UncleBobsPhotography

Lack of lens options is a valid objection, but Voigtländer does have 10.5mm f0.95 lens as long as you don't rely on autofocus.
If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit...
The A7III is obviously a good video-camera, and I would rather call a Pocket4k a side-step than an upgrade. We are arguing that FF is not necessary, not that all FF cameras are bad.

Lack of lens options is a valid objection, but Voigtländer does have 10.5mm f0.95 lens as long as you don't rely on autofocus.
If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit...
The A7III is obviously a good video-camera, and I would rather call a Pocket4k a side-step than an upgrade. We are arguing that FF is not necessary, not that all FF cameras are bad.

I think you are reading too much into this. I am one of the persons who have been praising the GH5 in this thread, but I have 3 times as many full-frame bodies and probably 3 times as many full-frame lenses as well. Even though one guy had a good shoot with the GX85, I'm pretty sure most of us would prefer full frame for photography. Most of the FF advantages disappear when you get into video, which is why I go FF for photo and use my GH5 for video.
If Canon's next mirrorless ticks all the boxes I will probably switch to FF for video as well, but I think it's more likely that the GH6 will be a better video camera.

I think you are reading too much into this. I am one of the persons who have been praising the GH5 in this thread, but I have 3 times as many full-frame bodies and probably 3 times as many full-frame lenses as well. Even though one guy had a good shoot with the GX85, I'm pretty sure most of us would prefer full frame for photography. Most of the FF advantages disappear when you get into video, which is why I go FF for photo and use my GH5 for video.
If Canon's next mirrorless ticks all the boxes I will probably switch to FF for video as well, but I think it's more likely that the GH6 will be a better video camera.

Is the A7III any better than a GH5s with an f0.95 or f1.2 at slow motion? I doubt it (unless you consider crazy lenses like the Sony FE 400mm F2.8)
I am extremely happy with my GH5 and Olympus f1.2 lenses. Sure, it's not perfect, but I don't see any better options for my use available.

Add the term "cinematic" plz
In my photo/video discord server we call bokeH cream cream lmao

If it has better sound than the current Videomic Pro and the Deity D3 Pro it’s a win in my book and is worth the $230 they are charging for it.
Criticizing the product for not being pro when as a audio pro you KNOW exactly what quality you need, is a bit weird.
Cheap mics are anything below $1000 basically. 
I have a feeling Curtis’ Review will be positive and a highly recommended buy for people with a $300 budget.

The author of this article does not understand perspective. It's the kind of thing I used to think until I took the time to understand that for instance a 50mm has no magic powers to change the way light works over for instance a 25mm. 
"...specifically a shallower depth of field and more compressed rendering of space. In other words, the large format allows you to see wider, without going wider, as you can see in the example below."
? This is false. It's 100% false. There is no such thing as lens compression, only perspective. If you're standing in the same place, perspective will be the same, and as @kye is pointing out, within reason, you can mimic the look of any size sensor by matching the FOV and using an equivalent aperture (and then compensating the ISO).
Having said that, there are certain things that are hard to do, like super shallow depth of field on wider lenses on MFT, or mimicking the look of a 50mm 1.2 FF on MFT, etc.
You can just get a wider lens though... for instance a 12mm on MFT is the same as a 24 on FF in FOV

I found that article to be very confusing.  We all know that different crop factors can be compensated for in some ways (eg, FOV) but that other things don’t scale (eg exposure) so for example on MFT you put on a lens that’s 25mm T2.8 and get a certain exposure and a certain DoF, but when you put a 50mm onto a FF lens then you can set the lens to be T5.6 and get less exposure but the same DoF, or you can set it to T2.8 and get the same exposure but a shallower DoF.
Tha article seems to be indicating that something changes when you use the larger sensor and then put on a lens to give the same FOV, but it doesn’t say what it is.  It seemed to indicate that you can get closer and still see the same things on the edges of the frame, but that would mean a wider FOV, which is something you can do with any sensor size - just go wider and closer.
Does anyone actually know what they’re talking about?

I'm very happy with doing a part-time study program in filmmaking. Most of my class mates are already industry professionals but want to have a more creative role, so it has been perfect for networking and I've been able to join several of their projects not related to the class. At the same time it doesn't interfere much with my daily work and lets me build my portfolio efficiently. It also helps that higher education is next to free here. My decision might have been different if I had to pay for it.

I'm very happy with doing a part-time study program in filmmaking. Most of my class mates are already industry professionals but want to have a more creative role, so it has been perfect for networking and I've been able to join several of their projects not related to the class. At the same time it doesn't interfere much with my daily work and lets me build my portfolio efficiently. It also helps that higher education is next to free here. My decision might have been different if I had to pay for it.

I'm very happy with doing a part-time study program in filmmaking. Most of my class mates are already industry professionals but want to have a more creative role, so it has been perfect for networking and I've been able to join several of their projects not related to the class. At the same time it doesn't interfere much with my daily work and lets me build my portfolio efficiently. It also helps that higher education is next to free here. My decision might have been different if I had to pay for it.

Use the custom white balance function against a grey card.

I don't notice a major color shift after the swap, though I no longer have any unmodified hero 5's to compare it with.  I'm pretty sure I got the lens from Amazon.  If you search for "M12," they have lots and they're mostly pretty cheap.
I don't have a modified RX0 (or an unmodified RX0).
As far as the modified GoPros...  the Hero 5, I still use as a car camera.  I have a couple of unmodified Hero 7's that I can use as car cameras if I want to go back to a wider angle or if it's extremely rainy or dusty.  
I haven't used the Ribcage Hero 7 for a lot of useful stuff, but I'll be starting to use it more in the near future, now that I got a holder that makes the annoying GoPro microphone connector a little less annoying.  One of the reasons I'm always hunting for wide angle D mount lenses with sufficient coverage is that I'd love to use it as a vlogging camera, especially when in areas where I'm iffier about carrying around fancy-looking cameras (I've used the RX100 V for that, but even it draws some unwanted attention that something looking like a Frankencamera might not).  It's mostly a fun/tiny camera where I can use my C/D mount lenses.  I also want to use it in some upcoming short film projects in places where a GoPro might otherwise be used, but where the fisheye is not desirable.  I may also try using it as a car camera with a fast lens sometime when it's getting dark enough that a standard Hero struggles. 

Their reason is obvious: they don't want filmmakers using these cameras. I'm not really sure what part of that is hard to understand. 
I'm sorry but your argument is quite asanine. 
Just a few posts ago you argued that Canon might have to pay extra license fees for 24p, which is ridiculous, and now you're acting like an expert? 
The mental gymnastics you're doing right now to argue what is blatantly obvious is insane. Seriously, you wrote all that man to excuse CANON, who has a history of handicapping their cameras! Please, think that last sentence over a bit. 
All that, like the reason Canon cripples their cameras, goes without saying. No one said otherwise. 

For me, the value of a GoPro is that it's small, robust, waterproof and "fire-and-forget". Modding it with a new mount removes all of those advantages. I guess it would still be the smallest camera with 4k60p at a high bitrate, but for most practical cases, a GH5 would make more sense. Then there is of course the entertainment aspect of doing camera mods.

Unlike the others here, I've had pretty good luck with Ribcage products... to as much of an extent as can be reasonably expected.

I first bought their kit to convert a Yi 4K+ to C mount and I somehow botched the installation, but they were willing to help me un-botch it in the end.  Ultimately, I found that C mount lenses were extremely difficult to use with the Yi because...
The internal screen is tiny and not very high-resolution.  This made critical focus nearly impossible, even when using a loupe. There is no HDMI output option to use an external screen to check critical focus.  It is possible to use an adapter to get composite output, but none of my external screens are composite... 
  More recently, I bought a pre-assembled kit with a Hero 7 Black.  This is a vastly better experience.
The internal screen on the Hero 7 is much better-quality than the Yi and there is an option to digitally zoom in which is very useful for focusing.  This is a little bit awkward, but works OK The camera has HDMI output which can be useful for focusing if I already have another screen, but this has limits - in video mode, the HDMI output is very laggy.  In photo mode and timelapse mode it's very fast... but it is pretty awkward to have to change modes constantly in order to focus. Image stabilization is not very well-optimized for longer lenses so they end up still feeling sort of shaky I have found that a number of D mount lenses have sufficient coverage for the 1/2.3" sensor in the Hero 7.  I'm still looking for a wide angle option without a hard vignette, but lenses in the 10mm and longer range seem to cover sufficiently... which is at least enough for a very minor telephoto with around a 10mm lens.  I'm hoping, though, to find a 5mm or so D mount lens with enough coverage.  Unfortunately, D mount lenses aren't super common on the used market.  In this regard, the 1" sensor (2.7x crop) in the RX0 would be very strongly preferable. Whatever the Ribcage looks like internally or how much electronics purists turn up their nose at it, the camera feels plenty solid from the outside and mine has been banged around quite a bit.  It still seems to be doing alright. The Hero 7 has HEVC at around 78 megabits/second.  I would be curious to compare its output vs the RX0 with semi-cruddy HEVC-S at 100 megabits/second.  In addition, the Hero 7 can handle 60 fps in 4k where the RX0 is only capable of 30 fps.  On the other hand, the RX0 can output 4K at 422 for external recording if you don't mind bulking it up a little bit. The Hero 7 also has 2.7kp120 and 1080p240 options and I think both can be used continuously.  The RX0 has 1080p240.  Assuming that it's like my RX100 V, this mode will be limited to only a few seconds.  I'm not sure how much any of this matters since the quality of all of the above is fairly mediocre. The RX0 has Slog.  The Hero 7 has ProTune.  I think both are usable enough with moderate dynamic range scenes. The RX0 almost definitely will work better in low light than the Hero 7 - and in addition, it's possible to use a speed booster with the Micro 4/3 mount where I am not aware of any decent-quality C mount speed boosters. In the end, I thought about buying the Ribcage RX0...  but ended up deciding it didn't have enough advantages over the Ribcage Hero 7 to make it worth the swap.
This is reminding me that I want to use the Hero 7 variant more... I suppose I'll make an effort to bring it with me the next time I go shooting. 

I use it on the GH5. My suspicion is that it has trouble with wide angle lenses, but my plan is to just shoot some test charts with each new combination to verify their performance before using it. 

It is widely known in the camera industry that RED owns a key patent for a cinema cameras featuring compressed RAW.
It is also alleged the technology has featured in a number of past legal claims RED have had over rival camera companies.
Now third party accessory manufacturer Jinni Tech alleges RED "deceived the US patent office" and filed the critical patent late.
Read the full article

Bought one at HobbyKing in the past for my RC battery charging (where you can specify cut-off voltage) and modified it with NP-F battery plate to do this.

The viable options for improving performance in Resolve from cheapest to most expensive are pretty much:
1) Get an eGPU
2) Get a desktop computer (Might be more expensive than option 3 if you get the cheese grater)
3) Get a new laptop (15" MacBook Pro if Apple)
Option 1) is cheapest and most portable, so it's definitely a sane choice even if it might not give the highest performance. The other options will be at least twice as expensive (and 4 times as expensive if you stay with apple).If an 570/580 is good enough, then go for it. The question is whether or not it's good enough.
When it comes to computers, it's better to buy cheaper for what you need today than to buy expensive in anticipation for what the future might look like.

Yes, I'm clueless. Thats why I often get paid to build edit systems and 10Gbe networks/Storage for production companies.
 
Sorry, where did I mention $50,000 outfits. You are just making shit up now.
I'm not saying you can't edit video on an iPad pro, but Kye has a MacBook Pro that he is trying to get better performance out of. For a small amount, he can massively upgrade his edit experience as well as keep his existing MacBook. The eGPU is also upgradable in future and works with Resolve now neither of which the iPad pro are capable of doing.
To recap, you suggested Kye change his hardware and edit software of choice, I suggested a solution which fits in with both of his current hardware/software solutions...Yet, you say you are the one trying to suggest affordable solutions? I think not. Cloud is good, but not there yet given current networks.
Please, keep it real dude!

For those of us who are already editing from an external SSD, it's not really any different to plug the SSD into a desktop computer than it is to plug an eGPU into your laptop computer. It's more of a reverse docking. I keep all auxiliary files in my dropbox folder which are synchronized between my laptop and desktop, so the process is more or less seamless. But I get it that some people don't want to have 2 computers, especially if they're Apple users.
Lately I've been toying with the idea of doing all of my editing remotely by running Premiere on my desktop computer and casting/remote desktop it to my laptop. What would have been even better would be to use a public cloud for editing. Should be possible, and should be able to give performance much higher than what we would get on our personal computers, but I haven't heard of anyone using it or anyone providing good cloud editing solutions.
 

https://egpu.io/external-gpu-buyers-guide-2019/
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Aorus-RTX-2070-Gaming-Box-with-Dell-XPS-13-9380-Review.413819.0.html
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-2070-Laptop-Graphics-Card.384936.0.html
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-05-08-rtx-2070-vs-gtx-1080-7001
https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N2070IXEB-8GC#kf
 

You can find the latest firmware here: 
https://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/download/index.html I could download version 2.4 fine from that page.