webrunner5

180 minute final program length, 12TB storage and two GX85s using a 100 megabit/sec codec implies an approximate 60:1 shooting ratio, which is typical for a documentary, or even a bit low by today's standards. Your hardware shows it is possible to do quality professional work on a "shoestring" budget and with fairly low cost equipment.
However I think most people who previously did large documentary projects on DV and H264 1080 (which did not require transcoding for performance on FCPX or Premiere) have been or will be shocked at the huge IT and workflow burden imposed by large-scale H264 4k. This has three components (1) Camera native material can no longer be smoothly edited but requires time-consuming transcoding, and (2) Camera file sizes are much larger (3) Even at 1/4 size, proxy files themselves take considerable size.
I edited a documentary in 2010 shot on DV by multiple DVX100 cameras. The whole thing was about 500 gigabytes, about 40 hr of material. Initial post processing was trivial -- just capture the tapes, import and edit directly in CS4.
By contrast I'm now working on an all-4k documentary which will ultimately be about 20 terabytes. Just to transcode the material of each shooting location to proxy takes days. It cannot be handed off to downstream editors on a portable hard drive -- we must use a complex FCPX proxy-only workflow, all the while testing and verifying the final relink will work. Right now I have 96 terabytes of Thunderbolt 2 RAID arrays connected to my iMac, and another 200 TB of off-line storage (part for other concurrent projects). I tested a 12-core Mac Pro last week and it was no faster for the time-consuming transcode phase.
In the old days -- esp. after Premiere's Mercury Playback Engine -- things were very simple. We'd just import and edit. Part of this was the ability to edit camera native, and part was the lower volume of material. We didn't even need an assistant editor. Today (whether on Premiere or FCPX) H264 4k requires time-consuming transcoding to proxy, and the higher shooting ratios require even more time-consuming organizational steps to tag and log. It takes two assistant editors continuously busy handling this, and our storage capacity rivals some datacenters from the 1990s.
If we shot the same footage in all 1080p H264, it would still require major logging and tagging but the IT issues in transcoding, proxy management, storage management and media distribution for collaborative work would be vastly easier. Thus the thread title is very valid -- is 4k really necessary? As an editor I like 4k. As an assistant editor, DIT and Data Wrangler I hate 4k. Good quality 1080 is so good I don't think most people on most viewing devices will spontaneously notice a difference. But 4k is the mandated future and content producers must eventually figure out how to handle that. As of today virtually no computers or editing software are fast enough to smoothly edit H264 4k without transcoding. That is a big adjustment for people coming from 1080.

Yep, I figured that (this forum being mostly mirrorless and DSLR users). 
I've not completely conceded that the FS5 is on it's way out. It's something that I'd take very seriously and patiently. 
I'm editing an FS5 / A6500 music video right now - the A6500 image stands proud with the high bitrate 4k FS5 footage - however the 4k 100fps from the Inferno is indeed excellent and unique at the moment. 
Trouble is...I'm not enjoying my shooting with the FS5, but I do smile when I use the A6500. 
I've got a friend with a GH5 and we're going to do a camera swap for a couple of shoots. 
See what tickles. 
p.s I do agree that the EVA1 sounds much better, but then we're due an FS5 II soon.... (it goes on and on and on and on).... 
 

I think the reason this is a popular thread on EOShd is simply because this is a nerd site for cheap cameras. 
We know, or want to know, the intricacies of techniques and  equipment.  
What we do with these bits of info, if anything, is another matter altogether. 
I will say that, personally, the people I know and admire creatively aren't  obsessively concerned with the nerdy tech stuff.  
They know enough to work and the rest ain't a big deal ---or trust others to carry that water. 
That's my world though. Yours might be different. 

Three years ago, Uwe Steinmueller... 
Had no idea, this time, the young Eskild Fors, some weeks ago.
Distinct stories of life, but both wrote their pages in our lives as two talented digital contributors, unfortunately lost nowadays. My modest homage.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Uwe+Steinmueller
https://www.google.com/search?q=Eskild+Fors

Maybe they wanted to stay nimble in case Vlad rode in on a bear?

Imo it was about the DR before 4K. And before HD. And before SD. And before Beta Max. And before colored film.
Its always been the biggest focus on DR, still is and still will be tomorrow.
DR has been the buzz word for as long as I can remember.
4K resolution is just like a slider, a flash, an EVF, 120fps, its just another feature. Until it becomes a standard.
720p took 10 years to become a standard, not in the world, but in a big enough part of the world.
Now we are waiting on 1080p HD to become the next thing. After that maybe 4K will catch on so much that its a "need" instead of a "nice".

But if it doesn't have the DR its not gonna stick. 50% of the Oscar nominees are still shot on film. And it isn't because of resolution.
 

I'm a total amateur when it comes to video, at least comparatively speaking.  That said... learning my way around the craft while shooting with A7Rii/A7Sii over the past two years has been fun but also often super annoying for all the reasons known to you guys (battery, ergonomics, controls, codec, etc.).  Any combination of those issues were adding up to frustrations that were taking a toll on the creative process.  I figured I'd try a more video oriented body so I rented FS5.  After messing around for a week with it I bought one.  Recent price drop to $4,750 helped.
The only thing I miss from the A7xx bodies is... IBIS.  That's it.  Everything else is on another level and it's just so much more fun to shoot with.  Everything just fits and works nicely together, I can just forget about fiddling with the camera and focus on the subject I'm shooting.  And it's small... sure not as small as A7xx, but unless you build it up (just like you can frankenstine any A7xx) it's a very compact package.  So, while I appreciate the A7Sii for its see-in-pitch-black capabilities and will continue to use it at night, I've retired A7Rii to it's stills-only duty and FS5 as the primary shooter.  To each their own

One day Canon's rep can explain to me why there is 300MBit 4:2:2 on the £1400 XC10 but just 100Mbit 4:2:0 on the £7500 C200

Never a smart idea to buy a camera on the promise of what is to come in the future. 

Plus by the time it comes out, there will be even more other alternative options.

You guys made me laugh hard. 
You are the same people who said years ago that FHD was completely enough and that 4K was useless, when we were telling you it is not about the people having 4K TV to watch your 4K movie, but about the cropping, stabilisation, noise, resampling, and so on that allows you also to have a lot nicer FHD image. Soon the same will be true for 8K to the 4K content we will deliver. 

You are the same people that said the 12mpx of the D700 were absolutely plenty enough for photography, that more was absolutely useless unless you print on a wall, where I am using 24-42mpx sensors all the time and benefit all day from their cropping capabilities, better noise, better details even seen on my 15" laptop. 

Anyway, just like 90% of the people on earth, you are reluctant to change and with people like you we would still be using nokia keyboard phones. 

Thanks god the 10% do exist. 
Can't wait for 8K 1000FPS 14 bit 400mbps x.268 to arrive in my hands! Stay with your 480p cameras! 
No insult in my message, take it with humor 

5DMK3 Raw 3k upscaled to 4k.  The first shots are filmed in a mirror's reflection so they are not as sharp.  I really hope the C200's raw is similar to this.

LOL that is funny because it is soooo true.
I am sitting in a mall to post this as I have run out of credit with my (prepaid) internet and using free Wifi, wearing a shirt and jumper I purchased from a charity shop (they were absolute bargains and it is the same place I got a couple of pretty good tripods for $5 Australian each).      And am (in part) looking for lenses on Ebay while here!
 

Can you still buy short ends? That used to be a great way to save on film costs, of course you were limited to what stock they had available at the time. 

I like the look of vintage documentaries and for me (having shot on a gh2 and gh4 for all of my personal and client work) I have found lenses to be the most significant decider in the "look" of any of my films. All of the "look" in this clip is because of the lens, I used an Angenieux 12-120 from the late 60s:
Grading is necessary and especially with these old lenses if you want to bring back some contrast. I have been using film convert (fcpx plugin) lately and really liking the grain in that emulator, and also the relative speed I can get a decent look going. This short with the rally cars was graded with a LUT and some individual tweaks (it was before I purchased film convert) but I find film converts grain to really add a nice layer in that "film" look. I would say though the lens is where you start, and going back a couple decades gets you a look thats not so common anymore.

You've done it now mentioning the B word haven't you?
I've only just finished reading that C200 thread

I am not impressed at all from such videos.
Most of us we would be able to do something similar if we had the time and money to be in the right spots in Patagonia for a couple of weeks.
The epic music, without anything happen at all is lame too.
Planet Earth I in blue ray is a great achievement in my opinion with the story being King (as it should) and sight and sound follow (as it must) - Planet Earth number II, not so great, even better technically, newer cameras and the such, not that great story wise.

Last I checked, the website still has the details of that codec listed as TBA, so hopefully Canon will get feedback requesting that it be 10bit and they will fold. Probably not though. I can't afford to buy the camera, but I am very interested in renting one next summer for a short film. I would shoot it entirely in Raw so that mid grade codec really means nothing to me. But for others, I hope it's available!!!

C200 can't do XAVCS, as it is a Canon camera!

C200 is a very weird beast at the moment, that can do raw *or* a very low end codec. With absolutely no middle ground in between!

But your average set day costs in excess of six figures. That's nice when someone else is paying for it (in that case, bring the Alexa). When you don't have those luxuries, it's better to work around them than to buy them out of pocket. I wouldn't have that much fun or feel that much freedom if I knew my shoot were costing me a year's pay. And without those luxuries (which are far more expensive to hire than the cost difference between an Alexa and a t2i), a smaller camera ends up delivering a better result 9/10 times.
But you're right, there are incredible advantages to being a pro DP and it's a great job and something to be very proud to be. I was kidding about the "being a pro sucks" rant. Of course it's great! It's just that it has its trade offs, and for us amateurs, we'd do better using amateur gear. 1) because it's cheaper to buy 2) because it's much cheaper to use. And the image quality is, as you say, only about 10% better. Most pro DPs aren't lugging an Alexa around to shoot pick ups, either. Most aspiring pros would do better to follow their example. 
I say this as someone who's tried running around with an Alexa a few times before lol. It's no fun!

On the other hand, films like Kendy's get made and have the style they do and the energy they do in part because of the flexibility a small camera/minimal crew.
IQ isn't a big deal to most lay viewers.  As long as the sound is decent, the image doesn't have to be pristine.
Anyway, it's all just tools. Pick the ones that gets you where you want to go.
Some people WANT to move to "Video Village" and build a career there, others would rather run free with a GH1 and a single prime lens. 
There's no right or wrong answer. 

Spot on..... I've filmed entire paid music videos on a GoPro because that was the vibe, attaching a small camera to everything POV style. 
In a studio, I've used the FS7 only because it was a tripod and I need chromakey slow motion at an affordable rate. 
I filmed my biggest ever project... on an A7S II. There was no chance to do lighting, we had to run around all sorts of locations and grab shots on the spot. 
I used the old C300, even though I had three other Sony cameras. The interviewer was adamant about "natural, organic, really good looking skin" in the interview. 
The video above, I used the A6500 with one lens to stay very discreet on the streets and still get a high IQ with a minimum fuss. 
Yesterday I used the FS5 and Inferno in ProRes as we set up 4 scenes in a very controlled space and needed very high resolution, high bit rate compositions as the colour management was very difficult with all the multi-colour neon signs knocking around. 
That said, the EOSHD vibe is certainly favoured to small mirrorless, and most of the work we show here is very "street", minimal kit and run n gun. I find it a much more enjoyable experience shooting like this, because it's very liberating. 
Creativity is the quality of the idea. Choose the best way to get the best out of the idea. In Hollywood, it's a huge crew behind 3 Arri Alexas. For a lot of us, it's a GH5 with a Zhiyun Crane and a GoPro with no permits. Whatever works best given the material. 

How do you define creativity though?
Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.
If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5
If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro
If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo
If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii
and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

Nice vids from the archive!
I'm the same, I don't like rigging up my cameras. I want them as bare bones a possible. Some of the FS5/7Q rigs I've seen are like houses, not my kettle of fish. 
Yes, I have an Inferno but I can't find an ergonomic way of mounting it on the camera. So I just run it off the SDI and let the other guy hold it for monitoring. 
Recently, I shot a music video on the A6500 with this criteria, to see what would happen:
Completely handheld.  Only A6500, 18-105mm gear used. No lights, No grip. Nothing.  Autofocus only.  Mostly 4k, and some 100fps.  At the time, I had an FS5 in the bag too with a bunch of Sigma lenses. Didn't use them. 
A6500's dim screen and rolling shutter was annoying, but I got round it. 
 
 

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.