SRV1981

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!

I think AI and computational math are sort of changing our idea of Physics. Smartphones are punching way above their size in this day and age.  If they get really good zoom lenses to work on smartphones I think it might really even the playing field. To me that is the limitation as of now. Sure, it can apply to a FF camera also but I bet the gains would be less.

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?  

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

A camera with a lower megapixel count might also be intentionally designed to be a high speed sports camera, such as a Nikon D500 or D5. 
 

You can't make a blanket statement about MP. If you are shooting wildlife you need all the MP you can get. If you are shooting for social media you need very little MP. There is no one camera that does it all.
Ergo you are not going to buy a Smartphone to shoot wildlife, and not going to buy a 100mp Fuji MF to shoot social media stuff. And 12mp is really not enough for photography in this day and age.

The Nikon D500 is arguably still today "the best" a person can get for sports photography (if on a budget that can't afford the likes of a D6/D5/etc).
 

Didn’t watch but yes. Easily.
I recently upgraded from 24 to 47mp cameras for my stills work because purely for myself, I like max quality, plus ability to crop hard (partly because I shoot shorter focal length primes).
But could easily go back to a camera that ‘only’ shoots 12mp for client wedding work.

Yes, the megapixel wars in photography ceased to be relevant for 97% of us many many years ago. 

Absolutely 12MP may well be enough depending on what you want it for. I even did a project during lockdown where I sent 6MP cameras to people and asked them to take self portraits which I then cropped and THAT was enough resolution for Instagram.
We have all this resolution and then we end up looking at pics not too much bigger than a postage stamp!

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).

The auto focus on the A7S3 along with low rolling shutter and IBIS is a great vlogging combo tho

I personally think the ability to shoot in dim situations with deeper DOF is nice. 

Wouldn't the Sony be suddenly much cleaner at ISO 12800, so it may be a good idea to shoot it at 12800 and use an ND perhaps? Or is is it that most ISO levels in between the dual native ISOs are all noisy? Plus the Sony also has that famous Sony colour (or a version of it).
Would love to see a comparison between the Sony, along with Canon (R6) and Panasonic (S5), at all ISOs from 320 to 25600, perhaps. 

Caveat emptor: from a dpreview poster who got to try the camera in-store...
"The thing legit locked up on me and required a battery pull five times inside of a half hour with it."
"The worse news, and why you don't see any of the reviews that lean positive about the AF actually show video results. It's as bad as ever. Pulsing and hyper actively finding faces in doorways just as bad as the XT4 did. It's like the box you see on the screen is doing something completely different than what's actually recording. At F5.6 like most the positive reviews use, it's pretty confident but holy smokes even at 2.8 with the brick this thing was all over the place."
 

The footage looks damned good to me. Stacked sensor seems like the move. A GFX with a stacked sensor will be great. For filmmaking the XH2s looks like it will be a little monster.

I actually like Sony IBIS. It isn't rocky steady like the Panasonic but it looks natural. Makes the footage look like you are holding a heavier camera.

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.

@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).

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! 

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

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. 

How much time do you spend 'walking and talking' while holding the camera up with one arm?  If it's, well, any time at all then I'd rule out the C70..  it's enormous!


and is heavy......

 

Yes, I would / do sacrifice AF first. The major drawback for me though is that my manual focusing skills are still suspect and the weight of the S1 means that my footage is shakey if only one hand is concentrating on supporting the camera and the other is pulling focus.
I'm not sure if the answer is shooting more on the weebill S and using the wheel on the weebill S to pull focus or not. 
True, I think that most of the work i do (and hope to do) falls under videographer.
 
Or... they get a real sharp lens for shooting commercials, and then fill the room with haze ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It really depends on what style you're shooting.
If you're shooting for a more cinematic image then you can manually focus vintage or third-party lenses and the diffusion characteristics will offset the overly-sharpened codecs.  Considering there is no perfect camera, the first thing I'd sacrifice is AF because the alternative is lenses that have reliable focusing (ie, me), are cheaper, and create a nicer image.
I understand this isn't the case for videographers, as that's another whole thing with different goals, methods, economics, target audience and aesthetic.
So many people are out there saying they're trying to get more cinematic images, and then they turn around and want lenses to be as sharp as possible wide-open and want AF, which almost completely contradicts the previous statement, as almost every theatre-bound production I've read about deliberately uses softer-rending vintage lenses despite having the budget for basically whatever lenses they'd care to use.