Lintelfilm

Gah wrote a big post and lost it. The jist of it was :
This Kowa 8.5mm looks nice:
And Tiffen Ultra Contrast and HD/TVFX filters do a lot to attenuate the clinical/digital look of Panasonic lenses:
Ultra Contrast on a 25mm 0.95:
 

Can't really go wrong with Olympus glass. They've solid rendering all around their line-up.
I didn't go with Pana's 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS, I actually decided to go E-M1 for stills and then use the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO kitlens (even though the lack of stabilization on GH2/GH4/BMPCC/Z E1). You can get quite stable handheld or just use a mono- or tripod anyways. Then I've added the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO. Not really interested in the 8mm fish-eye or the just announced 300mm tele. But the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO with MC-14 1.4x teleconverter would be a welcome addition and give you 3 flexible zoomrange lenses with consitent qualities throughout. Additionally I have the excellent classic which is the 45mm f/1.8 and last year I finally pulled the trigger on the 75mm f/1.8 ED which I had been eyeballing for the longest time (doesn't get much better than that for portraits). For macro the 60mm f/2.8 ED. Don't have the 12mm f/2 ED, because it used to be priced ridiculously high (they've first brought out a silver version then sold the black version as 'limited edition' :') ), it has come down a fair bit (about 300 EUR), but still didn't go for it. Other lenses would be the 17mm f/1.8 and 25mm f/1.8 of which I've heard good things. But this is a common range in which I have enough alternatives. They've got some pinhole-like body cap lenses, but I wouldn't mess with those.
Nespresso, what else? Well, starting out with the Pana GH2 I had the 14-140mm kit lens. At first I adapted vintage glass in addition (Minolta, Pentax). Then added the must have 14mm f/2.5 and 20mm f/1.7 to have a really minimal set-up. Added the 100-300mm for wildlife (with custom r-roesch.de lens collar). Just. There's something about Panasonic lenses... they're very sharp, which kinda makes it brittle, very contrasty and punchy on the colors. It's a very modern and poppy look... which doesn't really help with the stigma that stuff shot with Panasonics looks like 'video'. Olympus just has that more organic rendering. OIS for primes used to be reserved for the expensive Leica branded lenses... the 45mm f/2.8 OIS Macro-Elmarit and the 42.5mm f/1.2 OIS Nocticron. Recently they've brought out the 30mm f/2.8 OIS Macro and 42.5mm f/1.7 OIS under the Lumix branding and priced them accordingly (that's also why I don't understand people saying M43 lenses are so expensive, they don't have to be at all! And recently I picked up the 25mm f/1.7 for 99 USD only!). They're actually pretty great lenses to have and seem to have lost a bit of that typical Panasonic modern look and render a bit more organic. Seems like they're heading the right way! But... I'm still not really in love with any of Panasonic's offerings. Sure, the 42.5mm f/1.2 is probably quite magical, but I see it go for 1249 EUR right now and there's just no way. It probably should've been priced roughly like the 75mm f/1.8 by Olympus. The pancakes are quite attractive just for their shear size. But other than that, Panasonic is not really all too exciting.
What's exciting? Well, third parties. Just the lens manufacturers. Before Sigma renamed the 19mm, 30mm and 60mm f/2.8 to 'ART', these were availlable as 'EX DN' and actually featured proper grippy focus rings (now it's just one smooth surface). Managed to snap up the 19mm and 30mm for 100 EUR/each. Optically really damn good for the money. Build quality a bit iffy and rattles when powered off, but who cares. Had gotten into SLR Magic. Had seen a shootout here: http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137:adorable-25s-25mm-f095-speed-lens-comparison-on-lumix-gh3&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2 and decided the SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 25mm T0.95 had to be the next to get. I don't regret it one bit, it's probably my favourite lens to throw in front of a Micro Four Thirds camera. It's just epic. That's the only SLR Magic I went for so far though. Another Chinese manufacturer is Zhongyi. I have their 24mm f/1.7 and 42.5mm f/1.2 (like the previously discussed Leica DG Nocticron). A good write-up can be found here: http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2014/11/17/the-zy-optics-mitakon-24mm-f1-7-and-42-5mm-f1-2-micro-four-thirds-mount-complete-review/ . Alan Besedin also has an impression on his channel. Basicly these lenses have some really quirky character, reminiscent of vintage lenses. It's a kind of you either hate it or love it situation. But I like it! Recently I've gotten their 25mm f/0.95 in, which fits right in with the other two and is just so damn small! These are not lenses you'd use for their solid politically correct qualities, but for their quirky creative bursts. Not for everyone, but I definitly appreciate it! I guess the only other native mounts are the Veydras, which I jumped on when they were still rather affordable on Kickstarter. I was send the 16mm, 25mm, 35mm and 50mm T2.2 right away, the 12mm took a little longer to get finished. It was a bit of a risk investment, but the risk paid off in the end! Very solid glass and construction, proper cinema primes. Detail rendering is on point and they're solid throughout. Not the most exciting lenses in terms of character, or in the words of Adam Wilt perhaps even 'boring', (solid write-ups: http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/first-look-veydra-mini-primes-for-micro-four-thirds & http://noamkroll.com/veydra-mft-cinema-lens-kit-review-rokinon-cine-lens-comparison/ ). But he also states they're basicly 'scaled-down Ultra Primes for micro four thirds cameras' and I can't think of any bigger compliment than that. Good thing now is that the mount is user swappable, which means I can get conversion kits and change the mount myself (to either E-mount (only S35 covering, and the wide lenses will vignette) or C-mount). So, that kinda of makes me excited to get a Sony A6100...

I shoot photo and video professionally and I'm heavily invested in M43. Had the opportunity to go full frame a month or so back but chose to stick with M43 (GH4). Just so dam convenient, compact, amazing battery life, easy menus etc etc. The key is good glass. I'm 100% native glass too (I have everything from wide to Tele and everything in between but the nocticron Basically lives on my gh4. That lens is the key to amazing photos and video on m43 and is the main reason I was convinced to stay with the system!

I normally prefer to use primes, but I am blown away by how good the 12-35 F2.8 is on my GX8. 
I know that there is software correction involved, but I love the size vs performance and the combined stabilisation is really boosting my photography keeper rate because camera shake is all but eliminated.
Like you, Matt, I have a number of AiS primes as well as the fantastic Nikkor 28-70 F2.8. These are all great on the GX8, but it is the 12-35 that stays on there mostly.
I also have a GM1 with the 20mm F1.7 that I carry around with me. Its a bit fiddly to use, but it takes surprisingly good photos and 1080 video for such a small camera.
For serious video, I am thinking of either a BMPC or BMCC as 10 bit 1080 with high DR is all I need at the moment, and I can use my MFT and Nikkors with it.

If you sold your a7s because you couldn't use it, it sounds like LOG shouldn't be a feature that really matters to you. 
I use Sony cameras a lot (a7s, a7sii, FS7), and while I love the possibilities they offer (log, great low-light, tons of features), they can be an absolute pain in the ass to use, whether its due to awful menus, poor ergonomics, short battery life, lack of customization, or whatever other weird Sony thing happens to be getting in the way of shooting. Whenever I use my own gear (GH4 + GX7), I always have a really nice shooting experience. Panasonic cameras and easy and enjoyable to use, and that's a big reason why I haven't invested into any Sony gear. I rent it when I need it.
I only own one M43 lens, and that's so I can have a small lens with fast AF when I want to take low-profile stills. Otherwise, with a speedbooster and some moderately fast canon lenses, I'm able to get really good low light performance in most situations. If you use third-party lenses and adapters, then you'll only need to replace the adapters if/when you switch. 
So yes, I think M43 is definitely worth investing into, but it's certainly not the only option. It sounds like you've already got a grasp on the advantages of other systems. The only way you can learn whats best for you is to try all the options out. Renting is a great way to get a lot of experience with different cameras for relatively cheap.

While sensors have some effect on noise performance, the biggest effect on noise is in-camera NR. The C300 II defaults to NR off. Turning it on reduces noise while softening the image a bit. I'm sure Neat Video would work better, however ISO 25600 could work in some situations.
Sony has a lot of compute power optimized for NR (the real secret of the A7S/II IMO, not so much the sensor). For ultra low light, the color quality difference between the C300 II and A7S/II won't be as visible; the A7S/II makes more sense.
That said, we shot a night scene with the C300 II and one LED light and it worked well- noise, when visible, is filmic (in camera NR off).
I need to do more tests with camera settings and Alexa LUTs- it looks like Canon tuned the C300 II to better match ARRI, which is a good thing.

We have a GH4 and C300 II- the C300 II color, especially skintones is excellent (I did tweak it- not using the out-of-the-box settings). The AF is very, very useful (including assisted MF). The C100 II is a major upgrade from the GH4 in terms of color, AF, low light performance, and pro audio (XLR). A useful test is to show talent/clients multiple cameras and not tell them which is which. Canon cameras are chosen more often than not (if we had an ARRI camera, would be interesting to see how it does against Canon).

I like you jcs. You have a level head and a good temper. It's rare here. 

Do your clients ask for 4k? If not I would go with the C100.
It sounds like you're going to love the C100. As regards image, it doesn't do anything particularly badly or particularly well. It's a safe bet. The color is really nice, though, and it makes people look good. Canon is second only to Arri in that respect, and arguably they handle skin tones even better. Very sharp, too. The learning curve is there, but fairly simple (mind your super whites and don't throw them out in post because highlight dynamic range is not super generous, use your waveform monitor, learn the focusing aids) and once you get past the learning curve, operating, even as a lone gun, becomes a transparent experience. Likewise in post, but I find skipping Canon Log entirely–unless you're shooting b cam for an Alexa shoot and really need the flexibility–and using WideDR keeps things really simple as you can forget about LUTs and the weird Canon pseudo-log (necessary for retaining tonality in 8 bit space and nicely executed, but like... annoying to grade compared with Log C) and just play with a low contrast rec709 image until it looks good. 
A lot of what people look for in hobbyist communities like this one or reduser is the ability to emulate what the pros do on a lower budget... sort of hunting out and mastering a complex workflow for the sake of mastering it or finding a weird hack or alternative. From an editor's perspective, its like using Avid on your short film just to use Avid... But, ironically, a lot of "pros" are after simplicity above all else, only they have more resources to draw on and can hire a great DP and a great colorist and they're picking people rather than gear and software... and wouldn't pick the same gear and software without access to those people–goodness knows I wouldn't want to work with an Alexa unless I had enough people in camera department to support it. Canon's baked in look and pineapple form factor does a lot of that work for you... it's less flexible, it's less fun, but it's reliable and looks great consistently. And if you don't have Company 3-level skill set and two ACs and a loader, well, you can't really afford to use a more convoluted workflow and complex camera unless you have a LOT of time (or very little work)...
The C100 is a safe investment. If you want to tell a story or shoot a doc without a big crew but still get a good image it makes that experience way more transparent. That's also why it's unpopular on some online forums... if your hobby is in the intricacies of shooting and grading esoteric formats, a nice AVCHD image that can only take so much abuse in post but only really needs a little bit of abuse in the first place is... 
Boring.
By which I mean, quick and painless. Great for business. Less fun for a hobbyist DP/colorist. (Really fun for a hobbyist director/DP, however, and perfect for pros without huge wallets.)
I like the black magic camera if you have a lot of light and are shooting vfx plates because of the resolution and lack of skew. But it has even worse highlight roll off and I find the fixed pattern noise to be highly problematic above 400 ISO. Also rigging it is trickier... the only complaints I hear about C300s and C100s from a rigging perspective are from pro ACs, who are forced to rig the pineapple as though it were an Alexa. As regards rigging, all it needs is a lens (and an LCDVF if you get V1 and not Mk II). 
 

If I were you I would go with the C100 Mk II, however you will definitely miss the malleable 10bit image from Blackmagic. I'm going to upload some videos from my c100 II to Andrew's new thread later. 

I'd say the DR is the same as GH4. Color is better on C100. Codec and resolution are lower quality. I love using V Log 10 bit but there's something about just good ole 1080 Super 35mm that gives a nice unique look compared to GH4.

And the image is really nice. How do you like it compared to the GH4 image? Low light is obviously worse on the GH4, but dynamic range, colour, codec, resolution (I downsample 4K in post on the GH4, which I'd guess is very similar to what the C100 does in camera)? Thanks again Aaron. I've liked your GH4 stuff - it's good to hear your thoughts. 

Yes I do have the MKII. The DPAF is amazing. If I'm using it handheld I'll use the Canon 17-55, or 24-105. It's very liberating to use this camera b/c the native battery will run for hours, the SD cards will run for hours, it's rock solid but lightweight, the ISO range is super wide. It really does just get out of the way and let you shoot.

For docs and promos I'd suggest C100ii. It is the perfect camera in that price bracket. I think you'd get a more cinematic/rich image from the URSA but you'll also deal with bigger files.

You obviously cut that bit from the unboxing video. I know you were excited but there are some things that don't need to be shared ...  

The better cameras get,  the more important the story, script, direction and all cinematography become. That is if you want your work to stand out from the unwashed masses of people with next gen 8k stabilized smartphones, with built-in software to instantly add film grain, color correct and vignettes. 
These are just tools. What's really important is the art and the stories we tell.
I spoke with an old school photographer a few weeks ago, and he shared the following wisdom with me... "Every picture doesn't need to be sharp or perfectly exposed, this is art".
So me, I shoot images that add to my story. If it doesn't do that, it does not make the final cut.

It's not as fuss free or as light as the OSMO, which is basically a tiny stick in a backpack. It's fantastically easy to grab shots with it on foot.
You don't have to spend 10 minutes before every shot fiddling with the rigging bolts, balancing the gimbal depending on your lens, and so on.
With the X5R you would stick a Micro Four Thirds 15mm F1.7 or pancake on it and just shoot instantly with a setup time measured in the seconds it takes to remove it form a bag.

Yeah, pain in the ass factor does weight in heavily. Depending on the type of gig. More forgiving with something narrative. I shoot a lot of weddings currently, and pain in the ass factor makes me hate a piece of gear REALLY quick in that environment.
I made fun of the C100. Until I used it. Then I got it. It just works. Not the best of all time, but very solid right out of the box.
I love my bmpcc, and I overlook alot of the pains. Recently got a GH4, and man... despite not being in love with the online samples I saw, it is such a pleasant contraption to use compared to the bmpcc. Shocking, really. 
Tired old cliche, but I still think skill with framing and lighting pay way more dividends than camera or codec. Hell, I'm still mostly happy with my GH2 footage. 
The closer cameras get to ideal quality, the stronger the "how much do I hate operating this" factor becomes relevant. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxcnsr1R5Ge_fbTu5ajt8DQ 
Anyone/everyone can be an artist with research and practice. Just like anyone can be a technologist. Different people have different pain thresholds and give up on one, the other, or both. In the tech world, some folks look at you funny if you also display art skill. In the art world, when folks state they aren't good with tech: they could be better with more effort. Natural ability in either matters, however anyone can do both with hard work: it's a matter of passion.

The easiest, most foolproof, and filmic cameras to shoot are the ARRI Alexa, Amira, and Mini, shooting to ProRes. That's why they're the most used professional cameras when cost is no object. When cost is considered, the Canon C300 II and C100 II are really an amazing value, especially for small crews without a focus puller. Zero or minimal post work with these cameras can produce results that look amazing, especially the hardest to color: skintones. The FS7 still requires a bit of work in post (not so much with continuous spectrum light sources), however folks who need high FPS and 4K are willing to deal with it. The Panasonic Varicam has looked pretty good, but isn't used much. At that price point folks seem to prefer Red or ARRI. Red has a ProRes option (and their latest color science is looking really good), however most folks appear to stick with compressed (wavelet) RAW which can be edited natively in Premiere Pro and FCPX.
Using a Canon 5D3, Nikon D8x0 or similar to shoot reference RAW stills along with an A7S II or A7R II (much better autofocus and slightly better skintones than the A7S II) can work well if on a low budget. The RAW reference stills can be graded in ACR, then saved and brought into the NLE to match color with the Sony video. Still a bit of work, but you can get pretty efficient with some practice.

Magic Lantern raw, 16mm film, RED One, Sony F35...
What do they all have in common?
They are all a pain in the ass!
All fantastic yes. But definitely a pain in the ass.
Magic Lantern fills up your 64GB card in 12 minutes. Sometimes it just stops in the middle of a shot.
16mm film is hardly a day to day practicality for most people.
The RED One takes as long to boot as it does to go through your brick of a battery!
Sony F35, don't even get me started on that hulking beast!!
----
What I would like is a bullet proof reliable camera which shoots with an image similar to Magic Lantern raw on the 5D Mark II but 10:1 compressed raw, runs on a small battery for hours and has a codec as easy to work with as the Red cameras.
Blackmagic are likely to get there one day but not just yet.
Then I want that putting in a C100 II or FS5 style body, with variable ND and the 5 axis IBIS from the A7S II.
Give it the low light chops to match.
Then we can finally at long last say... NO MORE PAIN IN THE ASS!!

I also want to like this new generation of Sony cameras. Ever since magic lantern blew the lid off canon DSLRs by enabling RAW, I've been expecting an HD/2K camera to come along that offers similar quality in proper shape at a decent price. Instead its all 4K smoke and mirrors, delivered with flaky, pain in the ass codecs.

Mattias i love you videos man and you voice one of the best in you tube so dam relaxing So now with red mx are we gonna see some serious production.

Vindication! I thought the 5 reasons video looked better than the Last Test, but I doubted myself because I worried it might have just been knowing it was shot on Red that made it look better in the second video! 
Matt (I'm the cheeky chap on YouTube who said the first one looked like 8bit h264 by the way).

Thanks
(I do regret the grade of the 4K version though, think they look nicer in the 5 Reasons video.)