Eduardo Granadsztejn

Well, well...
https://www.metabones.com/article/of/SpeedBooster_for_BMPCC_4K?fbclid=IwAR1cX0wTLMDww7q6-fhs513CYCDMg7Hf1QA2AcbA8oZjyZnR5jBsmNYCdn4

Well, well...
https://www.metabones.com/article/of/SpeedBooster_for_BMPCC_4K?fbclid=IwAR1cX0wTLMDww7q6-fhs513CYCDMg7Hf1QA2AcbA8oZjyZnR5jBsmNYCdn4

I was wondering those who have pre-ordered or planning to buy this camera, which lens/lenses have in mind to pair it with bmpcc4k?

For me it feels like the Pocket is a cinema camera, basically fully manual also for lenses etc. I feel like if I pay 2 grand for an A73 I would then be stuck with a "system" and need to invest in their lens setup, same with GH5. The "system" obviously brings big advantages, the drag is I would instantly feel like I have to now get a 20, 28,..., 50, 85, 300mm plus maybe a 24-120 (if something like it exists. The P2 is just a "sensor" with all it's limitations. It doesn't demand anything but a fairly "professional" approach to shooting stuff.
 
They don't call him @Anaconda_ for no reason.

Think Larry Jordan nails it on the head with this on ProRes:
https://larryjordan.com/articles/pick-the-right-version-of-prores/

I agree with your list, but everyone should do their own tests with LT. The image quality there is pretty dreadful even compared with XDCAM and AVCHD, but for some content that's fine and it's much better than standard definition or something.
While it's true that transcoding can't improve an image, I was comparing AVCHD vs ProRes variants from a clean (uncompressed) HDMI output. 
In my experience, AVCHD was still better overall than any ProRes codec below 422 HQ. Except with foliage. Here's a test that closely mirrors my findings, but theirs is much better!
 

Nothing beats the original, and if the worst acquisition codec - AVCHD - was used, then transcoding that to ProRes, no matter the flavor, it won't get any better.
There's a useful rule of thumb:
ProRes Proxy: for proxy editing, but never for export!
ProRes LT: for editing of everything, for export of material up to 1080. Some report it as good upload codec for Youtube  No recompression!
ProRes422: for editing of everything, for acquisition of HD, for crucial quality check, for export of UHD.
ProRes HQ: for acquisition of UHD, allows recompression.

If you give half a sh*t about the footage I'd usually do at least ProRes LT, and I do that quite often when I know it is just for social media and the "editor" won't be doing much editing at all with it and yet would appreciate the smaller file sizes. 

In my experience the image is much worse than h264 variants, including AVCHD and Canon dSLR codecs, but the performance is excellent.
It's a proxy codec, meant for offline edits. I wouldn't use it for anything else. It's not as efficient as h264 and the image quality is much worse, it's only built for speed for offline edits. 
Still, it's usually good enough to judge if footage is in focus or something so if you shoot with a built in LUT and nail exposure and don't expect to grade or otherwise manipulate the footage you could get away with it for certain content. 

I hope your experience is not built from Final Cut Pro X Proxy editing.
ProRes Proxy is fine if you dont want to grade the footage. For 4K 25p it's 151 Mbps which is a little low for ALL-I codec.
If your plan is to record in BMD Film LOG with any of the Blackmagic Camera's ProRes LT is the best choice with good balance between image quality performance and storage space (about 302Mbps for 4K 25p)

I've never used FCPX so I couldn't speak to that.
It's been my experience working in the offline edit (generally in Premiere; I assume the transcodes were done in Resolve by the DIT, though) that ProRes 422 Proxy footage is unusable for anything except preview. Fwiw, it's always been Alexa footage, sometimes with a rec709 LUT applied, sometimes in log. Perhaps the Alexa, because it's fairly noisy and flat, is particularly unsuited for that codec, but generally I find it to have excellent image quality.
I can't speak as well to LT, but I don't remember it looking particularly good, either. (I forget sometimes if the proxies were 422 Proxy or 422 LT since I think it varies by post house.)
This is more anecdotal because I think Atomos' early recorders may have had a poor ProRes implementation, but generally I found the image quality from external recorders as compared with AVCHD out of a camera to be:
422 HQ > AVCHD > 422 > 422 LT 
That's with the caveat that while AVCHD edged out 422 overall, when there was a lot of camera motion or a lot of moving foliage, AVCHD was significantly more susceptible to macro blocking. So for many people 422 would have been better than AVCHD depending on what they shoot. Below that, LT was clearly worse.
I was very surprised by this result since 422 is considered good enough for broadcast (some network shows used to and still might shoot 422 instead of 422 HQ to save space) and AVCHD isn't. To be fair, the difference was very small, whereas 422 HQ was a lot better than either.
I don't know if that's due to Atomos having a poor implementation of the codec–I suspect it is–but generally I find the thinner flavors of ProRes to be quite poor and Proxy to be unusable for anything but... proxies.
Also, you can't tell much by bitrate alone. ProRes is a DCT (discrete cosine transform) codec and less efficient than ALL-I h264, which is a wavelet codec, and that's only touching on the very basics of both codecs. ProRes is built for speed more than it's built for image quality.
Again, just my experience. 
Of course it is all up to the client, I agree with you. A while back I worked on a few shows for cable (tier one cable, but still lower budget shows) that seem to work with thinner ProRes or DNXHD variants than most people on this board would consider acceptable, and the raw footage had substantial macro blocking, whereas prime time network tv seems to mostly be 422 HQ but again standard 422 also seems to get use, or used to. (Most people on this board have wildly higher technical standards than prime time network tv and indie film, closer to Netflix or major studios, which is ironic since for a while streaming had the lowest quality delivery codecs and it still might.) Still, I would put Proxy and LT both below even the tier one cable threshold and to my eye they are far worse than AVCHD, but I think AVCHD is pretty good. I don't know whether or not the BBC accepts LT, but imo they should not. I don't know if their standards are based purely on bitrate or also on subjective impressions, since 50mbps MPEG2 is much better than LT as it's interframe and I believe that's the lowest they'll accept (they won't accept AVCHD).

Photography has got to move forward.
We have been using the same shit for decades.
Mirrorless is a step in the right direction of course.
Samsung tried a very brave thing with a huge touch screen on the Galaxy NX, the only Android based Super 35mm interchangeable lens camera on the planet and customers didn't buy it.
So perhaps Canon's customers are to blame for Canon.
If all they want in 10 years of technological innovation is the addition of a swivel screen, then so be it.

Not a 2x crop with a speedbooster! And yes, that fact that your 50mm suddenly becomes a 100mm when you select slow mo on the A7sii is a huge inconvenience in a run and gun shoot.

It's annoy to switch from normal to slowmo because now you found you have to stay back since composition changed 

I'm not sure...even on the GH4 I had little problem and the GH 2 which I still own, has an Image I love...but as you know, taste is subjective...I love the image from BM but their earlier 2 cameras were ergonomically impractical IMO...stunning image though....Panasonic color I will take over Canon or Sony any day (except for the Sony F35...which I think has the best digital image of any camera today, including the Alexa)...my only interest is in narrative...I need certain reliability factors satisfied and in my work It's my taste and look that counts...that's what allows me to tell a story...be it 30 seconds or 1 hour....but that's the beauty of today....so many choices...one really can't blame the cameras any more....when I started working in the industry you shoton an Arriflex S35 film camera or for handheld on the shoulder an Aaron S16 film camera...those were the choices and the process was horrendously expensive and really only for the select few...and what you say about the GH cameras is true, but for me (only my opinion) it holds true for all cameras today...far more crap shot on all of them...yet put any of these cameras in the hands of a crew 2 to 3 to operate the GH x or A6500 and lighting and production value and I can guarantee you, you would not know what camera you were looking at...so personally I try to look between the lines when choosing my cameras...but finally...nobody's right or wrong...just different taste and abilities.... 

Wouldn´t guess, people sayin that about the GH cameras. People have always been exited about the image quality. Some like Panasonic the best, some Sony,
a lot of them like Canon, at least for the colors:). Different tastes. But there are hundred times more people liking GHs and G7,8,85 for what they are, low price
cams with some of the best image quality of its range. Too bad, Panasonic has lost love for HD quality in their GX85 and possibly G85 cameras.
Here are two examples what a GH3 was and still is capable of. For the Mekka music video, I don´t dig the prologue with the icecream shop, but the rest looking awesome.
 

Just... people have been begging for high-res and keep hammering down footage has to be sharp and detailed.
Yet... they end up loving soft smeary Canons.
I takes getting used to. Also, you need to know your camera and grading, you can't just buy an exceptional camera and expect yourself to become exceptional by ownership of said camera and get stunning results. It's all in the lensing, lighting, motion and what's in front of the camera. You use it as a point-n-shoot camera? You'll get point-n-shoot results. The quality of results is enhanced by the quality it shoots in. Miss an inch of focus on a GH5 and it's cringe, because it's so noticeable. Do the same with a Canon and you can hardly tell, because it hardly resolves with the same kind of precision. Don't know if a lot of footage out there is from people new to the system, being done with either Canon or Sony, or upgraders from previous iterations of Lumix G cameras. The former group probably still struggles, the latter should in meanwhile know how to make it work by now.
Noticed Albert got himself one! Now that will be an exciting channel to check back to if you like nice looking footage! That last shot is so dope!
 

I don't like Samsungs either. I have the Huawei P10 Plus now. Yep, that's the one with a dualcam Leica Summilux-H set-up.
*Though I mainly got it because it's the only current flagship phone with a DualSIM model.

Very hopeful about the gh5...

A6300 has 3 dealbreakers for me: 1) Shut downs due to heat, even in moderate temps is unacceptable for professional work unless you have a second camera to use as a backup 2)Horrific, worse than any other camera ever rolling shutter.(http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue!) 3) Horrid battery life.
Get a used GH4 and a speed booster for your canon glass, you won't be disappointed.
 

If you want to shoot moving things outside (in the heat) then I wouldn't recommend a6300. GH4 is the most versatile 4K shooter with options, but as others have said G7 may also fill your needs and costs even less. I'm also waiting to see what GH5 has instore.

This was mine dilemma as well, but I ended up with GH4, because I really needed a better camera performance for a project than my t3i's. We'll see what the GH5 can do, but to be honest, the GH4 performance is solid, the 100/200mbit codec is great, the 4K's nice, anamorphic shooting is now a thing, the battery last long enough and there is no overheating. Yep, there are downsides as well, but you'll always have to sacrifice some specs. So far, so good, I'm hyped for the GH5, but I'm really fine with the GH4's performance.