David Brunckhorst

- Are you recording long takes? Because, I have the a5100 and have used it in the hot, summer sun and have never had an issue with it overheating. Although, I have heard that it is a problem. 
- You can go into the menu and set any of the external buttons to do any of the manual functions you want. For instance, I set the ? Button to work for zebras. I set the up button for white balance and the left button for creative styles, etc, etc...
- Yes, I wish it had an external microphone jack. 
- And a viewfinder would be helpful, but since I use focus peaking, combined with magnification... a viewfinder isn't necessary.
Anyway, if you want 4K, then go for the G7. If not, either of the other two should work well, just remember you have a larger crop factor with the Panasonic cameras, not a big deal if you plan on using modern m4/3rds lenses, but if you intend on using vintage glass, without some version of a speedbooster, then your wide angle 28mm lens, becomes a 56mm  lens. Your 50mm normal lens becomes a 100mm telephoto lens, etc, etc...
Good Luck with you choice. 

It won't be the usual full review I'm afraid.
Limited resources means I returned the camera, can't justify keeping it.
I found it boring as a GH4 owner. It doesn't need a fancy review. It just needs a few lines of explanation really...
The battery is smaller, and 4K video eats it up quite quickly which is a shame because the GH4's strong point was run time for 4K on a single battery. Good points - image almost same as GH4, as near as makes no difference and the price is excellent. No LOG mode is coming though and there's no 10bit HDMI output so the decision is pretty simple, if you need to save money and don't care about long battery life, LOG or HDMI get the G7.

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

I agree that the answer can be 'get anything'. Even if you would do a lot of considered or sophisticated shooting. You can do that with all of mentioned cameras.
Figuring out which camera you want is something you have to research for yourself. Each one has their pros and cons. Read reviews, view sample footage, read more reviews, try them at a store, think about what you want, what is most important to you? (4K, slomo, interchangeable lenses, handling, ergonimics, battery life, sound, accessories, etc, etc...)
And yes, put the G7 on your list too

Panasonic LX100.
 
But, I'll tell you what the other forum members told me (rightly so). Try Panasonic DMC G7K. In my opinion, best video.

The RX100M4 sounds nice, but the time constraint on the 4K (5 min) and slowmo (2 sec) I believe I read about is quite painful I'd say. That would make it a no-go personally.
I use the LX100 all the time, love it. Can't get myself to give the FZ1000 the love it deserves, only take it along when I'm on some longer trips and need its all-in-one versatility (but then again, that's the exact reason I got it, I'm just using it purposely).
Haven't shot with the A6000, but when they added XAVC-S, I was quite tempted to ditch my D5300 and get one. But for the time I'm managing to keep myself from doing so.
The A6000 actually sounds pretty terrific right about now. It offers a lot and in a small package too. What David says as well though, you might even want to consider the G7. Little bit heftier in price perhaps, but seems like great value considering what it's capable of...
So, personally I'd give it a close call between fixed lens LX100 and versatile system camera such as the A6000/G7. But YOU'RE the one who needs the camera, so it's of little value what I think I would do. It really does depend on how you're planning to go about shooting stuff. The LX100 might fit the bill. Maybe the A6000 would be the best choice for you by far. You're the only one who can really tell. Fuzzy really hits it home on that one, they all give you great quality, so that's not even the main thing you should be looking for to differentiate these camera's, rather look at their other advantages and which would fit in best in your operation.

Panasonic LX100.
 
But, I'll tell you what the other forum members told me (rightly so). Try Panasonic DMC G7K. In my opinion, best video.

Let's not beat about the bush the A7 is a great stills camera but an absolutely horrific video one, unless you LOVE tons of moire, no LOG and a poor low bit rate codec.
May as well get the A6000 and put Speed Booster on it!

​Well, it's hard to beat that deal! That said, I dislike the fact that G7 is only 28MBps in HD mode, but hey...

Hahaha. A lot of people want to go the G7 way from the LX100. Especially considering one can get the 14-42 lens along with a mic at around the same price (Adorama). 

​
If you could get your hands on each camera, for a day or so, it would really help you get a perspective on things. 

I am actually quite surprised, that not enough well graded videos of the LX100 have made it online. Check these 3: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These should, hopefully, help you appreciate the video quality. 
 
 
 

​Cheers, they look pretty good! However, I'm now leaning towards G7, it seems way better!

I think the 3 cams have a "video look". The only question for me is: how good the Slog2 will work on the RX10 II?
Low light performer maybe the LX100 thanks to the f1.7 lens.
We need more downloadable videos of the RX10 II.

I think you should swap the NX500 for the Panasonic G7 on your list. The NX500 crop factor is a deal breaker.
The choice between interchangeable lens and fixed lens you have to make yourself.

Well if you need telephoto then the LX100 can be eliminated.
If you don't need telephoto and you are looking for a cheap all in one solution the LX100 looks hard to beat.  Isn't it about half the price as the RX10 ii?
Maybe wait a while untill more RX10 info and samples come out.

Hi guys,
 
If you don't mind me complimenting you, but the information on this forum is the most on point in regards to digital filmmaking, indie filmaking and the like.
Therefore, I'd love if you could chime on what it might be a dilemma for me, right now. I'd love to purchase a camera for some arty/indie filmaking, and I'm torn between these three cameras that are mentioned in the title. (the Sony being the only one we cannot properly check). I was trying to decipher what all the reviewers are saying, but I am still puzzled about a few things.
So, there you go. I am not that worried about interchangeable lens. Sound as well. What I am worried about it is the cinematic quality of an image. Broadcast quality. Can we say with some certainty, which one has the "best" image? (most details, least artificial video look etc). Will Sony win that round - do we know? Obviously, ability to shoot 240fps in 1080p is great,  but what's the quality of the image? What IS important for me is the low-light capabilities of each camera. I will be using a camera mainly for some guerilla micro-budget projects. That's the scoop. I'd super appreciate if someone can comment on it.  Cheers.