BTM_Pix

It does not. The contacts do seem to pass data. 

For anyone looking for a cheap 4K travel camera with a 30x zoom (!) that can have cinelike d then I can confirm that it can indeed be done for the Panasonic TZ80 
And if you are travelling through Stansted airport then if you go to the Dixons tax free shop then ask to buy the demo one as I've just been there and left it already enabled on C3 for you
 

It's awesome. Once you start using cinelike D, it's hard to go back. Skin tones are so much nicer. Thanks, man. Never bothered with the NTSC hack, but this is SO much more useful.
Still prefer the G80 for the mic input, the ergonomics and the button layout, and I have high hopes for the better balance with the upcoming 17mm 1.2 PRO, but...
Thanks, man. Finally happy again with my twin combo.

It has a headphone output on it for monitoring or am I missing the point?
Anyway, who cares, tell us more about your unauthorised visitors !

Yes.
Just put the camera into wifi mode, connect the Mac to its WiFi and load the HTML file into Safari 

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.
I see a lot of parallels here too.
The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.
It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.
In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.
Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.
After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.
So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?
Yes.
Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?
Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.
 

This is a bit of an alternative to consider - and the big caveat here is that you've stated you will use lav mics for key audio elements - so is based on you needing something discrete for general wide field capture on camera.
I'll do a specific thread about these at some point but the Roland CS-10EM binaural microphone/headphone system is something that could well be worth a look.
Not only do they provide a very interesting and immersive stereo recording but as they just look like regular earbud headphones they are incredibly discreet and of course completely non-threatening.
They have foam shields which are essential outdoors but, again, they don't look out of place.
You could modify deadcat material to them and just pass it off as excessive ear hair if you are of a certain age such as myself
They are the sort of thing you'd have to demo to make sure that they were right for you but I think they might just work for what you're describing, particularly if its for social event coverage.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/ROLAND-CS-10EM-Roland/dp/B003QGPCTE

Totally agree.
The human brain has become so attune to audio and visual input that lots of research is still to be done. The physiological effects of higher frame rates done by Doug Trumbell many years ago is particularly interesting - as it concludes that very high frame rate (way higher than the disastrous 48fps hobbit) has a truly immersive effect to the viewer when projected at the correct brightness. I suspect the growing generation of gamer kids may be more accommodating to the notion of mass adoption of high fps movies in the future. With the correct implementation, this could well be the future of film making and presentation. Then the future kids will probably want to apply motion blur to footage to give it a nostalgic filmic feel.
That is maybe a thing worth remembering, modern film is still clinging (rightly or wrongly) to established rules of frame rate and presentation methods. Silent 16fps black and white film used to be the cutting edge back in the day...so it is probably just a matter of time until we go through another 'advancement' of similar impact.

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.
I see a lot of parallels here too.
The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.
It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.
In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.
Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.
After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.
So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?
Yes.
Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?
Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.
 

I think it just effects your whole vibe as well to be honest.
All this stuff I'm doing with hardware controllers and stuff is a laugh and it fires you up creatively to make these cameras do more because its trying to bridge these gaps and get more out of less.
And do it for the benefit of everyone.
If I was developing stuff to control REDs etc I'd be far more po faced about it and undoubtedly looking to make money off it.
You and I haven't actually met but the first time I came across you - and then in turn discovered this blog - was at the Convergence event in London about six years ago. You were there, Bloom was there (and already seemed to me to be interested in commercially riding the wave of what was happening if you know what I mean) and I remember you had a Teradek hdmi transmitter that could do the at the time magical feat of streaming live to an iPad. At that point you were already eschewing the 5DMKII in favour of the GH2 as it was more interesting and more versatile and cheaper etc for young film makers whereas the vibe even then was heading towards the 5DMKII being the entry point and wanting to go up in price from there. 
So, whilst I understood where people were coming from on that C200 thread, in terms of how people view this stuff now compared to then where a C200 is now almost like a base point then it really felt like a shark jumping moment reading it.
It felt like punk then. 
It feels like prog rock now.

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.
I see a lot of parallels here too.
The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.
It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.
In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.
Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.
After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.
So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?
Yes.
Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?
Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.
 

There was some interesting research done about 20 years ago regarding CDs that suggested that we possess far more accurate timing circuits - for want of a better expression - when it comes to audio than was ever considered and that we are actually able to perceive the sliced element of digital audio and so our brains then de-prioritise it and let it tick along in the background as a reduced 'threat' that needs less immediate monitoring. Which translates if not to outright boredom then certainly in being less engaged in it than we are with a subtly changing analogue source.

I think its going to be difficult for anyone to give you a definitive answer really because there can be such a broad difference between the light in say a dingy pub and an arena concert so the answer is always going to be 'it depends'.
What might be useful for you though is to go and look on this flickr group of concert photographs.
There are over 200,000 on there from gigs in all different conditions and using all different camera and lens combinations. The majority of pictures have the exif data displayed to show you the ISO/SS and Aperture used so pick a sample set of the sort of level of gigs that you'll be covering and you should be able to get a feel for the exposures required.
I suspect the support with that lens might give you more challenges than the light if you intend to use it handheld.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/concertshots/pool/

The dirty little secret is that everything about film is fake.
Film projection is in itself a magic trick...tricking the brain into thinking that a rapid succession of still images is a continuity of motion. It is only the brain that interprets this into an experience of motion within 'motion pictures'. I totally see some merits in introducing old analogue artifacts from the film days - into digital cinema but I think the key is to be subtle about it if applying at the post stage. I think that a current feeling to some is that a 'connection' to an immersive viewing experience is having a reminder that what is being viewed has gone through a 'process'. What were once unwanted visual artifacts are now welcome visual cues of the 'good old days of film'. A comparison could be the trend of anamorphic flares being provoked so heavily in films these days. When these lenses were first being used in cinema, any flare was considered way too distracting and an obvious technical error to be either cut out or suppressed as much as possible. It is only in hindsight after a technical 'advancement' that many analog artifacts start to have positive or nostalgic memories to people.
I have some old Hi8 and mini DV footage from years ago, it is now the new super8 in terms of provoking nostalgia. It looks quite awesome now because it is so detached from the look of modern digital video quality....but the real reason I think I like it now is because it is associated to memories of being a teenager I have. That is the power of the moving image, regardless of format.
A Grindhouse grungy film effect is easy to achieve in post, but quickly gets boring unless integral to the intended look. Unfortunatly most film look presets default to a similar heavy handed setting that when left as is - giving a very 'fake' feel to things. Subtle layering of grain, weave, fading can give nice results that do not stand out as being ugly, but help make the image more akin to the 'warm' feel of older film. I often use real film scans of grain to overlay digital footage, nothing wrong with that...it is dialed down very low, and often layered and offset 2-3 times to give the image a near invisible  bit of dancing texture that helps take the clinical feel from digital and also helps give an added sense of sharpness to shots where focus was not tack sharp. Adding post effects such as weave/grain/speckle/dust is totally fine in my book if it compliments the visuals and does not distract from the subject.
I'd say at least 70 percent of the 'film look' in digital cinema these days is dictated by camera lens choice and the remaining 30 percent is down to the grade and finishing. Modern multi-coated lenses tend to bake-in a contrast and colour that is very hard to convincingly adjust afterwards, even when dealing with footage from high dynamic range cameras. This is why so many vintage cine primes are still being used on features - giving a more 'organic' feel to the image at the source of the image capture process. I think too many people assume that they can take digital footage shot with kit lenses and post-process the footage to accurately emulate film with one or two simple clicks with a LUT. The truth is that you need to consider lens choice, exposure and have enough latitude in your camera 'negative' to first colour correct and THEN start to grade and finish the image.
The irony is the just before film started to die as a primary cinema acquisition and projection method, it was hitting the pinnacle of impeccably clean, sharp and pristine stocks that could deliver amazing results when combined with the flexibility of a modern DI. Motion picture cameras themselves have hardly changed in 100 years of design. 
Film was never a format that wanted any analog artifacts that many seem to now miss, it was always striving to be as clean and perfect as possible. Makers of Vinyl records never wanted crackles and pops to be heard on a first play - it is only from passage of time and advancement of technology that these audible artifacts become nostalgic and add a layer of pleasant experience to the listener. When CD was introduced, the horrible compression of audio dynamic range made the same songs sound sterile and without life when compared to a vinyl (a technical inferiority)...but many gravitated to the more identifiable 'crackle and pop' as an identifiable 'warm feel' artifact that they missed from the previous technology. I feel a similar thing may have happened with film.
Film can technically outperform digital to this day, especially when considering overall latitude and handling of highlight roll-off and especially when talking about large format...but the Alexa and Alexa 65 is pretty much there in terms as to what traditionalist film people consider a 'filmic' image. 

I think it just effects your whole vibe as well to be honest.
All this stuff I'm doing with hardware controllers and stuff is a laugh and it fires you up creatively to make these cameras do more because its trying to bridge these gaps and get more out of less.
And do it for the benefit of everyone.
If I was developing stuff to control REDs etc I'd be far more po faced about it and undoubtedly looking to make money off it.
You and I haven't actually met but the first time I came across you - and then in turn discovered this blog - was at the Convergence event in London about six years ago. You were there, Bloom was there (and already seemed to me to be interested in commercially riding the wave of what was happening if you know what I mean) and I remember you had a Teradek hdmi transmitter that could do the at the time magical feat of streaming live to an iPad. At that point you were already eschewing the 5DMKII in favour of the GH2 as it was more interesting and more versatile and cheaper etc for young film makers whereas the vibe even then was heading towards the 5DMKII being the entry point and wanting to go up in price from there. 
So, whilst I understood where people were coming from on that C200 thread, in terms of how people view this stuff now compared to then where a C200 is now almost like a base point then it really felt like a shark jumping moment reading it.
It felt like punk then. 
It feels like prog rock now.

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.
I see a lot of parallels here too.
The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.
It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.
In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.
Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.
After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.
So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?
Yes.
Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?
Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.
 

Andrew, I'm with you on this as I'm having a similarly "off" experience shooting on my FS5. 
It has everything I need in a very versatile package and shoots some great stuff for me, but.....
I much, much prefer shooting on small mirrorless, certainly at a creativity angle. I do t own a GH5, but on yesterday's FS5/Inferno heavy pop music video shoot - I held the BYS guys GH5 w/ Speedbooster Ultra and my Sigma 18-35mm. It felt really cool, very exciting in fact. 
Today I got some pickups shots, and ditched the FS5 in favour of the A6500. The 4K XAVC-S (minus RS), is just fantastic. It felt very good.
The bigger cameras are there for covering all bells and whistles, and being a reliable workhorse. To get creative with them, you need a team around the camera to pull off the shots (grip / lights etc) as they are much more stationary. 
The FS5 / Inferno covers this heavy production need, but for smaller projects, it wouldn't be my first choice.
In the pro world, clients do get very excited about seeing the Kit being used, and do feel more value is being attained by a bigger camera, even if that bigger camera is actually shit. 
I've had weird thoughts about selling it all and just going GH5, as this method is just fun. At the same time, I could sacrifice the "expectation" I've built by selling up, or it could be a case of finding a new lease of life by using what I find most fun and enjoyable (small powerful mirrorless). 
I guess you could relate to that? 

What a good analogy, I always enjoy the parallels between music and filmmaking / video.
They nearly always hold up.
I have rarely seen a higher-end shoot that didn't have a lot of complexity and setup, unnecessary in some cases. Overkill is common too, in pro video industry... guys doing interviews with an EPIC. What's all that about?
Are they doing lip sync at 240fps?

Haha.
This is exactly how I feel about my C500... It has sat on the shelf, mainly due to needing the beastly external recorder to get a decent picture out of it.
Workflow for my GH5 -
Hold it, press 1 button.
The end.
Workflow for my C500 -
Plug in SDI cable, make sure battery is charged for external monitor, turn on camera, turn on screen, wait quite a bit, oh you forgot the audio, silly me, grab an XLR mic, attach a module, attach the mic, check the levels, plugin headphones, dive into the menus a bit... And now my arm hurts, because it's all rather heavy. And what's that icon, oh dear my 256GB SSD just filled up in 5 minutes with 4K RAW at 120fps. Stop shooting, down tools, put the SSD into laptop, wait 30 mins for it to offload, wipe, reformat in the Odyssey, re-initialise, repeat every so often.
And with the FS5, the sheer amount of buttons really pissed me off as did the fact that when I took it on a shoot in public, people stared. Some of them robbers.
Indeed, the end result is so close, between even a RED and a £400 consumer camera these days, that just like in the audio world, the diminishing returns up-high just aren't often worth the hassle.

Work tools are boring. I've always found mirrorless cameras way more fun to actually shoot with.
In his day job John Brawley has an Alexa. Why on earth would he shoot 'for fun' creatively, with an Olympus E-M1 II? But he does.
There are a lot of talented DPs who shoot with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras once they down their RED and Arri cameras at the end of the day.
Yet I find in the mid-range market for video pros (wedding videographers for example) there's an aspirational value attached to the higher-end pro cameras, that is stupid and pointless. Aspirations should be creative.
Owning a Sony FS5 or Canon C500 doesn't make you more creative, it makes you more efficient at work by a slight bit, and you appear more professional because of the big nobs and bells & whistles. Sadly, it doesn't necessarily make for "better" work because I have yet to see a clear distinction between work shot on mirrorless cameras and on stuff like the C300.
In fact often the small camera stuff looks better and more inspired. The legendary Anthony Dod Mantle is known for his rough and ready work with digital, but when he went Canon C-series on Oliver Stone's recent series of Putin interviews, the look they achieved was slap dash and lazy to my eye... Could have been so much better. He used DSLRs as well on this shoot (between 2015-2017) and those shots actually came out more interesting!
Too many pro videographers seem to dream of cameras like an Alexa and RED, why shows to me how important the professional label and look is to people, but creatively, they are no better and actually worse than the small cameras.
I hated shooting with my Sony FS5. A fiddly pain in the ass, for my music video work in Berlin, it needed an OIS lens and rig for handheld - limiting the choice of looks from the lens. With a GH5 you can put any lens on there and it is instantly stable for handheld work, with a tiny form factor that gets out of the way.
The FS5's image was worse than an A7S II but double the price. Aside from high frame rates it didn't offer anything creatively over a DSLR or mirrorless camera and now I have 120fps full frame on two of my small cameras along with 240fps 1080p on the pocket RX100 IV - So why bother getting a more expensive camera if it doesn't power you along creatively as much as the cheaper stuff!?
These pro cameras aren't cheap... Sometimes I got lucky and I bought a Canon C500 for a very good price used, but do you know how many times I have felt compelled to take it out and use it for artistic work? Zero times.
Kendy Ty is another example of a pro who downs his workhorse RED and shoots with a DSLR... The camera gets out of the way to such an extent he can shoot short films in public and direct the actors at the same time as being the main cinematographer. His work sticks in the mind as some of the most creative and spontaneous I've seen and there's not a C200 in sight... zero need for one!
I think pros have by-and-large completely forgotten and lost the spirit of the DSLR movement back from 2010-2012 as they sought efficiency. XLRs, built in NDs, yadda yadda. Blackmagic as well, when they ditched the small cameras and went all-out URSA on us. Canon too... Oh wait, they never got it in the first place, and they invented it!
Cameras should not just be about making money. That's how an art-form gets boring. That's how it dies.
They are not just about doing a job.
They're about creatively enabling artists and they're about democratising the art form so that price doesn't act as a road block to new talent.
Of course Canon only care about profit, they are not interested in that.
The Olympus E-M1 II's stabilisation isn't seen on any of the pro cinema cameras. It's unique. It offers something creatively to the result that a bigger, more complex shooting rig simply does not.
On the audio side, so important creatively, small mirrorless cameras used to have limitations and some still do - but with XLR boxes with phantom power that fit in a hot-shoe, you can't really complain. Audio is not a big limiting factor on the Panasonic GH5.
I still know that pros have their professional reasons for going Cinema EOS or Sony FS or RED or even Arri... Workflows, codecs, ergonomics, power, performance, looking-the-part... I'm not denying their reasons for one second, it would be so naive to suggest they drop the workhorse cameras and use a mirrorless camera for paid work.
But the creative side of the small cameras is what matters to me and I think it is being overlooked as specs in the $6000-$10,000 pro market hot up.
Sure, you can shoot all day on a big battery to a small broadcast ready codec with the C200, very practical... But can you put a 1970's Super 16 lens on there? Can you increase the character of your images by a factor of 10? Does it have an anamorphic mode? Nope.
If I ever buy a C200... Shoot me. It's over.

You've done it now mentioning the B word haven't you?
I've only just finished reading that C200 thread

Dear folks,
I have been stealthily snooping around and making grateful use of your experiments and knowledge exchange. Thought I'd pay it back with a little test: Cinelike D.
Settings: 0, -5, -5, -3. GX80 had a Olympus 12mm, and the G80 a 17mm, for the rest settings are all the same. Hope it's worth your while.
Jpg 1 is G80, 2 is GX80.
 
 

You've done it now mentioning the B word haven't you?
I've only just finished reading that C200 thread

The Canon 100D is £250 used and I have always had a bit of a soft spot for it, being the smallest and lightest Canon DSLR body.
I recently installed an experimental version of Magic Lantern on the 100D and am absolutely taken-aback by how good the image is!
It practically eliminates moire and softness. The 100D shoots continuous 1.7K RAW video in 25p and 24p to SD card.
Read the full article

You've done it now mentioning the B word haven't you?
I've only just finished reading that C200 thread

The enable purely tells the app what to display to the user, it doesn't determine what the camera is capable of doing but just what the app enables the user to tell it to do.
By and large, this does correspond with the camera's capabilities but not always.
So, this isn't the reason why you can't get Cinelike D to work.
If you followed the instructions that I mentioned in my reply earlier regarding selecting another profile etc and you don't see a blank when you do the deploy for Cinelike D then the camera unfortunately isn't capable of doing it.
With regard to auto iso, again the enable/disable is purely to do with what the app displays to the user.
However, if you connect to the camera and send this 
http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?mode=setsetting&type=iso&value=auto
Then if the camera is capable of the function then this command will enable it.