webrunner5

You could get TWO of *both* and still probably manage to squeak in under budget!

Exactly. Its truly an amazing camera when used primarily for stills, offering decent video as well.
But just for video? not a great value.  Maybe when a  proper log arrives with a firmware update will make it easier to swallow that price tag. 

the old way was to put your grain on a video layer above the clip and set its blend or composite mode to "overlay" and then to use a contrast filter on the grain layer to dial in the intensity. 

The only true conclusion I've been able to make so far from this discussion is that the pocket camera really is a phenomenal piece of kit for the price. I'm searching in a market for systems five or six times the price of the pocket, yet have failed to find anything that is a substantial improvement upon it, with regards to either specs or usability. Essentially, all I want is a system with the pocket's specs, 4K, a more softer digital looking image (one could argue this can be achieved through choice of glass), and something that isn't ridiculous huge. Yet for an extra few thousands of pounds, this can't be found .. Extremely disappointing, as it is frustrating .. Do appreciate all the comments so far though - great that so many of you guys are contributing, despite the lack of progress in terms of a conclusion .. We'll get there! 
Regarding the 1DC - I love the image as much as I do the C100ii, but spending thousands of pounds for an image that falls apart under any substantial grading is a deal-breaker .. It hurts me to say that, since I do love the depth/colour to Canon's image, but I can't suger-coat 8-bit when there's thousands of pounds at stake .. I agree though, I have to make a compromise somewhere - I'd just father it be a spec less influential than colour bit .. 
What I do have on my side is time .. I'm in no rush to make a purchase, and who knows, come March/April when I do make the decision, there could be a system that ticks all my boxes, or a price-drop for a system that currently does. If the GH5 has impressive low-light, I'll probably just settle with that, and invest everything else in some beautiful glass .. What's the verdict on Panasonic's colour science? 

You should reconsider the ursa mini you can get a second hand one for cheaper , get faster glass or some extra light with the money saved.

A red mx won t be better in low light, and other than a F55/F65, sony colors....sucks period , panasonic is barely better outside of the varicam range.

Personally I  find external recorders to be a pain to use . More battery to carry , more potential issues , ect....

A ursa mini will be all in one .

Price dropped to 599 GBP! Seriously Mate, bargain.
 
Also, reposting the music video I shot recently:
 

It depends on how much weight you are putting on to it and how you are using it.  Depending on the circumstance (like in my case) having the column decreases the strength of the setup so it is more prone to tilting and flexing.  Obviously for static shots  / photography they are convenient (but still give less rigidity).  Once you start moving things or put weight off center, the strength goes down.
 
I also find I rarely use my center columns, yet 7 of my 8 tripods have them because I thought they would come in useful (and also they are photo tripods, and basically all of them have a center column)

I don't like hearing "the many words in gray" thingy! 6k thing not surprising.

Cheap sliders slide on tubes, better ones use a belt of some kind. And the even better ones have a heavy flywheel. But it depends on the weight of the camera you are using. You don't need a heavy duty one for a Go Pro. And you can't use a cheap one with a heavy camera. Pure Physics.

These are for C500 and Red and FS7. I do not thing that you need anything like this, and they cost multiple times the smaller ones. Check the S2 kit (the whole thing can be very cheap), and the S4 is just right for smaller rigs. I have S6 and it is a bit overkill, but maybe the right price/size/features if you want to buy something bigger in the near future (C100markII and LS300 are perfectly fits).
If you can afford it, and you want something medium, buy the Sachtler, better than any Manfrotto combo for the price (only the lack of lighting at the leveling bubble is just stupid!).

Great and promising info, thanks Luke! (E :-)

That is just wonderful. Well done. Just shows what a hacked, cheaper camera can do with some really good skill. Made my day.

Hey,
I visited Japan for a week, and tested out the 5D III and to see what it can do with Magic Lantern. 
 

I think it's as simple as those two examples representing the two opposite extremes, and people here want something more in the middle- a detailed image without artificial sharpening making it look gross.
6D footage has issues outside of resolution and sharpening- mainly awful moire and aliasing- and you can't really fix them.

Haha I really don't sleep much. And thank you! yeah we definitely wanted to keep it taking left turns

You must not get very much sleep at night LoL. I like it, did not really know where it was going, which is a good thing.

JVC LS300 is 8bit output also.  Wouldn't a used Sony FS5 with the latest firmware tick all the boxes also?  You can strip it down and use it on a Gimbal, use it shoulder mounted, a lot more versatility. And with FilmConvert you can make it look like any camera you want.
Also the Red MX or Sony F3. Red is far from a run and gun camera for sure. Not that the F3 is a lot better. It is just the Sony F3 is so damn cheap for what you get. Unless you buy a Whole Red MX kit form someone I think I would pass. Bits and pieces for them are crazy expensive to add on.
But the 4k on the Red is sort of future proofing itself more so than the F3. If had 6k I guess I would have to go with the Red MX or Sony FS5.
I am not too big fan of the Sony FS700,  Now if you need Slo Mo it IS the camera to buy. But it does tick all the boxes you want. Probably the best one trick pony available for the price. Not much it can't shoot. I have seen the 4k model for 4k lately. That is a bargain for what they can do.
And to add a Canon EOS C500 4K Cinema Camera. They pop up at 5k once in awhile. B&H has them for 7k new. Older science but wow what a great look.
http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-red-epic-vs-canon-c500/
Wow no easy choices.

I would imagine it is a lot harder these days with everyone with something, even a Smartphone that can record Video. When I was younger it was rare for anyone to have anything even close to professional equipment. But I got into it when Pro Digital cameras were coming out. Ikegami was about the first, then Sony, then Thompson was hot rodding Sony cameras also. Panasonic, JVC was doing the lower end stuff like VHS, SVHS, later on. Prosumer things. I never could afford a integrated ENG rig for years. Had separate recorder setups. Old wooden tripods with fluid heads that would have supported a 70mm Mitchell Studio film camera that weighed 50 pounds LoL . Oh it was fun! Lots of people had a cheap 8mm film camera. Other than some Bolex movie stuff, wind up at that, which few could afford, they pretty much sucked. So getting jobs were easier but man the money it cost to move up. 16mm you could not afford the film let alone process it. Anything used was beaten to hell and back, till the end of it's life back then.
So you had to work in the business, or know someone that did, or be rich as heck, and not many people were rich then. Plus camera setups on Digital cameras were a voodoo science back in the days. It was a turd to do well. So if you were skilled wow you were in in a heartbeat. Didn't make much money but was fun just the same. Now editing you Had to work or be in the business, stuff was scary expensive. Later some of the smaller TV stations would let you rent out usage of the machines at the studio for a somewhat reasonable price to help offset their investments which were pretty unbelievably high.
One good thing back then the technology did not change very rapidly so you could somewhat learn it before it was outdated like now! But most people seemed nicer back then. The whole world was nicer, politer back then.
But now you can't wait to get out of bed to see what new technology has bought today. Exciting times to be able to shoot stuff nearlly as good a NBC, CBS, ESPN in the palm of your hand. So don't be too grumpy about your craft, we are a lucky few even now. It is just the beginning for you younger people.

Super Jan!! Gratulation! Very Nice.. Gr Franz

Yes the 18-55 lens has to be updated, I also run into this problem when I bought the X-T2 kit, It is not something you expect when buying a brand new camera. But after updating the lens, ois is very close to the ibis of my GX85. I absolutely recommand buying the kit, this lens is definitely worth the 300 Euro/Dollar when you buy it in the kit.
For a flat setting you can probably best use negative standard with al the other settings dialled down to the lowest value.

In the Q menu you can save up to seven different camera profiles.

I picked up a X-T2 kit just for our holiday to Kos (Greece) and started shooting there figuring out the settings on the way.
After some days I choose Astia low which worked best for me under these high contrast circumstances.
 
I put together some footage I shot on Kos, nothing spectacular all handhold, mainly shot with the kit lens and the 50-230 f4.5-6.7, which I bought for 180 Euro.
Greets Jan
 

Digital Bolex D16

I have to agree. Unless you are shooting 4k nearly any camera made in the last 4 to 5 years can make a great movie if you are skilled I don't care what the price. And if you want 4k cheap buy a Panasonic G7. Its what's between your ears, not in front of them, that make good film making.

There is a guy over on dvxuser selling a Sony FS100 for 700 bucks OBO. Now that is a buy for a camera that you can make a good movie with!
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?351098-Sony-FS100-with-Canon-EF-FE-Adapter-700-OBO

Yeah the G7 is not a DR king for sure. And low light is pretty poor also. You are not getting an Arri for 400 bucks LoL. But for the average audience they probably will never notice the difference truth be known.
Porn films come to mind now on Digital or 60 years ago on 8mm. Nobody was looking at the films from an artistic viewpoint, they were looking at the content LoL! Good material wins over great film making any day. Now if you have both that is called a smash hit Oscar winning movie. Hard to do that.

Sometimes, when you shoot wide and you want to nail exposure on your subject, you decide to let the sky, or something else, run a little hot.