Lintelfilm

1m is a long min focus... I'd be tempoted to go with a 100mm macro and a 50mm 1.4 instead!
Quite a vintage milky look there in the bokeh too, not totally smooth but not crazy vintage jitters. a strange one by the looks of it... not quite the essential lens-bag winner that is the 18-35 1.8, but still unique.
But hey, I've not used it

Please Arri .... We know you can make an Alexa mini with the 65mm sensor for £2k
 
Whhhhhyyyyy don't you ruin your business to fit my very particular needs.... Whhhhyyyyyy?

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

Hey guys - I haven't been here for a while so I'm not sure if the new Sigma APSC Art zoom has been discussed much yet, but I just got one yesterday and thought I'd share my first impressions.
I haven't done any technical tests but I'll start by saying my first impressions are it's a superb piece of glass with the superb sharpness (even wide open), character and build quality that you've come to expect from the Art line. 
However there are a few things those of you interested in adding it to your kit might like to be aware of - especially if you're thinking of it as a companion to the now classic 18-35mm 1.8.
1. It's HEAVY, and pretty big. The 18-35mm feels like a modest MFT lens next to it! It's not exceptionally long but it's got a lot more heft to it and is quite front heavy, meaning it's probably a bit unweildy on a hybrid camera. On my C100 Mark II it's OK to hand hold, but only just.
2. Focus breathing is EXTREME. Personally this isn't a big problem for me but it does impose a certain style on your focus pulls, so if you don't like that look take note. It's going to take a bit of getting used to for me.
3. While the 18-35mm has minimal focus breathing it is not parfocal, which can be annoying at times. The 50-100mm however appears to be parfocal (or at least very close to it). I don't know if trading breathing for focus consistency was an intentional choice by Sigma, but it is another difference to the wider zoom.
4. I read somewhere that it was effectively as quiet when autofocusing as an STM lens. This is not the case at all - not with my copy anyway. It's at least as noisy as the 18-35. Of course this is only really an issue if you're using it on a Canon DAF camera or a6300.
The 18-35mm has been my go-to lens on my BMPCC and GH4 (with their respective speedboosters) for a while now. The relatively compact size of the lens was a big part of this. Now I use a C100 size is not such an issue, but if you're hoping the 50-100 will make a great partner for the 18-35 on a smaller camera as a full walk-around "prime" kit, you may be disappointed. It's so heavy in fact that Sigma's included lens case comes with a shoulder strap! Even on the C100 I'm going to be using it on a tripod most of the time, as the longer, front-heavy focal length makes footage pretty shaky. Of course the flipside of this is that the extra weight helps with reducing micro jitters and with a bit of practice focusing and holding it, it may be useable handheld. 
I'm happily holding on to the lens because the image quality is superb, it's made really nicely and the convenience of having prime image quality (minus the breathing) in two modestly sized zooms is invaluable for my work. In most cases I'll be using the 50-100mm as a portrait lens for interviews, so in general it will be on sticks and this negates the weight issue. It's by no means so huge and heavy I don't want to put it in my kit bag. 
If you want to keep your kit small and think you'll get by with one or two fixed focal length lenses and value compactness and ease of handling, I'd weigh up the pro's of sticking to primes before shelling out $1000 for the 50-100mm.
 

thanks guys - the other Olympus pieces are pretty amazing - couldn't believe the look the other filmmakers got out of that camera.
We used the 1st person rig thingy from some Sweedish person - 3rd Person View camera mount (ALL SPORTS PRO version) - it was pretty good - our thing was making it as far as we could from the person.
the other olympus video was closer.
Olympus paid paul the director to make a video - the only catch was we had to use their camera and lenses.
the idea was all his.
and funnily enough his idea was my idea at the time too - which latter became my film chatterhead - which is just the thoughts of someone walking thru the city.  I turned mine into a political piece because it was consuming me a lot at the time and i wanted to make a film for bernie.  little did I know the film would make me question him and the entire political situation.
Oh well.

Some never learn the difference between sharpness and resolution. Its just how it is.

Are you Nikon owner by any chance Eno?

I use Natural too! Maybe it's my grading - perhaps I have a subconscious desire for everyone to look like a tart? To be fair it doesn't always happen but seriously though, if you try to bring colour out in the cheeks the lips can often go silly.

yeah, BTS shooters are usually a little behind because the vendors own the gear and aren't going to upgrade until they really need to. The line item for recent budgets I've seen still says "Canon C300 or equivalent".

It looks badly shot to me–not incompetent, just not great–but we're all allowed our opinions and that's mine. Even the interiors are badly overexposed and the lighting and composition on the faces are poor. Again, composition is subjective but this is pretty bad by any standards.
"Sharp" is consistent with C300. I've never heard of sharpening in post on a commercial project except to fix misfocused shots. If this is from freelance shooters in LA it's almost certainly C300, that camera is everywhere and practically what you're expected to own. I think the Vice documentaries shot with the C300 (and dSLRs) look nicer. It's definitely the camera I see most in LA, with the Amira and C100 coming in about equally tied for second. This is generally doc work. I don't work on set so it's what I see in the street. When I'm on set I see the Epic Dragon a lot, too.

I happen to do a lot of behind the scenes work for the studios, as an editor of pieces just like these. 9 times out of 10 the shooters have a C300 package. But i can't confirm if that's the case here.

Seemed like a bigger, heavier camera with low RS and with very nice audio preamps (could be separate audio, but less likely for a BTS doc) though skintones are dodgy. Guessing Sony FS7.

there's still time its not Jan 2017 yet

The thing that I'm finding, certainly in the UK, is that there is a higher demand for video work than ever...BUT....the cost is going down. Some of the quotes you complete against are ridiculously low, and you think "how the hell do they do it that cheap!" I'm not willing to take down the price, I'll always stick by it. I just make sure the client knows the full value of what they are receiving. 
This is a very good point, and I agree somewhat. The issue is that some niches become not-so-niche, and you have to broaden your horizons. I started with a Canon XHA1s and some crappy chinese redheads filming local bands. Not many people were doing it, so these bands came to me frequently. Now that camera tech is so accessible, this market isn't worth considering anymore as it's full of "price-based" buyers and everyone knows someone with a cheap DSLR. 
I now work on management and label only music videos, plus commercial/corporate work. Both very different markets. Thinking about my niche again - it's not my market but my creative style. My clients come to me for the "look" of the videos...so that's my focus. The niche. 
Back onto the topic of health... I've found it's definitely worth sticking to your prices a you will turn down all that cheaper work that wears you right down, but you will have more time and space to work on the better prospects that come in. It's far better to work on two projects per month that equal the financial value of 8 cheaper projects. 

I just shot my sons nativity play on my GH4 and BMPCC for the school DVD (hardest thing I've ever had to film btw!). It's the first thing I've done using major, extensive cropping in post. What's amazing is that the BMPCC in many cases was not only as good as the GH4 for cropping, but many shots actually better! The GH4 starts looking like digital, over sharpened and compressed garbage pretty quickly when you crop in. The BMPCC however looks organic and rich all the way in, and can be sharpened to quite a high level.
Dont get me wrong - it doesn't have the same level of RESOLUTION as the GH4, but as we know resolution is far from the only thing that matters. Colour sampling, dynamic range, codec, bit depth, compression, processing, etc all factor in to what makes an image useable and pleasant to look at. DR, colour, grain quality all qualify as DETAIL imo. Cropped in, the BMPCC has more of these things than the GH4.
The GH4 is a nice camera for 1080 delivery but I'd never crop in on it for a critical job. Canon have simply bypassed the 4K workflow inconvenience with the C100 by down sampling in camera. 

I just shot my sons nativity play on my GH4 and BMPCC for the school DVD (hardest thing I've ever had to film btw!). It's the first thing I've done using major, extensive cropping in post. What's amazing is that the BMPCC in many cases was not only as good as the GH4 for cropping, but many shots actually better! The GH4 starts looking like digital, over sharpened and compressed garbage pretty quickly when you crop in. The BMPCC however looks organic and rich all the way in, and can be sharpened to quite a high level.
Dont get me wrong - it doesn't have the same level of RESOLUTION as the GH4, but as we know resolution is far from the only thing that matters. Colour sampling, dynamic range, codec, bit depth, compression, processing, etc all factor in to what makes an image useable and pleasant to look at. DR, colour, grain quality all qualify as DETAIL imo. Cropped in, the BMPCC has more of these things than the GH4.
The GH4 is a nice camera for 1080 delivery but I'd never crop in on it for a critical job. Canon have simply bypassed the 4K workflow inconvenience with the C100 by down sampling in camera. 

the c100 is good for what you get. Yes the dynamic range is nothing special but it has the best low light ability in the business which makes it really good for documentaries. The reason canons DSLRs are used in some films is because of its small size. It's able to fit in small places. The C300 was used to shoot Blue Is The Warmest Colour which I thought was a really gorgeous looking movie before I even knew much about the camera

elaborate please.  I thought it had a nice visual.
tbh I felt the trailer didn't do a very good job of informing me what subject the piece is really tackling.  Informing a widespread audience needs a more cohesive and direct trailer IMO. - particularly when asking for funding from said audience.