Mark Romero 2

While I'm no fan of the Sigma 18-35, it can be (with careful consideration) the basis for a nice look.
I'd suggest:
Diffusion filters (as others have suggested) but be aware there are lots of them and all have different looks so that's worth doing some research into - most brands will provide comparisons of their various products so you can narrow down and then look at real-world reviews Some of the characteristics of vintage lenses can be added in post, including: Softening of the edges (use a mask like a vignette but use a blur effect - experiment with different types of blurs here too - radial vs pinch(?) vs "lens" vs directional blurs etc Chromatic aberrations can be added, either to the whole frame or to the edges using a mask Vintage lenses often vignette Vintage lenses often have pincushion distortion - where objects on the edges get curved like a slight fish-eye effect - this can often be introduced with a "lens correction" slider which are common You can even put an oval shape over the front of the lens which will make your bokeh oval-shaped (at least when you have the lens wide-open) but bear in mind it will lower the light coming through the lens and depend DoF slightly With the BM S16 cameras they tend to be on the softer side due to 1080p sensors and lock of sharpening so having a tack-sharp lens isn't a bad thing per-se, it's just on the bland side.
It used to make me mad too, but now I realise that it's all a scam.  
They say the biggest lies are the most successful and I think it's true here too.  Have a look at this:
and I don't mean "see how large the budget is" - I mean go shot by shot, pause each one, and actually look at the image.
If I can take a small liberty for educational purposes, have a look at the frame at 14s, it includes the main star of the whole movie looking like this:

and then imagine what DXOMark would say if they tested this lens:

This single frame reveals the truth about the cinematic look:
The video is uploaded in 2K - because the film is projected in 2K in cinemas The frame has edges that are blurry, even in 2K (see above snippets) The frame has significant pincushion distortion (look at the "straight" lines on the edges of frame) It has quite deep DoF It has spectacular colour Checkmate YouTubers!  
Of course, I say that sarcastically because the reality is that they've checkmated all of us years ago when they started talking about sharp lenses and 4K and we didn't just laugh and skip the video and watched something remotely sensible instead.
I mean, that single frame is so optically poor from a technical perspective that most forum nerds would recommend throwing that lens away, and yet it was used in a key scene in a $250M movie that has grossed $700M+ worldwide.  
Turns out we didn't need MORE pixels, we needed BETTER pixels.
The proof was in the movie theatre the whole time and we never called their bluff.
Or even been to a movie theatre in the last 30 years.....
Why?
The DoF is a function of focal length, so if I take my 12-35/2.8 lens, set it to 12mm f2.8 and focus on an object it will have a different DoF than if I set it to 35mm f2.8 and focus on the same object from the same camera position.  
DoF is variable, even with constant aperture zoom lenses.  In fact, it's probably less variable on a variable aperture zoom.
You said you don't really zoom while filming, so constant exposure isn't really an issue from that point of view.  If you've zoomed and want to match exposure then just adjust your ND - you've adjusted your composition already so a twist of an ND isn't a big deal.  If you're shooting with variable apertures and matching exposure with ISO and wanting to match the noise profile then just get familiar with NR - most cinema cameras have noise (even at their native ISOs) that would make any videographer CRY.  Professional colourists know about NR and how to use it, and it will be used on almost every professional movie or TV show you have ever seen.  Videographers complain about noise in their images and it just shows they literally don't know the first thing about high-end productions (and I mean first thing, because NR is usually the first node of a professional colourists workflow).
Not sure what specific post you're referring to, but most kit lenses are ~24-70, most secondary zooms are 70-200, and most systems have a 16-35 equivalent.  The numbers all look different between brands and mounts etc, but they mostly boil down to those ranges.
I'd say from just that statement alone you're doing far better than most forum peeps, because:
You seem to know what kind of shooter you are You seem to actually shoot (armchair critics aren't a fan of the 12-32mm lens) You seem to understand how the equipment you have relates to what your requirements are ("nice and portable" isn't a think armchair critics who don't shoot say) Sadly, this makes you far ahead of the curve.  Most of camera internet discussions are about specs, with people recommending you change what and how you shoot in order to match the latest equipment rather than the other way around, and TBH mostly it's just the blind leading the stupid, or these days the shills leading the gullible to part with their money!

I should try mine again as it’s a good S35 focal range of 30-90.
It’s mainly the variable aperture I don’t like however.
This one I wish they had made f4.
And had OIS to pair with the IBIS.
But then it would be 50% bigger and heavier and probably twice the price so I can see why they didn’t…
It’s a good ‘kit’ lens though and a great walk about daylight option.
I use it as my wide stills option being 20mm full frame.

@kye Thanks for the post. Certainly makes us look in the mirror.
For my real estate / architecture work, I like sharp(ish) lenses just because people are expecting to see detail.
But for people, I think that most of the kit zoom lenses are fine for 4K. Convenient, inexpensive, relatively-lightweight (so they balance well on a gimbal and are less tiring to use). I would have a bit of a problem with the variable aperture if I zoomed more during shooting, but I don't, so I don't worry about it too much.
One of the better kit zooms out there seems to be the Panasonic 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, which has minimal focus breathing. (Some people would note that Panasonic has minimal focus.)
Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat. These tend to be the same people who sell creative LUT packs that look like a dumpster fire.

@kye Thanks for the post. Certainly makes us look in the mirror.
For my real estate / architecture work, I like sharp(ish) lenses just because people are expecting to see detail.
But for people, I think that most of the kit zoom lenses are fine for 4K. Convenient, inexpensive, relatively-lightweight (so they balance well on a gimbal and are less tiring to use). I would have a bit of a problem with the variable aperture if I zoomed more during shooting, but I don't, so I don't worry about it too much.
One of the better kit zooms out there seems to be the Panasonic 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, which has minimal focus breathing. (Some people would note that Panasonic has minimal focus.)
Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat. These tend to be the same people who sell creative LUT packs that look like a dumpster fire.

@kye Thanks for the post. Certainly makes us look in the mirror.
For my real estate / architecture work, I like sharp(ish) lenses just because people are expecting to see detail.
But for people, I think that most of the kit zoom lenses are fine for 4K. Convenient, inexpensive, relatively-lightweight (so they balance well on a gimbal and are less tiring to use). I would have a bit of a problem with the variable aperture if I zoomed more during shooting, but I don't, so I don't worry about it too much.
One of the better kit zooms out there seems to be the Panasonic 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, which has minimal focus breathing. (Some people would note that Panasonic has minimal focus.)
Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat. These tend to be the same people who sell creative LUT packs that look like a dumpster fire.

I just find it too sharp and contrasty, too optically perfect and boring. I haven't seen any Sigma lenses that I really like, even the "Bigma" 35/1.2. It's so versatile, though, that I'm keeping it for low-light situations.

So, turns out that hitting Command-Return instead of Shift-Return submits the post.  Who knew?
anyway, Part Two.
They have smaller apertures.
This might seem to be a disadvantage, but maybe not as much as you'd imagine.  Firstly, smaller apertures are easy to focus, so less shots with missed focus.  BOOM.  You're welcome.  Tell Panasonic (or whoever) I just upgraded their AF.
See if you can tell the difference in DoF between these?


No?  Well, F2.8 to F3.5 isn't much difference.
OK, let's get less fair.. What about these?


Sure, it's a small difference, but that's a two whole stops.  It's also many many hundreds of dollars.
Low light is definitely a difference here, that's true, so the kit zoom isn't really a low-light monster, but these lenses are practically free so you can't have everything!

Yes, this post was deliberately tongue-in-cheek, but it's also completely true and not joking in any way either.  @Emanuel told me I'm allowed to disagree with myself and it makes me a poet instead of less credible, plus I can just randomly tag people in brand new threads, so I'm doing that too.
You're welcome internet.
Now you have no excuse for not getting out there and making something wonderful.  (You never really had any excuses, so maybe you have a negative number of excuses now?  There I am, being poetic again..)
Enjoy.

Everyone seems to want high-speed high-resolution high-performance glass...  is it sharp wide open?  what does DXO say?  how good is the bokeh?  these questions are all over the net.
OR..
Everyone seems to want vintage glass with their lovely coatings and swirly bokeh and corner softness...  how does it roll-off the highlights?  how is the edge softness?  what is the colour rendering?  how does it render skin?  
I recently tested a bunch of my lenses and I'm wondering if maybe they're wrong.  Maybe cheap, modern, variable aperture, zoom lenses - the kit lens perhaps - is the best lens available.
Why might I say such a thing?  Here are some thoughts.
They're cheap.
Obvious, but true.  In fact, if your camera was cheap enough, then you probably own one already - or if you own multiple cameras maybe more than one!
If you don't already have one, but you know people who are into cameras, then you can probably get one off them for free.
Best, in the real world (which is where I do all my shooting), often means most value.
They're flexible and fast to use.
They can zoom, which makes them flexible.  I don't care how fast you are at changing lenses, I can turn a zoom ring faster than you can change primes.  In fast situations, it can mean the difference between getting the shot and missing it.  ENG cameras all had zooms, not a bag / case of primes.
They can improve your edits.
In slower shooting situations that flexibility can mean you get shots that you wouldn't otherwise get.  Maybe it's not worth changing lenses to grab that shot, so you just don't, or maybe the composition isn't quite right because it falls between two prime focal lengths, or maybe the primes are just too heavy to carry all that way.  Cheap zooms are lightweight plastic - built for speed.
This means that when you get back to the editing room your kit zoom will give you more options.  You'll have taken risks in shooting and some will pay off.  The saying "spray and pray" is a deep insult which encourages people to only shoot what they know will work, but the phrase "happy accidents" betrays that sometimes we don't know what we'll want until we see it, in which case why not deliberately seek out what is new and unknown?  They tell you that shooting with a prime will make you slow down and think about your compositions - maybe we should speed up and think less?  Operate on instinct.  If big-name directors are operating on instinct then why must the rest of us slow down and think more?  
The zoom will unlock the creativity that primes are actively blocking us from achieving.
They can be optically poor.  (Just like vintage lenses)
Here's a little joke..  "What do you call a vintage lens with high optical performance?" "A modern lens"
Vintage lenses are often quite crap.  I'm meant to say "have lots of character", but in reality that character is just optical defects that we happen to like.
Here are four images from my recent GX85 lens test.  These are SOOC and not shot in controlled conditions, but the principle remains.




So what are we looking at here?  
Well, there are two lenses where the colours are vibrant, they make the 100Mbps 4K (on a 1080p timeline here) look very sharp, and they are the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 zoom and the Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95 prime.  These are by far the most expensive lenses.
The 58mm is the Helios 44M, a close relative of the 44-2 (the images are practically identical) and it's got that vintage look we all love.  In fact, the diffusion from the vintage coatings improve the dynamic range of the camera by lifting the highlights.  Despite being very sharp, its diffusion (coatings at work again!) takes the edge off the edges, giving a slightly organic look - it looks high-resolution but not high-sharpness.  This is in the direction of how resolution from RAW-shooting cameras looks - there but understated.
Here's the problem with the Helios though, it flares uncontrollably in direct sunlight.  It's so prone to off-axis lighting that it's difficult to work quickly with.  Plus, it's a prime and subject to all the above issues.
Then, the mighty 14-42 kit lens.  It has some of that vintage look going on.  It's kind of like somewhere between the Helios and the other two.  It raises the shadows a bit, but isn't uncontrollable in direct sun, and the edges are a little softer.  A happy medium perhaps?  It's also a zoom, has OIS, and if you break it you can just go get another one from a friend or on eBay or for $5 at a market somewhere with a GF2 with a dead battery.
End of part 1....

Sensor is based on IMX610 from α1, but with 16 SLVS-EC 4.6Gbps lanes, intead of 8. The sensor itself cosumes over 5W power.
There's no DRAM. ADC operates at 14bit at 1/250s readout at all times (meaning 4ms rolling shutter in all recording modes).
Later paid firmware updates may unlock 8.6K 3:2 open gate up to 72fps, 8.6K 2.39:1 up to 120fps.

I am a bit hesitant to suggest these since I am not sure how applicable they are to one-man band videographers. They do inspire me a bit though and I do at least learn "something" from them. Maybe the last one (Indy Mogul) would be most relevant.
I really like watching the cinematography breakdowns on The Wandering DP's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/wanderingdp/featured
He tends to feature higher end work, and it can be disheartening when he mentions that they probably used a whole bank of sky panels for the key. But he does at least provide alternative ideas and seems to have a good grasp of how things were actually done.
Plus he is funny.
I also spend some time on the Epic Light Media YT channel as well for some of their "How To" videos:
https://www.youtube.com/c/EpicLightMedia/featured
While they do have a fair share of product review videos, they also have a decent selection of how to videos that could work for narrative, but seem to be geared more toward commercial / corporate videos.
Tangentially, studying for my part 107 drone license allowed me to get my license and shoot drone video (and stills) commercially. I used remotepilot101 for studying, although technically, you don't have to use a paid class. I think the FAA has their own "courses" on one of their websites. (They have a "course" on their Re-Current test, which you need to take every two years to keep your license current, and only after completing the course can you take the Re-current test, which is only offered through the faa safety website).
Studio Binder on YT is a good place to kill a weekend or two if you are interested in breakdowns of how some of the bigger directors and DPs work. They talk not only about lenses and angles, but also about color pallets, music, and set design. 
And Indy Mogul did have some good stuff, but I think they aren't producing any more new videos. Some of their really good videos were covering things like how to figure out what to charge clients / how to negotiate, and how to calculate production costs. But they also have some decent lighting and audio instructional videos. Probably the Indy Mogul channel would be the best fit for one-man band or a two-man band.
Hoping this helps, or at least helps to seed the conversation.

Of course.  The larger the source, the larger the specular highlight.  That's why it is best to light flat art and walls with a smaller source -- there's less chance of glare problems because the highlight is smaller.
 
 
A big variable in regards to "harshness" and/or contrast of specular highlights is the distance of the light source from the subject.  The closer the source is to the subject, the greater the subject's diffuse value relative to the highlight value -- so as you move the source closer, the contrast ("harshness") decreases between the highligts and the subject's diffuse brightness.
 
 
Thank you for the kind word!

Some open-faced focusable sources can produce a double cast shadow in the outer parts of the beam, when focused to "spot."  So, cutting into the beam with barndoors or a flag can sometimes not give a clean edge as with a Fresnel.
I tend to use open faced fixtures, as that double cast shadow usually is not apparent, and because they are more compact and lightweight than Fresnels.
 
The Lowel Omni light.  A great, lightweight, compact, powerful and exceedingly versatile fixture.  It's focusing range is greater than many Fresnels.  Always use a protective screen on the front of the fixture.  Use FTK bulbs with a filament support, and avoid off-brand bulbs.  The focusing mechanism is very fast and can break the bulb's filament if one is not careful.

I am a little confused by this (Again, I come from a photography background, but I haven't seen anything to contradict this).
In terms of shadows, I understand that softness  "is a matter of degree between a point source and completely surrounding your subject with a smooth light source."
But wouldn't there still be a difference in specular highlights? I know that (in still photography) when a silver-lined umbrella is used, the specular highlights are stronger (more pronounced / more contrasty) than when a white-lined reflective umbrella is used. (And they are even more contrasty when using a non-bounced light.)
P.S. Wanted to say thank you again for your input in this conversation. 

My fresnel attachment that I use on my Godox COB lights doesn't really do a good job in "full flood", though it works great when in spotlight (which is my primary use for it.) I imagine you'd get better results from a nicer one then? 
I'm not on major sets, just small commercial ones, and I've never seen a fresnel attachment being used with diffusion, so I find that interesting. I still feel like the op would be better off using more lights instead of a fresnel attachment. Not to say he shouldn't get one, as they're very fun to play around with and good to have in your kit, I'm just not sure that it's the solution he'd want to go with for diffusion?

You call a diffuser a "scrim" -- do you have a background in still photography?
 
Generally, a Fresnel will be significantly less efficient than an open-face fixture.  A lot of the light is lost when it strikes the inside of the housing of the Fresnel fixture/attachment.
 
An open-faced focusable source would be better and more efficient in this situation.
 
 

Not sure what is meant by "doesn't really do a good job in 'full flood,'"  A Fresnel attachment on an LED fixture might be disappointing to one having experience with tungsten and HMI Fresnels.
Regardless, the range of beam angles from a focusable fixture/attachment depends on a few variables.
With Fresnel fixtures, the source is always closest to the lens in the full flood setting.  So, if the Fresnel attachment doesn't allow the LED to get close to lens, then the beam angle will not reach its widest potential.  Of course, there are safety reasons why the light source should not get too close to the lens.
On the other hand, if one can just remove the lens/attachment, then it's best to just use the fixture without the lens, one wants to go really wide and use all of the output from the source.
By the way, it is dangerous to run a tungsten or HMI Fresnel without its lens.
 
I don't advocate using Fresnels to illuminate diffusion -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.  However, I see it on set often.
Fresnels and other focusable fixtures are more than "fun to play around with."  If one knows how to use them, they are a valuable tool that "play" often on set.

Yes!
Thanks. Good to know. I certainly wasn't aware of that.
 
Again, good to know. Thanks.
That raises two questions though:
1) When would you choose the Fresnel over an open-faced focusable source?
2) Can you give us an example of a (more-or-less affordable) open-faced focusable light (or modifier)?

I am a bit hesitant to suggest these since I am not sure how applicable they are to one-man band videographers. They do inspire me a bit though and I do at least learn "something" from them. Maybe the last one (Indy Mogul) would be most relevant.
I really like watching the cinematography breakdowns on The Wandering DP's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/wanderingdp/featured
He tends to feature higher end work, and it can be disheartening when he mentions that they probably used a whole bank of sky panels for the key. But he does at least provide alternative ideas and seems to have a good grasp of how things were actually done.
Plus he is funny.
I also spend some time on the Epic Light Media YT channel as well for some of their "How To" videos:
https://www.youtube.com/c/EpicLightMedia/featured
While they do have a fair share of product review videos, they also have a decent selection of how to videos that could work for narrative, but seem to be geared more toward commercial / corporate videos.
Tangentially, studying for my part 107 drone license allowed me to get my license and shoot drone video (and stills) commercially. I used remotepilot101 for studying, although technically, you don't have to use a paid class. I think the FAA has their own "courses" on one of their websites. (They have a "course" on their Re-Current test, which you need to take every two years to keep your license current, and only after completing the course can you take the Re-current test, which is only offered through the faa safety website).
Studio Binder on YT is a good place to kill a weekend or two if you are interested in breakdowns of how some of the bigger directors and DPs work. They talk not only about lenses and angles, but also about color pallets, music, and set design. 
And Indy Mogul did have some good stuff, but I think they aren't producing any more new videos. Some of their really good videos were covering things like how to figure out what to charge clients / how to negotiate, and how to calculate production costs. But they also have some decent lighting and audio instructional videos. Probably the Indy Mogul channel would be the best fit for one-man band or a two-man band.
Hoping this helps, or at least helps to seed the conversation.

I think that when shooting through a scrim, you are correct. Moving the light far back enough to get an even spread is going to make the lights more or less equal, regardless if it is a fresnel or a cob with a dish. 
On the other hand, if you are actually shooting in a softbox, you are actually bouncing the light around so that the light can be closer to the diffusion material and still cover the entire area of the front diffusion.
Plus if the COB light is in an enclosed softbox, you won't have the spill that you would have from bouncing it off of a scrim. All that spill is just wasted light. I don't know the exact mathematics but I am pretty certain that when inside a softbox, the light that is bounced off the front diffusion material (and bounced around the softbox), eventually makes its way out to the subject, but at some reduced amount.
In terms of bouncing light off the wall or a ceiling, I guess that yes, you would have to back the fresnel or COB with dish further from the wall. This could be good or bad. If bouncing off a wall, you would probably want to use a COB with dish to get the light further away from the talent (and further from the mic) as you could move it closer to the wall than a fresnel.
When bouncing off a HIGH ceiling, it might be easier to use a fresnel because you wouldn't have to raise the light as high to achieve the same light spread. This would be applicable in a place with high ceilings. But in a place with low ceilings, the fresnel might be at a disadvantage as you might not be able to get it low enough to get the amount of spread you want.
Ideally, I think the best solution would be to get a COB light with an optional fresnel attachment.
Also, a disclaimer: all of my practical experience with fresnel lenses / attachments is from shooting flash photography with strobes. The AD-200 and other strobes I use allow for either a bare bulb or fresnel head on the same light, so the only variable is the actual head. 

I knew a guy who edited music videos in late 80's.  They edited them on 3/4" Umatic.  This wasn't one of his, but here is an example of what they were doing back then.
 

I think a fresnel could come in handy when:
1) Bouncing light
2) Illuminating through a window or cookie for a hard light / hard shadows.
3) When you need to use more than one light for a diffused key, and you can shoot two (or more) fresnel lights through a scrim (since we can't really fit more than one light in to a softbox, can we???)
4) When you want a spotlight effect

In my experience of trying to maximize efficiency of lights, the answer is no.
In your example, at the same distance if you used the fresnel vs softbox, the fresnel would produce a small hotspot which is totally useless for soft lighting.
If you then moved the light with the fresnel back to cover the same area, it would be farther away and the intensity would greatly decrease.
If I've learned anything about softlighting it's that nothing beats more power.  The most effective way to get more soft light is to literally get more lights.
 
 

Hi All,

Just contemplating adding a few bits and pieces to my lighting kit and was wondering about fresnel lenses. From what I've read (ie what is advertised) they actually increase the light output over the bare bulb by focusing it all on one place - does this mean a COB LED would give more output with a fresnel pointed towards say a 4x4 silk, than it would just mounting a softbox directly on to the light? Or am I missing something?

I can see that being a big benefit, not only for getting the most out of the lights but also being able to put them further away from the subject where fan noise will not be a problem (while still having the diffusion nice and close to the subject).

Anybody got practical experience with this?

Have both BMPCC 4K and Panasonic S1/S5. For me both are great cameras for video/cinema.  
Historically bought BMPCC 4K first 2-3 years ago and resisted buying Panasonic S5/S1 mainly because want to shoot in RAW. Image quality has the highest priority for me when choosing a camera. Panasonic cameras initially didn't have RAW video recording capability. Recently Panasonic added ProRes RAW and BRAW as external recording options. RAW video plus very good prices second hand tipped the scales for me.
Didn't test them extensively side by side. From the limited tests that did can say both BMPCC 4K and Panasonic S1/S5 for me have excellent image quality in BRAW. 10bit 4:2:2 h264 internal from Panasonic is probably a notch down but very close. 10bit internal is now OK for me to use in some projects. Initially that was not the case. My plan was to use only BRAW external from Panasonic.
When first reviews of Panasonic S1H started to appear, downloaded several clips in 10bit 4:2:2 V-Log and graded them. Was looking mostly for skin colors. Was not satisfied, they didn't look as good and as easy to grade as BMPCC 4K BRAW.
Log picture profile that both have is like negative. Until we develop the negative, color correct/grade it in post, it is not possible to talk about color. What kind of color you get in the end is more skills in color correction / grading then camera color science. Agree with Kye on this.
As said, I downloaded several clips shot with Panasonic S1/S5/S1H series of cameras internally in V-Log 10bit 4:2:2. Color corrected them in Davinci. Some shots and more specifically skin tones didn't look as good as they look on BMPCC 4K. It is all subjective we have to admit this, but that was my impression and assessment. For both cameras - BMPCC 4K and Panasonic S1/S1H/S5 used the same method (Color Space Transform) to convert from Log profile and their respective color spaces to REC 709. Since both BRAW and Davinci Resolve are Blackmagic products, getting great colors with simple CST is easy with BMPCC 4K. This method however does not gives always satisfying result and colors for Panasonic internal 10bit V-Log. So I tried Panasonic V-Log  to REC 709 conversion LUT and 3rd parties Color Space Conversion LUTs (55Media). They gave me better results and better starting point. Adding some simple corrections, contrast, saturation, balancing exposure etc. after the conversion LUT now gives me better colors and skin tones.
There are some test footage from both cameras on interenet. This one has downloadable source  BRAW (BMPCC 4K) and MP4 (Panasonic S1H) files.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Al-tIFXFuY
Among the sample footage there is one clip for checking skin tones. Lighting is quite challenging and constantly changing and shots are in different time, he shot with one camera then the other. Still it is a good exercise to try. When I tried it first almost a year ago with CST used for both cameras, didn't like the colors from Panasonic. Doing it now with conversion LUTs get better colors from Panasonic and can match closely both cameras.
More examples and tests here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghbaHoVRsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB2ZkRaPWjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU4eydFl1hM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJawO5eeWr8
While I agree with Kye that getting good colors is mostly skills in editing program of your choice, don't think that getting a good starting point, correct colors or pleasing colors is that difficult. Usually use 4-5 nodes maximum for this task. It takes a lot of time and skills to build a certain look, to finesse every take, emphasize some lighting etc. This requires a lot of knowledge and practice. But basic color grading/correction should not be that difficult. With Panasonic 10bit 4:2:2 V-log internal you have to try different methods, correction LUTS, etc. It may take some additional efforts and time. Once you have the new workflow, it will be easy to apply it and it will be more or less consistent so at the end you get colors  you like. I usually stop at this point and do not go for a specific look like teal / orange etc. One day maybe but for the moment it is OK. A good example of what am saying is Zeek. His videos shot on EOS M + ML RAW for the last 2 years have consistent and great colors. Yet his color correction / grading workflow in Resolve is very simple.
The difference and reason why we are saying we like colors from camera brand A better that Camera brand B is mainly because our workflow to develop colors from Log profile and camera color space to REC 709 is giving us colors we like. Once we change workflow or color correction/grading  is adjusted for camera B that we didn’t like, problem is solved. We can again get colors we like. Am not saying those are correct colors.
About LUTs mimicking Alexa. Of course, they are not 100% close and in some lighting condition may be off. It would be important only if you try to match Alexa footage with BMPCC 4K in one video for example. When we talk Alexa colors again we confront the problem how did we get those colors. Even if we download conversion LUTs from ARRI website (which I did), there are different LUTs for different Arri Camera models and color space transforms. Depending which one you use you get slightly different colors. So what are after all Alexa colors?
For me those LUTs simply are good starting point, a reference. That's it.
Advantages and disadvantages of BMPCC 4K over  Panasonic S1/S5/S1H is another topic. You have to try both in order to make the best decision for you. As said many times - it is personal; everybody should try himself or herself. For me Panasonic S1/S5/S1H have few advantages, so tend to use Pana S5/S1 more.