SRV1981

So for low noise and high ISO shooting what’s the science in that?  Many are pushing the a7iv over a7siii/fx3 but the latter has dual iso at 12,800 vs 3200 - which seems more useful. Just slap on an ND and you’ll have more flexibility in lower lit situations without lighting on the a7siii over a7iv. 

2 hours ago, kye said:

Another thing that's fascinating, and completely invisible, is that the way that cameras are used between YT and professional sets is fundamentally and completely different.  

Ironically, the professional process where a camera is properly exposed and white-balanced makes everything really simple and straight-forward in post, not only being super easy to grade an enormous amount of content to look consistent and also amazing.  This is compared to the haphazard way that YT and other solo film-makers operate with WB and exposure all over the place, meaning so much extra work is required in post.

The first time I heard a professional colourist take me through their process was a revelation because it made the whole thing radically simple, and with a properly shot feature a colourist can set everything up properly and have everything just fall into place with only minor tweaks required.  One senior colourist mentioned that they like to have a viewing with the Director a few days after they have received the footage - this is when colour grading a feature with literally thousands of individual shots.  You simply cannot do that if things aren't done in a standardised and repeatable way.  Of course, that standard way also makes sure that each image is captured at the absolute sweet-spot of the camera/codec so not only are the results consistent but they're of the highest quality.

For each hour you spend watching YT videos on film-making, you're going to need to spend another two hours later on un-learning the complete crap that they've been feeding you.  

Yea that makes a ton of sense what you said earlier in.  However, if you’re going to be filming footage that isn’t properly lit and only using available light - then it would stand to reason that finding people who have tutorials on resolve that shoot similarly would be your best bet. A professional colourist may not be the best help for someone making videos with ambient light and grading on a MacBook with an a7s iii lol. 

1 hour ago, kye said:

YT isn't one thing.

It goes all the way from zero planning or budget to individual episodes that take literally months or years to make.

YT is exactly the same as Netflix or Prime or any other VOD website, it just has a different revenue model (advertising not exclusively membership).  The biggest YT channels have a higher budget than almost all larger budget TV shows.

The same people that watch Netflix and Prime watch YT - why would their preferences change?  They don't take their eyeballs out when they change browser tabs.

I'm talking about image quality.

I put a fast prime on my GH5 and go shoot at night and get perfectly usable shots when an iPhone can't even acquire focus - this is an actual example.  

People who love FF talk about it having a more graceful transition to the out-of-focus areas.  The out-of-focus areas on a smartphone look like they've been drawn onto the video with the blur tool by a toddler.  There is literally no comparison.  I own a camera because of its image quality, not because it can check the stock market prices.

I am skeptical about that claim but open. Do you have a reference? I’d did a quick check:

#1 MrBeast - 1DX mk2

#2 Jake Paul - a7s ii

#3 Markiplier - a7 iii

#4 Rhett and Link - maybe a6500 couldn’t find definitive 

#5 Unspeakable - newer Sony lines 

Other popular ones I could find are canon 70D, GoPro Hero 5 etc. 

Jenelle Elliana has over 2 million subscribers and uses her iPhone to film. 

I think that’s the point - people are making content watched by millions and making millions using low budget setups  

3 hours ago, kye said:

You're trying to simplify an equation well beyond the point that it creases to be useful.

Imagine we were talking about a Toyota Corolla.  If I said "will we get to a point that DRIVING with a 4WD like an SUV are not worth the cost of size and ease of a COROLLA when you're DRIVING" then it would be a stupid statement because driving isn't one thing.  Neither is "outputting to YouTube and sharing on social media".

Remember what I said in the other thread about cameras being a combination of dozens of different factors?  One you actually start making your own work you will begin to see what things matter / which things matter less / and which things don't matter at all to you.  Then you will realise that what matters to you is different than what matters to other people.  and I mean, IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT.  It's the source of most arguments online about gear actually - people not understanding that other people are not similar to them.

I suggest making more work and trying to talk about equipment less.

Smartphone cameras are still in the honeymoon phase.

People are concentrating on what they can do vs what they can't do.  The difference is still so woeful that proper comparisons aren't even being made yet.

I’m really saying that each tool has its place.  Cell phones have limitations and won’t be an A cam on a budgeted set but for YT? Why not? Most consumers/viewers probably wouldn’t notice or care if their YT channel shot with an iPhone 13 Pro or an Alexa MINI. That’s just my understanding when talking to friends who aren’t into videography or photography. 

3 hours ago, kye said:

The other major factor for amateurs is the hidden factor of editing.

When you're watching a video on YT, especially about a camera (rather than what the camera is pointed at), you're probably looking at cherry-picked shots.  Regardless of if a video is shot outside in available light, is indoor but naturally lit, or completely staged including lighting, the finished video you're watching probably only contains the best shots that the person captured.

If you don't know this, then you're going to pick up a camera, point it at things, and then expect to be able to make every shot you take as good as the best-of-the-best shots that have been posted online.  It would be a dirty big secret only it's not a secret at all, it's just that amateurs don't know about it.

Are you familiar with shooting ratios?

Yes - makes sense. We never see the images that looked like shit. Thus further selling the myth of buying equipment for a specific image.  A little disappointing but it’s true. 

25 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

I got a S1, but want the swivel screen from the S5 but not its micro Hdmi. The swivel screen on my Gx85 feels totally fine to me. On the S1 the Evf is often in the way when filming low angles and it feels "grumpy":) and scratchy to move. So I can relate to @SRV1981 's ongoing search. All I want is a S5 with full hdmi. I just dont enjoy it so much to use my S1 as my take everywhere camera unfortunately.

Does the fx3 have full hdmi? Maybe worth a look as I think the image is equal if not better in shadows

9 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Or have larger pixels for light gathering such as the Sony A7s series.

This was my thought - if you’re 70/30 in favor of video - the benefits of a7s low light and dual iso options can be great if you only need photos for personal travel etc and not corporate work. I think it makes Ana regiment for a7s > a7 for hybrid considering most are non professional and don’t need much cropping. 

Good to hear!!! Would MP make a difference in high shutter speed sports photography if not cropping in? 

8 hours ago, kye said:

You will get all sorts of answers to this question, but fundamentally, the physics of the way that cameras work means that larger sensor cameras will always be better.

Smartphone cameras can (and do) look great in the right circumstances, matching larger cameras.  But when you start trying to use these tiny cameras in anything other than the ideal circumstances then they either can't do something (eg, optically shallow DoF, lens choice) or they do it very poorly (eg, low light video).

That's very well said and true.  I guess another consideration is the purpose and intent of filming - if it's production level/paid then sure raw codecs from a camera probably aren't the way to go.  But for the enthusiast/prosumer folks or even for pros on vacation etc., will we get to a point that traveling with a hybrid like an XT4/X100V etc. are not worth the cost of size and ease of a cellphone when you're outputting to YouTube and sharing on social media?  

I came across this video and felt that for an average consumer, not cropping or printing small photos, this could be a feasible option for photography.  Any thoughts on this?

 and this: 

On 6/4/2022 at 1:42 AM, kye said:

@SRV1981 

Just catching up on this thread and after I had 4 of your posts quoted, I figured I'd just tag you instead.

Lots to talk about here, but I think you're just thinking about things wrong.  Here's how I suggest you proceed.

Cameras do matter.
The problem is that most discussions are very polarised either saying they don't matter at all, or they are the only thing that matters.  Neither of these perspectives is true, and more importantly, neither is useful.
When people talk about WHY cameras matter, they normally discuss the image, but that's actually not the best way of thinking about them either.  

The best way to think about cameras is that each camera is a combination of dozens of individual features and functions and attributes.  Does it have IBIS? How long does the battery last? How good are the internal preamps for audio?  Does it have a punch-in feature to focus and is that feature available while recording? How big is it and how much does it weigh?  What is the lens mount?  How much DR does it have?  What codecs does it offer?  etc etc.

Buying a camera is about getting the best compromise across all the features that matter to you.  You might have a camera that recorded a spectacular image, was small and portable, had all the features of a cinema camera, but if the battery life was 15 minutes then it's completely out of the running based on its one fatal flaw.
We should be evaluating cameras based on their biggest weakness for how we shoot, not based on their best feature.

Skills matter more.
The cameras you're talking about are capable of world-class images, including your Canon that you already own.  Please don't take this the wrong way, but the problem you're experiencing is that you aren't capable of world-class images and so that's what's letting you down.  I'm also not capable of world-class images, far from it in fact, but I'm perhaps down that path a little further than you are.  

Video is hard and the path to getting great results is difficult.

You're not lighting your videos, and you're not designing the sets and locations either.  This makes is harder for you than for people who make sets, light them, and then point the camera at them.  I also shoot in completely uncontrolled conditions without permission to be where I am (stealth mode as you call it) so size and appearance also matter to me.  Unfortunately, not lighting and designing sets makes it harder still to get the kind of images you want to make.

Stop spending money on equipment and start spending time to learn.
I mean this literally - don't spend another dollar on equipment.  Not one.  Your current equipment, your Canon and whatever lenses you have (even if it's just the kit lens) is good enough.  By far the biggest limitation in what you're doing currently is your lack of skill.  So stop spending money and start spending time.

This is actually great news for you.  IIRC you said that you're a teacher, and I'm assuming you're not getting paid a large hourly rate, so you probably have far more time than you have money to invest.  

Here's what I suggest - try and replicate other peoples work.

Find a video shot on the same camera as you have, find the nicest shot in it, then try to replicate that shot.  Alternatively, you could start with a shot from that video that's the most accessible (eg, a shot of someone standing outside during the day) and replicate that.  Do it again with another shot.  Do it again and again.

You're likely to encounter shots where you're not sure how to replicate it and your attempts to do so fail.  In these situations you need to experiment.  Just think of every step of the process and think "what if I did this differently".  Like, when shooting, what if I expose a little darker or lighter, what if I use a larger aperture or smaller one, what if I use one camera profile or another.  What if in Resolve I use this control instead of that control.  What if I use this LUT instead of that LUT.  What if I use a Colour Space Transform instead of a LUT.  What if I do it manually using this control instead of that control.

Being able to get a good shot is luck.  Being able to get good shots reliably requires skill.  That skill requires knowing what to do in each situation and why you would do it.  This requires you to essentially explore everything it's possible to do and learn what each option does and which ones work in which situations.  Unfortunately this isn't something that can be bought, and it can't even really be taught, it just comes with experience.

This sounds daunting, but think about it like this.  If you'd have started this 6 years ago, you'd have 6 years of experience, when currently, it sounds like you don't really have much at all (apart from looking at videos and buying cameras).

It is CERTAINLY daunting, that said - I agree with you and the general advice given.  I downloaded Resolve 18 and look forward to watching tutorials and giving it a go.  I'll look to start off with basic LUT/light grading and may or may not ever make it to adding nodes for masking etc.  For me and my hobby/enthusiasm - less is more.  Can't argue with skill - it's important in all areas of work, well said.

On 6/4/2022 at 6:06 AM, IronFilm said:

That's exactly my point I made earlier, a person could buy what (they think) is "the best" mirrorless such as the a7Smk3/FX3, but within a couple of years the X-T5 / S1Hmk2 / Z90 / etc get release and you're feeling you're "missing out" (you're not!), sucking you into a never ending cycle of "upgrades. 

This is beyond true for myself and others just reading forums and watching videos!  This is more true for amateurs who buy equipment thinking they'll be able to replicate an image without knowing how that image was created and realizing that both they need more technical skill AND may need a different camera system to get a good enough image with minimal work.

On 6/4/2022 at 6:21 AM, ade towell said:

Yes to the OP this is a proper case of chasing your tail - the R6 you already have is capable of creating similar to the examples you have shown - with all respect you just need to learn how to use it properly (I include myself in this). Together with lens choice and grading, use of light and framing are 2 major factors in creating beautiful images  - these skills can be learnt but a new camera won't help

well said!

On 6/4/2022 at 6:22 AM, IronFilm said:

Yeah it is not such a crazy idea to get a secondhand Nikon D500 for photography and a Blackmagic Pocket for filming with. 

The total cost would still be less than many of the "top" hybrid mirrorless! 

That is what I am thinking.  Either keep the R6 or if I do choose to move to an FX3/AS7III I can pair it with a cheap used Nikon for sports photography.  This is where I'm leaning.  I do, however, like the Fuji x100v though it wouldn't help for sports but it's okay because I'm not doing it for paid work - more home/personal stuff.

On 6/4/2022 at 6:35 AM, IronFilm said:

aww thanks, was a very early film! I guess it's too easy for me to just see the flaws in it. Was shot under difficult conditions, I shudder for instance now to think about how I did the sound! haha

Had my girlfriend (even less experience than I!) holding the boom pole, while the audio got recorded directly into the FS700 😕

Maybe I need to go even further back... to find something properly horrible, here is my first ever short film I shot! (with a whopping 22 views so far! hahaha)

 

But for this, I didn't have any fancy equipment like the latest Sony cine camera and a full set of Zeiss lenses. (which the other film I shared just before was shot with)

Nope, was shot with a Panasonic GH1! And a monopod and sh*tty photography tripod. (no proper videography tripod back then for me) Can't quite remember what lenses I shot it on, but am pretty sure it was a Nikon 50mm f1.8D and a Vivitar 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, both without a speedbooster and just used directly with a pain Nikon F to MFT adapter. (maybe I used my Nikon 18-55mm kit  lenses as well, not sure, quite possible. Was the only mildly "wide-ish" option I had for MFT!!)

My girlfriend was my "1st AC" (although, that was a beyond lofty title for her role in reality!).

Audio was recorded on the director's Zoom H4n.

Wow pretty cool!  I like the narrative here and goes to show audio is so important!  Well done!

On 1/15/2022 at 11:27 AM, PannySVHS said:

Great advice! Thanks, Andrew! Some of the newer footage looks indeed like from a BMPCC in 4K. Possibly, from what I read, other budget options could be LG G8s and LGv50. I am wondering if the android driven MFT camera would do- the Yongnuo YN455. It has a Snapdragon 660 in it. So, don´t know if that would work or not.

 

This is a very pleasing image!  Do you guys feel that at some point phones manufacturers will meet or ecplise camera companies in image or will they (like Apple) start making cameras?

Hey man, not sure what your deal is but I’m just discussing cameras and filming. Have a good one. 

12 minutes ago, mercer said:

And still no mention of lenses...

Haha.

Hey, I've been there. I spent a couple years chasing an image. I went from a t2i to an eos-m to an nx500 to a G7 to a BMMCC...

Damn, I forget... I know there was a couple Sony cameras in there... some point and shoots... an FZ2500...

Eventually, I forked up the dough for an open box 5D Mark III, installed Magic Lantern Raw and never looked back. I've been curious about other cameras, but nothing in my price range has come even close. Right now I'm really curious about the Sigma FP and the S5. The FP for its raw capabilities, its small size and a bump in resolution. The S5 for IBIS run and gun, B&W with 14 stops of DR.

I'll probably just go forward with my 5D... I love the IQ, I already own it and KNOW it, and chasing specifics costs too much money for a hobby.

All that said... knowing what I know now... don't get the FX3. There's no reason why you can't get comparable images with the R6. I wouldn't even bother shooting Log right now. Practice with it and practice grading but just use Neutral Profile dialed down with the ProLost Flat settings... then make a couple simple adjustments in your NLE of choice... contrast and saturation... maybe add some Tint for style and move on.

If you're intent on buying a new camera... then get either an M50 Mark II or a GH5ii. The GH5 is a workhorse camera with plenty of headroom to manipulate the footage. Search Rowe Films on YouTube or Vimeo for examples of what can be accomplished.

The point is... it seems like you're chasing a pot of gold. I know, I've been there. I found mine, but when I did, everybody had moved on from it and I questioned my purchase a bunch of times... do I need 4K... should I have IBIS... do I need better AF.

It's all nonsense. The fact is this... all cameras under $4500 kinda suck in one way or another. So you either accept their faults based on other strengths (ibis and AF) and learn to bend the image a little or spend some money and get something more expensive... but then you won't have the convenience of the small size of hybrid cameras... and more expensive cameras aren't any easier to operate... they're just going to give you a sturdier footing.

Sigma 70-700 2.8

tamron 35 1.8

Thanks! Sounds like you get the overthinking. And that’s the plan - shoot with this for a bit and continue to improve grading etc and find a workflow. Some of the samples I shared the creators mentioned just dokng some adjustments then dropping a rec-709 lut and maybe a stylized on or further adjustments but didn’t take long. 

2 minutes ago, Django said:

I thought so too at first (its not that we're mean spirited OP, but there have been similar trolls before) but a quick check in post history and it seems consistent:

That said, it also showcases a pattern.. from Sony to Fuji.. To Canon.. and now back to Sony..and Fuji? All in the span of about a year?!

I mean these things do happen but have to ask don't you get tired of switching systems so often? seems like endless tail chasing and money drain. I don't wanna beat a dead horse but perhaps its time indeed to actually learn a bit about shooting & colorgrading! I really don't think the problem is with your cameras. You still haven't told us what your lens situation is either by the way ?

I get it but I am just a Type-A overthinker and have consistently responded thankfully.  

Yes you're right the overthinking has led to moving from system to system over about 6 years.  I have learned why and learn each time and typically come here when I am in need of help because of the good advice and healthy discourse.  

For example,  I got an XT-2 when I was more focused on video and photography for sports; quickly I learned ISO performance and AF tracking was important - so a7ii; and then the photos got better but the skin tones were really difficult to make look good....I believe I may have gotten too excited by reviews and pulled the trigger on an R6...now I am convinced that I will need to shoot more clog3 with the R6 and figure out how comfortable I am improving in Resolve and if it works for photography etc.  I'm learning now that what some told me earlier - buy separate for photo and video - is what I'm leaning toward.  

Learning and growing folks - from a type-A personality (can't change that).  Thanks for the dialogue and advice thus far!

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You do realize this guy has been on here since 2016. I think this person is just bullshitting us to bullshit us. 

If you're referring to me - that is both unnecessary and rude, bullying if you will.  Commenting on a thread isn't an opt-out; but an opt-in.  Feel free to not respond to me in the future.

5 minutes ago, Django said:

@SRV1981 

You keep bringing up the X100V.. it's a neat camera but really not as small as most may think, A7S3 is actually less large (and FX3 would be as tall without the EVF):

Stick a pancake lens and an FX3 would be rather similar dimensions with the benefit of IBIS & FF.

Of course you'll be missing the faux-Leica look and manual controls which are part of the charm.

Just saying.

 

That is a good point - I will consider that; not having to have/change lenses and the baked in JPG look is an appeal when hanging with friends/family

48 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

See in my subjective opinion, the C70 is fantastic for run&gun / travel, because it is so small and compact!

But that's coming from my perspective of working on professional crews. 

That's why there are often no clear cut answers to anything, it all "depends". 

A freaking damn ALEXA LF is "compact" to one person, while another person's definition of compact won't ever be any bigger than a Sony RX100!! 

Same applies to lots of other measures you're judging a camera on. 

Excellent point.  Great way to validate multiple perspectives.  I have to continue to work with the R6 before I make a decisions, which is aided by the supply-chain issues (FX3 and X100V are both out of supply everywhere).

What draws me to the X100V is the fact that it could easily brought to a bar and not be a pain to use; the FX3, maybe the R5C, have a similar level of ergonomics and form factor that may increase the motivation for me to use in non-professional settings (stealth mode) compared to other Hybrids.

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

Gotcha.

The FX3 will check a lot of those boxes, but it may not be as run and gun as you think. In that BTS video, you posted, the filmmaker used a gimbal in some of his shots, which may indicate that the IBIS isn't that great. I've never used one, so I can't speak to that. I'm sure it's acceptable, though.

With that said, if I was in the market for a camera in that price range, I'd consider the FX3. I like the form factor, the lowlight looks fantastic, and I think the video IQ would look amazing in B&W. Which is something I am looking for right now.  But there are other cameras that fit the criteria... the S5 is a fine camera and is only $1499 right now. There probably isn't a better deal on the market. I also like the X-T4, although it's probably not as good in lowlight.

Good luck in your search. Resolve is a great program, but it can be complicated. Luckily, there are a ton of resources available at your fingertips. 

I appreciate this response a lot.  I'm glad I created this post and the subsequent discussion/debate.  I am going to:

1. Work on exposing/grading my Canon R6 footage

2. Consider a video-centric replacement (I'd love the C70 but it is a bit bulky for run/and/gun-travel)

3. Consider the FX3 or R5C for video centric and the Fuji X100V for photo due to its portability (could bring it to dinner/bar/travel/anywhere and not have the hassle of changing lenses etc.)

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

Idk, it kinda feels like you're arguing with the people you've asked for advice because you've already made up your mind? Which is fine... go buy an FX3. As everybody has already said... it's a fine camera. But if you want advice, then listen to what people are telling you and asking you... what lenses do you own? What kind of video work do you want to do... personal, travel, documentary, music video, narrative.

With that, of course there's a difference between a t3i and an FX3... but if you have zero experience color grading footage, then you would probably get better results with a t3i than you would with an FX3. sLog isn't the easiest Log profile to grade. So your R6, with a modified Neutral profile (ProLost Flat) would probably look better than the FX3. Also the GH6, shot in ProRes is probably on par with, or better than, the FX3. It will definitely have better stabilization.

As far as the C70... well now you're talking a different classification of camera. If you can afford one, have video experience, plan on using it for work, etc... then it could be a great choice. But then you may as well get a Red Komodo. But why stop there? For a bit more you could get a C500 Mark II... for a little more than that you can get a Red V-Raptor... a bit more you can get an Alexa... surely that's a better camera...

The point is that there's always a better camera. But cameras don't have a "cool" button. Roger Deakins, and others, would make video from a t3i look better than I would with an Alexa.

Discussing - not arguing - some of the flippant responses by those who want to prove that the camera doesn't matter anymore makes it seem that way.  I enjoy healthy discussion to better understand something.

I understand that using LUTs and grading will make a difference, my original comments/intent was to discuss the gear that would allow one to get cinema like looks with the reference material I provided (they're not using lights or a crew, just run-and-gun and grading).

2 hours ago, kye said:

@SRV1981  Here's the video that Mercer is referring to - it was shot with the BMMCC in Prores.

The colour palette on the final film is golden/magenta, but the footage was all over the place with some shots being blue/yellow and some shots being quite green.  

I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.

The best camera in the world doesn't help you.

Perhaps to try and ram this point home, here are some camera tests where they exposed properly and applied the manufactures LUT, but did no colour grading.

The USD$16,000 Canon C500ii:

The $1500 Sigma FP:

The USD$6,500 Sony A1:

The USD$6,000 Red Komodo:

Notice how they basically all look the same, and how none of them look even remotely like a finished colour graded image?

I cannot emphasise this enough, buying "the right" camera and expecting great looking images is like buying "the right" paints and expecting your paintings to be like Leonardo Da Vinci.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 

I'm guilty of that too! Heh, here is a film I shot for a Master's thesis:

Ok, it wasn't shot on an ARRI, as the Sony FS700 was the nicest camera they'd let us have (still darn nice for its time back then!) but I had a full set of nice Zeiss primes too. 

But meh, the end result is more a reflection of how few years of experience I had than anything else. It isn't a fair reflection of what the camera is capable of. 

I understand your points. They’re well reasoned. 
 

that said it feels like the argument is so far in one direction it’s like saying why buy a camera that can achieve a good look like this? Just buy a t3i? If there was no discernible difference between a gh6 and c70/fx3 then everyone should sell the latter and just buy the former. Or maybe just a hacked gh2 ? I get it - grading is important but the device matters too. 
 

I downloaded resolve and will be looking at tutorials this weekend !

4 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

A7S3 sells cheaper used and is the same thing, but with the EVF.

There’s no reason to have an fx3 over a7s3?

27 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah, all that older stuff is getting amazingly cheap for what it cost not that long ago. But not much stuff done on sticks or shoulder mount anymore. And by the time you add the Raw recorder on the back of it well, it is a Huge package.

FX3 😉

Oh and this :

1 hour ago, mercer said:

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii.

Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled...

But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that.

Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves.

I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care.

I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable.

Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?