SRV1981

But if I would have only to buy one and carry with me? DJI Mini 4 Pro because flies too! LOL : )
On the ground to have with me all around? Osmo Pocket 3 or the new Ace Pro has also impressed me. Its 8K 24p looks like a winner there.
A camera unfortunately or not is the one we can use.
Going to a set? Ursa Mini Pro 12K, for some reason I've just purchased it :- )

I love my new S5IIX BUT I think, right now, it'd be the Nikon Z9 or Z8. I really, really like the images I've seen and it's excellent at photos and video. 

Yes, it is a bargain for what it is. I mean it seems RED was not doing that well, but for a bigger player, it is a small sum for a big return. I mean Nikon goes from a nobody in the video world, to one of the cameras used in the Cinema industry. They also get some quite unique tech, like the global sensor tech, a codec/color science widely use in high-end cinema industry. And a way to enter the Cinema lens market. The likes of Canon must be biting their lips, it is so cheap that only securing the mount would have been worth it. 

I recommend FilmConvert or Dehancer if people like the overall film look but don't want to learn to colour grade - it's a quick and effective solution.
Resolve 19 has a new plugin called Film Look Creator included in the paid version that is like FilmConvert / Dehancer except it doesn't model specific film stocks but is designed to give a flexible overall film look.  For most people it would be better than FilmConvert or Dehancer just for creating a nice look and not having to learn colour management etc.

Uhhh I know! Maybe this summer when I have more time! The advent of internal LUTs I think will help me on that journey. Seeing what folks have done with Dehancer has been motivating as well. 

Yep!
Hey - you should look into colour grading! 🙂 

Blaine Westropp is also killing it recently.

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment.
I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

Saying "even the a6700 can look good" is sort-of like saying "even the cheapest Ferrari can go fast"..  the a6700 is a very modern camera and high-spec camera.
I can understand why you would say something like this though - you've been watching too much "camera YT" and have fallen prey to the two biggest hidden problems:
Older cameras are invisible on YT, despite being the majority of what is used
People that talk about cameras, or even mention them in the video or description so they're searchable, are using the most recent cameras, or relatively recent cameras.  The reason for this is simple - if you shot a video with the Sony a4000 then you're obviously not into the "tech" so it's not something you're thinking about , and putting that in the description isn't going to benefit you because no-one is searching for a4000 anymore.
However, the people making videos about anything else other than cameras might be using the a4000, the a3000 or their phone from 5 years ago.  I recently discovered a woodworking / renovation channel I like shoots with a C100, which records 24Mbps 1080p but his YT uploads are in 4K and the image is basically flawless.  It's over a decade old and you can get entire setups with lenses batteries etc for $500 or so if you snag a deal.
The camera body is the most discussed film-making item, but is the least important
Go watch almost any video that talks about camera equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera body is less important than the lenses or tripods etc.  Watch and video about film-making equipment in a balanced way and they'll  tell you that the camera rig is less important than lighting or cinematography etc.  Watch and video about technical film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that equipment is less important than location choice, production design, hair & makeup, etc..  Watch and video about creative film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the technical stuff is important to get right, but is far less important than writing, casting, acting and directing, etc.
So...  the camera body is the least important item in the least important sub-category of the least important sub-category of film-making.

Agreed, great share. Now this video is just a single training session and not a narrative but only shot on the a6700 and 18-105 f4. Looks aesthetically pretty good. 
 
 

Your Luc Forsyth video is a perfect complement to this!

Welcome to the party!

I saw that one in my feed but haven't watched it yet.  I highly recommend watching the YT film-makers that actually do real work.  They have a balanced perspective and speak from experience.  
Like Luc Forsyth, who has shot major network TV shows:
Finding good people on YT is quite challenging now, because they tend to just use their own names and the good people aren't talking about brands etc all the time so finding them can be a challenge.

this guy is amazing. Love his process and personality. He also shot a full feature film. 

Hollywood shoots ProRes for the most part, except for VFX plates. 

Agree! Been watching hours of footage and notice a personal bias toward canon images - and it seems to be the way they render color and skin regardless of user - it’s over hours of footage. 
 
That’s us! 
 
Yes I get this, after feeling a little dejected from the original question and response I checked the subreddit “colorists” and there’s tons of threads and comments noting that they prefer to receive images from some cameras and brands over others. 
 
it seems to come down to difficulty - if you have the same face, scene, lighting etc and 5 different cameras or brands - these colorists had noted that to get the desirable look was much easier than others and frustrating and painstaking on others.  Which is why I felt it difficult to accept notions of makeup or learn color grading. The tools themselves can aid in that journey. 
 
I’ve learned through this that the way canon renders color, specifically skin, is my favorite look. That doesn’t mean I’ll go run out to grab an r5 or r8 - the feature set is far inferior to an a7s3 or a7iv, I think. 
I was curious what more knowledgeable folks preferred as their starting point tool. Do you use a gx85 for your travel and fs7 for work? Or is it an r5 for travel and fx6 for work, etc? That’s all I was hoping to discuss here and then follow with - “why did you choose that tool”. 
 
sometimes we bring our own gripes and biases to a question and don’t answer the quesirtin. 
 
that said, now my next question is can you achieve the same appeal of color on mid-level Sony bodies as you can on the canons that produce color I love. And if so, how easy is it to do? 
 
Great video - saw this years back I believe. That said. I loved the 1/8 look for general purpose filming but anything more was very stylized for my taste. 

That makes total sense.  One would expect a professional colorist to groan a bit if handed 8-bit log footage vs 10-bit log (or 12-bit raw).  I'd imagine that most want the most flexible image to work with when possible - there's a reason that Hollywood tends to shoot most stuff on Arri and it's not ease of use or portability. 

It's ok - neither does anyone else!

When you say "like they are emitting light themselves" you have absolutely nailed the main problem of the video look.  I don't know if you are aware of this, so maybe you're already way ahead of the discussion here, but here's a link to something that explains it way better than I ever could (linked to timestamp):
This is why implementing subtractive saturation of some kind in post is a very effective way to reduce the "video look".  I have recently been doing a lot of experimenting and a recent experiment I did showed that reducing the brightness of the saturated areas, combined with reducing the saturation of the higher brightness areas (desaturating the highlights) really shifted the image towards a more natural look.
For those of us that aren't chasing a strong look, you have to be careful with how much of these you apply because it's very easy to go too far and it starts to seem like you're applying a "look" to the footage.  I'm yet to complete my experiments, but I think this might be something I would adjust on a per-shot basis.
You'd have to see if you can adjust the Sony to be how you wanted, I'd imagine it would just do a gain adjustment on the linear reading off the sensor and then put it through the same colour profile, so maybe you can compensate for it and maybe not.  
TBH it's pretty much impossible to evaluate colour science online.  This is because:
If you look at a bunch of videos online and they all look the same, is this because the camera can only create this look? or is this the default look and no-one knows how to change it?  or is this the current trend? If you find a single video and you like it, you can't know if it was just that particular location and time and lighting conditions where the colours were like this, or if the person is a very skilled colourist, or if it involved great looking skin-tones then maybe the person had great skin or great skill in applying makeup, or even if they somehow screwed up the lighting and it actually worked out brilliantly just by accident (in an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters one will eventually type Shakespeare) and the internet is very very much like an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters! The camera might be being used on an incredible number of amazing looking projects, but these people aren't posting to YT.  Think about it - there could be 10,000 reality TV shows shot with whatever camera you're looking at and you'd never know that they were shot on that camera because these people aren't all over YT talking about their equipment - they're at work creating solid images and then going home to spend whatever spare time they have with family and friends.  The only time we hear about what equipment is being used is if the person is a camera YouTuber, if they're an amateur who is taking 5 years to shoot their film, if they're a professional who doesn't have enough work on to keep them busy, or if the project is so high-level that the crew get interviewed and these questions get asked.
There are literally millions of moderately successful TV shows, movies, YouTube channels that look great and there is no information available about what equipment they use. Let's imagine that you find a camera that is capable of great results - this doesn't tell you what kind of results YOU will get with it.  Some cameras are just incredibly forgiving and it's easy to get great images from, and there are other cameras that are absolute PIGS to work with, and only the worlds best are able to really make the most of them.  For the people in the middle (ie. not a noob and not a god) the forgiving ones will create much nicer images than the pigs, but in the hands of the worlds best, the pig camera might even have more potential. It's hard to tell, but it looks like it might even be 1/2.  You have to change the amount when you change the focal length, but I suspect Riza isn't doing that because of how she spoke about the gear.
It's also possible to add diffusion in post.  Also, lifting the shadows with a softer contrast curve can also have a similar effect.
 

He’s the only man who doesn’t hate the sound of his own voice 😉 

Saw this film last night and I was wondering if anyone knew the make of the camera and lens used. They actually showed quite a lot about the workings of a film crew in the broadcast industry. I'm not quite sure it was realistic, but it seemed believable to me, except for the use of lights in some of the shots.



 

My impression was that people like the Alexa image for everything.  The DR only matters if you're filming something that is high DR, and even then if you're watching it on a 709 display then the Alexa images have the same DR as every other camera.
I also find that Alexas look green in camera tests, but probably the main reason for loving the Alexa look is that when used on big productions or by people that know how to use it, the images look great.  However, the Alexa is just a very high quality RAW camera - the files that come out of it are as neutral as you can imagine.
It's the paradox of modern camera discussions.  The best looking images come from the most expensive cameras because the people who know that production design and colour grading is what makes great looking images are going to all that trouble anyway and so may as well rent an Alexa (or RED).  Would the production have looked as good if they shot it on a P4K or S1H?  I'd say maybe 95% as good - maybe 100%.  But, because the people using the P4K or S1H aren't using them in situations where they've put as much effort into production design or colour grading, those images don't look as good.
Not really my tastes.  Riza does a lot of work to light herself really well, but the diffusion and colour grading aren't to my tastes.  The image is too diffused and too cream and pastel green/brown for me.  Most of that is in her production design, considering that the blue and yellow in this shot looks relatively normal:

It's the "aesthetic" look that is trendy right now on YT, but Riza takes it to a whole new level.
In a way it's similar to this palette:

But compare the two shots above and notice that the bottom one is a lot crisper - Riza uses a huge amount of diffusion so everything looks hazy.
Maybe it's just my associations..  when I grew up the interiors that were the right age to be old and shitty were the Mission Brown ones, and compared to the colour schemes of the time it just looked drab and dull, which combined with the fact it was old and falling apart, really didn't enamour it to me!
I suspect that for the cultural references of the people making this content right now, this probably balances out the previous aesthetic choices in a way that makes them feel better about themselves and about life etc.  In times of change people get pretty stressed and going for a soft brown and green palette it's probably unconsciously evoking nature and naturalness in some way - which makes sense if you think about the existential threats of climate change and AI that we are currently facing.  People of this age are having climate anxiety in a big way, so it's a real thing in their world.

In case you haven't seen it, Riza did a video on how she shoots.
TLDR; she has the most basic standard equipment, but creates the look in production design and in post.

I agree (having owned 10 of their hybrid cameras and 2 camcorders in the last 15 years).
Panasonic has a long heritage in professional video (going back over 60 years) and it shows. I think the GH5 became a very popular camera for video because it was a good all-round, reliable, video tool in most situations, rather than excelling in any particular area at the expense of others or having a specific SOOC 'look'. 
For a bit of fun, this is 9 year old, basically SOOC, FHD 50p video from a Panasonic LX7 'enthusiast compact' with a small 10MP 1/1.7" sensor. There's some obvious aliasing/jaggies and I think the reds/oranges in particular are exaggerated. But for a camera launched in 2012 that fitted in the palm of one hand and weighed 270g I think it is reasonably decent (and could be improved in post). SOOC video from a G6, GX85 or G80 would leave it in the dust though, having much less aliasing and better balanced colours.
 

Post. I trust my calibrated monitor in a controlled room better than the one on set. So what I do with any new camera is I do a bunch of tests to find a setting that I like, then I shoot everything in that setting and adjust in post as needed. That way I am very familiar with what I can or can't do with that setting. I will often do tests to create specific color node graphs ahead of time, designed to be applied in post. But on the shoot I want everything to be familiar, even when I know based on my tests what it will transform into. That's not to say I'm good at cinematography. But I do think I'm good at not wasting people's time. I test everything ahead of time by myself or with the people leading the project, then we maximize set time for the actors and crew. No fiddling with settings while people are waiting around.