BenEricson

That rig works way better than it should. I haven’t used it in years but had great results with the OG black magic packet.

That rig works way better than it should. I haven’t used it in years but had great results with the OG black magic packet.

Not sure where you read this, but you're misinformed.
I would echo what others say and mention the C300 or FS7 as their modern say replacement. The NPR is very much a single operator camera, just like the C300 or FS7.
The comparison in image quality is probably not worth mentioning... It was the film stock flying through the gate that and the glass that determined the look, not the mechanics of the camera. It didn't matter if you had a Bolex or a SR3, both can look great with the right glass. 
I'm still curious how someone could think a EOSM is comparable in any way...Have you guys actually watched something shot on 16mm? Bizarre comparison.

IBIS is not a substitute for a properly shoulder-mounted camera. It tunes out micro-jitters, but it doesn't help you when you're trying to shoot handheld with longer lenses because the lack of inertia causes the frame to swing around when you're trying to move. Also, digital stabilization is a machine interpreting human input. It always looks artificial to me somehow, ever on high-end gimbals and stabilizers.
When you have a properly shoulder-mounted camera, you can press it into your shoulder and into the side of your head, which creates far more stability. I've been shooting with a Canon C100 on a rig with an external monitor and heavy counterweight, and while it's doing my back no favors, I can shoot long takes at 35mm and up with no problem, and even 50mm and up with minor shake. Try that with your mirrorless camera hovering in front of you.
 

I agree with @BrooklynDan although IBIS on the S1 performs way better than I'd expected. And for the intended purpose of having a small camera that delivers a useable image it's pretty stunning and complements the form factor remarkably well. It's way way more usable than I expected and a pretty good option given a lack of viable alternatives for small form factors.
But I prefer the Aaton/Arri 416 form factor or the Amira over the Red/EVA1/Alexa Mini form factor, too, and it's an issue with prosumer cameras that the form factor really makes no sense ergonomically. Too big for IBIS to make sense, too small to be shoulder-mounted comfortably.
I keep going back to the $30 cowboy studio stabilizer, which somehow distributes weight evenly even with a front-heavy camera by clamping around your back. For 2-4 pound prosumer cameras and cameras without IBIS, I've found it preferable to a shoulder rig.

In my opinion tonality trumps dynamic range.
You can have very high dynamic range but if the tonality and colour is lacking you get the 'thin' digital low-bit-depth look. A lot of smartphones have it in their HDR modes.
Some of the old CCD sensors produce lovely "thick" files but don't have anywhere near 12 stops dynamic range, not even 11 stops.
And yeah, Digital Bolex was a good example.
You can compare it to the claimed '15 stops' Sony S-LOG and it looks much deeper, more exotic, thicker, more filmic, more organic, despite having noisy shadows and clipped highlights.

I shot documentaries on one in film school. It was a heavy, unwieldy beast. I preferred the Arri SR and especially the Aaton. Aaton was actually formed by ex-Eclair engineers, and you can see a rational progression from the NPR to the ACL and finally to the XTR.
As far as a modern equivalent, it's obviously 2/3" shoulder-mounted broadcast ENG cameras, both in terms of sensor size, form factor, lens range, and intended purpose. There's really nothing in the modern landscape of Super 35 and full frame cameras that comes close in terms of shoulder-mounted operability. The Amira and original Alexa come close. Camera design has moved overwhelmingly towards compact, box-shaped cameras that are configurable. I think it's a shame and I hope that someday camera manufacturers return to the splendor and comfort of an ergonomic shoulder-mounted camera.

There is no Ursa with a dual gain sensor by the way. Also all the people here touting the ML M50 as anything other than an interesting technical achievement (comparing it to an incredible workhorse camera) I just cannot comprehend. If anything I'd say the FS7 is the modem equivalent: super well priced for the time and an all around workhorse camera that is EVERYWHERE (and to be clear, I don't really like the image it produces, I'm just commenting on its position in the field right now).

A Canon DSLR with ML is probably an excellent comparison image wise.
Canon / ML setups are similar to film in that they both likely have:
poor DR aesthetically pleasing but high levels of ISO noise  nice colours low resolution no compression artefacts I shot quite a bit of ML RAW with my Canon 700D and the image was nice and very organic.

Makes me wanna puke. Hate weddings and most of the above. Even this summer with jobs significantly down, I rejected all weddings jobs I was offered. I need a 4-5 years brake for the ones I did a few years back!
Please do a wedding thread and talk there. 
This is a C70 Canon camera thread. Let's talk hardware.

Here is another tip..... at no point....  should you have an uncle come up to you and say.... "Hey, I own the same camera as you... you think you can do a better job than me?"
Do you know how to avoid that?
Gaffer tape the labels, and build the shit out of it.... put a cage, matte box, focus gear, external monitor, mic it up. Make it look like a $50,000 camera instead of a $3000 camera.... people need to physically see where the money is going.... small and deinty can be operated by small and non-professional people.
Going back to the camera jib - thats the difference... a gimbal... everyone seems to have a gimbal nowadays (even the regular joe - that ends up being an enthusiast) and its so friggin small.... its not obtrusive.... so everyone can bother with a gimbal. Nobody can bother with a jib... its too big to use on the regular.... but its in everyone's face <- people see value in that....
Whats the difference between a Toyota and a Rolls-Royce? Figure it out and show the people why you're a Rolls-Royce.

Your terminology seems confused: image density refers to how well exposed a (film) image is. A well exposed negative will literally be denser/thicker than an underexposed one, which will be thin.

No need for ignorant bigotry.
 
The notion that camera people got work in the 1980s by owning cameras couldn't be further from the truth.  "Hiring for gear" didn't happen in a big way until digital cameras appeared, especially the over-hyped ones -- a lot of newbie kids got work from owning an early RED or Alexa.  To this day, clueless producers still demand RED.
 
Back in 1980's (and prior), the camera gear was almost always rented if it was a 16mm or 35mm shoot.  Sure, there were a few who owned a Bolex or a CP-16 or 16S, or even an NPR with decent glass, but it was not common.  Owning such a camera had little bearing on getting work, as the folks who originated productions back then were usually savvy pros who understood the value of hiring someone who actually knew what they were doing.  In addition, camera rentals were a standard line-item in the budget.
 
Of course, there was also video production, and Ikegami and Sony were the most sought-after brands by camera people in that decade.  Likewise, not too many individuals owned hi-end video cameras, although a small production company might have one or two.
 
Today, any idiot who talks a good game can get a digital camera and an NLE and succeed by making passable videos.  However, 99% of the digital shooters today couldn't reliably load a 100' daylight spool.

Yeah but that is literally the C300 Mk3 and the price is 6k more. 

I think just the fact that the baked in profiles on the Canon looks so damn good, is a huge selling point. No fuss image.  You're getting the image from the 11 thousand dollar C300 Mk3 sensor for around half the price in a small form factor.
I do wish it had an EVF and full sized XLR. There are way to work around those, but you gotta wonder if the C100 or C300 would sell as well as it did with no EVF. The answer is most likely no. 

Yeah but that is literally the C300 Mk3 and the price is 6k more. 

Agreed. This thread is mostly about codecs, but to me the ergonomics are just as important. Having named it the C70, that leaves some hope that perhaps they will have a C100MKIII at some point, full XLR, BNC?, larger/modular form factor/ etc. for $2K more. Dunno. Many are saying this IS the C100MKIII, but then they would have called it that no?

I think just the fact that the baked in profiles on the Canon looks so damn good, is a huge selling point. No fuss image.  You're getting the image from the 11 thousand dollar C300 Mk3 sensor for around half the price in a small form factor.
I do wish it had an EVF and full sized XLR. There are way to work around those, but you gotta wonder if the C100 or C300 would sell as well as it did with no EVF. The answer is most likely no. 

I'd like to know if people would be interested in a camera gear reviewer website? A website that would clearly state (maybe even index) the ethics of camera gear reviewers on the Internet. The intention would be to help people make purchases.
Recently, I've seen ethics statements from camera gear reviewers (Gerald Undone and MKBHD, for example), but these statements are far and few between. There are a whole host of websites and youtube channels who have been overrun by various industries. My feeling is there are payoffs, under-the-table deals, and gross mis-statements in regard to camera gear. The results of the reviews can be clearly misguided and inaccurate. Is there a way to rectify the situation with a website to clearly layout and help reviewers and their audience understand how they've been influenced by camera gear companies (and the PR firms that help them) with regard to their "reviews"?
Any feedback would be appreciated. Maybe this type of site already exists? Maybe it's a stupid ideas.
BTW, I'm not saying I'd create the website or be involved in any way, shape or form.

Too bad prices nearly doubled for the Sony PMW-F3 now.

Rumored price is $6299,  dont think it will cost $4500 when C300III still cost over $10K
The one with C200 sensor will cost $3499 though
 
It should have rear screen, that for right is the mechanic for filppy screen

That´s exactely what I figured. Small recorder rigged beautifully the Ben Ericson way, giving hasslefree perfect 10bit HD up to 60p. 422 is still pretty great, even if YUV only.
These smallrig parts have been getting pretty pricy. That swivel and tilt holder is a beauty though.

Just found an old project I shot. These are some stills from a piece I shot 3 and a half years ago. Shot with the 85mm Zeiss. It's too damn shallow but I think the softness works okay for a close up.