by asking which camera body is nice. Don't even think about that until you really know what you have to spend on audio and lights and whether you'll need real video lenses and a rig with follow focus. And for that you need to know what lighting condtions will be, whether you need to record groups, whether you need to focus on movement. First goals, hence acceptable limitations, then methods, then hardware - and the more I look, the more camera body is one of the least important parts. And most of all, if you want something a real TV company will look at, sound, sound, sound. It matters much more than you think and it is much, much, MUCH more complex.
(And I would be delighted if someone who has actual sold video at this level corrects me - life would get simpler!)
 

That's because what those charts test isn't resolution but resolution of high contrast information. A lens or sensor designed to test well may sacrifice resolution of lower contrast information to do that. 
..Then there's the issue of highlight spil and roll-off, which none of the test sites even consider, but which have a huge impact on "aliveness". Film and foveon sensors handle them more or less as the eyes does, which is their images look better when highlights are in frame
http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html
Film tends to handle low contrast resolution better than digital, which is another reason it look can more natural
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

Yes. The point of larger screens is that you are supposed to watch them from further away. An 85 might show problems with 4K if you shove your face against it... But that's not what you are supposed to do!

Do you understand the limitations of Panny AF? If you want anything like broadcast quality you are either going to have shoot with no follow focus for each cut or use lenses with the right sort of manual focus control to allow you a chance at doing follow focus. See -
Of the lenses you name, I think only the 12-40 has that potential.
As someone who has just done similar research, I really think that you are asking the wrong questions and doing the wrong research. You need to start by discovering the absolutely minimum quality needs for the market you want to sell to, a lot of which are about audio. You shouldn't even think about what camera body you should buy until you have budgeted for audio. For example, have you realized that you might easily have to spend $1000 on microphones? You also need to think about how you are going to function as a one man crew trying to do audio - to broadcast standards - and video at the same time.  Eg If you need to record groups then you may have to operate a boom mic and leave the camera on a tripod:
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/record-indie-filmmaking-audio/
I'd start by researching how one man crews function
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/filmmaking-tip-gear-for-a-one-man-documentary-crew/
and what HBO want quality wise. Not by asking which camera body is nice. Don't even think about that until you really know what you have to spend on audio and lights and whether you'll need real video lenses and a rig with follow focus. And for that you need to know what lighting condtions will be, whether you need to record groups, whether you need to focus on movement. First goals, hence acceptable limitations, then methods, then hardware - and the more I look, the more camera body is one of the least important parts. And most of all, if you want something a real TV company will look at, sound, sound, sound. It matters much more than you think and it is much, much, MUCH more complex.
(And I would be delighted if someone who has actual sold video at this level corrects me - life would get simpler!)
 

Yes. The point of larger screens is that you are supposed to watch them from further away. An 85 might show problems with 4K if you shove your face against it... But that's not what you are supposed to do!

Excellent discussion of exposure for video
http://www.leeminglutone.com/#usage
More on audio
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/record-indie-filmmaking-audio/

This is, of course, completely gaga. Yes, you can synthesise more levels of detail. But they are a lie and no one wants them. More than that, no one has worked out how to synthesize computer graphics that are convincing on this level. The idea of a Canon 5Dvi actually generating this code is so nutty that you should be wearing an anti-squirrel hat for your own safety.
Two more things about ML and cameras -
1. ML algorithms generally take a long time to run. And the more complex the task and the better the required result, the more time they need - and generally this relationship is a steep geometrical curve. So even if this tech existed, which it doesn't, why the devil would you try to run it at a high frame rate in a portable battery powered device? It's like a man who fell off a bridge in Paris. In. Seine.
2. Camera sensors hate heat - because it equals noise. The best IQ in any reasonable size stills camera comes from the Sigma Foveons and part of the reason is they are designed as radiators and screen resolution etc are compromised to keep heat down. Running a complex ML algorithm at video frame rates would be an unprecedented processor load, meaning unprecedented amounts of heat from the CPU. So even if the tech existed, why would you do it??? Seinely - sorry, sanely - you wouldn't. You'd take nice raws and then compress using this tech on your PC.
..Honestly, "balloon juice" is being kind.

..Assuming E5 wasn't a typo, it was an Oly DSLR that existed before the m43 mirrorless cameras but had the same size sensor. Some people still use them for the same reasons as the Fuji S5 - not a lot of megapixels, but they love the tonality...
(I almost bought one a few weeks ago!)

Actually, the thing I appreciate most is that thanks to the time people have taken with me here that I realise how ignorant I was! Focus especially is an area where I would wasted ages doing the wrong thing. Now I can jump a stage where I might have wasted days, then, if I decide the limitations of my stills lenses are too great then I know exactly what lenses to buy. And instead of wasting time trying to make sense of different light reviews and then maybe buying the wrong ones, thanks to jonpais I know which reviewer to look at. (And I've already learned from that reviewer that Apurture are an especially safe bet for good CRI cheaply, which is my first priority.)
So now I can go out and shoot without wasting time. Except - no joke - it is pouring down outside...

You'd have to have a real fetish for polishing, yes. The Lecia Q made more sense - if only the FL had been 35mm and there had been X100 style converters for 28 and 50, and the Leica QA problems had been fixed, that would have been a formidable camera.
Of course, it was effectively a full frame Panasonic. Which  leads to the thought that one day Panny could disrupt the fullframe market. 

I *do* have a background in exactly those subjects. Seriously. 
And, no, your work history on your linkedin page does not show any evidence of competence in anything other than basic C programming. And while I have't treated you in a way that flatters your ego, I have been perfectly polite. And, no, I haven't used any ad homs. 
Here's the biggest point of all, which I was holding back to spare you embarassment: raw is a specialized recording media, not one for transmission - that's what jpeg is for. You make raws so you can make jpegs of different qualities, fiddle with the image etc. The people whose work you have grossly misunderstood are claiming it as a possible replacement for jpeg. So where on earth did you get the idea that it could replace raw??? The point of raw is that it is lossless and includes more data than the eye necessarily needs to see. The work you so grossly mis-understood is a form of lossy compression. It is not, by definition, a potential raw replacement. 
For you not to understand this shows you not only don't understand the technology you are talking about but that you don't understand what raw is. On a video forum where you have made almost 2000 posts... 
(And no, I don't feel like sharing my real world identity with someone who, to say, the least, seems like a compulsive balloon juice drinker.)