Arikhan

.OK, I see...My POV: I agree with you but debating ideology doesn't get the shots.
Canon cripples its products, yes. That's one of the reasons I lived Canon DSLRs for photography. BUT....Talking about the C200, I just need its features/capabilities "as it is", I never rely on promises or on future "functionality upgrades"...I just want to pay for features I get NOW...
 
Again: Name me some devices meeting my listed needs...Please name me even just one, I will take a closer look...

It's very confusing to me that some people think low light performance = no need for lights.  As if the only thing lights do is provide exposure levels?
Honestly, light is pretty much everything. Way more important than any camera.

I've been pondering over the thought that a better path to becoming a high quality DoP in the future is not by struggling up through the camera department, but instead via the lighting path. 

And on a related point, perhaps there is a better opportunity to make money as a gaffer than a camera op? (as cameraman is such an oversaturated area, especially at the low end)

In my eyes, it's all about light - direction and quality of light, depending on the look & feel you want to get. Diffusors, reflectors etc. are not the most expensive, but they will make the difference.
Sure, good low light capabilities are very important for a camera setup, when you don't want to miss a moment. But the light makes at the end of the day the difference.
Most self proclaimed DP are too lazy, even for this...They call their work "available light photography/videography"...For "never miss a moment" style it's OK - but not generally.
My mentors teached me to work with off camera flash (in photography) and to use sophisticated setups for getting great results - every little shadow and every even small movement of light and subject counts. Most "filming entuasiasts" don't care about light? Great for those who do.

In my eyes, it's all about light - direction and quality of light, depending on the look & feel you want to get. Diffusors, reflectors etc. are not the most expensive, but they will make the difference.
Sure, good low light capabilities are very important for a camera setup, when you don't want to miss a moment. But the light makes at the end of the day the difference.
Most self proclaimed DP are too lazy, even for this...They call their work "available light photography/videography"...For "never miss a moment" style it's OK - but not generally.
My mentors teached me to work with off camera flash (in photography) and to use sophisticated setups for getting great results - every little shadow and every even small movement of light and subject counts. Most "filming entuasiasts" don't care about light? Great for those who do.

@BTM_Pix

Just expecting to see some 4k low light footage and then hold it in my hands and do some test shots. Last week I've buyed a Zeiss Otus 28mm 1.4...with Nikon F - now I only wait for the proof of the D850 qualities. BTW: I shot the Zeiss with a cheap K&F Nikon2NX adapter on the NX 1 some days ago. Colors, contrast and detail are mindblowing - from edge to edge...Can hardly wait to see this exceptional lens on a D850...
 

@BTM_Pix

Just expecting to see some 4k low light footage and then hold it in my hands and do some test shots. Last week I've buyed a Zeiss Otus 28mm 1.4...with Nikon F - now I only wait for the proof of the D850 qualities. BTW: I shot the Zeiss with a cheap K&F Nikon2NX adapter on the NX 1 some days ago. Colors, contrast and detail are mindblowing - from edge to edge...Can hardly wait to see this exceptional lens on a D850...
 

Yep...Every writer/puiblisher begging for attention and more coverage...But - as it seems to be - a majority of audience likes titles like "...the new Sony killer...", "...the real Canon killer...", etc. Will an factual article/review/test get the coverage, or does it need a bouncing title and wording?
 
They position themselves as "pros", knowing cameras and the "magic sauce" for professional work. It's some kind of gear and knowledge elitism. And elitism is - from a business point of view - not bad when used as unique selling point. There are many potential customers out there who like this attitude, as they suppose to get the best DP/shooters on the market to work for them...
In my eyes, Cinema5D runs a business - trying to get very good paid shooting jobs AND trying to position themselves as "market influencers" too...It's a kind of "dual channel" business...They simply don't care about sub 2.000 USD buyers and shooters, as - they want to express - "pro cameras" are much more expensive...

Yep...Every writer/puiblisher begging for attention and more coverage...But - as it seems to be - a majority of audience likes titles like "...the new Sony killer...", "...the real Canon killer...", etc. Will an factual article/review/test get the coverage, or does it need a bouncing title and wording?
 
They position themselves as "pros", knowing cameras and the "magic sauce" for professional work. It's some kind of gear and knowledge elitism. And elitism is - from a business point of view - not bad when used as unique selling point. There are many potential customers out there who like this attitude, as they suppose to get the best DP/shooters on the market to work for them...
In my eyes, Cinema5D runs a business - trying to get very good paid shooting jobs AND trying to position themselves as "market influencers" too...It's a kind of "dual channel" business...They simply don't care about sub 2.000 USD buyers and shooters, as - they want to express - "pro cameras" are much more expensive...

Hmm...It's hard to give knowledge "back for free" nowadays. Simply just look at many reputable and very solid reviewers, when sharing their experience and tests for free: they get insulted and very often offended by fanboys of other brands, they get accused of beeing paid by manufacturers, etc....A bunch of dumb and not educated, bored idiots maraude through the web trying to destruct other peoples work and opinion. Just for their destructive "fun"...
I admire people who still share their knowledge and experiences for free, but I can completely understand the guys who give up teaching / educating others for free (or for a small affiliate amount). For what? For getting offended and insulted by a bunch of frustrated idiots? Just look at many YT or other comments, respect for other peoples work is completely gone, it's wild west now...
Sharing knowledge for free is crucial for the devlepment of an industry and human beeings. But beeing respectful - even if you don't agree with author's opinion - too...

If you need RAW for video, buy a dedicated video/film camera shooting RAW. There are many options out there starting as low as 1.000 USD or even less (used). The D850 is a DEDICATED PHOTO CAMERA with some nice video features. But - at the end of the day - it is and remains a capable photo camera. A Ferrari can hardly cross a river through 1,50 deep water. Therefore you have to buy an Ural...Bashing the Ferrari won't get it into the water and bashing the Ural won't get it to win races....

...and much larger buffer (D750 about 10 images, D850 51 images 14b)...and focusing in complete darkness like the D5 (D750 focuses quite well in low light, but yet, miles away from D5/D500)...and 45 MP instead of 24 MP....and NO low pass filter --> a bunch more sharpness... and for sure much more weather sealed than the D750.. illuminated buttons (very useful)....and, and, and...
I own the D750 and I like it - but as it seems at the moment, the D850 is a "one for all" and will beat the honorable D750 in many ways --> sports, HQ commercial photography, landscape, wildlife, AF in the darkness (interesting for journalists) etc.
The capability of storing different RAW formats (large, medium, small) makes it even more interesting, because more flexible for shooters to store just the amount of data needed...

I can't for the life of me imagine any sane person buying the D850 primarily for video.  Canon's dual-pixel auto focus is more than a piece of software, it is a combination of sensor technology (pixels set aside to double as focus receptors) and tech.  They've been working on it for a long time and it keeps getting better and better.  What this article tells me is Nikon is becoming more of a weather-sealed professional stills-photography eco-system built on Sony sensors.   As Andrew pointed out, too many sensor similarities to Sony's other cameras.  When will Nikon build dual-pixel auto-focus for video?  Looks like never; or at this point it's too late.  As for 4K, as someone above pointed out, 4:2:0 shouts chroma-compromised.  I recently bought a Canon C100 for $1,500.  Don't flame me, but for video it makes my Sony A6300 seems like just TOO MUCH WORK.  The D850 has only made up some 4K ground, on paper,  against the Sony A7S line or Panny GH line.  In the real world, fuggedabout it   In video, NOTHING BEATS sensors with fat pixels (in a 4K space), like the Canon Cinema line or Sony A7S.  Panasonic does a nice job turbo-charging those MFT sensors for video.  But use a GH camera for professional stills photography?  Again, don't flame me  
We went on vacation recently and I shot a lot with Sony's FDR X3000 Action-cam.  That is one cool camera!  It even has mic-in so with a rhode videomicro mini-boom you can get what the D850 can do in good light just as well, actually better.  The X3000 has kick-butt image stabilization.  Nikon put out a similar action-cam recently.  That didn't go well for them.  Nikon just doesn't have the institutional video chops to compete head on in video--anywhere.
As from the beginning, video on Nikon is only an emergency feature for photojournalists.  Unless I'm missing something, the D850 offers little above the D810 except a few more pixels.  All that said, I wouldn't shoot Sony professionally for stills.  The D850 is nothing to trifle with on the photography front.

Good! Means all future Nikons won't have crop for 4K

Good news about finally having focus peaking too! (pity only in 1080.... firmware update??? Please!!)

Animals (mostly) just don't care about our plans and storyboards...But that's what makes the work with animals so interesting and challenging. And very often - funny too. It just schools us to be patient...

Yeah...Most people just underestimate the amount of efforts, patience and creativity/flexibility you need, when working with animals. Great idea and work!

Yeah...Most people just underestimate the amount of efforts, patience and creativity/flexibility you need, when working with animals. Great idea and work!

We filmed Sammy the dog touring around Asheville, NC. Filming a dog is a crazy man's work. So difficult, but working with the cutest actor makes up for it haha... Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
 
 

@lenny87
Most "cinematographers" would say: People filming vertical videos are crazy / cluess / ignorant. But breaking the rules can even be an advantage for you - depending on what you want to do or express with the footage. Years ago many old, "experienced" photographers got crazy when other photogs broke the rule of thirds...So what? Nowadays many people break this "rule" because of artistic or individual aspects. There are quite many compositional cases, when it would be better to break rules...Don't necessarly do the same shit like million others, just try something new from time to time....
What I want to say: If you want to test filming verticals, just do this. It's your (artistic) choice...BTW: There are some filmers doing it (mostly for PR or promotional short films) on Instagram or FB and you know what? It works in many cases...So, it seems not to be a deal breaker for common audience of this films. Like in 99,9% of cases, it's the content, not the format...
Only self proclaimed "experts" go crazy on this... 

@DaveAltizer
Never forget, it's baked in vs. RAW. If you need a maximum of maleability and a wide range of options to go (and better base for VFX, etc.) in post, I would always go for RAW. 

D500 is the same price as the GH5, and if you look around you can find the D500 for hundreds of dollars cheaper. 

And if you need the high end stills capacity of the D500, then the D500 looks like an extremely good value buy compared to the GH5!

And now there is the D7500, that probably by the end of the year will be going for close to half of what the GH5 goes for. 

So while I think the GH5 is absolutely fantastic camera, I think a strong argument can still be made for a Nikon being right for some people's needs.

@salim
Thanks for advice! I shoot drone footage for more than 2 years now. My first drone was a DJI P2 with a GoPro 3 BE. I am familiar with drone flight and shooting - but only with smaller drones like the DJIs. I ALWAYS shoot drone footage with a second person. 
It's NOT all about stiching. A m4/3 camera will NEVER get similar IQ as a A7R ii + an excellent/outstanding wide angle lens. I've done already some test shots with a A7R ii + Nikon 20mm 1.8 from a very high building to simulate a little bit perspectives of aerial photography and the results were amazing. Stiching with a m4/3 is NOT an option...An A7R ii + light weight Nikon F1.8 primes (20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) give me a lot of options for excellent IQ and different focal lengths, even for my second important requirement - low light....
My requirements are all about maximum of photographic quality (OK...maximum for this kind of budget)
Thanks for the tip with the M600 / S1000. As I am NOT a do-it-yourselfer with drone electronics and remote/transmitter systems, I need a reliable, professional solution for cameras up to 1,5kg. I have to buy a ready2fly-drone, capable to fit my requirements.

Too much fanboyism, envy and hate out there...Too many self proclaimed (but clueless) camera business analysts...And THIS is simply useless for interested people.
Real interested enthusiasts and working shooters are gone - now replaced by "gear lurkers only". They spend weeks upon reading reviews, then buy, use, read even more reviews, then upgrade, replace, resell gear and finally repeat this process ad infinitum...without even producing only one piece of really useful content. Nothing wrong when doing this - just useless for people mainly interested in shooting and NOT in endless talk...
In fact, the indecision of gear talkers is the factual bread-and-butter for most review sites. During the old days, I got much inspiration from many sites. Now...I am mainly disgusted by hate, envy, misconception, factual misinformation or even misleading and false statements...Gear talking became more and more boring and useless...
BUT...Though there still are many useful sites out there with people who really help and inspire one...
Yep...My POV: Shoot first and talk then...

and
...ever reflected on the fact that EVERY news media nowadays produces it's news about 90% on releases from news agencies? There are 3-10 news agencies spreading the same news...and hundreds/thousands of "news media" buying this "content" from leading agencies, changing a little bit the text (no duplicate content from Googles POV), doing some internal linking (link juice for news categories and older articles, etc.) and the firing out the articles...
But in fact, more than 90% of today's news base on news agencies releases spreaded to their clients...Hundreds of media publish the same news, sometimes with different title and a little bit of text differentiation...So news media - even of the most famous/appreciated ones - is nothing but about 90% copy & paste and aggregation. When copying the content of smaller sites, German media mostly DON'T CREDIT the original source...
The such called "journalists" are more SEO pundits than journalists....The good one is, most media working like this, drives down...Consumers should NOT REWARD copy&paste journalism, content theft, etc...

Too much fanboyism, envy and hate out there...Too many self proclaimed (but clueless) camera business analysts...And THIS is simply useless for interested people.
Real interested enthusiasts and working shooters are gone - now replaced by "gear lurkers only". They spend weeks upon reading reviews, then buy, use, read even more reviews, then upgrade, replace, resell gear and finally repeat this process ad infinitum...without even producing only one piece of really useful content. Nothing wrong when doing this - just useless for people mainly interested in shooting and NOT in endless talk...
In fact, the indecision of gear talkers is the factual bread-and-butter for most review sites. During the old days, I got much inspiration from many sites. Now...I am mainly disgusted by hate, envy, misconception, factual misinformation or even misleading and false statements...Gear talking became more and more boring and useless...
BUT...Though there still are many useful sites out there with people who really help and inspire one...
Yep...My POV: Shoot first and talk then...