kye

Ahh you know how them Kangaroo Ropers are over there. They think it's night time when it is daytime here. They think it is winter when it's summer here. They drive on the wring side of the road. They are ass backwards. They have been kicked too many times as a kid. ?
 
 

In an ideal world for me it would be 24 fps for Drama and 48/60 for action. Unfortunately the Hobbit films messed it up so badly for everyone else. 

I thought it was that rich people were called "eccentric" but for the same behaviour not-rich people were "crazy"

I would say the measure of a codec is how it looks.  If something looks great and has a lower bit-rate then I would say that is a BETTER codec than one that takes more bitrate to look as good.
Of course, no-one is suggesting that a sub-40Mbps codec is going to grade like RAW..

@Cinegain - great love letter to m43 post.. ???
You covered most aspects and I agree with your analysis on most things.  I think that the A7iii, GH5, and the Pocket2 are going to occupy special places in people's equipment lists for a long time yet.  I'm looking forward to the Pocket2 vs ARRI videos that are inevitable (Potato Jet YT channel I'm looking at you!) because when I think about the differences between compressed video and RAW video and then I look at the A7iii screenshots that @jonpais is posting I'm struggling to imagine there will be a huge difference between the Pocket2 and high-end cinema cameras.  Certainly nothing to justify the price difference when looking at the images anyway - I'm aware that high-end cinema cameras offer a huge amount more than just good images.
I definitely don't represent the average user, and I feel caught in the middle of these three cameras as each offers something I would genuinely love.  The A7iii represents the best compromises for me personally but I'm not at all against smaller sensors.  I currently have the XC10 and in many ways it is the perfect camera.  It has 30+minute recording times, a reliable thermal solution, really nice 4K with a high bit-rate (305Mbit), long battery life, a flexible 24-240mm equivalent lens with solid IS, c-log, built-in NDs, ergonomics DSLRs can only dream about, etc.  The only reason I'm considering upgrading is that it doesn't have the 'look' I want with a shallow enough DoF.  I completely agree with you about bokehmania being a passing fad and you say that no-one really needs anything better than f1.4 (which IIRC is 2.8 FF equivalent?) and I agree, in fact I'm happy to settle for F4 FF equivalent.  For me having shallower DoF is about having my images look less flat and have a bit more depth in them, so the choice is creative instead of trendy.  I did some tests with my APS-C camera and 18-35 1.8 and when looking at the frames decided that the F2.8 (F4 FF equivalent) was sufficient, anything else would be nice, but would be a luxury.  I've shot a few test videos at APS-C F1.8 and I find the look too strong on almost every shot.  As you say, things should have a 'sense of place'.
The setup that is "winning" for my needs right now is the A7iii with the 24-105 F4 as this would give me the flexibility to shoot my home and travel videos where I'm shooting a landscape one minute, a bird 200m away the next and then a portrait of one of my kids the moment after that. That lens combined with the crop mode and clear image zoom provides about 24-250mm which is flexible enough for my needs.  Unfortunately FF seems to be the only system that has that combination of aperture and zoom range.  As a bonus, the IBIS + OIS of the combo will also help the good but not great IBIS (the 24-70 F2.8 doesn't have IS).  The AF will be great for me because my brain often can't deal with the chaos of a family holiday plus trying to anticipate what is about to happen so I get the shot plus actually taking the current shot, let alone doing down-to-the-pixel MF.
It seems to me that the GH5 is great for slower film-making where there is time to change lenses and do MF but allows hand-held and lightweight setups.  The Pocket2 will be fantastic if you have time to change lenses, do MF, and you can put it on a tripod or gimbal.  The A7III will be great for those who need the flexibility of zooms without compromising the shallower DoF.
@Robert Collins I agree about the convergence of photo and video being a big deal.  One of the key advantages is being able to crop into the sensor but retain full resolution like the A7III.  This is an advantage over dedicated cinema cameras because they tend to have sensor resolutions that match their output resolutions, or are slightly higher (like the 4.6K Ursa).  This gives a tremendous flexibility.  For example my 700D / Sigma 18-35 is 29-56mm equivalent, but the 3x crop in ML makes it a 87-168mm and gives it enough range so be a walk-around lens, not to mention my 55-250mm is both an 88-400mm equivalent and a 264-1200mm equivalent, and that crop mode comes in hugely useful at my kids sports games and they're on the other side of the field.  This is for 1080p - when the 45+MP sensors start being used like this we'll be able to get 2-3X 4K crops, if any of the manufacturers are that bold, plus the full-sensor will be 8K capable.  I have no idea what the market for a C100 sized camera that shoots 8K video would be in, say 2021, but it would sure be an interesting thing to see.

We shot event with live switch/live stream/live projection + QA with couple c100mkii and gh5s, works really well, full size hdmi out is a must cause I break so many mini/micro hdmi out cables in the past.
We also use 5D3 and M50 with C100mkii for some other shoots, they match really well together vs matching with other brand of camera. (like the GH5S and A7III I own).
I wouldnt do C100 on Ronin, too heavy and big for all day shoot, the 6D2/80D will be better for that, especially with touchscreen autofocus and fd and smaller size/weight overall. For stage event 30P is enough, i dont think i ever have to do a slowmo for those kind of stuff.
 

I really love M43. My first interchangeable lens camera was the GH2 after having seen the Philip Bloom Christmas Special and Zacuto Shootouts where it punched well above its weight. I had considered the Canon 600D before, but I settled on M43, of which a big reason as well was that it was mirrorless and had a 'tiny' sensor, meaning lenses could be kept really compact, which was and still is a big thing if you're traveling around (and I'd rather have lenses be small, than shaving a few mm off a camera body, something I didn't understand about the APS-C E-mount line-up that had it all wrong (and then some)). Naturally progressed with the E-M1, BMPCC, GH4, G7. Then previously we had seen built-in sensor stabilization, but regarding Panasonic cameras it was really only used for stills. The GX80 changed that and with the tiny kit zoom (that still fools me with its ring, that I keep want to focus with (it only has a zoomring)) or Leica 15mm f/1.7 had the almost exact same formfactor of the premium compact LX100. The G80 gave you a mini GH5 before the latter was actually out and about. Still a very awesome hybrid camera, I doubt we'll see such a good value package again. Now the flagship stills shooter is the G9, which I have as well. It's a pretty awesome camera and does a lot of the basic video stuff as well, sport that huge EVF and extra push of hybrid IS. Of course I had to get the GH5 that ultimately was a video production beast, with all the bells and whistles. That's what I love about Panasonic. Where else are you getting a camera body with weather sealing, dual cardslot, vari-angle touchscreen, fullsize HDMI, complete audio interface, great batterylife, nice buttons/dials/joystick & customization options? Then internally, some of the best sensor stabilization, 4K60p, 10-bit options, limited rolling shutter, V-Log L, HLG, anamorphic mode, all the focus and exposure aids and overlays, incl. like waveforms/vectorscope. It's pretty dang crazy!
I doubt you can fault the camera bodies or the system itself. There's so many lenses to choose from in all kinds of sizes, budgets and quality. And the shallow flange allows for adapting third party lenses easily (the E-mount is better though). So... as a system I believe in it a whole lot. But it has gotten a lot of hate for its 4/3" sensor. Cameras were never all that great. But the A7S really rollercoastered things up. Pushing a GH4 beyond ISO800 was a crime against noisemanity and damn how convenient would it be to have a clean ISO1600, 3200, 6400? Dynamic range was never really up-to-snuff either. Always had this contrasty look with blown-out highlights and crushed blacks. Colors tempted to go orangey. But you have to admit that the recent developments are hella impressive on the post-GH4 generation cameras. What people are complaining the most about now is C-AF... yeah, I feel like Panasonic placed a bet on the wrong horse going with depth from de-focus. They should just admit their wrongdoings and change things up with the next gen. But it has to be said... C-AF never was great and it certainly wasn't as great as it is now. Yet... we always made it work. Think DualPixel AF has really spoiled a lot of people. Of course I applaud anything that's extra on a camera, the more the merrier and can be super practical at times (e.g. on a gimbal stabilizer), but to me it certainly is no dealbreaker. ISO sensitivity and noise performance is getting there. I think colors are about where they should be as well. Dynamic range is I think still one of the biggest issues with these cameras, although highlight roll-off and recovery has become much better already. One other thing that bothers people about the MFT system... the depth of field isn't as shallow as you'd get with fullframe. Well, that's a given. But honestly, we've got so many epic lenses and there a focal reducers. It's at a point that criticism is more like bokehwhoring. And you don't always need to have silky and creamy backdrops. Give your scenes some goddang context. People have become way too obsessed with blurry backgrounds what I'm concerned. Get any nice f/1.4 Sigma lens on MFT and you shouldn't need to wish for much more.
What would I like to see in the future? Well, it's healthy for the system if it got some more love from other people. So, it would be great to see people loving C-AF with it, rather than hating on it. Dynamic range and further improvement on color and sensitivity, combined with sensor stabilization is something I'm personally looking forward to. Not sure how far along they are with the organic sensor and global shutter developments, but such implementations would be interesting to see. Would also be interesting if they could work in some kind of ND-trick. Maybe set-up photosites as such that they have multiple base levels and never allow to clip or crush data (no need to protect highlights or shadows, get 'em both!). That they can drop sensitivity like an ND filter, a low and clean ISO band (ISO8-128 or some shit) if you will, without the need of optics. There's also still the possibility to pull something like we've seen implemented on the JVC GY-LS300, pairing the MFT mount up with an APS-C sensor behind it.
So... I don't think MFT is done for quite yet. I actually think it has improved significantly over the years and is an amazing piece of kit. There's already very little to complain about, so the future must be completely nuts. I do not care that the A7III is coming in at just below $2k for the camera body. If anything it will no longer have it make sense for Sony themselves to bother with the A6x00 series, that keeps camera bodies so small there's a lot of problems I have with them and neglect a dedicated line-up of compact lenses for the system (forcing you into mostly using fullframe E-mount lenses). Why would you get a 1799 A6700 when you can get an A7III for 200 bucks more? Because the crop works like a teleconverter? Well, you can use these FF cameras in S35 crop mode and the sensitivity and detail nowadays hardly gives the dedicated APS-C sensor an edge there, if any at all. Nikon and Camera mirrorless systems will likely only be fullframe and hella expensive, so don't just count me in there either. I like MFT. To me the G9/GH5/GH5S/E-M1mkII are the finest camera bodies on the market, that makes it fun and easy to shoot with. Mostly I love the fact that you have the option to keep lenses really dang small. Maybe it's the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 MFT, the Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8, Lumix 20mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7 or Zhongyi 25mm f/0.95... that's just so awesome. I wouldn't be getting that with the A7III. At the same time of course I could opt for bigger and more quality lenses, that's just another option you have. Olympus PRO, Sigma, Leica, some really good stuff can be had. And you can frankenrig things up as you see fit. Throw on any lens you want and make full use of the sensor stabilization! Throw on cages, rails and have at it. I don't know, personally I haven't lost excitement for the system. And there's not just Panasonic and Olympus anymore. There's DJI, Z Cam, YI Tech, et cetera putting their own spin on things. We certainly haven't seen the last of it! Most of all I'm excited now for the BMPCC4K. How awesome is that going to be? Cinema MFT FTW! ?

Well stated. I don't see enough real gain over the 80D, 6D mk II either to be honest. They both have DPAF, flippy screens, and 60p touch to focus. What is even the C100 mk II bringing to the table other than ND filters, and a bit sharper output?  And he is not going to need the ND filters for what I see he is shooting.

In terms of budget, I'd say that you're about to spend a large sum of money so you should get a large upgrade.  Buying something that only adds a little to what you can do wouldn't be worth it.  
It sounds like you already have enough cameras for your multi-camera setup, so buying another one isn't a huge value-add.  In that sense you might be better off selling one of your existing cameras and using that extra money to make sure your purchase really gives you a lot more than your current setup.
I find that if you have analysed the problem well enough then the solution becomes obvious, so try making a list of all the current pain points in your setup (is it stabilisation, is it the 30 minute limit, is it something else?) and then rank them as to what the biggest ones are, then you'll be able to tell which potential purchase will give you the most benefit.
Good luck!!

https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-t3-video-4k-at-60p-10-bit-and-zebra/
I could not care less about this APSC camera but I like this. The more 4K60p 10 bit camera on the market, the more chance people like Sony put this (or better) in their cameras like A7S III. 
 
I would love to have the new Nikon Z camera having 4K60p... would be amazing and would replace my A7III (assuming AF is as good). 
 
 

All of us our-country-is-also-a-continent people over here have a club, one of the main things is cool names.  The US says "across the pond" about the UK, but actually that was started by the UK, because they are technically a member of the club too, and we let the US use it because we're all very nice.  That's part of the club rules too.
All you have to do is start being nice, and to merge with Canada, Mexico, and all the South American countries and we'll consider your application ???

Well, the OP also already said that he is pulling triple duty as director, DP and operator... so anybody who has ever done anything similar would know that one less thing to worry about is useful.
So I would say AF is important in this scenario. I never used Sony PDAF but I know Canon DPAF has been described as having a Hollywood focus puller following you on set... to me that sounds pretty damn useful if you’re also worried about lighting, camera movement, composition, actor’s performances. Hell, the time saved marking the floor is worth its weight in gold in that scenario.
The good thing about AF is you don’t have to use it, but if you don’t have it, you can never use it.
With that being said, AF doesn’t automatically beat codec and codec doesn’t beat AF. Now if he/she were to come back and post that he is making a feature film to try and get distributed, then codec would probably win. If he is working on some short films for festivals but mostly for the web, AF may be more important.
Personally, if I were him/her, I’d go with the GH5. Since he/she has shot with the DVX200, possibly in vLogL, the GH5 may be a logical transition. It will give a good beefy, 10bit codec for grading and it will offer some AF that could be used for tracking shots. It’s not perfect AF but in a pinch it can help with difficult shots where movement, composition and performance are also critical. The IBIS is another plus.

I'd be thinking WOW!! if they have enough room to make a speed booster version of the adapter.
Faster versions of their back catalogue of already fast primes with full AF when shooting in Super 35 mode would be a bit of an OK thing.

Thanks @Aussie Ash and @BTM_Pix - I was definitely fooled!!
I was thinking WOW!! ??? 

Cool.  I've said it can be useful in some situations, you've said it can be useful in some situations.
I'm just not sure how any of that added up to the below....?
Unless it was autocorrect and you meant to say "yes, you raise valid points, but have you also considered....."

Maybe the guy is a Lithuanian basketball center turned spontaneous hipster moment catcher... It's all matter of context.

Foreplay. It's almost the best part. You know, bit of teasing here and there, but nothing's coming out yet.

Of EXCITEMENT!!!11ONE 

OR just buy a REALLY wide angle lens and leave it on F8, set to infinity, and have a Big stick with a nail in it to beat people that get closer than, eh say 8 feet from the camera, especially if this guy is close!!!
 

Assuming that during filming:
you're not too busy operating other equipment to operate the camera if you are operating the camera then you have control of focusing (eg, gimbals often prevent MF) if you could do MF that you're not too busy doing anything else with the camera you can see the image well enough to actually see focus (screen bright enough, focus assists are good enough, etc) and also assuming that the time spent learning to MF (which is a skill that isn't easy to pick up) isn't better spent doing something else.
Remember, the object of all of this is a high quality finished output, not mad MF skills.  It's better to tell a good story and use AF than to use MF and tell a shitty one.

I picked up a few things too, but I tried your line of reasoning at liftgammagain and got slammed for it.  The problem with watching people who don't know how to grade is that for every piece of information you pick up that will help you in the future, you're risking picking up other information that will hurt you, either in bad practices or in a lack of understanding of what is going on, and you won't be able to tell which is which.  
As an example, think about how many YT colour grading videos talk about how to use LUTs, and then think about how many of them tell you that LUTs clip the data, and then think about how many talk about HOW luts work and WHEN not to use them.
This is one of the reasons that I find the Juan Melara grading videos such a revelation - almost every sentence in his videos contains information that would take you hours or days of watching YT videos to find in those "buy my LUT" colour grading videos, but on top of that he presents the information in such a way that it builds an understanding of how to link techniques together in simple but powerful ways.
The way I see it is that colour grading is the same as shooting - it takes 10% equipment and 90% skill to get a great result.  I've also noticed that the more skilled the colourist, the more that the grade is about using the basic tools well but knowing exactly what to do with them.
After spending dozens of hours watching YT colour grading videos, buying multiple paid colour grading courses, site subscriptions, and hundreds of hours of fiddling in Resolve over a dozen or more camera tests and a dozen more real projects trying to match multiple cameras, I learned that if you shoot it right, the less I do in post the better it looks.  
I think I am at the point now where my adjustments do more good than harm, and much of that is training my eye, but I think I might have gotten there a lot faster without watching all those YT videos of people who blindly apply LUTs and twiddle the knobs until their "how to make your footage CINEMATIC" video is ready for upload.

Avery Peck is also worth checking out (https://www.youtube.com/user/theavenogfilm/videos), Ripple Training gives some good free content (https://www.youtube.com/user/rippleguy/videos) and also the articles at PremiumBeat are really good (like this one: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/create-illness-davinci-resolve/).  I suspect the real reason that excellent colourists aren't all over YT is that they're busy doing actual work and producing free content doesn't pay their mortgages.  Of course, if you're willing to pay for courses then I think it's a different story.  
If you want to work hard and learn fast I'd recommend a few things:
Practice matching clips from different cameras using only the Lift Gamma Gain and Offset wheels (for log footage you need to convert to REC709 first).  Once you've got a basic handle on how to use them and what they do, pull in clips from as many sources as you can into a project, put on some music, and grade them to visually match as fast as you can.
I know what you mean about pros working really fast, I've noticed they pretty much use these controls and only use others if there's some specific quirk in the footage.  Getting good at this helps train your eye to see contrast and colour tints. Find a bunch of before and after grading videos, pull them into your software and have a go at replicating the grade.  I'd suggest using scopes to help you see what is going on (waveform and vectorscope are tremendously useful).  Videos like this are great if you put in the work, but useless if you don't: Basically, the best way to learn will be to work at it.  Set yourself challenges and dive into them.  Watching a video is easy, replicating it is painful but is how you'll learn.  Real learning is about changing what's in your brain and that's not easy and doesn't happen if you're passively involved, which is why people watching cooking shows on TV don't end up as brilliant cooks!

Tony Northrup mentioned the dolly-zoom effect on the new Parrot drone, which does a zoom (digitally I think?).
 

I thought it was that rich people were called "eccentric" but for the same behaviour not-rich people were "crazy"

Well I guess that is another reason Smartphones are so damn popular. You have to admit, other than at night in dark areas, it is pretty damn hard to screw them up output wise, whether it is photos or videos. And even editing in iMovie is not super difficult. Now is it Filmic looking as hell, well probably not. But I don't think 4k and higher can even look filmic unless you are intentionally trying to make it look that way. Even Arri spent years to get 4K with the ALEXA SXT Plus to "look" like Film. And I think the original Arri Alexa Classic at "Only 2.8K" looked better, Creamier. The Alexa XT at 3.2K ehh was not so bad either LoL.
So heck I don't know what the answer is to be honest. We on here, well a lot on here, are trying to be a one man band, or at least doing stuff on the side if you work for a business that is into video. And it is nearly impossible to be good, let alone great at all aspects of video. That is why there is 200 people or more that work on a big time movie. They are all pretty damn good at their One specialty. And even then it takes them weeks, months to do it. How are we as a single person going to whip out some masterpiece in a week that is a Classic? Ain't happening I guess LoL.
I would argue that post production is Way more important on average than shooting the footage, other than Audio. And who is great at that other than you know who on here. ? And how many of us are great in post production? I bet it is a damn small number. Nearly an impossible task to be honest.?