independent

There's always that contrast between mainstream and niche. Boring is subjective and relative, across culture and throughout time. As a child, you found cartoons interesting and the news boring; the inverse is (generally) true as an adult. 
The difference is that the internet has just exponentially increased the amount of media to a wider audience. Of course, the resulting popular media that emerges is quite vanilla--but many people like vanilla. If you're looking for the meaning of life in TikTok videos—that's a you problem. You're looking in the wrong place.
The number of innovative or experimental movies has increased as well. It just takes work to discover them. As it should. As it always has.
Some remember what it was like reach into the unexplored shelves of independent video stores. 
That was sometimes the best part.
 

In comparing the two, I think the Canon focal reducer/ speed booster needs to be added to the equation. Not only would that make it more equal in price, but it makes the c70 essentially full frame. 
There is a technical difference of course; while the focal reducer increases field of view and brightness, it doesn't change the DOF. Personally, I think that's a plus. I'd prefer the unique flexibility in gaining a stop in light without the accompanying razor-thin plane of focus. Just more practical. 
 
 

There's always that contrast between mainstream and niche. Boring is subjective and relative, across culture and throughout time. As a child, you found cartoons interesting and the news boring; the inverse is (generally) true as an adult. 
The difference is that the internet has just exponentially increased the amount of media to a wider audience. Of course, the resulting popular media that emerges is quite vanilla--but many people like vanilla. If you're looking for the meaning of life in TikTok videos—that's a you problem. You're looking in the wrong place.
The number of innovative or experimental movies has increased as well. It just takes work to discover them. As it should. As it always has.
Some remember what it was like reach into the unexplored shelves of independent video stores. 
That was sometimes the best part.
 

Lectros and Zaxcom are industry standards for bigger productions. But the OP was asking about Sony UWP vs Sennheiser G3/G4. 
For that class of gear, the Sennheiser is much more" pro" than the Sonys in terms of adoption, availability, and actual use in the industry. 
Go call the rental houses in New York City. I guarantee you that all of them rent out the Sennheisers along with Lectros and Zaxcoms. Ask them whether the Sennheiser or Sony is more "pro," and most will tell you they don't carry the Sonys. That should tell you something.
That's not to say the Sonys are bad! Just be careful listening to some poster on the internet who culls info from jwsoundgroup.net and goes around on other forums as some self-styled expert. 
 

Lectros and Zaxcom are industry standards for bigger productions. But the OP was asking about Sony UWP vs Sennheiser G3/G4. 
For that class of gear, the Sennheiser is much more" pro" than the Sonys in terms of adoption, availability, and actual use in the industry. 
Go call the rental houses in New York City. I guarantee you that all of them rent out the Sennheisers along with Lectros and Zaxcoms. Ask them whether the Sennheiser or Sony is more "pro," and most will tell you they don't carry the Sonys. That should tell you something.
That's not to say the Sonys are bad! Just be careful listening to some poster on the internet who culls info from jwsoundgroup.net and goes around on other forums as some self-styled expert. 
 

It's fine to have a preference but Sennheiser G3/G4s are the most popular wireless systems I've seen here in the US and it's not even close.The only thing rental houses care about is having what people want, and what most people want are Sennheiser kits. I don't think they particularly care about the brand, their only concern is meeting the demand of their customers. 
@AquilasfxI don't think you'll have any problems going the Sennheiser route if that's what you choose. They're popular for a reason. They're extremely common in the industry, last for a long, long time (I know people who've had their G3s for 10 years) and are easy to get serviced. Once you're in a position to do so I recommend upgrading the mic to a Sanken or Countryman, which I'd also recommend you do with the Sony. The mics they come with, while decent, are kinda big and could be better. 
I'd steer clear of the Deity Wireless Connect as I've heard a lot of people who've had problems with them, particularly when it comes to drop outs. I'm not sure why they were suggested, given that's a pretty well known and widely reported issue.
 
 

Yes these are just your opinions. The majority of which don’t jibe with the industry. 

Huh, yeah interesting, I guess people have different tolerances. I often shoot in a sound-controlled environment so the AF noise is pretty important to me. Especially with smaller crews now, it's good to have another usable audio track from the camera. 
STMs aren't uniformly quiet. USMs are also not all the same. I have a 24 f2.8 IS USM that is much quieter than the 35 f2 IS USM or RF 50 1.2.
The Nano USM models are all great, virtually undetectable. I just wish Canon would make fast primes w/ Nano USM. 
Anybody have experience with quiet, fast Sigmas?

For what I have read from many comments all around the forums and video tests is the opposite...
 
I have read many comments all around and you are always commenting about Sony/sennheiser wireless lav  pushing strong all the time for Sony.. it seems that you are ambassador for Sony ;D

On C70 surprisengly tamron 24-70 g2 was more quite then rf 28-70 or adapted ef usm lenses

Gray lipstick on a pig

Autofocus is not necessary for many reasons. It's also necessary for many reasons.

What is it, laziness or incompetence? 
Watch the GU videos of the c70 and Fx6, which he compares with the a7s3. The cineD article can also be googled: "c300 iii dynamic range." Anything beyond that, you'll have to compensate me for my efforts. PM me, I'm affordable
 

Well, you didn't click on the link that I posted, which would take you exactly to the iso tests. So that tells me you're lazy, and I did all that work for nothing. Pay me!

Autofocus is not necessary for many reasons. It's also necessary for many reasons.

God forbid unsubstantiated opinions!
GU, CVP have done some rigorous testing—up to 12800 is clean and usable. Above that, the Fx6 is the way to go with the higher iso kicking in at 12800, with NR controls to avoid the heavy artifacts in the a7s3.
As far as dynamic range, GU, deep in Sony's pocket at this point, nonetheless acknowledges that the c70 has better dynamic range than either a7s or fx6, which is quite remarkable because the c70 has a super35 sensor. CineD also corroborated this w/ the c300iii, using the same sensor and codec as the c70. 
That somewhat makes it even more exciting, because the focal reducer transforms the c70 into another camera really.
 

The a7s3 gets its dynamic range number w/ noise reduction - artificially boosting the S/R of 2, which CineD (and Gerald later adopted). The c70 is 13+ stops at that S/R if I recall correctly, better than the a7s3--or the fx6 (below 13), which makes sense because of the c70's dual gain sensor. Only the Alexa is better.

The Sony fx3 will definitely justify its existence if it offers:
noise reduction control  Pro monitoring tools including false color, which would help avoid needing an external monitor. That would save you the money, preserve the small form factor, and of course, audio on the top handle leaves no room for external monitor. eNDs v. IBIS...I'm guessing IBIS would be more important to counter the jitters on a small body If it has better AF features like touchscreen tracking and an audio input, that would certainly be an advantage over the fx6  
 

Sony's on fire. Love how they're putting random hot trash out on the curb while nobody can get a PS5. 
 

It can't record Raw internally? The 8K is 420, really? 30-min limit? $6500? What a miss. 
I'd rather drop a copper heatsink into a R5 and save $2500. And it would still be a better camera.

As standalone cameras? Sure. As part of a pocket computer, aka smartphones? The market size will approach the human population.  
How many people buy a phone because of how well it makes phone calls? How many buy a phone based on the improving cameras? 4K 10-bit, IBIS, Lidar, Dolby vision. Sadly, some traditional camera companies have been having trouble putting these features in their flagship cameras.
Consumer digital cameras are simply being displaced and integrated into another product, which isn’t unusual, as seen in the case of cassette players, CD players, MP3 players, pagers, cell phones, blackberrys, watches, etc. 
Thus, those graphs are misleading. The market for better digital cameras has never been bigger. The problem, if there is one, is that some old camera companies haven’t been able to justify their existence. 
Never have consumers, hobbyists, and professionals had such access to creative video filmmaking tools as we all do now. Innovation hasn’t slowed, it’s accelerating—over the dead bodies of dinosaurs.  

Well it depends on what you want or your tolerances are. 
If you want max image quality, the r5’s 8k raw is arguably among the best for any camera. 
The dynamic range figures have to be contextualized with NR. If you want great useable dynamic range straight out of the camera, the c70 is great. 
The R5 8k raw requires work in post, but that’s any raw camera. With some NR its DR and high ISO end up being quite competitive or even better than the A7s iii. 
But the 8k raw’s detail and color are superior to anything under $15k. 

This was a good question five years ago.

This was a good question five years ago.

This was a good question five years ago.