Mark Romero 2

Looks like a GH5 to me.  The shot at 0:40 shows the red dot on the record button quite clearly.
10-bit video can help in mixed lighting, but I shoot in mixed lighting all the time and I found that the weak link was my colour correction skills.  Knowing how to process the image and how to handle colour spaces in post really upped my game.
Here's some random thoughts:
If you have a shot where you move from one WB to another, you can create two copies of the shot, one with the first WB and the second with the second, then just cross-fade between the two.  It saves all kind of work trying to automate changes etc. Depending on what software you're using, you can try doing a manual WB adjustment before converting from whatever capture colour space (eg, LOG) vs afterwards. I used to try grading the LOG footage manually, without having anything convert between the colour spaces and I'd create awful looking images - using a technical LUT or Colour Space Transform to do the conversion really made a huge difference for me I don't know about you but I often shot in mixed lighting because that was the only lighting and because the camera just wasn't getting the right exposure levels or the ISO was straining (I use auto ISO) then that's a source of awful colours, maybe just use heaps of light In a sense you can either pay the guy or just do a bunch of tests at home and try to figure it out yourself.  I'd suggest:
Work out how to change the WB in post by shooting a scene in a good WB and then in a wrong WB, then in post work out how to match the wrong one to the good one Then work out how to go between two scenes with different lighting by doing one shot that moves between two rooms with different WB and use the cross-fade technique above to figure that out Then work out how to deal with mixed lighting by having two different coloured light sources in the same room and moving between them and working out how to grade that. Basically, start simple, then add more difficulty until you're comfortable shooting by the light of a xmas tree.  You may find that shooting in a middle-of-the-range WB in-camera will give you the best results, but it might also be that one lighting source is the most difficult and you just set it to that and then adjust for the others in post.  Experimentation is the key with this stuff.
But keep your head up - this shit is hard.  Colour grading well shot footage in robust codecs is as easy as applying a LUT.  Colour grading badly-lit footage from consumer codecs is the real challenge and will test all but the most seasoned colourists, so in a way we're operating at the hard end of the spectrum.
 

Yeah, but that's kind of cheating because the 8-bit on the C200 is way better than it should be

This development won’t push me toward a Z6 purchase because I don’t like external recorders but I am glad to hear that Nikon is also offering a 1080p Raw output. It will make a great camera for a lot of shooters. Of course, I predict a lot of event shooters and cat shooters will shoot Raw just because...

12 bit Pro Res RAW could have some mojo 

I think offering full frame (no crop) 12 bit raw video on a US$2000 hybrid body pretty much meets the definition of going into complete and total overdrive.

Most here want their footage to look cinematic or filmic... I don't think the "real world" is either of those things. And I also feel most people want to look good on video... not ordinary... which of course the "real world" is. 
If you are trying to capture "real world"... well, don't worry about lighting... because no one has a gaffer following them around making sure they look good at every angle... and that the shadows hit their face just right. At least they don't in the "real world".
Throw the rule of thirds... and every other rule out the window... the "real world" doesn't follow those rules. 
Gimbals... you don't need no stinking gimbals... "real world"!
You'll save a bunch of time... your footage might end up looking a bit ordinary... a bit too "real world", but if that's the look your going for... good for you. 
However when I shoot I do want my subjects to look good. I definitely want the end product to look cinematic. I may fail in this effort more often than not... but I will continue to try to achieve the look. 

Well EOS RP $1299 price just got confirmed. Looks like Canon is really looking to shake the FF market with this one!
edit: price includes grip + EF adapter as well!

Or we don't want to be limited to minuscule and rather bland selection of Canon-compatible IS lenses.
There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of different aesthetics available from the different lens designs, materials, coatings, and manufacturers throughout the history of photography.  I personally think that the ability of mirrorless to adapt every SLR lens ever made is potentially the biggest advantage of taking out the mirror.  The fact that IBIS gives IS to every lens ever made is a real game changer for those who don't (or can't) always shoot on tripods or larger rigs.

Wow... a couple of the most helpful and talented members (squig and kidzrevil) banned within a few days of one another for having an opinion... that’s a shame.

Professionals do not change gear easily, or at will. Equipment is a very serious commitment and investment. That is why Canonikon are still at the top.
Unfortunately, in our profession, you always have to buy something, and that something, usually is very expensive. I mean, some professionals buy pen and paper, and we have to buy 2000$ lenses and microphones. It's all good..

There's some confusion online around HLG and conversions.
HLG is actually a delivery format, so if you shoot in HLG and are going to display it as HLG, you just hook it up to a HLG monitor and grade the way you want, no LUTs required HLG isn't the technical term - it's more of a non-specific marketing term, and there's conflicting information online about whether HLG is Rec.2020 or Rec.2100, but if you're looking for conversion LUTs then those are what to look for I did some experiments with my GH5 and I don't believe that HLG on the GH5 is either Rec.2020 or Rec.2100, but in the end I concluded that it's close enough to Rec.2100 that I don't care about the slight differences It's complicated stuff.  I tell people that using Resolve is like flying the space shuttle, and to extend that analogy, navigating different colour spaces and gammas is like knowing how to be a pilot.  To get to where you want to go you must know how and where to fly and know what controls to adjust to do so.  Resolve, HLG capable cameras, and HLG capable TVs are all cheap now and available to the general public, but it's like making the space shuttle cheap and available, being able to afford it doesn't mean you will know how to fly it

Just to build off of @kye post above...
It is important to go into the settings and adjust the monitor's NIT values as well, which default to 100 NITs (which is kind of low and will display clipped highlights even when they aren't clipped).
I don't know what the "average" brightness is for monitors and smartphone screens. When editing, I set my NIT value to 350 and it seems that is kind of conservative. Most newer iphones have a display brightness of over 600 nits for rec.709

Why is it 'so bad' ?

+1 - Just use Resolve's integrated conversions.
@blafarm @famoss
In fact, there's a big difference between using the conversions in Resolve and a LUT:
If you use a LUT and the conversion clips any parts of the signal (highlights or shadows) then they're clipped forever and nothing you do after the LUT can get them back. If you use Resolves conversions (either in the Clip properties or via the Colour Space Transform plugin) the clipped values are retained within Resolve (as super-whites or super-blacks) and if you adjust the image after the conversion then you can get them back into the normal range without damaging them. The internet talks a lot about LUTs but that's mainly because the people doing all the talking are selling......  LUTs.
I don't know how the other NLEs work, but I'd imagine they work similarly.
If you have to use a LUT then you can lower the contrast before the LUT to get the output from the LUT within range, but this defeats the purpose of using a LUT in the first place (because your inputs to the LUT now don't match how the camera encoded them) and you may as well just apply contrast or curves to get the look you want and ignore the LUT.

If you want I can send you some clips to play around with. 

The Shadows are pretty clean on the XT3 in my experience. Everything is a step up from the Sony. The Fuji lens lineup is really nice though sorely lacking in IS other than some of the zoom lenses. 

Did you ever watch a documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop?
It was a film made by Banksy about the guy who was making a documentary about him.  It is a ouroboros mind-fuck and spectacular in every way.  The reason that I mention it is that the guy wanted to be as famous as Banksy but without doing any of the work or getting good at art, so he did a bunch of paintings for a huge show and they were terrible, but he talked himself into thinking he was great, and then because he sunk so much money into it people believed he must be great and so his work sold for heaps of money.  In the end you're kind of left wondering WTF happened, what is good and what isn't, and how the F can anyone tell anyway.
Going for the money doesn't always end badly!

Awesome!!! I am going to get a Nikon F Mount to Sony e Mount adapter, mount some Nikon lenses on it, and then mount them all on to this sony E Mount to Nikon Z mount... just because I can.
In all seriousness, isn't one of the main reasons to buy a Z6 over an a7 III is because of all the wonderful Nikon glass out there?

Its the gateway aspect of the E mount that appeals.
Leaving aside the additional similar options the E mount range offers to Nikon users, having access to the Batis range no longer means you have to get a Sony body to have Zeiss lenses with AF.
The adapter itself is only a few mm deep anyway so if you put the EF lens adapter on it its a negligible difference between putting Nikon's FTZ adapter on the camera really.
Being able to also use the TechArt PRO opens up a lot of possibilities for fast, affordable and very compact full frame M mount lenses from Voigtlander and 7Artisans (28mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.1 are less than £650 for the PAIR!) and of course gives them AF, again for similar overall footprint than the FTZ adapter.
So whilst there is obviously a ton of wonderful Nikon glass out there it is worth bearing in mind that only 4 Nikon lenses will go directly on these cameras without an adapter and it is going to take them a long time before the majority of their most renowned ones are available in the native mount.
Funnily enough, despite being so heavily invested in the Nikon system, its actually only the availability of this adapter thats slightly enthused me about buying one of the Z series !

I hate that F ing video GH3 or not LoL.

Shooting 4K and downscaling in post is a pretty good way of getting high quality 1080p, and it may record in a higher bitrate too.
I have done image quality comparisons of different resolutions given the same file size, and you're normally better off with the higher resolution, so even if the camera shoots the same bitrate for 1080 and 4K, you'd still be better with the 4K file.

I really have no doubt the A7000 will be a beast(would be shocked if it wasn't better than the XT3 in terms of specs).

One of the reasons I said the sensor as I think that is where the slow readout/RS came from. I am not tech savy enough to know. If it was a processor issue it seems like the A6400 wouldn't have the issue anymore as the A9 processor should be fast enough to handle anything you can throw at it.

Its a great stills camera if you don't mind the color. I am talking video.

Apparently over the course of three cameras they haven't improved at all. Not sure if its the sensor or Sony just doesn't care but either way its shitty. You have a choice between soft moire filled 1080p or Jello 4k. The 4k is great quality super detailed image good dynamic range. However the jello is really terrible. Plus I like to use 60p a lot and the HD is just bad.

If the sensor cripples 4k at 39ms RS, why even bother. Then keeping it on over three cameras just makes it ever more irritating. The XT2 seemed to have a similar sensor, ignoring color the detail and low light performance was very similar, yet the rolling shutter and 1080p was quite good. Why couldn't Sony do it right?

Anyways I am not saying you can't make good content with it. I am just hating on the camera, because it pisses me off. The A7III, A7S, and A7RIII were fantastic though.

 

This is far and away the best thread we have had on EOSHD in a LONG time.
Serious!!!