Timotheus

Heads up to users of the 72mm version of the SLR Magic Rangefinder (the discontinued one without distance markings)...
The rear 72mm attachment ring on mine had some rotational play. I decided to see if I could remove it. I succeeded, turned out the connector was a step ring glued on! Underneath a 77mm thread, just like the one with distance markings. See pictures.
Trying to remove the step ring (at your own risk ;-)) might be worth it as it brings the RF closer to the attached anamorphic glass, benefiting vignetting.
Conclusion: both versions of the Rangefinder are mechanically the same. The budget version just misses distance markings and got a step ring tacked on (!).

Why couldn't you use a vND with the 18-35? It has a normal filter thread.

It seems like the Canon 17-55mm is your best bet. If you wanna go cheaper, then get the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. For your "50mm" get the Canon 28mm 1.8. Or if you want primes only, then get the Sigma 20mm art for your "35mm" and the Canon 28mm for your "50mm."

I bought the new Tamron 10-24 and it's fantastic. Weatherproof. Has IS and has really quiet autofocus. It's perfect for the 5d4 cause it fits the mount without modifying it. 

Yes, I did ;-)

Back to the Bolex family again! I few weeks ago I just send only 5 emails to Bolex shops all over the world and there was one guy in Ellijay (US) that has one in stock, not mentioned for sale... till I mailed. Today I received this little lens and it is in almost NEW quality. Now I have two 1.5x lenses, but I think the Bolex will be standard mounted on my NX1.

Make a great trailer, and I mean exceptional and compelling.
I'm not talking about technical expertise, I'm talking storytelling.  Make people interested in the things they see in that preview.
If you feel you can't accomplish this on your own, get someone that can. 
When submissions come into our fest, it's super easy to see if a film has something to say, or not, based on the filmmaker's ability to present a worthwhile trailer. 
The preview is the first hurdle in a submission, so make sure you clear it. 
Also, I will say, based on what we do at our festival, if you acknowledge in your film synopsis that you are a film maker that will 100% attend festivals you're accepted to, that can help tip the scale a little.
Thats for our festival anyway...others not so much. But again, know who you're submitting to and that will get you a long way. 

Vimeo and YouTube have grown in visibility in the industry from what I’ve seen, even beyond festivals. But festivals let you pick and choose to whom you’re showing your content. YouTube doesn't.
I've recognized that I don't have the talent (or maybe just the desire) to succeed at either. But I think what works well in the long run is submitting your work to venues that exhibit work you love. I have friends who've won big at Sundance but done nothing since, because they broke through with something really innovative and great. So great that it got into a festival despite being better and more groundbreaking than that festivals boring, staid, limited "brand." (Heck, I almost did this myself.) But then when they were signed to CAA, WME, UTA, etc. they had to abide by the confines of that agency's demands. 
They couldn't. They were artists.
It's why they got into Sundance in the first place. It's also why they struggled so much after.
So fuck 'em. If your work is great it's great. Show it to your friends. If your friends love video game commentators and you're a video game commentator, awesome, now your friends are most of YouTube. If they're quirky but still kinda safe, awesome, Sundance and Slamdance. If neither, cool, you're an innovator. That's way cooler than I can claim to be.
But here's the big question: where do you consume most of the media you consume? Okay. Now submit there. In the short run it might be harder. Long run, more rewarding and a better fit. You think venues you don't like are better fits, because you see the flaws in their content and know that duh you can do way better than that. But what you fail to see are the merits that those venues' viewers see. (Granted, those merits could be stupid. But no one wants to know that they're stupid, either.)
If you want to thrive on YouTube or Vimeo or any given festival, study its output and emulate it. If you want to just be you, just be you. I've been through it all. I'm old lol. I finally see that everyone is as insecure and unsure as you are. Festival programmers are the most insecure. Their only output is what films they choose from other people's work. They aren't even making their own work and yet they are the gatekeepers and kingmakers. They're insecure in their opinion. The audience is insecure in its opinion. The social aspects far outweigh the merit. It's like someone posting on Facebook that they like the Smashing Pumpkins vs. Billy Corgan. Billy Corgan seems way more insecure... but why? He's the innovator? 
The artist is in a difficult situation. Cooler when they're cool. But open to way more criticism. And generally more sensitive to it, too.
So what can you do? You can choose to ignore it. 
Not let it get to you.
And do your own thing.
You're an artist.
You're above YouTube.
You're above festival programmers 
Their brand is what they like. They cannot create it.
Your brand is what you make. You create it constantly.
They're the slaves. You're the god.
Stay the course. Stay confident. Fuck the rest. Michael Bay cowers before critics even if he gets great BO. Lars von Trier cowers before financiers even if his critics love him. You are only asking for bigger problems with more success. Know that. And know you're an artist. You're above them. You're the creator. You're the god. Forget it and you're toast.
Act accordingly. Success just means your audience owns you. ("Your possessions possess you" - Fight Club. "If you owe the bank $10 million dollars, they own you. If you owe the bank $10 trillion dollars, you own them" - Someone way smarter than me.)
Own you.
Own your audience.
Never let your audience own you.
You don't need their approval. If they showed you their short films you'd just laugh at the pathetic attempts.
Stay confident. Stay the course. You are their god. And so what if they get cranky, crucial, and indignant? They can always watch Pewdiepie instead.   (And fwiw, I think he's pretty talented, other than the horrific antisemitism.)

If going the festival route, should I pretend I made them a year apart? That would be kind of relieving, like I'm already accomplished into the future a little. But it kinda killed me waiting for a year last time, especially since I mostly got rejections, and this is obviously.. twice that.
Is it weird or ill advised to go around with two films at the same time?
I like the Vimeo only route more than I expected, but I still have a feeling maybe really good luck at a festival - networking etc - is better than really good luck online.
Just kind of a weird problem, wanted some opinions.

This camera is better in almost every way than the A7R II and A7S II.
Lenses... I'll get onto those in a minute but A mount is nothing to be afraid of. Will be selling a lot of Canon glass after this and will end up actually saving money at the same time as increasing quality and decreasing weight.
The AF is definitely better than the A7R II and kicks the A7S II into the dust. At F3.5 it tracks like a hawk. I can now see why Sony did this because at F1.4 on a softer lens it doesn't work nearly as well as Dual Pixel AF on the 1D X Mark II. But to have this bonus feature on the 24-70mm F2.8, losing just half a stop, but gaining amazing run & gun AF for video.
The 1080/24p and 1080/120p are the SAME QUALITY. This makes the 1080/120p the best on the full frame camera market. The nicest ever. There's no crop, it's full frame. A7R II was 720p only and A7S II was a big 2x crop!
What's more it is not just an S&Q mode but a fully continuous normal video mode with 5 axis IBIS and AF tracking, at 100Mbit. The S&Q mode is only 16Mbit.
The 4K full frame quality is also very good but Super 35 does still have advantage in low light and to eliminate moire.
Nice to have a top LCD for shooting info. A7 series lacks this of course.
Buttons are better arranged than A7R II and A7S II. It is not laid out like a RX10 III. It is its own beast in terms of ergonomics.
You can now assign Super 35mm mode to a button, which you can't on the mirrorless cams. The new menus are in there and do group stuff together better but they're not a big enough overhaul to make me really appreciate them. I try to go into the menus as little as possible. Unfortunately you can't assign 4K/1080p to a func. button or the func. menu, you have to dig into the menus when switching between 4K 24p and 1080/120fps.
You can assign video recording to the exp. comp button next to shutter release, really handy. Default video button is better placed than A7 series but on the rear not the top.
Exposure compensation can be assigned instead to rear or front dial when in A-priority mode, then it automatically reverts to shutter speed / aperture control in manual mode.... again super handy.
The LCD can face forward for VLOGs and stuff, cannot do that with the A7 series or A9. It can also sit on top of the hotshoe almost (reminds me of Sony R1), or flips away to the base. More articulation options than the A7S II.
AF for photos.... hmmm lovely. Super quick and reliable.
The A lenses...TOP stuff. Particularly Zeiss 135mm F1.8, 50mm F1.4 and 24mm F2.0.
The 85mm F1.4 is a bit noisy and slow for AF but great in MF. Super optically. The Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 is like the G-Master lens, and just as big unfortunately.
I prefer wherever possible the SSM lenses (24,50,24-70 but not 135 and 85) if using AF for video - much quieter internal focussing.
I love the green indicator boxes in manual focus mode for video. Way less intrusive than peaking. It stops you from diving into the punch-in zoom mode or racking the focus ring back and forth a little bit to be sure. As soon as you get that green dot you can just stop and relax knowing that area is in focus. LOVE IT
Have dialed EOSHD Pro Color into PP1. Looks WAY better than the default. Not tried S-LOG 3 to see if the banding is improved since A7S II yet. S-LOG 2 and S.Gamut Cine 3 with view assist all present like A7S II and an improvement over A7R II.
42MP stills and 18MP Super 35 mode. This for photography is significantly more in resolutions terms than the 1D X Mark II and allows you to effectively get two high quality prime lens focal lengths in one.
The camera is more responsive than A7R II / A7S II. Starting / stopping video has zero lag. Start-up time very good. Writing the 42MP RAW+JPEG files - MUCH smoother. Max write speed is 60MB/s to UHS 1 cards. Dual card slots. Not Compact Flash speeds (80MB/s plus) on the card controller but much better than A7R II 30-40MB/s.
This isn't a DSLR. EVF quality is very good, translucent mirror doesn't flip. It's instant-on like mirrorless camera.
Body size and weight is similar to the GH5. So far far less than 1D X Mark II.
Has a DC-IN port, but doesn't seem to take charge from USB. Battery is probably too big for 5v 2-amp charging.
There's a very smooth and nice front dial near the lens release which is assignable to things like ISO... It can be clickless or clicking.
Now the bad stuff...
The LCD dims in movie mode when you're shooting 4K or 120fps 1080p. It's either a power management thing or a heat thing. Makes exposure look totally different and 2 stops darker than same settings in stills mode. Very silly Sony!!! It seems all unnecessary on this camera because of the bigger battery than A7 series. Although the screen does get very slightly warm at full brightness outdoors, to think this would contribute to overheating problems is unlikely and it can be flipped completely away from the back of the camera where the hot main board and chipsets back directly onto the rear casing with no proper heat sink (I've seen the tear-down photos).
Sadly my camera came with a small faulty part... a sticky joystick in the 'right' direction. Apparently it 'wears-in' over time but I don't think mine is proper...why would it only need wearing-in to click right responsively and not also up/down/left? We'll see if my next unit does the same weirdness. On this point, I think Sony still have work to do to convince us they can make buttons. Can you imagine this on a pro body like a Canon 1D X Mark II? Journalists would be rabid, foaming at the mouth.
That's it for now, can't actually use it much more as it has to go back to DigitalRev but plan to do the review soon.
I think this is a real rival to the GH5... No 10bit but you gain full frame, better slow-mo, 42MP stills and maintain pretty much all the other features.

That's it with the Zeiss 50mm F1.4
The Sony 35mm F1.4 G is also a nice one... forgot to mention that. It's much smaller and lighter than the Sigma ART 35mm.
Size comparison with the GH5
Although lens mount makes the A99 II look much larger, the tops of the bodies are practically level (look at hot shoe and mode dials)

The grip is a bit deeper on the A99 II and card door a lot wider... dual card slots on both.

I have DPed with raw cameras plenty of times. It was the much more ubiquitous and well-supported cinema DNG, but still. It works very well for certain projects and certain shooting styles. My preferred way to work actually, but I'm still green and un-specialized enough that I don't get to do that as often as I'd like.
In my experience, shooting 10-bit 4:2:2 simply represents the best compromise between quality, file size, and workflow. It makes things look good for my clients, reasonable file sizes for me, and good vibes from post. 
The C200 competes with 3 other cameras: Ursa Mini Pro, FS7, and EVA1. All of those cameras have internal 10-bit 422 codecs. I don't find it unreasonable to wish this one did too.
The C200 indeed hasn't lost me work. I think it's a very solid camera for many users, and as I've said repeatedly, it seems like a great camera that I wouldn't judge anyone for liking or using. In fact, I even said a few rentals are probably in my future.
I'm simply laying out the reasons why I personally am disinterested in it as a purchase.
Seems like things are getting a bit hostile in here, so I'm going to withdraw from the discussion. @mercer, I'll shoot you a PM about lenses.
Cheers.

So as I've hinted more than a few times in the other thread, the discovery of the Cinelike D and other bits and pieces for the GX80 etc was actually a bit of a happy accident while I was trying to do understand the Panasonic wifi stuff for something else.
And here is that something else.
Well at least a prototype of it but it is fully functioning and will just be finessed a bit more.
Basically, its a wireless hardware remote for the G series cameras that operates over wifi and can currently control record start/stop, shutter speed as well as aperture and focus if you're using a native lens, including a single shot AF switch.
For the non-Cinelike D cameras that can now be hacked to have Cinelike D there is also a dedicated button to toggle it on and off so you don't need to mess about with browsers and computers or smartphones anymore.
Focus and aperture control are done on a joystick and everything else is switches.
I'll be putting a layer switch on so that it can be toggled back and forth to a different control mode for ISO, WB and other stuff.
As this is the prototype it is nowhere near the finished piece and it will be reduced in form factor to just be about the size of the control board. Power is by any USB source so there are billions of options.
There is a lot more finessing and feature enhancement to go on with regard to the focus control (and yes, I know exactly what you'll all want it to do !) but the hard part is done now.
It does support the display of the values on a screen and I'll be sorting some options out for that.
The purpose of this gadget is primarily for use with a gimbal but it can also be really useful on a tripod bar for anyone shooting live event stuff. For cameras with inbuilt lenses I'm going to add a zoom mode on the joystick.
A very quick very rough demo so you can see it in action.
Any lag you might see between me operating the controller and the camera video is just a sync issue between me throwing the two recordings on very quickly  
 
 

If you only suck at half of it you're way ahead of most of us.
I think the advice that you should specialize is mostly given as career advice. It makes sense. If you spend half the time doing something, you won't get as good as if you spent all your time doing that one thing. And it's difficult to market yourself as someone who does two things okay instead of one thing well. (This isn't as true in smaller markets. Outside LA, London, NYC, Vancouver, etc. generalists or people who run their own one-man companies can thrive. It's harder in a big market.) If you're not that worried about supporting yourself in a big market, just do whatever you want! If you're excellent at one technical, often tedious thing and good at networking (say, you learn Avid or Nuke relatively well, which can be done in six months, or you learn to pull focus and join the union) you can make six figures right off the bat, or close to it. And then from there you can support yourself in a big city (well, barely), learn from others, and see and observe how it's done. Then you can either learn more about what you're doing or observe what other people in entirely different departments are doing. David Fincher took this route, not because he wanted to do it all himself, but because he wanted to be able to so he knew no one was slacking on set. Or you can take that same route but find other people to bring onto your projects instead of learning from them! Once you get signed to a major agency like CAA or get a creative director job at a big company (which can take five years or more, admittedly) or get signed to a production company as an advertising director, then your agent or company will put together packages of talent for you when you direct. I worked on a project with a first-time director who had no technical skill, but he did a really good job writing and directing because of the team they put together and that he collaborated with. Another friend of mine was signed to one of CAA's top agents right out of school and he didn't know what an f stop was. Maybe he did, he just didn't care. He was a storyteller with a great crew. Another friend had a similar experience, signed to a major company right out of high school. Again, not technical, but visionary.
A LOT of festival winners and Vimeo sensations secretly have major agencies and production companies (think CAA, WME, the Mill, etc.) doing the dirty work. They say if you wear every hat you get judged by the one that first you worst. But if you wear them all well (or even half of them), more power to you. Maybe you will have to pick up the slack for someone some day, maybe it will help you run the set faster. That knowledge will help out every step of the way. But you DEFINITELY don't need it. At all. And the fear that you do can hold you back. 
If money is not your main consideration, and if you're not struggling to pay the bills in a big city (which can kill your success; it's not always a good idea) just follow your bliss. I think Robert Rodriguez and Steven Soderbergh would do every job on set if they could because they come from a technical and formal background. But a lot of people are simply very passionate about one thing, and that one thing is why they get hired. Most directors aren't super technical, they just have great taste and people skills and management skills and are good storytellers.
This is even true of film schools. Some of the best (Columbia, for instance) provide less technical education than a day on this forum would. Some of the best (AFI cinematography) provide more technical experience than you can find on the entire internet. By far. It depends what the student wants!
If you can do what you want, do what you want. I wish I had the luxury but I gotta pay rent lol.

I hear a lot that you should focus on one job, especially in filmmaking, because it's a "collaborative process". But my spirit guide lately has been Jim Lujan (writer/character designer/animator/voice actor/composer/editor). Today I was looking a lot at where to start learning to compose music for films.. which is a job made up entirely of skills I don't have (but with time, anyone can do basically anything of course). Then I started thinking I was being dumb.. I still want to believe at least learning some of everything is going to be helpful, even if you never end up doing it, just for ease of communication with your team maybe (actually I'm keen to do it all as well) - but I know I'm closed minded at times and possibly in the minority, so I'd like to hear some opinions.
I know Tarantino was very relieved to get the advice from Terry Gilliam "As a director, you don't have to do that. Your job is to hire talented people who can do that -- Your job is explaining your vision. Your job is articulating to them what you want on the screen."
Is the biggest risk that I do it all and just don't realize that I suck at half of it?

OK
So for anyone wanting to try this, I have made a really simple method to do it.
I have tested this numerous times on my GX80 and it has lived to tell the tale but obviously do this at your own risk.
All that this process does is fool the camera into thinking its talking to the smartphone app and then the commands it sends are exactly what the smartphone app sends. Or would do if the smartphone app thought it was talking to a camera equipped with Cinelike D !
So as such it is only getting sent what the Panasonic app would be sending to it so there are no hacky or sneaky debug things getting sent to it. 
Again, though, proceed at your own risk.
Although I would say, if you’ve tried that region switching hack on YouTube with the 10 million key press combos during power up then you’re already brave enough to try this!
Bear in mind that my unit is a GX80 and the firmware is version 1.0
If you have a GX85 or have got a different firmware then I just don’t know because obviously I haven’t got any other devices to test it on.
 
Here we go then….
Follow these instructions exactly and you should have Cinelike D on your GX80/85
You will need a laptop or a phone with a browser, the camera and to download the simple html file attached.
 
1) Switch on camera and turn on wifi as though you were connecting the app and you should see the waiting screen on the camera
2) Load the Deploy Cinelike D.html file into your browser
3) Select ‘Handshake’ 
4) You should see the browser page change and it confirm that its connected to a GX80
5) Hit the back key on the browser
6) Select ‘Connect’
7) You should see the browser page change to say ‘ok’ and the camera give you an ‘Under Remote Control’ message
8) Wait until the camera screen shows you a live view
9) Hit the back key on the browser
10) Select ‘Deploy’
11) You should see the browser page change to say ‘ok’ and the camera should NOT now be displaying the Photo Style you had selected (i.e. Standard, Vivid etc) 
12) Cinelike D is now active on the camera
13) If you go into the menu on the camera and select Photo Style you will see that it is blank and you can’t navigate to other Photo Styles such as Standard etc. 
14) To restore the Photo Styles hit the back button on the browser and select ‘Restore’ and the camera will display the Standard photo style and you should then be able to go into Photo Styles and change them.
15) Repeat 9-14 to switch between them to your hearts content!
 
So, like other settings, the Cinelike D profile will persist when you switch the camera off so if you want to use the other Photo Styles again then you MUST go this process again to re-enable them.
However, if you would like to switch between them without using this method again (and who wouldn’t) here is a neat way round it.
When you’ve done Step 12 and got Cinelike D on, set all your other parameters (4K24p etc) as you’d like them and save these into C1 of the custom settings.
Then go to Step 14 and use the ‘Restore’ to get your standard Photo Styles back, set all your other parameters (4K24p etc) as you’d like them and then save these into C2 of the custom settings.
Now when you switch the camera on, you simply choose C1 to have Cinelike D or C2 for the standard Photo Styles and forget about using any nonsense about using browsers and wifi connections!
 
In couple of weeks I’m hoping to show you how you can do stuff like this and some other useful bits and pieces from a little hardware gadget that will work on the Panasonic cameras but have fun with this in the meantime.
DEPLOY CINELIKE D.html

So, as some of you may know, I've been "experimenting" with having little chats with different Panasonic cameras over WiFi and after whispering in the GX80s ear last night, I may have come up with something quite interesting.
The first image is a grab from a GX80 using its Standard profile.
The second image is a grab from a GX80 that is definitely not using the Standard profile.......

So, this is really cool. When you turn it on, does it stay on, or do you have to "flip the switch" every time you turn the camera on?
Also can you try, over wi-fi, for a mic input to appear...

I enjoyed 13 reasons why, watched on not an expensive TV set, really excited about the Varicam look.
Until the 2 cameras are out, and final specs and prices are set, Canon still can be an option, this Panasonic isn't a C200 killer -if the rumored 8000$ stays.
The ND in Canon is 10 vs 6 here, it seems like Sony will be ahead of those for the next 3-5 years with their e-ND.
Internal Canon raw, even for 15minutes per 128GB is a thing, can't complain about it, better to have (ain't this right @mercer ). The Panasonic raw is rumored to be a paid upgrade in the feature (we certainly do not know, it seems possible for a company that sells log for 100$!), still I do not blame them, if it save the camera a 500$, but still..
Canon C cameras are no slouch in high ISO, maybe not native 5000, but certainly no problem to work with a similar number. We don't even know the base ISOs of this camera, it can be 800/3200, and 3200 is perfectly fine for C cameras.
The camera is still in development while people will have C200s in August or early September (and still in development, 5 months before its estimated release, is a bit worrying, it is not good to rush things).
Dual Pixel AF is something I want in my next camera. I have enjoyed using it occasionally with the Canon C100mkII, and I am hearing great things from C300mkII users. AF it is not a gimmick, and having a touch screen to choose AF on a less than 9999$ camera, it can be exactly what will make it more mainstream in video professionals.
I have used 120(100)frames on my NX1 twice in the 2 years I own the camera, and a couple of times we have rented a FS700 for slow mo purposes in the last 3 years maybe. 60(50) frames is mandatory to have, 120(100) is perfect for most uses. I won't deny the Panasonic advantage, even for small bursts is a great feature, but I won't base my decision in this (while internal raw and Dual Pixel are huge - for me!). That dramatic slow motion effect is over rated in my opinion and this is coming from someone that used to be a high speed camera operator for some time!
The price difference (8-7500$) is not that huge from the C200, while a JVC LS300 (that keeps mentioning here and for good reasons) is 2650$ (that is a competitive price! not even close in specs, but hold some aces into its sleeve as well, and for the price..). Panasonic should be closer to 5500$ to be competitive to Canon/Sony, not 7500$, and that shows something about how much a really competitive S35 professional video camera can cost. If Panasonic can't make it cheap (while selling a camcorder with a fixed lens at 4500$), and BlackMagic can't make it cheaper, then maybe it ain't possible.
Of course we have to address the elephant in the room, C200 has no middle codec. This Panasonic announcement will probably push Canon to announce in winter time a middling 10 bit codec I guess. While they still can sell cameras (Panasonic has no definite delivery time, while Canon has) and keep the C300mkII people silent for a few more months, but C200 (as the name indicates!) is the perfect "middling" tier camera, only that it isn't!
Sony FS5 mark II anyone?!

I hate to say it, but I agree. Only maybe 5% of tv and 20% of theatrical features (I'm guessing, but it's along these lines) are shot on RAW. Because it's not worth the extra expense on productions already costing $250,000/day to get that last tiny little bit of image quality. And yet it's a huge omission on a camera that costs $8000? 
You can't expect everything. Or you can, but you'll be disappointed. 

Boy do people like to complain. A camera is announced two days ago with a feature and you expect every other camera to have it? We're also talking different recording media than the C200 and Blackmagic. Different ecosystems can support different things. It seems like they're trying to push as much into this ecosystem as possible, while keeping the "real" costs of a full kit as manageable as possible. And everyone's losing it over the internal raw of C200, yet the reality is that 98% of the time that raw is used will be in a controlled environment where external monitors are the norm and an external recorder isn't a big deal. And if you start factoring in the difference in SSD costs vs cfast... well, cost-wise the playing field starts to even. The weirder thing would be building a small camera that's perfect for doc and indy uses, shoving raw internal into it, an old ass 8 bit codec, and nothing in between... and no way to get non-raw 10bit... even from the output...

Man, I suffer in silence when I read some stuff here (I guess I'm masochist to keep reading it). But this one is too much for me... On what ground do you think it should cost 2,500$ ? Please tell me. Do you know a video camera costing that price and doing this ? And don't tell me blackmagic please (fan of the brand, but their cameras aren't in the same price range and they are way less reliable and easy to use, and no autofocus, no support) Do you know  a pro 1/3 sensor camcorder costs more than 2500$ (Sony, Canon) ?. It might not be the camera for you, that I totally understand but with all due respect, I think your comment is from a spoiled naive non pro shooter who doesn't know the requirements of pro work and on being on the field with reliable equipment.
People always complain, at some point it's just ridiculous. They want new technology right away, but when Sony releases a new camera too soon, they think theirs just became obsolete and hate Sony for it. In the mean time they blame Canon for holding off. And now they unleash something very unexpected from them, still complaints. Same goes for bitrates. Canon files take too much space, now they want that kind of bitrates in their gh5, and they're suddenly ok with the file size. And all that to end up posting videos on Youtube (which is not a bad thing but just all those concerns are irrelevant for that type of delivery).
Anyway, this camera seems to be freaking great. Canon used to deliver not on specs but on the field and with the image quality/mojo. Now this one also has the specs ! Granted an intermediate codec is more than necessary for a camera at this price point, but it will come down the line anyway.
Pffiou, sorry I had to get it out of my chest  Now I can burn in hell !

I second this. Considering the price ($499) for a focusing, super lightweight adapter this ain't bad.
Century Optics and Optex adapters sell for as much...and they're like 20 years old.
Now just wait for a nice discount and you got a real steal here.

No profile --flat or otherwise -- will be able to properly capture what you will be able to recover in post, so you might as well use it to help with other things. A punchy profile like Standard will help with manual focusing. Couple this with digic peaking + magic zoom, and you'll be surprised at what focusing precision is possible with just the camera display. Also, learning how the monitoring profile relates to the specific post workflow pays good dividends, especially if you are in the habit of exposing consistently. And if you know which profile value ends where in post, then all you need for exposure is the digital spotmeter (which is really the ultimate digital exposure tool anyway).
For B&W Monochrome might be useful in that you get to view the tones only, without color distractions, and this might help with lighting choices and judging separation. But this can also be a detriment since color cues can help with space orientation and framing if there is movement in the shot. And the profile's mapping to grey values will not necessarily match the channel mix you will do in post, so it might be misleading.

this looks great. wanted to share something I learned to do in resolve. see at the far left and right of your image the blue/red chromatic aberration along hard lines of dark and light? I get that with my Kowa B&H anamorphic too. but in resolve, if you split your image into red, blue and green channels, you can apply slightly different horizontal scaling to the red and blue channels to eliminate the aberration completely. it also sharpens things up a tad. and you'll get to experience the same, very satisfying, feeling I get everyone time I apply this fix.  

Just finished my 2nd round of shooting for my short. I had a little more trouble correcting these images as I shot a lot in lower light than the first round. But here are a few shots that turned out okay...



I will say that I think ML Raw has ruined me for other cameras.