kye

Excellent point!
@Dan Wake is this your first feature?  or are you gearing for a career in post-production?  The stats on people who try to make a feature film without first having made several short films are pretty dire - most don't know what they're getting themselves into and the project is never finished.

LOL..  I'e seen a few versions of that box and having the sensors when it opens detect if there's a hand nearby is great - makes it look like it has real personality!
I'm guessing you'll be moving to Resolve after your current project then? ???

I don't think the lens gives a rats ass what resolution you are shooting at. It just projects what you want it to see to a Sensor. It can project so many line pairs and that is it. What that is depends on the quality of it. But yeah if your math is correct, ? , than 65mp would be a Stretch no doubt for an old lens. Would be a stretch for a New FF lens to be honest.

I own the LowPro 450. But only used it on one trip and have not used it again. 
Pros:
it's well built.
It has everything you require
I like how you can detach the shoulder harness and make it take smaller footprint for international travel (that's the reason I got it). 
 
Cons:
It opens from outside not inside. 
When you hang it from center column of your tripod (which is what I often do). It's off balance and tills in the angle that makes everything inside of the bag easily fall out. 
It's bulky (but for your needs  bulky might be the only option)
It has not internal framing to help support the weight for long treks. 
Otherwise it's a great setup and lowepro sticks with their product. One of my lens bags the zipper broke and they just replaced it. 
 
Other options: 
https://fstopgear.com/products/packs/ajna
https://www.shimodadesigns.com/en/explore-40/
 
https://atlaspacks.com/collections/atlas-packs/products/atlas-athlete-camera-pack
 
If you're in the Bay Area you're welcome to play around with my 450 or buy mine used, if you like. 

People tend to transcode to Prores HQ or DNxHD HQX files as proxy media, often depending on what platform they're on (PCs can't make Prores files IIRC), but my research didn't turn up any differences in quality between the two formats, so use whichever you like.
If you want way too much information about proxy formats, here you go....
https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/15/choose-the-right-codec/ https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/ The second link shows the bitrates of the various codecs and you'll see that Prores HQ and DNxHD HQX are very similar, but note that DNxHD HQ is 8-bit vs DNxHD HQX is 10-bit, and this will likely make a difference so is worth checking if you go the DNxHD route.
With all things, when you make a compressed copy of something you only degrade the quality.  However with high quality codecs like these the degradation will be minimal and likely not a factor in the end result.  As you say, this is about story and storytelling, and I think that the ability to edit with smooth playback will add more to the storytelling than the very slight degradation of the image will detract from it.

When I was seriously considering the A7III and GH5 and trying to understand the lens options etc, I PM'd with @jonpais about his experiences and he was really helpful and wrote me quite a few long and informative messages.  This despite he and I seriously butting heads a few times in the general forum.  I don't claim to know him, but I can see that he has a lot to offer - unfortunately other factors got in the way.

When I was seriously considering the A7III and GH5 and trying to understand the lens options etc, I PM'd with @jonpais about his experiences and he was really helpful and wrote me quite a few long and informative messages.  This despite he and I seriously butting heads a few times in the general forum.  I don't claim to know him, but I can see that he has a lot to offer - unfortunately other factors got in the way.

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

Buying a dedicated keyboard or overlay relevant to your NLE is also a great upgrade. Just studying the keys can lead to exploration you might not normally do, and find a quick solution to a nagging problem easily solved by the push of a button or two.

Hi kye,
I appreciate the detailed reply!
I think my biggest problem with Resolve workflow, is that I don't have the proper time to truly learn and use it.
My personal time is limited due to a high pressure fulltime+ job, sigh...
I only get to use Resolve sporadically, and often forget what I did during the last session.
 
 

Most camera tests are more influenced by how accurate the focusing of the lenses is, or how similar the shots are (true A/B comparisons require you to point the cameras at the exact same thing under the exact same lighting - something most reviewers don't understand!).
You want to do normal tests and also stress-tests.  Trees blowing in the wind is a good stress-test.  I designed a torture test by making a 4K video file with 3 frames of completely different photographs, exporting it as Prores and playing it on repeat, then setting the camera to a very short shutter-speed and framing up the monitor.  Codecs normally do well when frames are similar to the previous ones, but do badly when frames are very different.  This test absolutely destroys some cameras and others hold up very nicely.  It's a total exaggeration but gives useful information if you don't have a tree handy.  It's also 100% repeatable between cameras so is a valid test.
My advice is to test things properly, make your decisions, then move on to making real content

Unfortunately, I'm not (ultimately) in that camp... As far as I can recognize it, for me all this fussing with cameras has, at the end, two - strangely  and maybe interestingly - two complete opposite but convergent goals: escape from loneliness and escape to loneliness - or, better to say, creative solitude.
So, cameras with their specifics for me are ultimately  tools that help me to find a peace in that creative shelter with least amount of distraction. Saying that, with due respect for any camera's combination of virtues and isolated advantages, besides appropriate aesthetic image BM cameras were greatest for me because of providing me the best opportunity to forget to annoying WB set up... As much as GH5 (with help of GHa lut) is greatest for me because of, besides enough appropriate image, provides me the best possibility to forget to annoying antishaking set up. And when I said "aesthetic appropriate image", I mean, of course, to opportunity to dive as much as possible into wonderful solitude world of grading...
... and to wait for someone noble to join me in that world and break my solitude of an filming/dreaming/sleeping beauty (or, well, the pretty ugly beast).

So many good cameras out there..  When I watched the GH5s vs P4K video I was more impacted by the slight changes in focus between the two cameras instead of the cameras themselves, which is in the skill department not the equipment department.  
I remember someone (@kidzrevil perhaps?) speaking about the Resolve Super Scale feature and how great it is, so that's something that might breathe new life into lower-resolution footage.  More info: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/resolve-15-super-scale-feature/
In terms of using slow-motion, I would suggest it's a new genre of film-making.  Like all genres it will have fans and critics.  Personally, I agree with @mercer around testing a camera by actually making a short film.  That way, not only do you test the equipment by using it how you would on a real project, but you also get a real short film at the end of it, which is what all this fussing with cameras is ultimately for, right? ?

So many good cameras out there..  When I watched the GH5s vs P4K video I was more impacted by the slight changes in focus between the two cameras instead of the cameras themselves, which is in the skill department not the equipment department.  
I remember someone (@kidzrevil perhaps?) speaking about the Resolve Super Scale feature and how great it is, so that's something that might breathe new life into lower-resolution footage.  More info: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/resolve-15-super-scale-feature/
In terms of using slow-motion, I would suggest it's a new genre of film-making.  Like all genres it will have fans and critics.  Personally, I agree with @mercer around testing a camera by actually making a short film.  That way, not only do you test the equipment by using it how you would on a real project, but you also get a real short film at the end of it, which is what all this fussing with cameras is ultimately for, right? ?

We spend a lot of time here talking about different systems, but remember to take into account the practicalities of actually owning multiple systems.
Fuji and Canon both have nice colours, but they don't have the same colours, so there would be work in post to match them, especially in scenes like the wedding ceremony where I imagine you've got a multi-camera setup and are cutting between them frequently in the final edit.
There's also the advantages of having compatible lenses, media, etc.  Unless you knew that you were always going to use the C100 with the wide, and the Fuji always with the long lens, but I suspect that's not the case.

Fuji has pretty nice colors without grading, its actually the reason I switched over from Panasonic. But yeah it probably is a good way to go, though no 60p. 
 
Built in ND's would be nice. I can't really say anything about C100 auto focus as I've never used it. Yeah I forgot the C100 is actually pretty small. I'd not go for an FS5 as I am color blind and need either a Canon or Fuji to rely on lol. I might pick one up if I find a really good deal on it. I need three cameras for shooting, a used C100 might a good option third camera. Continuous recording is nice. 

Honestly, I think a filmmaker like yourself would be better off with a C100 or FS5, etc... you are a talented narrative filmmaker... go grab a cinema camera, with all of their bells and whistles and let the camera help you rather fussing about with these hybrids and their auto-everything.  

Once you get used to a EVF it is very hard to go back. Zebras, focus peaking is a real advantage having that in the viewfinder. Especially when you get older and can't see the rear LCD up close or far away. ?

Where is Jon?! Point me ton his comments. I missed his vitriolic attitude!
DISCLAIMER: this is going to the general topic.
To the point now, most professionals work with M focus, with non IBIS cameras and deliver 1080p, and the percentage must be something like 95% of the total world output, or even more. Because 400 people on youtube use  only AF and IBIS doesn't make it the norm. For everyone youtuber there are dozens of hundrends of photo/videographers, from 50€$£ videographers (yes, they do exist and they use mainly camcorders on a monopod) to Hollywood and Bollywoodameramen amd everything in between.
I see most people here do care for youtube or something, but real life is a lot different than the latest war on specs, and the world is not only Australia and North America. The vast majority of the world still work with 70D and C100 cameras and produce glorious - low bitrate - 1080p videos!
Professionals and big production companies do not change cameras at a whim, only a few, and "rich" hobbyists (rich, in comparison with a 2nd or 3rd world country hobbyist, which, you know, is something like 6-7 billions of people!). So, the adaptation of technology is not as fast as we think from this forum.
Most people and organisations I know still shoot Canon by the way. 80D is like a dream for them. There are a few cameras that made a dent in the industry. C100/C300 was the first wave, FS5/FS7 the last few years (after the C300mkII release, Canon have lost most of the market), GH4/5, A7sii/A7iii are some other cameras that sold really well.
 

I am dumb enough to shoot sports (including AFL and cricket) with old manual focus lenses.
I think pretty much any old zoom in the 70/80-200plus range will do and it will depend on the lens condition and how hard its life has been more than anything.
Most will not be that great but you will get something you like.
My favourite lens for this is out of budget (Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall) - photos from this lens used in  newspapers including Greyhound racing (Greyhound Recorder) as well as Australian football.
I had some  (Womens) AFL shots from a cheap old Tamron adaptall zoom (80-250 3.8-4.5) used in a Newspaper as well.
 
Two old zooms I had and liked  are the Canon FD 80-200 f4 L, Tamron adaptall 70-210 3.5 (model 19ah).
I also have an old Tamron adaptall 70-350 4.5 that might be good for sports and while rare can be had cheap though is sometimes listed for much more than it is worth (it was a very expensive lens in its day but does not use any fluorite or ED elements).      Many of these old timers have a bit of purple (or other colour) fringing.
Get the longest fastest you can find and bonus points for ED/Fluorite elements ( 70/80-200/210 2.8 if you can find one in your price range)
Other options would be the Canon 100-300 5.6 L EF.    Maybe a bit slow but still quite good and can be found cheap (maybe on Ebay from Japan) and is as old as some FD lenses (I regret selling mine) and also something like a Canon EF 70/80-200/210 f4 (there are a few but maybe look at the old constant f4?).
For evening/overcast afternoons in winter, 2.8 can be very useful with a longer lens.
For Australian football, even 600mm (FF angle of view) and except for one sided games, you can spend a lot of time watching from afar and more so for kids.

I have a set of FD lenses, from the days of film, and the 200mm 4f is quite interesting, with good sharpness from wide open, very small, and very light, with a built in sun hood (!), nevertheless, I haven't used it for at least half a decade now. Modern lenses can't just be beat in ease of use and AF performance, something that is really a must for sports photography. 
I advice you to search for the cheapest equivalent of the Canon 70-300 on m43 land and be merry!

Wow - cool image.  
People over-use shallow DoF and then everyone gets critical of anyone who uses shallow DoF, but when used in an artistically relevant way it is a valuable technique, as this image shows.  Both the fog and the shallow DoF really contribute to the beauty and kind of suffocating feel this has.

Shooting 4K and downscaling in post is a pretty good way of getting high quality 1080p, and it may record in a higher bitrate too.
I have done image quality comparisons of different resolutions given the same file size, and you're normally better off with the higher resolution, so even if the camera shoots the same bitrate for 1080 and 4K, you'd still be better with the 4K file.