TheRenaissanceMan

It seems quite a few of us were on Fuji for some time and then moved on. They are back to being that really niche company nobody is really hyped about. and that's kind of good in my book, I'd go as far as to say that even appeals to me. I hate having the same gear as everyone and Fuji has its own kind of visual imprint. The hardware too with the top dials & compact lenses. It's kind of like Leica, without the prestige & price tag. 
I'm not about to ditch Canon or Sony by the way. Too invested in them, and they do the job, I can operate them with my eyes shut. But that's also the problem, they're utilitarian, boring. Fuji is a breath of fresh air, even the idiosyncrasies make you work a little different. Long story short, I have humongous GAS for this XH2S. It really ticks the boxes as far as feature ratio/price. Adding a fourth system is a little nuts but my projects are really diversified and this would be my creative/experimental system for more artsy/fine art projects.
 
@MrSMW What did you end up pulling trigger on?

I just had a chance to take a look at some X-H2s originals shot in F-Log and F-Log2 in H.265, and it seems to me that the chroma smoothing is way less aggressive in this camera. It's still there, but it won't cause problems I think. This is just my first impression, not a deep analysis. And now you can completely get rid of the smoothing by shooting raw to an external recorder, I tested this with a ProRes RAW HQ clip. What I couldn't test is ProRes internal.
I also noticed that the H.265 files are now tagged with the BT.709 matrix coefficients instead of the BT.601. This will definitely solve some interpretation issues. One small downside is that the files are no longer full range (at least the F-Log and F-Log2 originals I received), they only use the limited range, so we lost some precision here.
 

The Lighthouse was actually 1.19:1 (19:16) which was used in the 20s and 30s, notably Murnau's Sunrise and Lang's M. It was a standard super 35 frame (so 4:3) with an optical soundtrack overlaid to yield a more square 1.19:1 -- it was called "Movietone."
I'm not sure if they did that on the Lighthouse or just cropped it in post. Interestingly, any theatre that hasn't moved to digital projection can use that optical soundtrack without modifications.
Xavier Dolan's Mommy was shot in 1:1, though.

Here is a hopefully more consistent set. All with f8 and 1/30 on tripod. In contrast to the previous sets, I didn't rely on focus peaking at all but on magnification. 
All .jpgs and raws here, and there's also a set with IBIS on (which doesn't seem to make a difference): 
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/466oznln2oz53txn3nyn6/h?dl=0&rlkey=4a0m3kmpo1puuatt1f5xfojq3
A7 above, A7iv is below
Minolta MD 50:

 
Olympus 50mm:
 

Sony FE 50mm

 
The manual lenses look here far better than on the previous pictures. 

On the topic of old Sony CineAlta cameras, the Sony PMW-F55 just turned 10 years old:
 

Quite average look to me.
Heavily baked looking skin tones with barely any definition, same with the foliage. 

Looks like your standard Rec709 flat profile with contrast and Lut added.

I'm sure with HLG and a Log conversion (scene referred), results will be great though. Can do some tests in September. The Sensor is clearly capable, up to 8K75p!

I wonder if this camera had Cinelike D2, which is the only Rec709 profile on Panasonic cameras which doesn't mess with skin.

Not sure about that one, I've never not used my tripod on a shoot. The movie business is booming in Detroit. I'd say camera equipment is a short term investment anyways, you make a bunch of money with it and the equipment itself loses value. Aside from maybe cinema lenses.

Am certain there are more than 10 people on this forum who have worked at "the level" of a NZ$100K (or even $500K) indie movie!
 

Yeah, doing those big sweeping gimbal shots that run for ages and ages are a lot more work for EVERYONE. 
Art Dept, Director, Actors, Camera Dept, Sound Dept, etc etc

I did late last year a very low low budget feature film (dunno about the budget, but I'd take a wild wild guess that it is probably to likely be sub $100K, but with all the favors pulled in we were "operating at" more like the $500K-ish level? Which is still ultra low budget level for a feature film).
Bulk of it was shot on either a tripod or a dana dolly. (as a dana dolly gives you that movement in the scene, but also still allowing you a lot more fine control over the camera movement than anything else would. Well, anything else that is affordable that is!) A fair bit was shot handheld / easyrig as well. Oh and of course sometimes a high hat / sandbag / saddlebag. 
But perhaps a couple of times a week we'd get in a Steadicam Op, for particular scenes/days when camera movement made a lot of sense for the story. 
We also had at least three days of car shoots, of which two of those days were done with the car on lowrider being towed by a truck (with Director / AD / AC / Grip / DoP all in the back, in the truck bed. With myself, with my mixer & monitor, and the truck driver in the cab itself). 
Never used a crane. Never used a gimbal. Never used a drone. (although I wouldn't be surprised if there is a splinter unit done sometime after we wrapped main production which goes out to get some drone footage. Or perhaps they just use a bit of stock footage? I dunno)
100% shot on an ARRI Mini btw. 
  

The average YouTuber with a big following is totally disconnected to the reality of how the professional world works on film sets / tv productions / reality shoots / TVCs / etc

I don't know man, tripod is honestly the way to go for most things. Most people don't have the budget to do good moving shots outside of really basic stuff. Everyone wants to be Euphoria without having any of the resources to pull it off.

Surprise surprise, a massively cheaper camera sold a lot more than an expensive camera!

"Solution": you can't have a broken VF if you've removed it entirely 😉
Mine is removed completely!

This thing is special. 

base plate sample has arrived today. Need a little adjustment😉

60fps 10bit 444 vs 8bit 420 30fps
SDI vs HDMI
TC vs no-TC
Lots of reasons to prefer the F3!

Difference is, that you cannot throw these light conditions at the GH1 as you can throw at the F3. You still would have to get pretty lucky and work extra hard to get an image out of the GH1 like the images in this video. Possible, if not pixel peeping, but not an efficient thing to do imho. Possible but not granted. @webrunner5

Definitely in the middle rather than in a corner, but all that matters far far less than having a quiet environment and getting the mic in close. 

4x4 floppies and 6x6/8x8 solids are useful for negative fill. Anything dark you can put up--a duvetyne, black visqueen, black rip stop nylon, etc--will help block the light bouncing off those bright walls and restore contrast to the setup.

Yeah, I cannot recommend WanderingDP enough.  Ironically, I think that this is probably what a camera YT channel should be, the problem is that everyone else is so pathetic in comparison that we see the majority and just think it's normal.
The Meet The Gaffer is great too: https://www.youtube.com/c/LukeSeerveld/videos
Personally I find these tutorials have limited use as I don't shoot controlled situations and don't use lighting (available lighting only for me) but the WanderingDP channel talks enough about composition that it's worth learning so that when I'm shooting I can know what to aim for and if the opportunity arises I can use some of those principles.
Perhaps the biggest lesson here is that pros know so much more than "YouTube - only creators" that they're mostly not worth your time to watch.

Feature films with decent budgets often have the most resources for a colourist compared to other types of productions (eg, reality tv shows, documentaries, other types of tv shows).  
As I'm sure you're aware, there are aspects of the image that can be adjusted in post and aspects that must be done in-camera.  This means that the colour and contrast differences that can be adjusted in post might be left to the colourist, whereas the lenses might be chosen for the characteristics that must be captured in-camera.
I'm in a number of social media groups about vintage lenses and these are full of cinematographers building sets and modding / servicing them for cine use (and often for rental) and these guys still care a great deal about matching.  It's common for someone building a set to take years and buy several copies of each focal length in the series and then choose the best / sharpest / best matching ones and then sell the rest.  
It's also worth mentioning that in big budget features the colour will be heavily stylised in post anyway, so matching things becomes a much smaller task in the overall amount of things to be done, whereas if you're keeping a very neutral look and operating on a tight budget then matching would be of much higher importance (or should be!).

The chart is actually a little bit misleading - there weren't three films shot on A7 cameras.  Of the 49 feature films that premiered at Cannes, three of them used an A7 camera within their camera lineup.  Of course, the A7 might only have contributed a single shot to the film to be included.
The list is:
 

4x4 floppies and 6x6/8x8 solids are useful for negative fill. Anything dark you can put up--a duvetyne, black visqueen, black rip stop nylon, etc--will help block the light bouncing off those bright walls and restore contrast to the setup.

fast update 0.2:
Today I get to shoot a replica Ferrari 250, and here are some sceen shot with simple color grade
shot on PMW-F3 and sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens:

 

 

 

 

 
 
and a lovely BTS:

 

update 0.1:
since it doesn't come with mic or mic stand, there were a big ugly hole on the right side handle, so I used some soft  silicone rubber that left from some old project, cut it with razor and voila! a rubber cover, not pretty but it works and I don't need to worry dust and rain water will get inside handle anymore.
Here are some screen shot fresh comes out of it, RGB444 on PIXE5, 180° shutter and ISO800, SLOG of course, 5600k WB, just transferd it to R709 and a tiny touch to exposure. The dynamic range and color science is truly amazing! Indeed it is a reason that F3 was called 'baby alexa'

This. It's more satisfying to get a lot out of a little than a little out of a lot. And this applies in a much more profound way when you're just shooting stuff solo, for fun.
It becomes, "Look what I was able to capture -- wow!" versus "This is all I was able to do?"
Of course, it all changes in the context of a time-sensitive/high pressure paid shoot, when you need all of the help you can get.

There’s a theory that says conflict to attain creativity is something that actually enhances creativity. 
Limitations get the creative juices flowing.  
If you want to dive into the whole evolutionary benefit of this phenomenon, you can mull that over too.