Django

Just turn on the subs and switch to your native tongue..
My feeling is its hard to get that excited in 2022 for a MFT camera with DFD AF priced at $2500 (if that rumored price is confirmed). 
The GH2 was popular.. when it retailed at $900.
6K & ProRes are cool but BMPCC 6K Pro has been doing ProRes & BRAW on a S35 sensor with ND's for some time now and at the same rumored price.
If this were priced at $1400 like the current GH5 price it would make a splash but at $2.5K it is DOA imo.

Yeah we’ll like I said you can buy a GH5 new for $1400 and used for as low as $800 so no surprise you got noobs buying them daily and asking those sort of questions. 
But that’s irrelevant to todays market. I just don’t see GH6 making as much noise as it’s predecessors. Not at the rumoured price in the current S35/FF dominated  market..
 
 

@herein2020 I think you're looking at this the wrong way.  Even if right now Canon only has FF RF lenses, I am pretty sure they will soon develop S35 cine glass as they are phasing out EF mount in favor of RF. Besides you already have a growing list of third-party S35 cine lenses in RF mount:
https://filmdaft.com/rf-mount-lenses-cinema-list/
The BIG attraction of the RF mount is also that it opens up all types of lens adaptation choices, not just EF, and with speed boosting it gives you the FF FoV option. It's best of both worlds. Especially if you compare the C70 to its biggest competitor FX6 that can only do FF 4K.
Another big plus of the C70's S35 sensor is it is the DGO sensor from the $11K C300 mk2, whereas the FX6 FF sensor is the same as the $3.5K A7S3. 
A FF "C50" could be in the works but would probably utilize the FF sensor from R5/R6/R3. Of which you'll never get the DR benefits of the DGO sensor. 
And if Canon develop a FF DGO sensor, you can be certain that will be for a flagship C500 mk3, not an entry-level C50.
With Canon RAW coming to the C70 I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to it from C200.
I loved the C200 body & build-quality but the 8-bit compressed mp4 IQ was pretty awful and CRL files not compressed enough. Result was it gathered dust while I always favored FS7, BMD Raw or 10-bit mirrorless bodies.
C70 just seems to me like the perfect compromise with a chunky compact DSLR form-factor but with ND's, I/Os on the body, RF mount with speed booster, CRL LT option, affordable SD media with 10-bit proxies on RAW and the mighty DGO sensor.
The FX6 is also very tempting despite the $6K price tag for alpha line sensor and no 4K S35 mode.

R6 has pretty filmic luma noise compared to other R series. C70 has been proven in underexposed tests to not only have a much lower noise floor (thanks to DGO sensor) but also a more filmic noise with no horizontal patterns and low chroma noise which immediately scream digital. Fuji XT series I also found the noise pleasing.

The tech itself isn't really anything "new". The last VR project my production unit worked on was around 2018 and we used an Insta360Pro which was already 8K/3D capable:

FWIW, we didn't actually use 8K or 3D as the project was very specific and balancing motion-sickness was already an issue as we were shooting 360. So many challenges and so little info at the time for what we were trying to accomplish (black mirrors bandersnatch type interactive survival game).  
Anyways, that was on a 1" sensor with limited manual control. Pretty cool to have this on a FF with log/raw etc. 
I've also read Canon offers a practical looking VR Utility, an essential component for stitching/syncing:
https://en.canon-cna.com/pro/professional-video-solutions/eos-vr-system/vr-utility-adobe-premiere-pro-plugin/
 
 

The upcoming RAW update, the sensor, the touch to track AF update, the codecs, etc. finally sold it for me. I went ahead and ordered it to replace my C200 for long form content.  I will also get to see once and for all how well handheld works with just lens and digital stabilization.

@herein2020 I think you're looking at this the wrong way.  Even if right now Canon only has FF RF lenses, I am pretty sure they will soon develop S35 cine glass as they are phasing out EF mount in favor of RF. Besides you already have a growing list of third-party S35 cine lenses in RF mount:
https://filmdaft.com/rf-mount-lenses-cinema-list/
The BIG attraction of the RF mount is also that it opens up all types of lens adaptation choices, not just EF, and with speed boosting it gives you the FF FoV option. It's best of both worlds. Especially if you compare the C70 to its biggest competitor FX6 that can only do FF 4K.
Another big plus of the C70's S35 sensor is it is the DGO sensor from the $11K C300 mk2, whereas the FX6 FF sensor is the same as the $3.5K A7S3. 
A FF "C50" could be in the works but would probably utilize the FF sensor from R5/R6/R3. Of which you'll never get the DR benefits of the DGO sensor. 
And if Canon develop a FF DGO sensor, you can be certain that will be for a flagship C500 mk3, not an entry-level C50.
With Canon RAW coming to the C70 I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to it from C200.
I loved the C200 body & build-quality but the 8-bit compressed mp4 IQ was pretty awful and CRL files not compressed enough. Result was it gathered dust while I always favored FS7, BMD Raw or 10-bit mirrorless bodies.
C70 just seems to me like the perfect compromise with a chunky compact DSLR form-factor but with ND's, I/Os on the body, RF mount with speed booster, CRL LT option, affordable SD media with 10-bit proxies on RAW and the mighty DGO sensor.
The FX6 is also very tempting despite the $6K price tag for alpha line sensor and no 4K S35 mode.

@herein2020 I think you're looking at this the wrong way.  Even if right now Canon only has FF RF lenses, I am pretty sure they will soon develop S35 cine glass as they are phasing out EF mount in favor of RF. Besides you already have a growing list of third-party S35 cine lenses in RF mount:
https://filmdaft.com/rf-mount-lenses-cinema-list/
The BIG attraction of the RF mount is also that it opens up all types of lens adaptation choices, not just EF, and with speed boosting it gives you the FF FoV option. It's best of both worlds. Especially if you compare the C70 to its biggest competitor FX6 that can only do FF 4K.
Another big plus of the C70's S35 sensor is it is the DGO sensor from the $11K C300 mk2, whereas the FX6 FF sensor is the same as the $3.5K A7S3. 
A FF "C50" could be in the works but would probably utilize the FF sensor from R5/R6/R3. Of which you'll never get the DR benefits of the DGO sensor. 
And if Canon develop a FF DGO sensor, you can be certain that will be for a flagship C500 mk3, not an entry-level C50.
With Canon RAW coming to the C70 I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to it from C200.
I loved the C200 body & build-quality but the 8-bit compressed mp4 IQ was pretty awful and CRL files not compressed enough. Result was it gathered dust while I always favored FS7, BMD Raw or 10-bit mirrorless bodies.
C70 just seems to me like the perfect compromise with a chunky compact DSLR form-factor but with ND's, I/Os on the body, RF mount with speed booster, CRL LT option, affordable SD media with 10-bit proxies on RAW and the mighty DGO sensor.
The FX6 is also very tempting despite the $6K price tag for alpha line sensor and no 4K S35 mode.

By the way that Mandalorian article had other interesting parts pertaining to aesthetics and creation/use of custom film stock LUTs:
“Our desire for cinematic imagery drove every choice,” Idoine adds. And that included the incorporation of a LUT emulating Kodak’s short-lived 500T 5230 color negative, a favorite of Fraser’s. “I used that stock on Killing Them Softly[AC Oct. ’12] and Foxcatcher [AC Dec. ’14], and I just loved its creamy shadows and the slight magenta cast in the highlights,” says Fraser. “For Rogue One, ILM was able to develop a LUT that emulated it, and I’ve been using that LUT ever since.”
“Foxcatcher was the last film I shot on the stock, and then Kodak discontinued it,” continues Fraser. “At the time, we had some stock left over and I asked the production if we could donate it to an Australian film student and they said ‘yes,’ so we sent several boxes to Australia. When I was prepping Rogue One, I decided that was the look I wanted — this 5230 stock — but it was gone. On a long shot, I wrote an email to the film student to see if he had any stock left and, unbelievably, he had 50 feet in the bottom of his fridge. I had him send that directly to ILM and they created a LUT from it that I used on Rogue and now Mandalorian.”
And on a side note while the show is shot on AlexaLF, all the backdrops used in the virtual production were shot on Canon 5DIV & 5DS.
A 5D3 was even used in season one to do old-school first trilogy type stop motion sequences:

 
Who would have thought Canon DSLRs would be so prevalent in such a cutting-edge high budget show?!

In the overexposure test C70 & R5C seem to both clip around +4 stops. Seems like the highlight DR is about the same. It's in the underexposure test that we clearly see the DGO sensor doing its magic: at -4 stops both the R5C/FX3 are unusable with horizontal noise and color shifting whereas the C70 maintains a much more usable IQ with a more filmic noise, much less colorshift and no horizontal patterns that give that nasty digital video look.
Furthermore having now played with R5C (RAW & compressed) & C70 footage, I can only attest the incredible amount of shadow information that you can pull on the C70. On the R5C it gets noisy and ugly really quick.
This really limits the R5C to a crushed black, contrasty look when pushing in post, whereas the C70 has so much more latitude thanks to all that precious clean shadow information.
(by the way on a side-note the R6 stands somewhere in between, with much more pleasant shadow noise than R5/R5C but nowhere as good as C70)
Quite an eye-opener to verify this myself and I can now safely say my A cam choice would clearly lean towards C70.
 

Well yeah like I said ProRes ensures minimum "pro" requirements, that's what makes it a popular pro standard VS h26x which has no rules. Editors/VFX don't like common h26x files because its hard to know/guarantee the encoding/bitrate settings. 
That is why Canon developed XF-AVC format ensuring high bitrate 10-bit 4:2:2 or Sony XAVC-I ensuring Intra 10-bit 4:2:2.
ProRes 444 also goes beyond h26x max settings with 12-bit 4:4:4 making it the highest quality lossy file after RAW/ProRes RAW.

Well yeah like I said ProRes ensures minimum "pro" requirements, that's what makes it a popular pro standard VS h26x which has no rules. Editors/VFX don't like common h26x files because its hard to know/guarantee the encoding/bitrate settings. 
That is why Canon developed XF-AVC format ensuring high bitrate 10-bit 4:2:2 or Sony XAVC-I ensuring Intra 10-bit 4:2:2.
ProRes 444 also goes beyond h26x max settings with 12-bit 4:4:4 making it the highest quality lossy file after RAW/ProRes RAW.

In the overexposure test C70 & R5C seem to both clip around +4 stops. Seems like the highlight DR is about the same. It's in the underexposure test that we clearly see the DGO sensor doing its magic: at -4 stops both the R5C/FX3 are unusable with horizontal noise and color shifting whereas the C70 maintains a much more usable IQ with a more filmic noise, much less colorshift and no horizontal patterns that give that nasty digital video look.
Furthermore having now played with R5C (RAW & compressed) & C70 footage, I can only attest the incredible amount of shadow information that you can pull on the C70. On the R5C it gets noisy and ugly really quick.
This really limits the R5C to a crushed black, contrasty look when pushing in post, whereas the C70 has so much more latitude thanks to all that precious clean shadow information.
(by the way on a side-note the R6 stands somewhere in between, with much more pleasant shadow noise than R5/R5C but nowhere as good as C70)
Quite an eye-opener to verify this myself and I can now safely say my A cam choice would clearly lean towards C70.
 

So I guess every time you go to the cinema or watch a show on Netflix you find the viewing experience "agressive & digital looking"?
I'm saying so cuz you do realise that all your favorite shows/movies on Netflix or on BluRay are all encoded in h264/h265 ?
And that your 2K/4K movie theatre uses DCP projection using JPG2000 compression with a maximum bitrate of 250Mbps regardless of capture resolution.
Truth is: you will never access and view any Hollywood film/show material in ProRes or RAW. 
Those are acquisition formats that capture the most info to transfer to post and for mastering. 
As for still capture/extraction, choosing between RAW & h264/h265 is the same dilemma as choosing between RAW & Jpg.

Plus a much smaller range of native RF Mount lenses vs FE Mount. 
Yes!

That much is obvious considering 4K = 8.8MP and 8K = 33.2MP

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K.
That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it. It's that same effect of going 4K from FHD. It can't be unseen (even though I'm on a 5K monitor) and now regular non-oversampled 4K almost feels too soft. 
The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. 
That just gives you so many options. Slashcam article also reveals 4K60p is no longer line skipping and 4K120p also takes a leap forward in IQ.
I'm really starting to warm up to this camera, I was all set on C70 but I'm sort of GASing harder for R5C now.
Couple grades from that video just for fun.. (model deserved better)
 
 

"camcorder gimmicks" lol... I guess it depends how you shoot. I think exposure/focus tools can be very useful, especially at +4K and for fast turnarounds when you're not shooting raw. I also like to be able to have shutter angle & gain measures. the anamorphic desqueeze can be clutch. the LUT support is probably my favorite cine cam feature. YMMV of course.
Z9's EVF is actually not that high res at 3.69 m-dots (which is kinda mid-range A7IV/R6 level) compared to R3/R5's 5.76 m-dots or A1's whopping 9.44 m-dots. E-shutter only, there are pros/cons to that. N-log's a bit dated (not the best DR, they need Nlog2/Nlog3). But overall though, I agree Z9 on paper has the better specs in most areas. 
Like you were saying earlier, the biggest problem with Z9 will be getting a hold of one.
Canon I just read have managed to get around the chip supply shortage and that may very well turn out to be a great advantage at this time and point.

C70 is making waves and is pretty popular, and with the RAW light update it's only getting better.
I'm split in between getting one and the R5C. 
Also a long-term FS7 user, this camera still does it for me in 2022. Absolute workhorse.
Love the IQ in Cine EI mode.
The shoulder mount ENG config is what sets it apart from the rest of the "budget" cine cams out there.
Would love an FX9 but I can't really justify the $11K price tag upgrade.

Not many people are actually delivering in 8K aside from a handful of YT channels and 1 or 2 TV networks in Japan.
The point of 8K today is really getting great 4K deliveries or extracting stills.
Just like Yellowstone is shooting on an Alexa in 3.2K for 720p/1080i delivery. It's actually oversampled acquisition.
It's not at all about cropping 400% into someones face. Does a medium format portrait photographer on a 100MP Hasselblad publish stills zoomed into the nostril or eyeball of his models? Of course not and the same common sense applies to high res video. 
It's not a bad camera at all, especially if you shoot in RAW. But the h264 4K on it is really soft (whereas the C100 had the best oversampled FHD). C200B kinda sucks too, you'll have to buy the over-priced LCD just to get touch AF, same with top handle and side grip. Then all of a sudden you're in R5C/C70 territory. So yeah I'd wait until it drops some more if you're eyeballing it. EF mount is about to be phased out and all those C cams are dropping in value like crazy.
I don't personally specialise in these type of gigs but what I can tell you is this: the camera itself isn't really where the production costs are: gathering talent, locations, directing, scripting, editing etc however are. shooting with an iPhone can also bring its own share of challenges, the cameras suck at low-light for ex. Which is why sometimes we'll actually use a mirrorless to emulate a smartphone look. Finally the overall budget and profit margins are nowhere near what other big projects may involve, so in short no, not that lucrative. But It's an interesting alley to explore, shooting vertical isn't always as bad as people may think (there are ways to take advantage of it even).

My bad I didn't mean it in such a condescending way, I was still shooting myself on a FHD C100 not that long ago. 
Once I upgraded to a 5K iMac Pro, well that's when I realised that FHD footage wasn't going to cut it for me anymore.
Even C200 4K looked terribly soft, so I got rid of both. (That and because of lack of 10-bit codec). Never looked back.
I just feel sometimes that most people who hate on 6K/8K haven't really properly experienced it and the benefits it can bring. Having actually worked on 8K footage, I feel it can't be unseen. But I'm also on +4K monitors. So I guess I could easily reverse ignorance is bliss to upgrading can raise expectations. 
I'm not some kind of high-res fanatic though. I enjoy lo-fi aesthetics immensely as well.
I just don't get this idea that high-resolution is somehow taking away from other IQ related specs. Pocket 6K & Z9 give you ProRes. 10-bit & 12-bit RAW are now internal. DR keeps getting better. Rolling Shutter keeps going down. Low-light keeps improving etc..
I never advised 8K for social media. An actual iPhone is usually enough to create.. an iPhone look.
Anybody can shoot Portrait mode tho.. the cool kids are all about standing out.. and looking cool. 
Retro/nostalgia is a powerful thing. Gen-Z all about the 90's right now.
Anything from clothing to technology to music, animes etc from that era is what's popping.
For example Contax T3's are listing for $3K, you can thank YT/IG analogue influencers.
oh yeah it's wild, experimental, artistic and funny !.. must see.

But they have been working on giving you both. Nikon just put ProRes in a mirrorless camera. BM has offered it for awhile. C70, A7SIII, BMPCC6K and a few others are clocking in at 13-14 stops of DR. Anything higher is from an extremely expensive ARRI camera. Color depths has been increasing. 8-bit to 10-bit internal...now some are offering 12-bit internal. We also have cameras that shoot from 2K-8K resolutions at a touch of a few buttons or menu items. We have entry level RED cameras at $6K that offer 13 stops, REDCODE RAW and "autofocus" (well better than Panasonic anyway!) in a mirrorless sized box camera with a global shutter! You can throw on your favorite vintage lens, shoot at what ever resolution makes sense for you and get amazing results.
I don't get all the circular complaining.

@kye not only do I get what you're saying, I've rebutted every single "complaint" you've brought up about +4K resolution. ($1M budget VFX, battery life, color science, processing power, SD cards).
like it or not, tech is moving forward. especially in mirrorless. 
BMPCC 6K Pro, R3/R5/R5C, Z9, S1H are paving the way with compressed RAW, 10-bit & 6K/8K.
All specs you find in much more expensive cine cams. I call this progress.
Of course that won't replace lenses, lighting, grading & skills. But the bottleneck isn't the camera anymore.
In the end you're entitled your opinion (things were better a decade ago - i.e. pre-4K) but in that case, simply don't upgrade. problem fixed.
Just saying.

Actually living right here in Paris, France.. this does speak to me lol. FWIW Godard's last projects were actually done with rather low-budget digital camcorders, DSLRs etc.. but experimenting with 3D and heavily treated in post..
 

I think its the principle that it is easier to dirty something clean, then "enhance" something dirty/low-res.
That said, nobody claimed +4K was necessary. On the contrary, shoot in 720p/1080p if that floats your boat. Never upgrade. Ignorance is bliss as they say! Just please don't complain about the tech moving forward..
Film photography is having a resurgence with Gen Z because its A) Retro so cool B) Analog vs Digital (which perpetuates this idea of Real vs Fake)  C) Physical medium that they can touch. It's a bit like vinyl records making a come back for similar reasons. 
On the one hand yes, but it really isn't that simple when you actually think that 35mm film is approx equivalent to 20MP. Medium format can theoretically resolve from 80MP to 125MP. And Large format 300MP to 1,200MP. Of course this is greatly limited by optical lens resolving power and film adds all kinds of artefacts like grain/noise and has reduced DR etc. That immediately gives it an "old" feel. But one shouldn't mistake film = low res. 
What I'm trying to say is forget about resolution wars. The shift goes way beyond all these technical attributes, the fashion brands I'm talking about went from using A-list models, posing towards the camera in a studio background shot on Phase One in B&W... to faux-iPhone snapshots of popular Gen Z TikTokers in situ..