Mark Romero 2

Sure, buddy and I will tell you that I am surprised with their AF too. It is not perfect. A bit of pulsing is their unique flaw though. You don't even miss continuous autofocus.
In the beginning, I thought it would be useless to even think to ever use it. My bad.
Some other lenses later and I realized that was only the product of my laziness.
A few primes or even the 35-100 f/2.8 II to follow up (so zooms as well, but the newer the better) could actually show me a much fitter and totally distinct outcome.
Tap-to-focus really works precise, accurate (had the chance to stress it under low light circumstances, go figure) and in such huge monitor for so lightweight device; you get the mirrorless weight for the balance of a good solid brick-and-mortar.
 
Any hint what the boys of Nouvelle Vague movements would think about, more than 50 years from today? ; -)

I disagree with this. I would most of the time prefer an f4 zoom to an f2.8. Weight and size are important things. Even if I had unlimited money. 
I often prefer f1.8 primes to f1.4. I don’t know what other people do, but I hike a lot. There is no way I am carrying that huge heavy glass for a bit more light. I’d rather put those grams into a tripod than carry a super fast super heavy prime that gives me marginally more capability (nothing compared to said tripod).
Fast primes are for the ability to get an extra stop or so when hand holding or needing a fast shutter.
Or sometimes if the background is terrible and you want to blur it out (although in my experience this should be avoided as much as possible since the background often tells the story). 
Thats why I find Canons R release of first lenses very strange. I’m sure the optics are beautiful but it’s incredibly rare that the tiny bit of extra light is worth the huge weight. Talk about diminishing returns. 
The little 35 they released is not top quality L glass, unlike the Nikkor 35 & 50 “S” (for super) f1.8. Some are confused and seem to think these lenses is like your 150$ plastic f1.8. Not the case. I  applaud that I get the option of slower, but still top of the line quality glass. I hope that continues and I hope we get top quality 800-1200$ f4 or even f5.6 primes. Along with the fast stuff for those who need it.
IBIS does not replace fast glass, but sure does replace the need for it some of the time. 
 

pocket 4K in stock. 

I've used it with a key to beautify skin a few times, but I'm not sure that it's the best way to go as I haven't compared it to other methods.
Also worth checking out is the Sharpen and Soften OFX plugin which gives you independent sliders for small, medium and large textures so you have more control, and it let's you sharpen some and soften others so it's powerful for skin tones.
If you want to use a dedicated sharpen or blur tool you can use the Edge Detection OFX plugin (I think that's what it's called) in the mode to display the edges and then connect the main output from that to the key input of the node with your effect in it. This gives you the ability to apply any filter to edges (and presumably also the inverse) in a very controllable way. 
There are so many ways to get the job done in Resolve!

OK, I'll bite...
What are the reasons people are dismissive of wolfcrow?
He seems to me to know what he is talking about and has had (apparently) enough time with several different camera models to present opinions backed up by experience.
Maybe I am missing something that is obvious to everyone else? (Wouldn't be the firs time...)

OK, I'll bite...
What are the reasons people are dismissive of wolfcrow?
He seems to me to know what he is talking about and has had (apparently) enough time with several different camera models to present opinions backed up by experience.
Maybe I am missing something that is obvious to everyone else? (Wouldn't be the firs time...)

The 24fps frame rate  just can't handle fast pans and it's a limitation of the medium either film or video but particularly video with non global shutters and the refresh rate of the screen you are viewing it on can add to the problem. Also when you are panning with a very wide lens you get extra movement at the edges of the frame due to the perspective distortion.

Vignette is another filmic/cinematic look which in addition to IR pollution is just making this camera more an more attractive!

The new 24-70mm f4 compared to the older 24-70mm f2.8... starting at around 14 minutes in. The new lens looks sharper and more contrasty to my eyes.
 

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic...
I haven't spent a great deal of time working with the Fuji files yet, but I have played around with them a bit so this is based on that. I've worked with the GH5 since shortly after it was released so know it quite well.
From what I've seen so far the X-T3 has better dynamic range, particularly in the shadows. Gh5 shadows tend to get quite crushed and noisy. The quality of the image also seems more organic to me and less brittle and sharpened.
And I agree the GH5 has good colour, maybe not so much out of the camera but with a little tweaking, mainly on skin which can be a little yellow.
However there is an illusive sweet spot with colour and skin tones for me where it just feels right, and the Fuji lives in that sweet spot a lot more. I haven't done much testing but I'd predict that on the vectorscope Fuji skin tones will be closer to the skin line under more circumstances. GH5 skin was often awry or distorted. I've also noticed Canon skin is pretty much always bang on the line.

I know where you’re coming from. 
My wife had been shooting on her Canon 750d for a year (now 6D mk II). She specialises in newborns. I’m always astounded at the colours. The skin looks perfect. Always thought it beats the crap out of my Sony / Pana images! 
Fuji is the same. I get that same feeling. I can definitely get there with the GH5 or other Sony but like you say, there’s something missing you can get so easily from a Canon or Fuji image. Their motion is better too. 
I think this is the reason people get so infuriated with Canon. They WANT to shoot with one but the video features slam the door on most desires.
Sayin’ that, I’m going to try the C200 and maybe I’ll find a new friend, and become an intolerable Canon fanboy! ?

The mp4 codec of the c200 looks pretty darn good in this comparison video:
 

Good on ya. Wish I had done that.

If that were possible, I would have NO working cameras left (instead of the six I have lying around, if you include my drones and my Olympus 3030 zoom that I have been too lazy to take down to the electronics recycling center).

Good on ya. Wish I had done that.

If that were possible, I would have NO working cameras left (instead of the six I have lying around, if you include my drones and my Olympus 3030 zoom that I have been too lazy to take down to the electronics recycling center).

Good on ya. Wish I had done that.

If that were possible, I would have NO working cameras left (instead of the six I have lying around, if you include my drones and my Olympus 3030 zoom that I have been too lazy to take down to the electronics recycling center).

Non need to buy a new computer trust me. Just import the files in premiere. Make proxys of your footage in a small 1080p h.264 or proresLT. It will be buttery smooth for editing. Premiere will always use the original h.265 to make the final render.
 

Jesus, what happened to keeping criticism constructive and supportive? I came to this forum hoping to find a community of likeminded film makers interested in the new possibilities of smaller, cheaper cameras, and I stayed because of the variety and frequency of discussions. This forum always seems to be more on top of new news than others.
But lately it's all been about attacking other blogs and youtubers, denigrating your peers, and now giving really harsh and insensitive criticism to each other.
I would never post my own work in this forum now. I wouldn't expect to receive any useful criticism from a place where there are so many thin-skinned, insecure and defensive people.
Of course there are many intelligent, experienced and positive people here too, but they increasingly seem to keep their heads down these days.

I enjoy travel photography most but I have no doubt that the only stuff I do that will stand some reasonable test of time - is the family stuff.
Just finished a book of photos of my son’s first 5 years....

Thanks... I now understand that I suck a this stuff. I really needed that wake up. It's a silly hobby. I think only pros should dabble with this stuff. 

I just did 8 hour event with ronin-s and a7iii
Quite tiring!

Could be worse, it is not on fire like California is!!
What's going on with the climate... It's bonkers.

My battery door is a complete mess. a slight bump, opening the sd card and cfast compartment for instance and it pops out. A bit annoying, but I've finally opted for a dummy battery, so I'll take it off anyway. I can see it becoming a problem when I'll switch to Blackmagic official power cables (66eur a pop) and will no longer need the dummy battery. I'll ask a door replacement to Blackmagic as I think mine is probably more flimsy than other people's BMPCC4K.

But no big deal, I'm happy for the upgrade. I was using the NX1 before and I love that camera too. But the iso range was just too limiting. Now I have a strong camera for stills and a strong one for video. In some situations, I'll try to match the NX1, NX500 and BMPCC4K to ensure me a multicam setup in well-controlled environments.

ND's are definitely a need though, sticking to iso 400 with the viltrox speedbooster and most shots are still overexposed at f/22 when sunny. Need a 3 stops ND I guess.

 

Umm...

If trying to do a slider imitation with a gimbal you could always shoot in 60p and slow the footage down. You can get some pretty slow movements with practice. Having a lens with OIS helps and having a two handled attachment for your gimbal also helps. 

I could see it getting pretty tedious if you have to do a ton of slider shots though, might be easier to buy one at that point.