SRV1981

Pretty much. It's cool that the tech is now at a point where we can do 4K without straining our cameras and computers but for presentation, HD is plenty.

I understand the importance of more res for post. when I stabilize my varicam 27's footage in resolve, I see significant loss in res, if it is a wide shot. if it is a closeup, it is ok. I have no objection of digital zoom, etc, but they don't totally justify the essentiality of high res 4k and above. 
the best digital dolly is magic lantern. in crop mode, you can digital pan or tilt. 

you mean after cropping for vertical viewing? 
from my experience, high quality 1080p cams can have comparable results to 4k cams, even on a 27 inch 4k monitor with a viewing distance of one foot. these high quality 1080p cams actually have a 4k sensor, like c300 og, c100 og and mk2, af100, etc. fs7 does not override them easily, except that 4k sign can please some clients. oversampled 4k from 6k or 8k cams may be better on a 4k monitor, but not easily to see the difference on a 4k tv with a viewing distance of 5 meters. 
in addition, for portrait, 1080p is enough, unless the actress is a teenage girl with perfect skin. otherwise, the actress needs very thick makeup to cover her imperfections. in wedding, if you shoot the bride with a 12k bm Ursa, showing her wrinkles and speckles, her sisters' weddings will belong to other dps for sure. 

@SRV1981 is that you? : )

simply gorgeous 

watching on a 4k projector at 100”. No need for 4k unless green screen or VFX

I was surprised by the pricing, I was thinking more like $4.5-5K. $3300 is very competitive, they are obviously looking to take out the Canon XF605, which is fine by me if that makes the XF605 used prices go down.
These cams aren't huge but I would also like to see a compact version, the size of my XF405 is perfect for me, not sure that'll happen though. This market is probably too small now to support two or three or four models from each brand like in the past, so now we get one mid-sized model from each. Which also means no more overpriced flagships like the $7000 XF705, which is good.

A bit serendipitous after me discovering my long stored DVX100 last week and getting all "you know what, this thing is so much more appealing to go and shoot with" before wishing there was something similar with a modern spec comes Sony launching two new camcorders.
They are basically exactly the same thing but with the Z200 having 12G SDI and being able to use the MXF container at a later firmware update (albeit one that is bizarrely listed as being June 2025) and tick every modern spec box including
Fully variable electronic ND AI Autofocus S-Cinetone and S-Log3  20x optical zoom 10 bit 4:2:2  4K60 Active Mode IS 4 channel audio Dual card slots  
At $4K and $3.2K respectively, they aren't exactly great value propositions versus rolling your own solution with a larger sensor mirrorless body and lenses (although good luck finding a par focal 20x servo zoom lens for your mirrorless) and yet...
There is a huge upside in the operational value of having everything integrated when it comes to actually picking it up and going to shoot with it, particularly that variable ND and the 24-480mm zoom (which becomes a lossless 24-720mm with the clear image zoom).
Yes, yes, of course you have to look past the sensor size "only" being 1" but its versatility and ease of use for past paced situations means this is an enormously powerful all round camera for making money with.
 

Funny enough, the LX-10 is more expensive than the E-m5 iii (if you already have M43 lenses) on the used market. Also, no EVF.

I thought camera opinion videos were getting a bit obsessive when that guy a few weeks ago left his kids alone inside the holiday cabin as he couldn't possibly wait another minute to get on the porch and share his thoughts on a camera rumour with the wider world on YouTube but.....
Well, this is on another level.
The moral of the tale is that even when staring down the long tunnel into the abyss he still stands by his decision to buy the Z8.

It's kind of liberating sometimes when you set aside all your perfectionism and just have a good time with modest tech. Recently I went on a several day bike trip on Vancouver Island (beautiful place) so I couldn't bring much. I also wanted something I could pull out of a belt pouch with one hand and click while still cycling.
I have a Canon G16 (garage sale find for $6) I was first considering which takes beautiful pictures but is kind of bulky then I found in a drawer an old Sony DSC-T100. It's only does JPGs at 8 megapixels. Below my current standards but then these things are a trade off. I was only just going to email a few people some pics when I got home so it's good enough. I liked how small it was on the trip.
I also used my phone but it's an older one without a zoom, also it's awkward to use compared to a camera. I had to stop cycling to take a picture with it. With the "real" camera, I could reach down, put the wrist strap on, flip down the front flap to turn it on and click, and put it back, all while still cycling.
So it all worked out and I got some amazing pictures within the limits of the situation.

what is the dr of an iphone 15 screen? dr of an ipad 10? dr of a mac book air m2?
 
from the data acquisition to data presentation, what is the bottle neck now, in terms of dr?

And in most cases, most of the time, that’s a fact.
Unless you absolutely must have 120fps in 8k full frame, then yup, ‘everything else’.

its almost as if everything other than the camera is more important than the camera itself…
(which makes this 90% of this forum’s topics basically entirely pointless) 

Makes a lot of sense to me! Being out of the house and wanting to be present while taking what we deem as optimal photo and video is tricky. 
 
I’ve actually settled upon getting the new iPhone for raw and log, and will pair with my Ricoh Griiix. I’ve seen really wonderful finished products for both. The only other camera would be the Pocket 3.  Anything that can’t be easily put in my pocket or a small fanny pack is too much.  Interchangeable lenses when traveling or trying to be present or having drinks and not wanting bulk or a chance to misplace or forget something - won’t be considered. 

So, I've been racking my brain trying to choose between taking my Panasonic S5ii and a couple of lenses or a combination kit of my trusty camcorder (Panasonic VX-981) and M43 camera (Panasonic GX800). I'll be going to the Seattle, WA area. I've decided to take the latter due to these primary reasons:
Weight
If I take just the Panasonic S5ii with the kit 20-60 lens and nothing else, it comes to 1090g. However, I'll need my ND filters, a strap, an extra battery, and cables, bringing the total to about 1500g. The GX800 with the kit lens is 450g (including an extra battery), and the VX-981 is roughly 500g (including an extra battery and accessories). This leaves room for an audio recorder and my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for low-light photos.
Concerns about theft
Seattle is usually a very safe place. Still, the unexpected can happen. I spent roughly $2000 on the S5ii, whereas the GX800, VX981, and lenses were only $1000 (and used).
Convenience for photos
Hand anyone a camcorder, and they'll know what to do with it. The flip-up screen on the GX800 is perfect for selfies with family.
Greater depth of field
I want to see the environment much more than familiar sights from home. Not having a big-sensor camera means I need to be more careful about framing, but I get to see everything there.
Versatility with more equivalent focal lengths
The kit lens on the GX800 is a 12-32mm (24-64mm equivalent), and I also have a 0.79x wide-angle adapter for video that works well. The VX-981 has a 30-630mm integrated lens. The S5ii, even at pixel-to-pixel, won't reach anywhere near that. Enough said.
It's for fun, not work (who cares so much about quality, yeah, "only" 4K)
Without a doubt, the S5ii blows away the other combo in every way in terms of image quality from 20-60mm. I even reckon the proxy files are better than the 4K files on the VX-981, but somehow, I have more fun shooting with the VX-981 and the GX800. Maybe it's the challenge of it; I'm not sure, and I don't even understand it myself.
Any thoughts? Is this a huge mistake?

Which will you most likely shoot with when out for personal video capture 

No doubt, and these options are definitely worth pointing out.
For me though, I prefer a much larger range of focal lengths for travel.  I'm sure you know this stuff far better than I, but for @SRV1981 and others, here are some thoughts..
I'm not far enough into the film theory, but I know they shoot documentaries and ENG with zooms for a reason, and I suspect my reasons for wanting that flexibility is the same as theirs.  I shot travel for a couple of years with a 35mm FOV being the main lens, and after a while I noticed a same-same kind of look to the footage.  I noticed this same look when iPhone video first got popular but it only had one focal length, and the same for action-camera-only videos.  
My analysis of award winning documentaries and travelogues showed me two critical things about the cinematography:
1) the shots were nice, but not incredible
2) the way they were used in the edit was what made the final product really great
I was also amazed at how many shots there were, and their variety.  We all know that the average shot length of today's media is around the 2-4s (with 4s being on the slow side), which is 1400-700 shots for a 45 minute episode.  This is easy to achieve if you don't want the shots to be that different from each other, but if you want variety and you want them to be interesting, you either need to go to a large number of locations or you need a zoom.  
The average vantage point will potentially have a large number of interesting compositions..  the wide shot of course, the low-angle wide and the high-angle wide might also be interesting, but beyond that it's about zooming in to interesting details.  Due to compression at longer focal lengths you can also juxtapose different foreground and background elements by getting closer and wider or further away and zooming in.
For travel, your ability to "zoom with your feet" is often severely limited, and you have to shoot from where you are allowed to be:
At the zoo or the safari park, you can't go into the lions cage and walk up to the lion to get a close-up On the top level of the hop-on-hop-off bus you're not allowed to stand up when the bus is moving.. so the choice is either shooting the wide shot only (which might include the people next to you), or zooming and getting all kinds of compositions My shot of the pope giving a Sunday address at the Vatican would have been a shot of a tiny speck in a window of a rather grand building if I'd only had the wide, but thanks to the 10x zoom I had on that trip I am zoomed in enough that you could see his facial expressions Any landscape photographer will tell you that having a telephoto is wonderful because all mountains in the distance look small with the wide but the tele is how you make them look big Any time there's an animal - birds, squirrels, monkeys, etc...   often you want the close up but don't want to get close to them, or they don't want to get close to you etc etc The online world seems reluctant to look at or learn from the professionals, who often have hundreds or thousands of times the experience and insight that the online crowd has.  Or, if they do, they only pay attention to what Deakins might say about shooting a feature film.
But travel isn't a movie set - it's real life and the doco shooters use different equipment for a reason.  
Ignore their experience to your own detriment.

As well as the add on wide angle and anamorphic lenses, it does have a decent virtual zoom with a good ergonomic operation using the thumbtack.
Its range is dependent on your resolution of course but for the purpose as a travel camera its pretty good.
 
 

iPhone, because it has different focal lengths.
But that would apply to anything - if I could choose an iPhone or Alexa or FX3 or.... but the other cameras could only have one prime lens, I'd still choose the iPhone.

It would take a lot of footage for me to be able to see through the grading that was applied to each video, and I haven't deep dived enough to do that.
However, both seem capable of creating decent images, if they are pointed at something interesting and treated well in post.  Probably the difference is that the Apple log has a fully-supported colour management profile, which enables it to fit into a workflow that includes professional tools and ability to accurately perform WB and exposure changes in post, and to also align to various other treatments to create the intended outcome.
In terms of which is 'better', the differences in context completely overwhelm this question when compared to the image. 

Absolutely.  It's like people have forgotten what the images in the cinema actually looked like, or that they were 35mm film.  I say that because people who apply a "filmic" or "cinematic" look seem to apply a film emulation at about 284% of what is realistic.
This is a scan of (IIRC) Kodak 200T (source) :

The video above is:
too sharp too heavy split-tone very heavy-handed diffusion ridiculous halation etc It's like they got a film emulation plugin and put some sliders to 0% emulation, and others to 350%.
In colour, "if it looks good then it is good" definitely applies, but it doesn't seem to have a look of its own, it's just got a bad film emulation on it.

LOL Annoying before to getting fine, isn't it? It's living with or leave it! : )
What is unique is this combo to give that characteristic touch/look by its own:
There's no simply competitor at this such small camera segment level, useless to look for anything else.

I'm just wondering how this will compare to my GH5S's in low light. The high megapixel count worried me but I heard that this one has a brand new sensor design so I guess we'll see. 

I guess he used iPhone to do the vlog. actually, iPhone vlog footage is not far behind the big two. the lens is not good on iPhone, distortion is eye catching, not friendly to the lady. 
it is amazing how things get so close. 20 years ago, a phone, a crop sensor, a top brand of cinema camera, they just did not get along at all.