ac6000cw

I agree (as someone who has done all my editing for years on either gaming or workstation-class laptops). Generally, decent laptops in both of those categories should have cooling good enough for long-term high CPU and GPU loads, but you do need to choose carefully - and expect them to be noisy when they are working hard!
Also be careful when comparing desktop and laptop GPUs - they can have the same or very similar model numbers, but the laptop version might have different performance specs (and more aggressive thermal management) e.g. :
(info from Wikipedia) The desktop version of the nVidia Quadro RTX 4000 (100-125 watts Thermal Design Power):

...versus the mobile version (60-80 watts TDP):

Maybe the forum has been taken over by AI and it's become sentient and agreed with your comments so much it wanted everyone to read them several times!!

Lok just posted a video talking about the S5ii and talks about the new e-stabilisation feature, and it looks like it has completely eliminated the IBIS wobble on wide lenses?
He includes examples with him walking with a wide lens, so it looks like a legit test:
 

The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest...
Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine. I tried to be as fair as possible when I wrote it, but thought the product had some usability/compatibility issues that needing fixing. The version of the review printed in the magazine had some of my criticism watered-down, I assume partly because advertising revenue related to the product was important to the finances of the magazine.
I only did a couple of reviews for the magazine in the end, mostly because the amount they paid for them wasn't much in relation the work involved in testing a product properly (and I wasn't interested in doing quicker, more superficial reviews).

A 'walking about in a forest' comparison from Robert May of the S5iix stabilisation modes at 14mm (very wide angle) using the 14-28mm f4-5.6 lens(which doesn't have OIS):
Pretty impressive stabilisation performance with minimal warping artefacts.

The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest...
Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine. I tried to be as fair as possible when I wrote it, but thought the product had some usability/compatibility issues that needing fixing. The version of the review printed in the magazine had some of my criticism watered-down, I assume partly because advertising revenue related to the product was important to the finances of the magazine.
I only did a couple of reviews for the magazine in the end, mostly because the amount they paid for them wasn't much in relation the work involved in testing a product properly (and I wasn't interested in doing quicker, more superficial reviews).

If you just want footage with no commentary, markr041 who is a user here has a YouTube channel and he tends to try a pretty decent number of the cameras that come out.  They're usually decently shot and I don't think I've ever even seen one where he talked about the camera (or even showed his face).  😃

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment.
I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

One of the things I find hilarious about YouTube is that a lot of the big camera influencers talk about leveling up channels and increasing production value, etc.  A lot of the bigger names have between 50-200k subscribers and a lot of them had the advantage of being early to starting camera channels.  Newer, theoretically popular people like Cam Mackey have like 65k.
Meanwhile, a friend of mine decided to do something with his YouTube channel a couple of years ago after the news did a story about his having purchased the monorail for $1/car from our local zoo when they stopped running it and turning it into a private campsite on some land in Wisconsin.  He mostly repurposes junk that he finds at garage sales and thrift stores into things like push-pull carts on railroad tracks and satellite dishes coated in aluminum foil.  The cameras he uses are mostly potatoes - like 25-year old camcorders and Hero 3-type stuff.  He has a pretty decent natural grasp of editing and story, though, and he's a funny guy.  He also would freely admit that he neither knows a lot about cameras nor cares to know any more.  Last I checked, he was at about 187k subscribers (including me - I like watching his stuff).
So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit.  Making half of your video be slow motion slideshow garbage so that you can put "cinematic" in the title doesn't really get views if the rest of the content is garbage.
I buy too much gear for my own mediocre talent, but that's partly just because I want it and after a lot of years, I can almost always find something to trade in to make stuff more affordable.  I have no illusions that buying a Komodo-X will substantially improve anything I do, but I might do it anyway.  If I get it, I'll probably like it a lot for a while and then after a couple of years, I'll probably trade it in toward something else.
 
Anyway, another thing to remember with these YouTubers that are in the business of making day 1 review commercials for various channels - when they're showing "what this camera can do," go watch their older stuff with a camera from last year.  Most of the time, it looks almost exactly like whatever they're doing with the new camera because they're really not that different.  One of the most laughable things that people say on various camera forums or YT comments is "I can't wait for (creator name here) to get it so we can see what that camera can really do."  Wanna know what that camera will look at when your favorite creator gets it?  Go watch the review they did of the camera before it.  It'll look pretty much like that.

Of course this is true; but the main business in photography, as far as the consumer market (and businesses that target it) is concerned, is selling gear and not the art or teaching techniques for making that art.
 
The attitude in online forum discussions is that everything should be easy and automatic, and people are willing to pay significant money towards that end, but many people are not willing to accept that there is a skill component to photography. If skill is required to get results, the camera is considered flawed. People spend more time online complaining about (perceived) camera flaws and performance comparisons than learning the skills that they would need to do meaningful work. And the youtubers who talk about gear target this population who has been mislead to believe that if they shop for the next great thing, then they will become great artists. They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

Disclaimer:  I'm an old.  Also, this rant is completely contextual to two concurrent projects I'm doing.  I'm gonna blow some steam here.
So, been making a no-budget passion project documentary with my wife and have found myself grabbing my (2017) EM10iii more than half the time to capture our 24p footage.  We have a FUJI XT5 --as well as our (also long in the tooth) GH5 that specs wise does a lot better, but here we are running around with a device that is technically inferior.  The issue is that it's not technically inferior by much when you get right down to it.  For what we're doing, the divide between 8bit video and 10bit video isn't such a big deal.  We're on manual lenses, and, honestly, the image from the EM10iii+our lenses is dang good. 
Paid $300 for this camera.  Seems hard to imagine a cheap cam would be what's used over more advanced gear, but we are certainly doing so.
Funny thing is, I can't rely on the XT5 (and it's admittedly gorgeous colors) because it overheats(!), and while I like the GH5 results, I don't like using the camera as much as I like handling the Oly.  Perhaps it's a mix of things.  Size, ergos, what we DON'T need from the feature set, knowing what'll ultimately work for our particular production, and a weird little feature of the Oly has (2x punch in) that the GH5 does not.
Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough and not really chasing new tech anymore? 
I'll testify without irony that we've achieved better footage with this little camera than another million dollar + doc film I'm working on which used an ARRI.  Why?  Because subjects in a doc don't really give a shit when it's a single unassuming shmo running around with a small modest camera like the EM10.  People DO give a shit when they're in front of a giant rigged out ARRI and a crew of 9 self-important shmos flitting around with their serious demeanors and a gaggle of mobile video-village gear in tow.  And people  in a doc behave correspondingly:  Not naturally.  They're performative.  I'm left editing a bunch of dry useless footage from the ARRI shoot.  Additionally not much actual quantity of footage because they were so damn immobile.  Lame.
That's a hill I'll die on regarding doc film making.  When filmmakers put their gear fetish above good content acquisition.  Sometimes that requires big sophisticated gear, sometimes not.  Gotta be honest with yourself about that.  Anyway...
Finally, the doc we're working on will be mastered in 1080.  If anyone can successfully convince me that's not good enough for a doc screener, I'll entertain the argument, but 1080 24p is fine to my eyes.
/rant.

It's possible to synthesize all sorts of microphone types/polar patterns, including things like perfectly co-incident stereo pair mics (which are impossible to physically build), from a B-format Ambisonics stream/recording -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Virtual_microphones - and also produce a binaural stream - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Decoding
I think that post-processing flexibility is the real strength of using a Soundfield microphone for ambient sound recording.

My guess is that the difference in actual user experience of a system receiving a 923 and one receiving 893 will be negligible.  Between the two, I'd choose the one where I get a better deal.

By the time you add the size and weight of a converter box, you should probably just get the Z Cam EVF or the Portkeys OEYE and save money.

After posting the previous post I went back and compared the looks a few times and realised I was a bit harsh on the ARRI LUT, considering that it was very flattering on my battered skin tone but basically didn't screw up the strong colours too much, whereas the film look is much stronger without being that much more flattering.
Inspired by the ARRI LUT, I created this custom grade from scratch.
SOOC (for reference):

New Custom Look:

ARRI LUT (for reference):

I'm actually really happy with that look - I went a bit further in evening out the skin tones and brightening them up a bit and it didn't seem to come at the expense of anything else.
I think I could easily build a look around this, and will experiment further.

It's possible to synthesize all sorts of microphone types/polar patterns, including things like perfectly co-incident stereo pair mics (which are impossible to physically build), from a B-format Ambisonics stream/recording -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Virtual_microphones - and also produce a binaural stream - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Decoding
I think that post-processing flexibility is the real strength of using a Soundfield microphone for ambient sound recording.

I think I found the lens! It's the Angenieux Zoom 15x10B 10-150mm f/2-2.8 lens.
This lens has "TYPE 15 x 10B" written on it and a red pinstripe around it.

I'm still lost down this rabbit hole, but these are an interesting reference.
This is what happens if you put the GX85 through a "look".  I put the GX85 test image through a bunch of output LUTs to see which (if any) I liked the flavour of.  In order to compare them equally, I adjusted after the LUT to match the black and white points, exposure, and contrast.  This way we're not just comparing the different contrast curves, but the other aspects of the LUTs like colour rendering etc.
The node structure was this:
slightly lower gain to bring GX85 image into range (it records super-whites) CST from 709/2.4 to Davinci Intermediate (my preferred working colour space)     (my grade would go here, but for this test no adjustments were made) CST to whatever colour space the LUT expects The LUT (these all convert to 709/2.4) A curve to adjust the overall levels from the LUT to roughly approximate the GX85 image The round-trip from 709/2.4 to DWG to 709/2.4 is almost transparent, if you compensate for the gamut and saturation compression in the conversion at the end, so I didn't bother to grab it.
Results:

The famous ARRI K1S1 LUT (the ARRI factory LUT):

One of the 5000 BMD LUTs that come with Resolve, which I tried just for fun:

The Kodak 2383 PFE (Print Film Emulation) LUT.  The D55 one seemed the closest match to the WB of the image for some reason, but everyone always uses the D65 ones, so I've included both here for comparison.

The D65 one:

The Kodak 2393 PFE.  It doesn't come with Resolve but it's free online from a bunch of places.  I like it because it doesn't tint the shadows as blue, so the image isn't as muddy / drab.   

The FujiFilm 3513 PFE:

I find the ARRI LUT a bit weak - it helps but not as much as I'd like.  The comparison above is flattering to the LUT because it has a bit more contrast compared to the SOOC so looks a bit better.  The skintones are a little more flattering on it though, which might be enough if you want a more neutral look.
All the PFE looks are very strong, and aren't really meant to be used on their own.  The film manufacturers designed the colour science to look good when used with a negative film like Kodak 250D or 500T stocks, so it's "wrong" to use it unless you're grading a film scan, I think people use it like this anyway 🙂
Some time ago I purchased a power-grade that emulated both the 250D and 2393 PFE from Juan Melara, which looks like this:

To me it looks much more normal than just the 2393 PFE on its own, but it's definitely a stronger look.  The powergrade is split into nodes that emulate the 250D separately to the 2393, and the 2393 nodes are almost indistinguishable from the LUT, so I'd imagine this is probably a good emulation.
Anyway, lots of flexibility in these 8-bit files!

I agree (as someone who has done all my editing for years on either gaming or workstation-class laptops). Generally, decent laptops in both of those categories should have cooling good enough for long-term high CPU and GPU loads, but you do need to choose carefully - and expect them to be noisy when they are working hard!
Also be careful when comparing desktop and laptop GPUs - they can have the same or very similar model numbers, but the laptop version might have different performance specs (and more aggressive thermal management) e.g. :
(info from Wikipedia) The desktop version of the nVidia Quadro RTX 4000 (100-125 watts Thermal Design Power):

...versus the mobile version (60-80 watts TDP):

I understand that a person can look at a larger quantity of footage and notice similarities and themes, but there are still a great number of un-accounted-for variables that can always bite you in the ass if you were to actually get that camera.
The general look that cameras have online is likely to be the default look, partly because most people don't know the first thing about colour grading and mostly because the people who are posting videos and specifying the model number of the camera are likely in the shallow end of the skills pool, so to speak.  The exception is cinematographers doing camera tests, but these have their own issues.
The challenge comes in when you try and change the image in post.  Try to add a bit more contrast and you might find that the image doesn't keep the things you liked about the look.  In fact, the nicer the image looks SOOC or with the default LUT on it, the more fragile the image might be because the more pushed it will be.  The most flexible images are the most neutral, and our brain doesn't like neutral images, it wants ones with the right herbs and spices already added.
There really is no substitute for actually shooting with the camera the way that you shoot, in the situations you shoot in, and then grade it the way you grade it, trying to get the look you want, with your level of skill.
TBH, most of the videos I see that have the name of the camera in them, that are graded with a "look", actually look pretty awful and amateurish to me.  Either this is their lack of skill as colourist to not be able to get the look they wanted, or they did get the look they wanted and the look is just awful, but it's not a promising picture either way.
I wonder how many of them are using colour management.
If a camera is a 10-bit LOG with decent bitrate then the camera is one CST away from being almost indistinguishable from any other camera.  Skin tones are a challenge of course, but when well-shot on capable equipment these are pretty straight-forward.
There's a few principles I think are at play here:
What I hear from high-level colourists is that if a project is well shot on capable equipment (without a "we'll fix it in post" mindset) then you can get your colour management setup, put a look in place, and 80% of the shots just fall into place.  Then the time can be spent refining the overall look, adding a specific look to certain scenes (night scenes, dream sequences, etc), fixing any problem shots, and then you'd do a fine-tune pass on all shots with very minor adjustments.
If it's not well shot to get it mostly right in-camera then you're in all sorts of trouble for post.
  If the client is inexperienced and doesn't know what they want, or they want something that is very different to how they shot the project.  It's very easy to see colour grading make big changes (e.g. shooting day for night) or see the amazing VFX work done by Hollywood etc, and assume that anyone with a grading panel and calibrated reference monitor can do anything with any footage.
  If the client is a diva, or is somehow mentally unbalanced.  Film-making is difficult enough to make almost anyone mentally unbalanced by the time they get to post-production and they're sitting with the colourist and every mistake done at any point on the project is becoming clearly visible on the huge TV in their studio.  Throwing a fit at this point is perhaps a predictable human reaction! One colourist I heard interviewed said that when they were colour grading rap videos in the 80's they had to tell one client who had about 20 people in the colour grading suite that the strippers, cocaine, and machine guns had to go back into the limo otherwise they wouldn't be able to colour grade the project.
Of course, none of this is the fault of the camera.
I'd even theorise that the brand of camera might be a predictor of how much the colour grading process was setup to fail - if people shot something on a Sony rather than a Canon you might find they're more likely to be a clueless and self-entitled influencer etc.  God help the colourists that are going to face a barrage of projects over the next few years shot on the FX3 where the person thinks the colourist can duplicate The Creator in post for a few thousand dollars! 
Also, the stronger the look you apply in post, the more those small colour science differences get lost in the wash.
It's also worth asking, do you think the colourists on reddit are the ones who are fully-booked with more professional clients who have realistic expectations, or the ones out there dealing with the stressed masses and going online to learn and vent?  My experience on the colourist forums is that the most experienced folks burn out from answering the same questions over and over again, and arguing with people who don't want to learn or put in the work, so the people who are there are mostly those early in their journeys.
Only you can know this, because what you love will be different to what anyone else loves.
But don't ask random strangers online, actually try it.... 
https://sonycine.com/testfootage/
https://zsyst.com/sony-4k-camera-page/sony-f55-sample-footage-downloadable-samples/
🙂 

CP16. 
Cinema Products brand…who were also making this new gadget called a Steadicam that’s about to be 50 years old.  
It was a common news film camera.  They also had mag film where the sound was recorded directly onto a mag stripe on the film itself.  It wasn’t as good as the open reel recorder of course.  
 
I used one on my first short movie.  It feels very cheap and lightweight but it was a staple.  

Ha!  Look at Tiffen putting all their info on there for a lens shade!!  Talk about padding your part.  How funny!
Could the lens be a 15-150mm T3.1?


 

I very much agree with that - the opposite of someone filling an answer with the latest buzzwords, fashion statements and acronyms to gloss over the fact that they don't really understand the subject.
I've been interested in science and engineering from quite young (the first book I ever bought was about electricity and magnetism). Favourite subject at secondary school was physics, helped a lot by an enthusiastic teacher who really understood the subject and could explain the fundamentals behind it very well. When I went on to study physics and electronics at university, in marked contrast some of the lecturers were terrible at explaining things in a simple fashion.
One lecturer in particular kept pushing his own textbook, which was just as impenetrable as his lectures, so some of us students just gave up and found a book that explained the basics of the subject much better, just to get us through the exam at the end of the year... (and it was a subject that in my subsequent electronic design engineering career I've become much more familiar with - so now I know it's mostly much less complicated than it seemed at the time).
"Simplicity is the essence of good design" I've found to be very true. If things start getting too complicated and messy in a project, it's usually a sign that I didn't set off in the right direction at the 'blank sheet of paper' stage.

It's definitely an Angenieux lens. Here are more shots and there's a Tiffen lens shade with writing on it. Only Angenieux has zooms machined like that. I found some better shots:


I'm fairly sure it's a "version" of the Angenieux 12-120mm, but I cannot guarantee it.
 

If it was a real working 16mm film camera, I don't think it would be an ENG (Electronic News Gathering) lens, as they are designed for professional portable video cameras (which in the late 1970s would have been triple vacuum tube image sensor cameras using a dichroic colour splitting prism, thus having a long flange-to-sensor optical path).
But of course in the movie it's basically a prop, so doesn't have to be a working camera.