kye

Apparently they can't even educate their own sales reps about their own products, so their ability to sell a camera that doesn't have the latest specs may be less than required.
Emily said one thing in the video that was amusing, she said she had to hand it to Sony, as they have managed to brainwash their customers into thinking that larger sensors are better and that smaller formats aren't useful for anything.  This is true, there is all kinds of misinformation out there that people are just constantly repeating to each other.  The total amount of money spent on marketing must be absolutely unfathomable, but the thing is that companies will gladly pay for it because sadly, it works.

Interesting that WB is placed before De-bayer. Photographers call it "white balance scaling" and prefer it not to be done by manufacturer, since its digitally boosting channels, which is irreversible process. After all its not like all things they're doing is science. Some decisions are just an engineer thinking its the best compromise. 

I have a GM5 and I'd love Panasonic to update it but the market usually always chooses "more features" over "tiny size" when given the choice. The Sigma Fp got slammed for no EVF, no IBIS. The Panasonic S9 gets passed over for being too limited, even though it's a similar spec to the S1H, with better AF!
And with their 1 inch stuff like the LX15, nobody really bought it... all preferring RX100 VI etc, despite the fact the LX15 is one of the best compacts ever made with an F1.4 lens.
If Panasonic made a mistake with the L10 it's the lack of a prime lens version to go after the X100 crowd.
I also sense the age old marketing problems again with Panasonic. In Berlin, my local camera store (a very significant and long running one) has a Panasonic rep who is there very frequently, almost on a weekly basis. Panasonic have not even briefed him on the L10, let alone got a demo unit out for him to show to customers.
Camera companies need to learn the marketing basics.
If your strategy is to build hype around a big orchestrated online launch, have the camera in shops the next day, strike while the iron is hot. Why do the launch and actual release months apart and have nothing to sell?

I’d also make sure not to skimp on storage speed - having a fast NVMe drive for your active projects and cache files can make a surprisingly big difference to overall responsiveness, especially when working with larger footage formats.

Yeah, there are differences for sure.  Some situations show larger differences than others.
One theme is that the Panny versions are much more saturated in skin tones than the Alexa.  Coming from the kings of colour science, this has got to be deliberate, so even ARRI aren't trying to match the Alexa.  
I think that instead of asking "are they identical", the better question would be "does this impart some magic".
I mean, everyone agrees that ARRI has the magic but their cameras don't even match each other between sensors, so it makes no sense to have a higher bar for the Panny version than we'd apply for ARRI themselves.
My impression was that the ARRILogC profile and the ARRI709 LUT is the most like the Alexa, with the V-Log -> CST -> ARRI709 LUT not being as good.  This makes sense as whatever colour / gamma secrets ARRI applies in-camera can be put into that profile as it's customised to the Panny sensors and also safely locked inside the camera away from prying eyes (unlike anything they put in their LUT).
However, the Alexa also responds differently in the spatial dimension, with the far-red response including a more spatially distributed response from skin tones.  We also know that Alexas process the image spatially in-camera due to their texture options and processing.  Who knows what is going on with texture in there.  IMHO the texture of Alexa images is right up there in importance as their colour response.
None of this includes temporal aspects either.  While I struggle to think of what processing might be occurring in-camera between frames, there might be some (we can't tell), and that's beyond the possibility that the hardware itself has some sort of secret properties that contribute to the image.
FDTimes did an entire episode on the Alexa 35, with interviews of over a dozen people and 100+ pages:
https://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/free/115FDTimes-June2022-2.04-150.pdf
Here is the image pipeline in the Alexa 35 (page 59):

To give some idea about how stunningly out of our depth basically everyone on the internet is who talks about this stuff, starting on page 116, Dr. Tamara Seybold talks about Textures..
"For example, the debayering already needed to obtain the full color image doesn’t only generate RGB values but also influences the perceived sharpness and grain rendering. And many more steps influence the clarity and grain that are important aspects of the texture of an image. So we, in the image science team, pushed hard to obtain the best results by really optimizing each and every step in the image processing pipeline, not only for the best color rendition but also for the best texture, as we call it. We did that in a holistic way, optimizing steps in the beginning of the pipeline together with later steps so that the overall result would be best. At some point, this came down to having more than 30 parameters that we had to optimize together—a huge amount. We specifically had to build a small “texture grading machine” to be able to optimize all these parameters together."
(emphasis added)
I don't know about anyone else here, but I would struggle to even list 30 parameters, let alone identify all the parameters, isolate the 30 that matter, then find the sweet-spot (or sweet spots) in a 30-dimensional space.
This is regarding the Alexa 35, but I remember reading in there somewhere that the innovation of the Textures feature is that you can choose different profiles on the new camera, whereas on the old ones you only had the one, and that on the previous models they had chosen a texture configuration that was their best attempt at a one-size-fits-all.  So the inference was that the previous cameras were also doing this kind of processing.
By implementing their colour science inside the camera, they could be doing all sorts of stuff.  They could have things that analyse the image and then apply different treatments depending on the scene the camera was capturing.  They certainly have a team capable enough and a camera with enough processing power to have a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand, LUTs or algorithms inside it and be changing these things based on context or WB setting or sensor temperature or whatever the hell else they found was useful.
The sheer depth of knowledge that has gone into their image science is incredible.  In 2009, Glenn Kennel joined ARRI as their CTO, which was a new position at that time, and in 2010 he was promoted to President and CEO.  Glenn had previously worked for Kodak from 1980, and worked on various things that involved the gradual digitisation of the pipeline, including things like telecines and film scanners etc.  My understanding is that his contributions at ARRI were pivotal for the development of the Alexa, which was the first digital camera to gain wide acceptance within the industry and did so due its film-like response.
A bit of searching revealed some interesting discussions we already had during lockdowns.. 
 
 

It’s not even close.
 
 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ayD92_55eZom1FTxYGxE6KA_fnjkNwHn

4K is nice, but I still insist that most of us aren't watching on screens big enough to really get the full benefit of it. I can see very little difference on my 55-inch 4K TV between 1080p and 4K, except on YouTube, but that's because of the significant bitrate bump YouTube's 4K has over its 1080p. That's another reason to upload in 4K instead of 1080p even if you film in 1080p.
When watching Blu-rays, though, the difference is almost non-existent unless you literally walk right up to the TV and are a few inches away from it.
Now imagine how little difference there is when watching on your phone or a tablet!

To add to the above, Matti Haapoja (perhaps the king of pixel peeping "cinematic" YT) uploaded a bunch of videos that were edited in 1080p (and upscaled to 4K for export) and he tracked all the comments and not a single person commented that the videos looked different or whatever.
In a blind real-world test literally not one of the pixel-peeping techno-fetishist pedants could tell.
Of course you'd still want a good 1080p image, some 1080p cameras were better than others.
The added bonus of this approach is you only need 25% of the computing power to edit it.  Or if you go with h264 instead of h265 then it's even less!

Some of Nikon's portrait F mount lenses do the same. They deliberately let the red light doesn't hit the same plane as blue/green. As like not-much-corrected glasses of the old days. So red is a bit out of focus. Very very tiny amount. Tho that amount changes with focus distance. They usually optimize for portrait distances. They abandoned that approach with Z mount lenses. 

It's really good. I'll have to watch a few times again to analyze more but my first impression is that this type amount of grain I associate with the 1970s and the cameras used back then for 16mm had some gate weave. Maybe try a touch of that and see.

For the talking-head stuff, almost any camera will be good enough if given enough light, so I'd suggest you concentrate on getting 1) enough light so your camera is at its native ISO, and 2) lighting that is flattering and creates depth and contrast in the image.
There are lots of videos on YT that show this, and the before/afters show what is possible.  You don't need expensive lights either, there is tonnes of info on home DIY hacks using lamps and cheap shower screens as diffusers, etc.
The standard approach is 3 Point Lighting, like this:
This video is a good primer and talks about how to use (or avoid) existing light sources like natural light and ceiling lights etc.
Other videos that might be useful:
This video is longer but starts with a complete setup, so acoustics etc too.
Cameras get all the attention, but in the real world are some of the least important parts of the whole setup.
You're lucky in that you're building something indoors for one specific use in an environment you control and (hopefully) doesn't have to be portable and easy/quick to setup and pack away.  With a bit of effort you should be able to get a great setup that works really well and doesn't cost much at all.

Round 4.
Changes:
Included lens emulation Stabilised shots Lowered grain I completely rebuilt the grain nodes in a different OFX trying to refine it, then realised it didn't animate. FML.
The lens emulation includes adding a vignette, softening the edges, and adding a slight barrel distortion.
The grain seems a lot on certain things (like the sky) but doesn't appear at all on other things.  I see no pattern for it, but this is how real S16 films also appear on YT so I'll leave it to the judgement of those with a better eye than me.
These are my settings for Film Grain OFX - it appears there's quite some adjustments, so let me know if I should play with anything...

A compact SSD and a good USB-C hub have probably been the most useful smartphone accessories for me lately, especially for video work. Small things, but they make the whole setup feel way more practical.

For the talking-head stuff, almost any camera will be good enough if given enough light, so I'd suggest you concentrate on getting 1) enough light so your camera is at its native ISO, and 2) lighting that is flattering and creates depth and contrast in the image.
There are lots of videos on YT that show this, and the before/afters show what is possible.  You don't need expensive lights either, there is tonnes of info on home DIY hacks using lamps and cheap shower screens as diffusers, etc.
The standard approach is 3 Point Lighting, like this:
This video is a good primer and talks about how to use (or avoid) existing light sources like natural light and ceiling lights etc.
Other videos that might be useful:
This video is longer but starts with a complete setup, so acoustics etc too.
Cameras get all the attention, but in the real world are some of the least important parts of the whole setup.
You're lucky in that you're building something indoors for one specific use in an environment you control and (hopefully) doesn't have to be portable and easy/quick to setup and pack away.  With a bit of effort you should be able to get a great setup that works really well and doesn't cost much at all.

I bought a used Em10iii over 5 years ago for $300 and haven't stopped using it since.  Nice 4K video and you can put good vintage lenses on it for next to nuthin'.  Yes, concentrate on lighting and getting a good mic (I use a Tascam DR10L) but do know there are a lot of good affordable cameras out there too.  I also have 2 old GH4's in the cabinet.  They're cheap as well.

These days the camera is the least imporant thing, since we all own phones that shoot very good video with the right lighting.
Something like this might be useful, to help you frame yourself so you can use your main cameras instead of the selfie camera on your phone.
https://www.smallrig.com/Wireless-Video-Monitor-for-Phone-Vlog-Kit-4851.html?skuId=1902205216988602369&utm_source=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign={us_roasl}&utm_content&utm_term=1902205216988602369&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22986129310&gbraid=0AAAAA9ksdxlR0rKJm8KPUZEfnds4FA25H&gclid=CjwKCAjwidXQBhAZEiwA4egw6IMJP7OXRfSob5wBL8w-tVSe1oUTWPIYilNm1fLnTWsIBMzdbzi5RRoCELoQAvD_BwE
 

I thought the title was slightly clickbaity but I’m glad I clicked on this one.
There are a lot of “Arri look on your xyz camera” videos but I think this is a far more interesting take on it.
The question is are you doomed to never match it because it is baked in (not least the IR cut filter) and it can’t be reverse engineered in post?
Can anyone who has bought the Arri license for their supported Panasonic camera chime in with their thoughts?
 

thanks guys! Really appreciate the answers! Yeah, I'll probably will focus on getting mic and lighting setups firsts 

The previous comparing with this one is pure crap.
:- )

The GoPro one in Seoul is very impressive....  I'm guessing they must be doing super-duper processing of the image.  Still, for the form factor it looks like a great result.
I'd be curious to see how the low-light is compared with previous normal GoPros.  Some time ago I made the case that an action camera is the perfect vlogging camera, as it's the size of a pair of wireless earbuds but is mostly without the issues that continue to plague the "vlogging" cameras that aren't wide enough / crop for stabilisation / etc.  If I was a vlogger I'd be using one of these 8K action cameras for sure, using the wide for talking head stuff and cropping in for more normal FOVs.  No-one on YT can tell if you edit a 1080p and upscale to 4K on export, so a 2K crop from an 8K sensor gives a pretty useful FOV, assuming the readout isn't terrible.

Much better than the previous batch. I like where you're going with this.
I think the grain is a bit too extreme now but it's not unrealistic. It would depend on the film stock as some film pictures are this grainy. The ones where I think don't work for me are the 5th ( the trees) and the 8th (city shot). Both of these I think the grain is too much. The one of the trees as well looks like there's more detail in the leaves than that amount of grain would show.

Not only small, two additional no-brainers to my book anyway -- people say this time GoPro has something or two really new:
 

Thanks, yeah I can fix it in post with optical flow in davinci resolve, but I often just deliver my footage to production houses, so I sometimes even feel emberassed as I can see it. And I am afraid it may hurt my business. When walking forward I almost never see the issue. Only when doing a kind of slider shot. Moving left to right  without even taking a step.

Hi,
I am thinking if I need Ibis or not in my camera's. I think it introduces some kind of jitter when panning the camera or when on a gimbal doing slider movements.(even when ibis is turned off, the sensor might correct/wiggle).
Anyhow it is driving me crazy. I see it on a lot of online videos as well, and they all say it is perfectly stable while it def is not. Or might be stable but there is some kind of jerking going around.
I don't have an non ibis camera around that I can mount to a gimbal to compare directly (c500ii is too big).
Can someone confirm this is the case? And this is the reason why there is no ibis on most cinema cameras, as the sensor will always be floaty?
 
Thanks!