Arikhan

@jonpais
Full ACK...BUT: Photography should NOT try to immitate old painting style. Old paintings should (in some cases) only be (sometimes) an inspiration. Art means in my eyes creativity and not plagiarism helped by modern technology...Filming is in my eyes the creative coexistence of phantasy and reality - capturing the moment with all its emotions and backgrounds is driven by inspiration and phantasy. Realized with the help of todays technology...
Many "enthusiastic filmmakers" haven't in my eyes much inspiration and phantasy...Just take a look at thousands of "test videos", completely contentless, useless - no story, no emotion, just techie junk - pure time lost for the audience and confession of failure for the creators...Modern gear sluts with latest technology in their hands, aiming to get the style of good old days - but clearly not capable to develop an own style...
Nowadays we always say, we live in a very well developed, modern society...But it seems, we are not capable to manage modern technology to transform the technical progress into a slave (tool) of our inspiration and phantasy...Many times I think we care too much about technical specs and pixel peep around, wihout any sense for real content. So it seems, we became the slaves of technology and became useful idiots - our phantasy seems to fail and we completely suffer from poverty of innovation. So, lacking of one's own ideas, we try to copy the style and feeling of good old days...
Just take a look at the "postindustrial" photography or "lost places" style - developed during the last decades...Take a look at the expressive, emotional photography portraiture style - developed during the last years, using wireless HSS as tool to lighten up and "unmask" faces and characters...These styles have nothing to do with the photo style of the 70s...Visionists (aka artists) inslaved modern technology to put their vision of subjects characters into digtal pictures...
And then, don't forget that todays imagery is minimum 50% post production...But neither cameras, nor lighting or most modern image editiong software could drive up our phantasy or create a "shooting plan" in our brains...

@Ken Ross
Hehe...Oh yes, it will get 4K 60p soon with a free firmware upgrade - but only when recording externally. Hmm...JVC is simply meh - compared to Panasonics newly released ARRI-killer... 
BTW: Just waiting for the first enthusiastic lunatics claiming, now they will sell their REDs and ARRIs and go for the GH5...Like Canons DPReview/YouTube PR bullshit with the "revolutionary" 80D...
It's always the same: PR guys on steroids and their incompetent paid henchmen, trying to fire up peoples expectations and wondering, that their promisses can't be kept. Honesty and serious claims don't count any more - at cost of credibility lost...Even the crude reality is not that painful as evident exagerations and lies...

@jpfilmz
Thank you very much for sharing, I'll take a look tonight on a 4k TV...

5D RAW upscaled to 4K
 
5D RAW upscaled to 4K + a few XC10 4k shots and Blackmagic pocket cinema camera shots on the bus, and car dialogue scene.

In my experience, only higher end Canons have similar color science, and Canon in general, from m43 and Sony, it seems like every one or two models they have something different in their color science so do not count on it. In Sony land, menus again are mostly different, and they are keep changing them (they won't be there for at least half a dozen of years!).
I told you before, FS700 seems tempting, but is a nightmare of a camera to rig and use. Plus in my experience the build quality is questionable, at least. Plus the FS700+Odyssey is quite expensive and huge to carry and set. If you are spending so much money, buy a C300mkII+CN-E lenses that have you covered 18-200, a 5DmkIV, and a M6 and you are covered from all angles.
JVC is not similar at all to the FS700 combo, I am not sure why you keep bringing it on, they are not comparable in mostly anything, except they both shoot video! 

@BTM_Pix
My friend shooting with the LS300 told me, that the smart adapter doesn't work with some Canon lenses (AF), but he didn't try them all, for sure...He confirmed, that the LS300 AF works very well with another Panasonic lens, the 12-35 F2.8 OIS. These are the only Pana lenses he tested with AF. He uses Canon and other lenses (many primes) with adapters and manual focus, as the focus support is great on this camera. Haven't tested face detection...

@Emanuel
Oh, as seen some weeks ago, it worked perfectly with the Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 on it (stabilization worked quite well too)...Very reliable with this lens when keeping subject in the center of frame...No pulsing, no microadjustmenst, no pumping forth and back of background or subject...No such issues like in a currently released, hyped "enthusiast camera"... 
Neither did I... 

The 16-70 is a much better lens. I used the 18-105 and was not happy with it.

@Fritz Pierre
That's absolutely true - and the seller is a British company...
@DaveAltizer
Thank you for sharing your experience. Unfortunately my budget for this matte box is max 800 EUR. I understand, the Bright Tangerine products are well made and in carbon fiber - so pro DP use them very often, but they are simply not affordable for my needs in this case. 

Have you considered https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1313888-REG/wooden_camera_241600_zip_box_double_4x5_65.html

If you kept the receipt of the shop where you've buyed it, the seller gives you 2 years warranty (that's German law).
If you registered the camera with CPS, just call Canon Germany and discuss with them a solution (if you don't live in Germany). Canon has a quite good service...
Click here to go with CPS. Good luck.

Shoot 35 on sale now for a ridiculously low price.
https://www.shoot35.com/cinebox-4x4-Matte-Box-p/shoot-cinebox-flags.htm
 

@Cinegain
Hmm...I have to contradict: ONLY some people do it - mostly self proclaimed "cinematographers", copying "cinematic look" from other test video posters. More than 99 percent of users who buy modern cameras are still very happy with their choice...People needing 100% cinematic look just out of a camera and maximum of control and maleability, work witk RAW cameras, as they know, even a 4.2.2 10bit is only a compromise and - in the hands of a good filmmaker & capable colour grader - will never touch the IQ level of RAW footage.
In my eyes, over 90% of "test footage" is simply massacred footage...Trying to get a "quick & dirty" cinematic look with bad lighting, no clue of what one is doing (simply trying to copy settings of other clueless amateurs, workflows and dumbly buying LUT packages) doesn't lead to good results. but it's simply awkward. Better to use the camera with original settings and profiles...
Most of today's cameras (completely independent of manufactures name) have a good resolution (excepting Canon's ancient 720p BS) in 1080p and 4K. But obviously people CAN'T or don't want to handle high resolution (4K+), so they "go vintage": the post-world-war-2-720p mushy Canon BS...And declare it as "cinematic". But - as said - this is only a minority and the claim is a completely irrelevant myth. A vast majority of todays audience 
simply doens't care about such called cinematic look simply uses small smartphones/tablet screens and so subtle color grading and 4K & Co don't matter at all using bigger screens (PC, TV) LOVE high resolution and high contrast footage (HDR) "Tarantino in 2 minutes" is quite hard to achieve...So the few guys "begging for high-res and keep hammering down footage has to be sharp and detailed" should put their money in RAW devices, as noone cares really about their excessive requirements for a under 2.000 USD camera...People wanting to do real cinematography should raise money for some serious artistic and technical education, a serious RAW camera, a truck full of lighting, some good actors, directing and postproduction knowledge etc., etc....At the end of the day, most of us are ambitionned enthusiasts/amateurs or small business filmmakers without time and budget to produce great Hollywood cinematography - and that's completely OK. Some of us should just stop miming the 100 million $ Hollywood producer...
There is clearly a big discrepancy between pretense and reality out there...Nothing to get worried about, just try to do your best and have fun...

After the DVX200 came out, I bought it. To be honest, I wasn't experienced at that time with settings, tweaking and getting the best results of a more advanced camera, but my experience was a desaster:
horrible, piggish colors when speaking about footage out of the camera ("as it is"), though Panasonic advertized the device as good for news gathering and documentary shooting though I am not a pixel peeper, the DVX200 had horrible - and visible -  noise even in daylight footage and good lighting (without contrasty situations like contre-jour), e.g. in tree bark and leafs... After seeing in some forums many other people facing the same problems and a Barry Green first claiming the people complaining "have to learn to handle the camera" and - after many complains of pro and broadcast shooters -  claiming, that filmers have to use V-Log to get usable results, I was shocked by such brazenness when speaking of a camera (that time) costing about 4.500 Euro in Germany, advertized for what I did. I returned it after 6 days and I was not the only one who did this. Never looked back.
After some firmware upgrades, they made the DVX200 better, noise got less and the color science (OOC) got more pleasant indeed. The attitude of companies pocketing immediately buyers money, but claiming to deliver the advertized features with an update later or in "next future" is unacceptable in my eyes. Though I still use two Panasonic cameras, I am done with this company in regard of buying a professional film or video camera from them without testing it excessively. Buyers are NOT beta testers for impertinent PR morons and marketing liars...
@Marketing morons: Don't praise too much theoretical specs and bells & whistles - show me the advertized features, ergonomic, handling and results first, and then I'll give you my money.

After the DVX200 came out, I bought it. To be honest, I wasn't experienced at that time with settings, tweaking and getting the best results of a more advanced camera, but my experience was a desaster:
horrible, piggish colors when speaking about footage out of the camera ("as it is"), though Panasonic advertized the device as good for news gathering and documentary shooting though I am not a pixel peeper, the DVX200 had horrible - and visible -  noise even in daylight footage and good lighting (without contrasty situations like contre-jour), e.g. in tree bark and leafs... After seeing in some forums many other people facing the same problems and a Barry Green first claiming the people complaining "have to learn to handle the camera" and - after many complains of pro and broadcast shooters -  claiming, that filmers have to use V-Log to get usable results, I was shocked by such brazenness when speaking of a camera (that time) costing about 4.500 Euro in Germany, advertized for what I did. I returned it after 6 days and I was not the only one who did this. Never looked back.
After some firmware upgrades, they made the DVX200 better, noise got less and the color science (OOC) got more pleasant indeed. The attitude of companies pocketing immediately buyers money, but claiming to deliver the advertized features with an update later or in "next future" is unacceptable in my eyes. Though I still use two Panasonic cameras, I am done with this company in regard of buying a professional film or video camera from them without testing it excessively. Buyers are NOT beta testers for impertinent PR morons and marketing liars...
@Marketing morons: Don't praise too much theoretical specs and bells & whistles - show me the advertized features, ergonomic, handling and results first, and then I'll give you my money.

After the DVX200 came out, I bought it. To be honest, I wasn't experienced at that time with settings, tweaking and getting the best results of a more advanced camera, but my experience was a desaster:
horrible, piggish colors when speaking about footage out of the camera ("as it is"), though Panasonic advertized the device as good for news gathering and documentary shooting though I am not a pixel peeper, the DVX200 had horrible - and visible -  noise even in daylight footage and good lighting (without contrasty situations like contre-jour), e.g. in tree bark and leafs... After seeing in some forums many other people facing the same problems and a Barry Green first claiming the people complaining "have to learn to handle the camera" and - after many complains of pro and broadcast shooters -  claiming, that filmers have to use V-Log to get usable results, I was shocked by such brazenness when speaking of a camera (that time) costing about 4.500 Euro in Germany, advertized for what I did. I returned it after 6 days and I was not the only one who did this. Never looked back.
After some firmware upgrades, they made the DVX200 better, noise got less and the color science (OOC) got more pleasant indeed. The attitude of companies pocketing immediately buyers money, but claiming to deliver the advertized features with an update later or in "next future" is unacceptable in my eyes. Though I still use two Panasonic cameras, I am done with this company in regard of buying a professional film or video camera from them without testing it excessively. Buyers are NOT beta testers for impertinent PR morons and marketing liars...
@Marketing morons: Don't praise too much theoretical specs and bells & whistles - show me the advertized features, ergonomic, handling and results first, and then I'll give you my money.

After the DVX200 came out, I bought it. To be honest, I wasn't experienced at that time with settings, tweaking and getting the best results of a more advanced camera, but my experience was a desaster:
horrible, piggish colors when speaking about footage out of the camera ("as it is"), though Panasonic advertized the device as good for news gathering and documentary shooting though I am not a pixel peeper, the DVX200 had horrible - and visible -  noise even in daylight footage and good lighting (without contrasty situations like contre-jour), e.g. in tree bark and leafs... After seeing in some forums many other people facing the same problems and a Barry Green first claiming the people complaining "have to learn to handle the camera" and - after many complains of pro and broadcast shooters -  claiming, that filmers have to use V-Log to get usable results, I was shocked by such brazenness when speaking of a camera (that time) costing about 4.500 Euro in Germany, advertized for what I did. I returned it after 6 days and I was not the only one who did this. Never looked back.
After some firmware upgrades, they made the DVX200 better, noise got less and the color science (OOC) got more pleasant indeed. The attitude of companies pocketing immediately buyers money, but claiming to deliver the advertized features with an update later or in "next future" is unacceptable in my eyes. Though I still use two Panasonic cameras, I am done with this company in regard of buying a professional film or video camera from them without testing it excessively. Buyers are NOT beta testers for impertinent PR morons and marketing liars...
@Marketing morons: Don't praise too much theoretical specs and bells & whistles - show me the advertized features, ergonomic, handling and results first, and then I'll give you my money.

After the DVX200 came out, I bought it. To be honest, I wasn't experienced at that time with settings, tweaking and getting the best results of a more advanced camera, but my experience was a desaster:
horrible, piggish colors when speaking about footage out of the camera ("as it is"), though Panasonic advertized the device as good for news gathering and documentary shooting though I am not a pixel peeper, the DVX200 had horrible - and visible -  noise even in daylight footage and good lighting (without contrasty situations like contre-jour), e.g. in tree bark and leafs... After seeing in some forums many other people facing the same problems and a Barry Green first claiming the people complaining "have to learn to handle the camera" and - after many complains of pro and broadcast shooters -  claiming, that filmers have to use V-Log to get usable results, I was shocked by such brazenness when speaking of a camera (that time) costing about 4.500 Euro in Germany, advertized for what I did. I returned it after 6 days and I was not the only one who did this. Never looked back.
After some firmware upgrades, they made the DVX200 better, noise got less and the color science (OOC) got more pleasant indeed. The attitude of companies pocketing immediately buyers money, but claiming to deliver the advertized features with an update later or in "next future" is unacceptable in my eyes. Though I still use two Panasonic cameras, I am done with this company in regard of buying a professional film or video camera from them without testing it excessively. Buyers are NOT beta testers for impertinent PR morons and marketing liars...
@Marketing morons: Don't praise too much theoretical specs and bells & whistles - show me the advertized features, ergonomic, handling and results first, and then I'll give you my money.

It's not so simple to say good bye to Premiere CC because of two simple facts:
There is a bunch of very useful and well done third party plugins for Premiere, not existing for another kind of software than Premiere Familiarity - most people are already used to the GUIs and workflows. Getting the same abilities for another software takes time and efforts (and at the end of the day, every piece of software has its weeknesses and flaws) In my eyes, there is no "holy grail" in this market...

@Kisaha
...and automatically fill my bank account with a six figure amount (RAW USD - uncompressed) every month... 

I am quite sure
when the A7R m3 / A7S m3 (or A9R / A9S) will be announced with improved ergonomics and features will cost 3.900 - 4.500 USD... there will not be 4.2.2 10bit internal recording (4.2.0 8bit only) Improvements I wish: Battery life, PDAF on the A7S-version, touch screen (tiltable), usable LCD-Display in daylight, improved IBIS.
But hey guys, let's await the cameras - at the end of the day all of us (mostly) already have decent devices to shoot with at the moment and nowadays are great times for shooters, as there are many camera options from 500 USD to 70.000 USD (and of course more) on the market, already covering all requirements, needs and wishes...

It's not so simple to say good bye to Premiere CC because of two simple facts:
There is a bunch of very useful and well done third party plugins for Premiere, not existing for another kind of software than Premiere Familiarity - most people are already used to the GUIs and workflows. Getting the same abilities for another software takes time and efforts (and at the end of the day, every piece of software has its weeknesses and flaws) In my eyes, there is no "holy grail" in this market...

It seems impossible to get some info on HSS capabilities and some details when using flash. I ask me WHY?
Oops...I hope, this guy is not right:
This guy is aware about some critical situations, where marketing speach would not be enough...Wait and see...

@webrunner5
Hmm...Never underestimate Canons and Nikons power in journalism or wedding market. Their brands as still cameras are very strong and they have very good and reliable devices. Sony is very innovative but though it has to learn built quality & usability from its competitors. Innovation and technical excellence are only two aspects in a very complex and competitive market hardly damaged by the "smartphone revolution"...Just my 2 cents...

@Mattias Burling
Personally, I don't care about wins & losses of any manufacturer. Adapt and make profits or burn money and retire immediately or in some years. At the end of the day, we don't know Sony's strategy (burning money first for getting considerable market shares at long term?)...
Much more interesting for ambitionned stills shooters and pros are some other questions needing clarification:
How well will the A9 nail focus compared with its direct competitors 1DX m2 and D5? 20fps means nothing if it doesn't nail focus better than competitors... Focusing reliability and speed in low light, compared to its competitors/low light still cameras (D750, D5, 1DX m2)? Some of the A6300 and even some A7R ii overheated sometimes when shooting stills (after firmware upgrades no more) - hope the A9 doesn't overheat when shooting stills because this could be a deal breaker for many potential buyers (I would immediately return the camera and want my money back - no waiting for a firmware upgrade to solve overheating issues when shooting stills) What does "dust and moisture resistance" mean? Is this a little better than junk consumer cameras, or is this a claim to rely on when shooting outdoor (with all manufacturer warranty commitment implications?) Personally, I don't believe that it could focus fast and reliable in very low light on moving objects (like its DSLR competitors), because no mirrorles can do this until now. I would be very surprized, if Sony disabused me with this point...
There is also a point, nearly noone speaking about: the 20fps burst rate is 12bit RAW. You can get full 14bit RAW only when you considerably slow down your burst rate...so 14bit RAW will be the same burst rate as the ancient NX1 from 2014...