ac6000cw

Yep, the main reason for me to keep the Sigma is the constant aperture - most for the hassle to readjust exposure / ND filter after changing the focal lenght.

About OIS, yes, is a necessity for non-IBIS bodies (and the OIS of the 18-55 Fuji is kinda good for video, for OIS standarts), but with OIS, it performed better than the Fuji - because Fuji tune their IBIS for photos, not for video. With the Fuji, small movements becomes "jumpy", because you start the move the camera, and suddenly IBIS realizes it and tries to catch up; with the 18-55 OIS, this behaviour is amplified. With the Sigma, it is less apparent.

To Fuji becomes perfect, they need to hire an AF guy from Sony and a IBIS guy from OM Digital or Panasonic...

As an X-S10 user, and since Fuji will never release my dream camera (an X-E4 with dual dials and more buttons, IBIS and 10-bit video, even with 30 min limit), this one looks like the one for an amateur like me.

In theory, solve all my biggest gripes with the X-S10:
- Battery life: with Boost mode enabled (the "full" boost mode, not the IBIS one), is the greatest battery eater camera that I had (never had a OG BMPCC). Other day, brought it to a birthday party to film my daugther, and the first battery was dead after around 100 frames and 10 minutes of 4k video. Is abysmal.
- Autofocus: Fuji still lags behind other brands, but the newest models looks better - and this one have revamped algos (which are now available to X-T5 and X-H2 as firmware updates); from the first impressions, looks like a lot better. I have troubles with X-S10 AF even with stills - and I hope that eye af in video with more than one person is frame becomes usable.
- IBIS: one more stop, which don't matter too much - for stills Fuji IBIS is good enough from a long time, but in video it keeps "fighting" with the beginning of a movement. Looks better now too - albeit still far from Olympus.

10-bit is very welcome, F-Log becomes usable now. 4k60 welcome too. Another great revamp is that the four C positions on mode dial now could store video and stills settings (in X-S10, only stills). 6,2k open gate 10-bit 4:2:2 is a surprise in a camera of this size, as the possibility of external raw recording. In fact, is really a baby X-H2S without a stacked sensor and shorter record times - already know people that were planning to buy a 2nd X-H2S and now will use X-S20 as B-cams.

The bad:
- No weather sealing;
- Since the body was slightly revamped for the bigger battery, and cabling for the fan and headphone jack, Fuji lost the opportunity make some more modifications: since there is no weather sealing, the front dial should be clickable. And the camera should have the front button of the X-H line to change focus modes (or other function). This would bring 2 more custom buttons without taking any other space.
- Would like a 3,6 mp EVF, but even the R7 have the same panel, is par for the course;
- STILL NO GENERAL OBJECT TRACKING in movie mode, Fuji? My god, even the Olympus, who had an atrocious one, now have it.

My decision will be determined by the final price here in Brazil. We have a 60% import tax for everything, and a lot of cameras are the double of the US price. Fujifilm here sometimes lauch with a "better" difference, when I got the X-S10, it was "only" 22% up to US price.
And...some reasoning. It solves a lot of my gripes, and is even overkill for an amateur like my me. In fact, with a revamped AF algorithm and a smoother IBIS, the X-S10 could be enough for me. The X-S20 could be my "final" camera (since it have all that I need and more), but with the added costs (camera, a new extra battery, new license for C1 or DxO, new UHS-II cards) will not be a cheap one.

About lenses - just got the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, beauty little thing. Compared to the 18-55 f/2.8-4, is not so much sharper in stills (don't know if it is my copy), but liked it a lot for video - better AF, MUCH less noisy, and, surprisingly, IBIS does a better job the the "Dual IS" of the older one.

...and I guess this is one of the Chinese knock-offs of it - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UURIG-R-77-77mm-Rapid-Filter-System-Lens-Filter-Metal-I2Z8/285223741334

From the Fuji website:
6240 x 4160 = 26Mp, which is the full sensor area and the same size as the largest still image - "[L]〈3:2〉6240 x 4160".
So I can't confirm it for sure, but it looks like 'no crop' to me.
AFAIK the 50/60p DCI and UHD modes are cropped - 1.18 I think, same as on the X-T4 (which has the same sensor).

Panasonic GH2, 2023 edition
Very nice.

Popped into my local dealer (Wex), had a quick play with an X-S10 to remind myself of what it's like to hold etc. then pre-ordered an X-S20 - my first ever Fuji camera and the first time I've pre-ordered a camera...
Thanks - deciding on lenses is going to be the next thing. I've ordered the camera with the 15-45mm PZ lens - was only £100 more as a kit - just so I've got something to test it with.

If on the basis I could not afford to switch to a Nikon Z9 + Z8 pairing…which I cannot really justify, my ‘budget’ option would be an XH2 paired with an XH2s.
However, want an even smaller similar capability pairing, ie, one stills orientated and the other more video, but both hybrid, then the pairing of an XT5 with this new XS20 would be a great little set up, especially as the XS20 can take the add on cooling vent.
Lenses?
I’d have to go zoom for my needs and really only 2 contenders and I’d stick the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 on the XT5 and the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 on the XS20.
The Tamron has a longer reach, is slightly lighter, but is not as sharp as the Fuji which is why I’d pair them in this manner.
Real world 24-83mm FF equivalent stills and 27-105mm FF focal length video, both with no aperture changes.
F2.8 light gathering with an equivalent f4.2 DOF.
Would work for me.
The other thing about Fuji is the SOOC results and I’d shoot Colour Neg for stills and Eterna for video.
Personally though, I’d go for the XH2 and XH2s pairing and with battery grips just for the handling as I like the idea of dinky cameras, but for work purposes, nah, not very stable platforms or ergonomically good over long days.

OK @Andrew Reid or anyone else who may be interested, I have sussed it!
Spanner
Cog
Custom Mode Settings
How to reload custom mode
Change recording mode
OFF
Et voila, any/all custom modes that you have set, will always retain your most recent setting tweak.
I have all my Lumix cameras set up as:
C1 = outdoor stills with WB set at 5500
C2 = indoor stills (only difference is WB 4500 default over my outdoor settings) 
C3-1 = 6k 30p outdoor
C3-2 = 4k 60p outdoor
C3-3 = 4k 60p indoor
So if I say twiddle the WB in a certain scenario on one of my video settings and then flip to one of my stills modes and then flip back to video, it’s always whatever I was using last.
I’ve just tested to make sure and it works.
All my settings are not ‘final’ but more starting points or at least ‘safety nets’ so if I shot an entire sequence of video clips or stills at the wrong WB, at least there will be consistency for correction purposes.
The bottom line, is that familiarity of your kit in order that you can spend less time thinking about how to do something technically and focus more on the creative side.

I sometimes use time lapses or hyper lapses to help tell the story. I mainly only use hyperlapses with drone work and occasionally timelapses to show a setup, or for dramatic effect such as to show the sky rolling across the horizon.
I have a dedicated Canon Rebel T6s that I use just for timelapses, it has incredible battery life with the dual grip handle (over 2,000 images in one timelapse once and it still had over 50% battery life remaining), plus I don't want that high shutter count on one of my more expensive cameras, additionally I like to set up my timelapse camera somewhere and leave it while I go shoot other content so there's the theft concern as well. Lastly, it is blazing hot here in the summer and it has never once overheated during a timelapse so its a great little timelapse camera.
Many times I have lugged the timelapse camera with me planning on setting up a quick 15min timelapse to use as the opening or closing for the video and many times it's just a not a good fit, either there's no place I feel is safe enough to leave it while I do other things, or the sky is completely cloudless so it would be a wasted effort, etc. 
As far as where in the edit I tend to find them the most useful, for me its usually the very beginning opening sequence or the closing i.e. a timelapsed sunset is a nice closing shot especially in places where I cannot use the drone. But without the right conditions (cloudy skies, progressive changes, etc.) timelapses aren't worth the time or effort to me.
When editing 60FPS on a 30FPS timeline I do occasionally only slow down say the last few seconds of a longer 5 or 10s clip, just enough to stretch it to the jump point which keeps the rest of the clip real time while getting it to the logical jump point, also sometimes I combine 60FPS with optical flow to drop all the way down to 25% to simulate 120FPS without actually shooting 120FPS if I want truly slow motion; this effect followed by a speedramp can be quite dramatic.  I know purists may say optical flow isn't "pure" enough slow motion, but in DR with the right settings it does a really good job depending on the content being slowed down.
 
I decided years ago to stick to 30FPS and 60FPS for all of my work unless the client specified 24FPS, or PAL....for me it eliminates all of the conformance issues and reduces the problems with pans, eliminates the jittery look, etc. etc. I figured out long ago I will never be a Hollywood feature film videographer so the 30FPS delivery framerate looks the best with the least amount of work to me.

Greetings colleagues! This is my tests. I have been using the camera since December 2022. Until recently I used Canon R5 and R5C as my main ones. But I left the project and now I'm trying to decide whether to stay on Sony. Tests primarily shot for myself.

Sony Cinema Line FX30 (ILME-FX30) - Firmware Version 2.0
Tascam DR-44WL - Firmware 2.14.0132

Built-in stereo microphones are ideal for surround sound. In most cases, you can no longer put simple cannon mics to record your surroundings. The FX30 has a lot of good features)

Have you tried using https://camerasize.com/compact/ to compare the size and weight of various camera and lens combinations?
It's a great tool for quick visual size comparisons of the top, front and back views (and hovering the mouse pointer over a camera or lens picture will pop up dimensions and weight info).
For example, this is a comparison of A7c, FX30, A7 IV, R8 and X-T4 - https://camerasize.com/compact/#858,895,883,903,841,ha,b

Yes you are right, the same goes for here, certain churches don't allow flashes during weddings, many events/venues don't let you bring anything even resembling a professional camera on their property or in their venue unless you get approval first which of course is nearly impossible to get. For places that are that bad, I just tell my client that I refuse to film there. These days I don't really do the tourist thing anymore but if I did even the R7 would probably be too big for venues like that. 
I didn't even think about the smaller size of the venues there. I have been to Europe a few times and each time, the smaller size of everything was the first thing I had to get used to. By comparison most things in America seem large to the point of being wastefully excessive. Events are the same way, most events are in huge venues with large crowds and the zoom lenses really help close those gaps. I think with smaller venues I would be more likely to consider primes or something like the 24-70 F2.8. I guess that's why it was hard for me to even imagine some of the lens choices that people were making here when I was thinking about the amount of space I need to cover in my typical event. I have even used the 70-200 on occasion because things were just so far away or so high up that the 105 wasn't long enough for me to capture the level of detail that I wanted. BTW the 70-200 RF F2.8 is incredibly stable handheld even at 200mm way more so than the EF version ever was.
Its funny, I don't look at them as compromises at all as long as you deliver something the client is willing to pay for. At the end of the day it is just photos and video footage, to me it's only a compromise if you compare it to something else you could have done or some other equipment you could have used, but if the client is pleased with the final product then I consider that as having picked the right equipment for the job even if that client happens to be yourself.
Sure you could have picked a sharper lens, shot with a higher resolution camera, used a gimbal instead of handheld, etc. etc. but none of those things mattered in the end so I don't consider not using those things to be a compromise.

You're certainly not the only one - isn't that what makes it an interesting challenge? 🙂
But on the other side on the coin, it's everyone's different choice of compromises that gives their productions a personal 'look' - the world of the 'moving image' would be a very boring place if everyone used the same 'look' and style...

Agree with everything, just add to this my experience.
For me, even the 105 is sometimes limiting, that is why I prefer the 18-135 EF-S for Canon S35 (or APSC) run and gun, and that is why usually I go with the Olympus 12-100mm 4f..
I do cover the whole spectrum of moving images (from mainstream drama, to indie documentaries) so I understand what everyone says.
My last jobs were a feature film (I did sound) that we used just cine primes, a documentary with Pocket 4K cameras and the 12-100, Alexa TV ad (did sound), another one with 4K/6K cameras (did sound) and Sigma EF (18-35, 50-150), TV show with GH6 and 12-100mm, a theater/music performance (GH5+BlackMagic cameras with Olympus lenses), Canon C300mkIII + C70, a couple projects with Sony cameras, e.t.c...
There is no ONE style of preferred setup. Depending the job and the project you have to adapt. It is a lot different to work on a scripted short, a verite documentary, a TV ad on Alexa, a live performance..
If you cover something, is more important to have the right moments than have just a few of them with great style..in the end, the content is more important than the form.
Of course you try to have a great balance of those, but first be sure you cover the basics and then add some artistic style if you can.

I'll try again with the video as I can't edit the previous post:
 

Yes, I very well know that - it's the main reason I use micro-4/3 cameras and long telephoto lenses for wildlife video and stills. Full-frame lenses of equivalent 'reach' are far to large and heavy for me to want to carry around, so I accept some picture quality compromises instead e.g. low-light performance.
If you want to keep the lenses small, then use 'cropped' sensors e.g. APS-C or micro-4/3 (or maybe use 'APS-C' lenses on full-frame sensor cameras - I think Sony and Panasonic support that at least, maybe Canon and Nikon too).
You just have to decide which set of compromises you can live with...
I agree.
Whenever I look back at video I shot in the past on VHS-C, DV and HDV tape, plus a variety of small-sensor cameras (like HX9V and FZ100), and compare it to 1080p let alone 4k from my Pana G9, I'm reminded how much video consumer/prosumer quality has dramatically improved over time...(as have camera stabilisation and the displays we view it on).

DR..  sure.
A camera can have as many stops of DR as you like - unless you're delivering in HDR then you just have the problem of what to do with all those stops in post.  If you spread them all out evenly then you end up with footage that looks like it hasn't been converted from log to 709.
Where do you think the "flat look" trend amongst YouTubers came from?  Think about it - professional outputs don't lack contrast and saturation, just the YouTubers.  The flat look is when the DR of your camera exceeds your ability to colour grade the footage.
In many ways then, more DR is actually hurting you rather than helping.
Don't believe the specs - better specs are only "better" when you don't actually make films.

Try a used Fuji XS10 with the 18-55mm f2.8/4
 

As they cram more features and chips inside similar ultra compact bodies designed to support 8-bit FHD originally, we are going to get more and more overheating problems on the video side. Of course this is where Sony will upsell you an FX30 with FF body and active cooling.

To add to what Django has said, there is a fair amount of comment about the X-T5 video capabilities versus the competition and other Fuji cameras in the dpreview review - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t5-in-depth-review
Also, you should listen carefully to Jordan Drake's comments on video rolling shutter, crop factors and SD card stability (for video) in the video review (skip to 6:19 for the video section) - https://youtu.be/y0YSjBiKb0A?t=379

Yes, I very well know that - it's the main reason I use micro-4/3 cameras and long telephoto lenses for wildlife video and stills. Full-frame lenses of equivalent 'reach' are far to large and heavy for me to want to carry around, so I accept some picture quality compromises instead e.g. low-light performance.
If you want to keep the lenses small, then use 'cropped' sensors e.g. APS-C or micro-4/3 (or maybe use 'APS-C' lenses on full-frame sensor cameras - I think Sony and Panasonic support that at least, maybe Canon and Nikon too).
You just have to decide which set of compromises you can live with...
I agree.
Whenever I look back at video I shot in the past on VHS-C, DV and HDV tape, plus a variety of small-sensor cameras (like HX9V and FZ100), and compare it to 1080p let alone 4k from my Pana G9, I'm reminded how much video consumer/prosumer quality has dramatically improved over time...(as have camera stabilisation and the displays we view it on).

...and also don't/can't possibly remember the sometimes scratched, fuzzy, grainy, cue-dotted n-th generation distribution prints (with mono sound and worn sprocket holes) that played in the average neighborhood cinema... while at university I sometimes projected 16mm prints for the film society and they were decidedly 'well used' at times.
I guess they think the pristine 'digitally restored' old movies they see today are what they really looked like to the average cinema customer 'back in the day' 🙂.

Yep!
(...still enjoy reading about the 'better' cameras though - GAS addiction? 😉🙂)

I think there are three things going on.  
1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.
2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.
3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.