kye

I think you might be partly missing the point.
1) If Sony put a modern sensor in one of these things, it would have the same spec as a modern camera because it would BE a modern camera.  There are a shit-ton of smartphone sensors that have excellent specs that are in the right size range.
2) When compared to a modern mirrorless camera and a superzoom lens and a gimbal, it would be positively tiny by comparison.  
Also, camcorders often have completely internal mechanisms (zoom and focus) potentially making them much easier to weather-seal.  The benefits in terms of being less fragile in your bag etc might also be welcome.
Also, also, for amateur use, a camcorder looks FAAAAAAAAR less threatening in public than a MILC and large lens...  let alone when you add the gimbal.  Put an A6700 with superzoom on an RS3 or Crane and you may as well have activated a homing beacon for all private security, toxic law enforcement, Karen's, etc to come out of the woodwork and hassle you.  If you're holding something the shape of a camcorder, the fact that it's larger might even make you look less of a threat because buying a big camcorder might make you look a bit silly - the opposite look of a professional setup.

I'm confused...  you obviously don't want one, so why are you in this thread about camcorders arguing that no-one wants them?
I'm not interested in buying any cameras that exist right now, but I'm not sitting in all the threads arguing with people about them.

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan.....  in something approaching the size of an action camera.

Sony, etc, have no excuses.

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan.....  in something approaching the size of an action camera.

Sony, etc, have no excuses.

Picked this up second hand at a good price as my introduction to anamorphics. Here's some tests shot last night.
 
 

The very question is flawed.  You're asking which sensor produces the best image, but the sensor is only a part of the image pipeline.  The same Sony sensors are sometimes used in cameras from Sony and several other vendors and the image that gets output differs radically.  Each manufacturer is applying their own denoising algorithms, color interpretation, internal debaying algorithm, etc.

I'd also say that @kye is fully correct that there's really no way to evaluate which camera produces the "best" image.  What is "best?"  Is it the most faithful reproduction of colors?  Or is it the interpretation of colors that I like more?  Is it preserving every single detail from corner to corner?  Or is it producing an image where my actors like how their skin looks?  How contrasty is best?  Is the image being color graded in post?  Or is it being given to somebody straight out of camera?  If one camera has better DR and the other has more pleasing colors, which one wins?

This kind of thing is also why, in the example above, industry professionals could end up preferring the image from a $1k GH4 to a $25k Red or a $70k Arri.  Were the images straight out of camera?  Red and Arri might not spend as much time with the SOOC image because almost any production that can afford to use their gear can also afford to have a colorist. Meanwhile, many people shooting with a GH4 don't.  If the images were graded in post, was the colorist more familiar with the GH4 than the Red or Arri?  Could be.  Did that test result in any of those Hollywood DPs choosing the Panasonic GH4 as the A camera for their next feature film? Nope.

It's not useful to obsess about the micro-differences between two cameras.  It's far better to actually get (or rent) a camera and spend some time shooting with it.

Actually, I take back my comments that overheating testing is incomprehensible, because I found this.... (linked to timestamp)
...and in case you don't want to hit play, the BM Micro Studio Camera was used to film inside the race car of a 24 hour race in Daytona, and:
it was being powered from the car it was recording 4K to a 4TB SSD in BRAW 8:1 it recorded for 24 hours straight with no overheating and no dropped frames the average temp in the car was 120F / 48C the suspension in a race car is stiff and shaking the camera too Just goes to show - all these huge cameras that overheat in air-conditioning are just flat-out design failures.

There is no such thing as objectively better.
There was a famous blind test that included high end cameras like the ARRI Alexa and Red Epic Dragon 6K, but also much lower-end cameras like the GH4..  here's a couple of articles talking about it:
https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/20/12-cameras-blind-test-bmpc-4k-bmpcc-gh4-arri-alexa-red-epicdragon-6k-sony-f55-fs700-kineraw-mini-canon-c500-5d-mark-iii-1dc/
https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/24/12-cameras-test-part-iii-arri-alexa-red-epic-dragon-6k-blackmagic-4k-kineraw-mini-gh4-5d-mark-iii-more/
But here's the kicker - the audience was industry professionals and some of them preferred the GH4 to the ARRI or the RED.
In the end, everything is subjective.

I agree with @eatstoomuchjam that either would be fine, even for the more extreme situations.
My experience has been that the GH5 (9.7 stops) often wasn't enough for people-in-front-of-sunset but that the P2K (11.2 stops) was hugely better.  I wouldn't say that it's all you'd need in that situation, but it made a HUGE difference in that situation for me.  Going up to the A7S3 (12.3 stops) would be a huge jump up again and would likely be all you'd need in that situation.
But remember, that situation is a really demanding one, and waaaay more than you need in any other lighting scenario - the P2K (11.2 stops) is enough when the sun isn't in shot.
It's fun to talk about cameras and look at the specs, but asking which is "better" involves so many variables that the situation really matters.  Even things like how you feel matters because you use the camera differently.

No, actually, you're right.. it's me, I'm the silly one.
I'd forgotten that the threads about industry news always devolve into everyone arguing about inconsequential rubbish that has no bearing on film-making.
Thanks for the reminder and best of luck y'all.

PS... order placed with cvp so we'll see how it works out!

These threads do tend to descend into either-or types debates. I have a recent iPhone and, yes, I do use this for video. I also have a range of Blackmagics for a number of different purposes. But I still feel that the AX53 possibly has a place. The zoom. The internal gimbal. The compact size and ease of use. And possibly even the "retro" vibe and "invisible amateur tool" aspects. Coupled with the fact that if I drop it or it falls off a mount... it really doesn't matter. I am thinking of it as a GoPro/Insta alternative...  yes, a niche, perhaps, but there will be a lot of people out there for whom a decent camcorder would definitely fill their niche. As @kye said - get a lot of different shots with an easy to use camera and focus on the edit.

The Balanced Optical Steady Shot (BOSS!) is a pretty amazing technology really - it's a pity it never got much attention.
I am a pretty big supporter of having stabilisation built-in because it means that motion is smoothed DURING the exposure rather than AFTERWARDS when the frame already has shaky motion blur baked into each frame.
My Sony X3000 action camera has BOSS and it is very impressive in practice.  I have gotten quite a number of almost gimbal-level stabilisation shots while walking, and I can tell you that I'm not that good at the ninja walk.  I haven't compared it directly to the IBIS of the GH5, or even the dual IS of Panasonic IBIS plus lens OIS, but after using the GH5 for years I found myself being impressed with the X3000.  Of course, the X3000 also has a very wide angle lens (maybe 15mm or so equivalent?) so that also helps.
The other thing that is significant about it is that it, as you say, is basically a gimbal, which keeps the optics and sensor in alignment the whole time, so it eliminates all the corner warping that comes from OIS or IBIS.
In terms of the image quality, I would suggest that with a 100Mbps 4K mode that if you add some de-sharpening (blur) and do some creative colour grading, potentially adding in some film emulation elements, that you could get a very nice image indeed.
I am definitely a fan of a setup that is flexible and can just grab shots quickly and without fuss.  Perhaps the best way to make your edits better through camera choice is to make your camera as fast and flexible as possible, and to get lots of shots and a great variety of shots, as this gives you more options in the edit.

Half of the shots in this video I shot are in 8-bit rec709 but graded in post.  Learn your gear and 8 bit is just fine.
 

I suggest you read the thread before posting - this is the second post from you that I've seen where you have come in half way through the conversation making comments that look a bit silly.....
https://www.eoshd.com/news/adobe-cancel-nikon-n-raw-support-is-redcode-raw-coming-to-a-mirrorless-camera-near-you/
Ah, so theoretical discussion completely divorced from reality it is then.
Well, umm..   good luck with that.

I'm confused...  you obviously don't want one, so why are you in this thread about camcorders arguing that no-one wants them?
I'm not interested in buying any cameras that exist right now, but I'm not sitting in all the threads arguing with people about them.

I'd suggest testing this for yourself.
Find the situation / situations where your existing setup doesn't have enough DR, and use a camera in stills mode to measure the brightest part of the image and the darkest part.  I'd suggest using zebras.
For example, if you open up your camera lens to f2.8 and set a 1/10 shutter and ISO 3200 and this sets off the zebras then you just adjust those parameters down until the highlights don't set off the zebras and then you'll have your number of stops.
This might sound a bit fiddly, and it is, but it will give you a definite answer.  The alternative is spending thousands of dollars based on a review / vlog from some camera bro with mediocre technical knowledge and unknown commercial interests on YT.

As a hobbyist whose day job intersects with the film world, I can say that there is no way I would ever buy into a subscription system - and I can say that because the two R5Cs with their current features are literally all I need for any and all present and future projects. I'll maybe get an R7/R6 MKII/R5 to fly on my RS3 Pro (bcuz the R5C cannot be used wirelessly with that gimbal) - and maaaybe a C70. But honestly I'm at the end of the road for camera purchases. But also I think the current cam selection is so amazing nowadays that a move to a subscription-based model will likely push even more people to the used market - and aside from storage media, every piece of gear (cam, lights, etc) I've ever bought in my hobbyist career (10+ years at this point) has been from the used market.

I recently asked for book recommendations to learn about human vision and was given a link to a free PDF.
It is incredible.
I'm only a quarter of the way through, but I'm absolutely blown away.  The human vision system looks like it was designed by committee and then re-imagined by Dali and Picasso, while on drugs.  It is a wonder we can see anything at all!
Did you know that the rods and cones (which detect light) are BEHIND a bunch of nerves and nerve cells and blood vessels, so the light has to go through a bunch of crap before you even sense it?   
The book is actually a mix of how the human vision system works and also what we have done with the tech to try and align to it, so it's a nice blend of biology and tech.  It's also very readable and tries to be as non-technical as possible.  This is a rare find compared to other books that are hugely tech heavy.
Take the red pill with me...  download it here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php (download it by clicking on the box next to the file size).

It's also worth pointing out that the film you posted could have been shot with almost any camera just by controlling the ratio on set with lighting.  I'm not being dramatic here - you could literally shoot that with the GH1 or my GF3 (of course the resolution and bitrates would suffer..) but the contrast could be replicated.

I think comparisons like this are a journey into very tricky territory.
I'm not saying that DR doesn't matter, or that the A74 doesn't have more than the FX3, but I wonder what situations this will really make a meaningful difference in.
12.9 vs 12.4 isn't that much of a difference, especially once you've got this much DR already.  I like to think about this in terms of "what shots can you get with one and not the other?".  I have spoken a lot about DR in my work, but that's because I tend to regularly be shooting people in front of a sunset, and I want the persons face and also not to clip the sunset behind them.  I think I could get that shot with either of these cameras.
Another shot is of people sitting by a fire, and wanting to show the surroundings as well as not clip the fire (white fire looks odd but you can clip little bits of it as they end up looking like fire highlights).  This isn't a shot I do so I'm not sure if this needs more DR than the A73.
You also need the skill to pull the shadows out in post.  I don't mean just raising the shadows slider either, I mean having the skill to match a shot with (let's say) 12.9 stops of DR with the previous and next shots which are likely to have dramatically less DR.  Imagine that the surrounding shots are of people sitting around the fire - they might have half the DR of the previous shot.  When you have the contrast / curves / LGG wheels / etc cranked one way for one shot, then cranked the other way for the next shot, will all the colours remain similar?  Will the contrast seem natural?  
Colour grading software is getting better but did you know that the normal colour grading controls were developed with algorithms that were simple for computers to do (to reduce processor requirements) rather than looking good?  This often doesn't matter when you're only adjusting things a little bit, but large changes will ruthlessly reveal the weaknesses.  Things like the Resolve HDR Palette were designed to be perceptually uniform, but are you grading in Resolve using this panel?
You also have to consider the other implications of a choice between the FX3 and A74, for example.  Comparing DR is great but it's an "everything else being equal" comparison, but of course, everything else isn't equal.  The extra DR might come at the cost of something else that is more meaningful to what you're doing.  Film-making doing anything other than shooting still-life images on a tripod inside (where everything is controlled and you have all the time in the world) is an exercise in having less time and attention than you'd want to, so you're always trying to work out what is most important and paying attention to that.  I don't know about you, but I routinely look at the footage I have shot and see all kinds of things that I should have done differently - but then I have to remind myself that I was walking down a staircase holding the camera with one hand and the railing with the other and trying not be steady and use the ninja walk while keeping the right focus distance to my subject and keep the nice framing and also not hit my head etc etc etc.  I didn't have mental capacity to do anything else, and if I had paid attention to that other thing then maybe I would have screwed up the shot entirely, etc.
You have to look at the total situation and review what the requirements are for you in your situation and think through what implications you'll have of swapping from one camera to another and the effect on your viewers as they are watching the final edit.  Everything else other than how your viewers feel is a means to an end.

intoPIX and Fraunhofer IIS are the two major contributors to the JPEG XS patent pool - https://www.jpegxspool.com/ and https://www.jpegxspool.com/s/JPEG-XS-Patent-Pool-Licensed-Patents-01-Oct-2023.pdf  and https://www.tinynews.be/jpeg-xs-intopix-belgique/
As JPEG XS uses a wavelet transform, there is a reasonable chance TicoRAW uses a wavelet transform in its implementation, especially as JPEG XS has built-in support for RAW Bayer/CFA images - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XS#Sensor_compression
But as intoPIX is a developer of video compression technology, TicoRAW unlikely to be "just another branded version of something that someone else wrote."

intoPIX's patents describe the algorithm. If it is the same as used in another previous product then it is unlikely to have been granted a patent.  Of course this assumes the patent office can understand the algorithms and the novelties in context, which is not necessarily the case. Given the patent text it should be possible to implement it.

In digital, highlights don't roll-off - they clip faster than a Ferrari without breaks.  The roll-off is applied as part of the processing that occurs after the image is read from the sensor.
In terms of DR, you have to find a source that has tested both with the same methodology.  Luckily, CineD is one such source:
https://www.cined.com/sony-a7-iv-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/
https://www.cined.com/sony-a7s-iii-lab-test-does-it-live-up-to-the-hype/
 

I recently bought a new treadmill and was amazed that the high-end ones required a subscription model.
I wouldn't be averse to buying a GX85 updated firmware, but to buy and re-buy the damned thing over and over again is ridiculous.
Yet another reason to snap out of the specifications trance that everyone seems to be in and focus on making better videos, rather than making the same videos with better spec'd equipment.