kye

With any footage I've ever worked on, it matches FCPX's waveform for 0 or 100 IRE. So it will only tell you if something is off if you compare.
Side note: it's a pretty nifty tool to use when practicing grading by hand/eye with FCPX's basic Color tools. 

A simple way to check would be to click on the View drop down menu next to the screen and go to the safe levels and select either Luma, Saturation or All. Then a Zebra-Like image will appear when you're beyond Rec709 safe levels.

Actually, something that apparently used to happen quite a lot but was kind of hidden by you tubers was that they used the Sony FF cameras in manual focus mode when vlogging because they didn't have flippy screens and couldn't be sure that the AF was getting them in focus.  
I saw it mentioned once in a video by Matti Haapoja and he laughed and said that everyone does it but doesn't talk about it and then had a passing dig at Sony about flippy screens.  IIRC it was when the A7s2 was the best Sony camera that all the YT vloggers who jump brands all the time were using.  
The technique was that you held your arm straight out and bent your fingers up, held your camera at your chest and manually focused on your fingers.  He showed it in the video.
In terms of poor AF ruining video - yes it absolutely does.  This "AF is necessary" sentiment is what is making people use AF when they shouldn't.  Your comments about "Panasonic needs to give users AF" just makes me think that you don't know when to use the right mode for the job.  I mean, AF is useful, but it's not the end of the world like the AF zealots make it out to be.
The fact they can be useful doesn't mean they're not a complete PITA when they're compulsory when not wanted.
It's like if a piece of kitchen equipment put strawberry sauce into everything it made, someone complaining about it, and then the rebuttal being that strawberry sauce can be useful.  Sure, but get it out of my pizza dough!
At this point it's like people are trying to cancel Panasonic because they're not skilled enough to work around a particular  limitation that Panasonic has.  I understand that it's a bit of a significant limitation, but cameras are chock full of limitations that we all have to work around all the time.  It's like people have developed a fetish about it or something.

@SRV1981 
Just catching up on this thread and after I had 4 of your posts quoted, I figured I'd just tag you instead.
Lots to talk about here, but I think you're just thinking about things wrong.  Here's how I suggest you proceed.
Cameras do matter.
The problem is that most discussions are very polarised either saying they don't matter at all, or they are the only thing that matters.  Neither of these perspectives is true, and more importantly, neither is useful.
When people talk about WHY cameras matter, they normally discuss the image, but that's actually not the best way of thinking about them either.  
The best way to think about cameras is that each camera is a combination of dozens of individual features and functions and attributes.  Does it have IBIS? How long does the battery last? How good are the internal preamps for audio?  Does it have a punch-in feature to focus and is that feature available while recording? How big is it and how much does it weigh?  What is the lens mount?  How much DR does it have?  What codecs does it offer?  etc etc.
Buying a camera is about getting the best compromise across all the features that matter to you.  You might have a camera that recorded a spectacular image, was small and portable, had all the features of a cinema camera, but if the battery life was 15 minutes then it's completely out of the running based on its one fatal flaw.
We should be evaluating cameras based on their biggest weakness for how we shoot, not based on their best feature.
Skills matter more.
The cameras you're talking about are capable of world-class images, including your Canon that you already own.  Please don't take this the wrong way, but the problem you're experiencing is that you aren't capable of world-class images and so that's what's letting you down.  I'm also not capable of world-class images, far from it in fact, but I'm perhaps down that path a little further than you are.  
Video is hard and the path to getting great results is difficult.
You're not lighting your videos, and you're not designing the sets and locations either.  This makes is harder for you than for people who make sets, light them, and then point the camera at them.  I also shoot in completely uncontrolled conditions without permission to be where I am (stealth mode as you call it) so size and appearance also matter to me.  Unfortunately, not lighting and designing sets makes it harder still to get the kind of images you want to make.
Stop spending money on equipment and start spending time to learn.
I mean this literally - don't spend another dollar on equipment.  Not one.  Your current equipment, your Canon and whatever lenses you have (even if it's just the kit lens) is good enough.  By far the biggest limitation in what you're doing currently is your lack of skill.  So stop spending money and start spending time.
This is actually great news for you.  IIRC you said that you're a teacher, and I'm assuming you're not getting paid a large hourly rate, so you probably have far more time than you have money to invest.  
Here's what I suggest - try and replicate other peoples work.
Find a video shot on the same camera as you have, find the nicest shot in it, then try to replicate that shot.  Alternatively, you could start with a shot from that video that's the most accessible (eg, a shot of someone standing outside during the day) and replicate that.  Do it again with another shot.  Do it again and again.
You're likely to encounter shots where you're not sure how to replicate it and your attempts to do so fail.  In these situations you need to experiment.  Just think of every step of the process and think "what if I did this differently".  Like, when shooting, what if I expose a little darker or lighter, what if I use a larger aperture or smaller one, what if I use one camera profile or another.  What if in Resolve I use this control instead of that control.  What if I use this LUT instead of that LUT.  What if I use a Colour Space Transform instead of a LUT.  What if I do it manually using this control instead of that control.
Being able to get a good shot is luck.  Being able to get good shots reliably requires skill.  That skill requires knowing what to do in each situation and why you would do it.  This requires you to essentially explore everything it's possible to do and learn what each option does and which ones work in which situations.  Unfortunately this isn't something that can be bought, and it can't even really be taught, it just comes with experience.
This sounds daunting, but think about it like this.  If you'd have started this 6 years ago, you'd have 6 years of experience, when currently, it sounds like you don't really have much at all (apart from looking at videos and buying cameras).

@SRV1981 
Just catching up on this thread and after I had 4 of your posts quoted, I figured I'd just tag you instead.
Lots to talk about here, but I think you're just thinking about things wrong.  Here's how I suggest you proceed.
Cameras do matter.
The problem is that most discussions are very polarised either saying they don't matter at all, or they are the only thing that matters.  Neither of these perspectives is true, and more importantly, neither is useful.
When people talk about WHY cameras matter, they normally discuss the image, but that's actually not the best way of thinking about them either.  
The best way to think about cameras is that each camera is a combination of dozens of individual features and functions and attributes.  Does it have IBIS? How long does the battery last? How good are the internal preamps for audio?  Does it have a punch-in feature to focus and is that feature available while recording? How big is it and how much does it weigh?  What is the lens mount?  How much DR does it have?  What codecs does it offer?  etc etc.
Buying a camera is about getting the best compromise across all the features that matter to you.  You might have a camera that recorded a spectacular image, was small and portable, had all the features of a cinema camera, but if the battery life was 15 minutes then it's completely out of the running based on its one fatal flaw.
We should be evaluating cameras based on their biggest weakness for how we shoot, not based on their best feature.
Skills matter more.
The cameras you're talking about are capable of world-class images, including your Canon that you already own.  Please don't take this the wrong way, but the problem you're experiencing is that you aren't capable of world-class images and so that's what's letting you down.  I'm also not capable of world-class images, far from it in fact, but I'm perhaps down that path a little further than you are.  
Video is hard and the path to getting great results is difficult.
You're not lighting your videos, and you're not designing the sets and locations either.  This makes is harder for you than for people who make sets, light them, and then point the camera at them.  I also shoot in completely uncontrolled conditions without permission to be where I am (stealth mode as you call it) so size and appearance also matter to me.  Unfortunately, not lighting and designing sets makes it harder still to get the kind of images you want to make.
Stop spending money on equipment and start spending time to learn.
I mean this literally - don't spend another dollar on equipment.  Not one.  Your current equipment, your Canon and whatever lenses you have (even if it's just the kit lens) is good enough.  By far the biggest limitation in what you're doing currently is your lack of skill.  So stop spending money and start spending time.
This is actually great news for you.  IIRC you said that you're a teacher, and I'm assuming you're not getting paid a large hourly rate, so you probably have far more time than you have money to invest.  
Here's what I suggest - try and replicate other peoples work.
Find a video shot on the same camera as you have, find the nicest shot in it, then try to replicate that shot.  Alternatively, you could start with a shot from that video that's the most accessible (eg, a shot of someone standing outside during the day) and replicate that.  Do it again with another shot.  Do it again and again.
You're likely to encounter shots where you're not sure how to replicate it and your attempts to do so fail.  In these situations you need to experiment.  Just think of every step of the process and think "what if I did this differently".  Like, when shooting, what if I expose a little darker or lighter, what if I use a larger aperture or smaller one, what if I use one camera profile or another.  What if in Resolve I use this control instead of that control.  What if I use this LUT instead of that LUT.  What if I use a Colour Space Transform instead of a LUT.  What if I do it manually using this control instead of that control.
Being able to get a good shot is luck.  Being able to get good shots reliably requires skill.  That skill requires knowing what to do in each situation and why you would do it.  This requires you to essentially explore everything it's possible to do and learn what each option does and which ones work in which situations.  Unfortunately this isn't something that can be bought, and it can't even really be taught, it just comes with experience.
This sounds daunting, but think about it like this.  If you'd have started this 6 years ago, you'd have 6 years of experience, when currently, it sounds like you don't really have much at all (apart from looking at videos and buying cameras).

I hadn't seen Richard Wong's lemgthy review which is very in depth. It looks like 1080 is good on the GH6.
One other interesting finding is that rolling shutter is massively reduced in 4k 120, which might be useful for certain situations, although that frame rate comes with its own limitations, I believe.
And face tracking autofocus seems very usable.
 

Yeah, it doesn't state which but with it being from Sigma then I would guess RAW but here is some from it on the regular Fp that is shot in h264.
 

I had it on my P4K over two years ago.
The first two examples are regular in frame face detect AF but the third is what I call "Wide AF" where the detection happens outside of the host camera's field of view.
It also does all of the other things on your list and may well come to other people's cameras soon....
 

And still no mention of lenses...
Haha.
Hey, I've been there. I spent a couple years chasing an image. I went from a t2i to an eos-m to an nx500 to a G7 to a BMMCC...
Damn, I forget... I know there was a couple Sony cameras in there... some point and shoots... an FZ2500...
Eventually, I forked up the dough for an open box 5D Mark III, installed Magic Lantern Raw and never looked back. I've been curious about other cameras, but nothing in my price range has come even close. Right now I'm really curious about the Sigma FP and the S5. The FP for its raw capabilities, its small size and a bump in resolution. The S5 for IBIS run and gun, B&W with 14 stops of DR.
I'll probably just go forward with my 5D... I love the IQ, I already own it and KNOW it, and chasing specifics costs too much money for a hobby.
All that said... knowing what I know now... don't get the FX3. There's no reason why you can't get comparable images with the R6. I wouldn't even bother shooting Log right now. Practice with it and practice grading but just use Neutral Profile dialed down with the ProLost Flat settings... then make a couple simple adjustments in your NLE of choice... contrast and saturation... maybe add some Tint for style and move on.
If you're intent on buying a new camera... then get either an M50 Mark II or a GH5ii. The GH5 is a workhorse camera with plenty of headroom to manipulate the footage. Search Rowe Films on YouTube or Vimeo for examples of what can be accomplished.
The point is... it seems like you're chasing a pot of gold. I know, I've been there. I found mine, but when I did, everybody had moved on from it and I questioned my purchase a bunch of times... do I need 4K... should I have IBIS... do I need better AF.
It's all nonsense. The fact is this... all cameras under $4500 kinda suck in one way or another. So you either accept their faults based on other strengths (ibis and AF) and learn to bend the image a little or spend some money and get something more expensive... but then you won't have the convenience of the small size of hybrid cameras... and more expensive cameras aren't any easier to operate... they're just going to give you a sturdier footing.

Just google "student film arri alexa" then deep dive into finding videos with the least views! ha 🤣
As lots and lots of students have shot truly awful looking short films using their university's borrowed ARRI ALEXA. 

 

How much time do you spend 'walking and talking' while holding the camera up with one arm?  If it's, well, any time at all then I'd rule out the C70..  it's enormous!


and is heavy......

 

It really depends on what style you're shooting.
If you're shooting for a more cinematic image then you can manually focus vintage or third-party lenses and the diffusion characteristics will offset the overly-sharpened codecs.  Considering there is no perfect camera, the first thing I'd sacrifice is AF because the alternative is lenses that have reliable focusing (ie, me), are cheaper, and create a nicer image.
I understand this isn't the case for videographers, as that's another whole thing with different goals, methods, economics, target audience and aesthetic.
So many people are out there saying they're trying to get more cinematic images, and then they turn around and want lenses to be as sharp as possible wide-open and want AF, which almost completely contradicts the previous statement, as almost every theatre-bound production I've read about deliberately uses softer-rending vintage lenses despite having the budget for basically whatever lenses they'd care to use.

@SRV1981  Here's the video that Mercer is referring to - it was shot with the BMMCC in Prores.
The colour palette on the final film is golden/magenta, but the footage was all over the place with some shots being blue/yellow and some shots being quite green.  
I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.
The best camera in the world doesn't help you.
Perhaps to try and ram this point home, here are some camera tests where they exposed properly and applied the manufactures LUT, but did no colour grading.
The USD$16,000 Canon C500ii:
The $1500 Sigma FP:
The USD$6,500 Sony A1:
The USD$6,000 Red Komodo:
Notice how they basically all look the same, and how none of them look even remotely like a finished colour graded image?
I cannot emphasise this enough, buying "the right" camera and expecting great looking images is like buying "the right" paints and expecting your paintings to be like Leonardo Da Vinci.

@SRV1981  Here's the video that Mercer is referring to - it was shot with the BMMCC in Prores.
The colour palette on the final film is golden/magenta, but the footage was all over the place with some shots being blue/yellow and some shots being quite green.  
I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.
The best camera in the world doesn't help you.
Perhaps to try and ram this point home, here are some camera tests where they exposed properly and applied the manufactures LUT, but did no colour grading.
The USD$16,000 Canon C500ii:
The $1500 Sigma FP:
The USD$6,500 Sony A1:
The USD$6,000 Red Komodo:
Notice how they basically all look the same, and how none of them look even remotely like a finished colour graded image?
I cannot emphasise this enough, buying "the right" camera and expecting great looking images is like buying "the right" paints and expecting your paintings to be like Leonardo Da Vinci.

The think the other reason is that YT in 4K is far superior to YT in 1080p, but what people don't realise is that it has nothing to do with the resolution and is simply a factor of the bitrate instead.
Mix 1080p footage with 4K on a 4K timeline and upload to YT in 4K and it's really quite difficult to be able to spot which clips are which resolution.

Nothing like naked pics of a camera to get me feeling all hot and bothered! 
 
 
I think the body itself is "only" $65K-ish? But yeah, the whole package easily pushes close to $100K. 
 
Already exists. That's called Kinefinity and Z Cam. 

Jeez... a production could take the casing off and use that as a prop in the next Bond film. All it needs is a countdown timer. 

Some interesting teardown shots in it!

GH2 certainly had character. Distinctive colour science.
With the GH3 they switched to a Sony sensor for first time.
GH4 they modernised the image processor quite a bit for 4K.
GH5 I think has really nice colour science especially in 10bit but it is way more modern and clean.
GH6 is more of the same I think, whereas the OM-1 has more character. It's not just the sensor or colour profiles, or LOG and which LUT, but how the white balance is baked in as well.
Sometimes a bit of weirdness is good for character.
I tell myself that when looking in a mirror too!

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii.
Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled...
But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that.
Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves.
I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care.
I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable.
Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?

I agree with @kye that highlight roll-off, when shooting log, is dependent on the tone curve applied/created in grading.
In addition to this point it's worth considering that if your camera doesn't have enough stops above middle grey to capture the highlight information you're interested in retaining, you have the option of deliberately underexposing your footage to preserve the highlights and boosting the exposure in post - at the expense of increased shadow noise.

That is for marketing IMO, I don't even think they have the same people working on it.

What does it output 16bit RAW to? The Venice has its own compressed RAW. The FX6 only does Prores RAW to my knowledge.
 
I don't know if I draw the line there but it seems like Sony intentionally limited the FX6 to separate it from the Venice. The Venice shoots its own form of compressed RAW. You can only do Prores RAW on the FX6.

A simple curve in the highlights will do it, and if the curve requires too much contrast to be added to the highlights then you can augment it by desaturating the highlights a touch too, which is a great trick to blend over the areas where the channels are clipping at different points.
Digital sensors all clip very very harshly, it's what the camera/NLE/colourist does after that that creates the rolloff.

Right, there is no standard and having not tested it, I'm not sure how the Atomos false color responds with all these different input log images. I just don't see how it could be reliable. The built-in fp false color is at least designed just for that camera though. 

It, both IBIS and IBIS Boost Mode, is very noticeably worse on the X-T4 than on the GH5 so I assume the X-H2s will be worse than the GH5/GH6 from the footage I've seen