kye

Actually, that 12-36mm lens I mentioned earlier seems like it might fit the bill, if you are willing to make some modifications. I posted a question about it on another message board and a member named Boris Simović actually had one. He shared these photos (attached), taken with his E-M1 Mark II. To get the lens to work with his MFT body, he removed the rear plate and just screwed on an MFT adapter in its place. It won't focus to infinity at the longer focal lengths yet, but he's going to see if he can work with the adapter a little more to make it work.
He says it's somewhat heavy and feels like it needs more lubricant, but I think that the images look very promising.
It's available as the FOCtek C-M1236IR in the US for around $300, or $160 on AliExpress (without coupons applied). I am seriously struggling to keep myself from picking up a copy. But maybe you would be interested?

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

I'd try a range of things, and I'm sure others will have more to add, but I would:
Check the camera physically to make sure the screen works, buttons, EVF, etc I'd update the firmware straight away to the latest Put on several lenses and test that they're recognised correctly and the AF and OIS are working After putting in a new battery and formatting a memory card in it, I'd pick the best quality normal mode (24/25/30p) and do a long recording on it of something that has a lot of movement in it (a great test is putting three still images on a timeline each at 1 frame and then loop the video)..  if it records without issue for 20+ minutes without anything odd happening that's good, but if you have time I'd test until the card fills up or the battery dies I'd also do the same but on the highest frame rate mode Check the files are playable in the camera and work on the computer If it passes all of the above then it's unlikely that it has some lingering issue that isn't also present on new copies as well.

About half my cameras were second hand, with a couple of them likely having a lot more than two previous owners, but haven't had any issues with mine.
If you're concerned about overheating, get a camera with a fan.  A fan is the difference between a camera overheating in air-conditioning in under 45 minutes vs a camera recording for 24 hours in a race car at 120F / 48C.

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

Hehe, I found it. Well done. Congratulations to you, the director, cast and team! @Emanuel
 

Another vote for "buy used from a reputable dealer with a return policy" when possible - both with camera bodies and lenses.  They usually have a 30-day return policy as well - so that gives you some time to test the camera.

Personally, for the most part, I don't buy extended warranties and if you're going to buy one from a third party, try to do some investigation to understand whether people are happy with it when they try to use it.  I do carry extra camera insurance, though, for a bunch of my stuff.

On the rare occasion that there is a problem with the camera, you can send it back to the manufacturer for repair, even if it's out of warranty.  It'll just cost you a bit to have it repaired.  For me, over the last 25 years or so, I've definitely spent less on repairing cameras than I would have spent on extended warranties for all of them.  YMMV

Hopefully it's just the battery. These little gems getting quiet expensive these days. Great shots, makes me want to try the Pentax, great testimony to a lens! @mercer Was mistaking them as Canon 5D3 Raw shots. But you made that Sigma FP sing. There aren't any small mechanical 2x or 3x zooms for 16 or S16 unfortunately. @QuickHitRecord Maybe there might be some in 2/3" cctv land, but it would seem kind of silly to put that on a og pocket or m2k losing too much pixel realestate. On the Eos M that crop would mean 2/5 of the sensor and x axis pixels and be in the 2k ballpark. A 2/3" crop might sound appealing for the Eos with a tiny 2/3" zoom.:)

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

In other news, I finally had a chance to get out and shoot some stuff yesterday with the FP. For this outing I brought along an oldie, but a goodie... the Super Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4.
Here are a couple shots that didn't turn out terrible...


I'm still using my old MB Air from 2014, so I can't always say the image posted looks exactly like my graded image. I hope to upgrade my computer soon enough.
That said, I'm in the middle of a test for a short film I am hoping to make this summer.
But to stay on topic, I forgot how amazing the Tak 50mm is and I really like it with the FP.

I'd try a range of things, and I'm sure others will have more to add, but I would:
Check the camera physically to make sure the screen works, buttons, EVF, etc I'd update the firmware straight away to the latest Put on several lenses and test that they're recognised correctly and the AF and OIS are working After putting in a new battery and formatting a memory card in it, I'd pick the best quality normal mode (24/25/30p) and do a long recording on it of something that has a lot of movement in it (a great test is putting three still images on a timeline each at 1 frame and then loop the video)..  if it records without issue for 20+ minutes without anything odd happening that's good, but if you have time I'd test until the card fills up or the battery dies I'd also do the same but on the highest frame rate mode Check the files are playable in the camera and work on the computer If it passes all of the above then it's unlikely that it has some lingering issue that isn't also present on new copies as well.

B&H and Adorama are my most trusted vendors for used stuff. Fun thing about Adorama is that almost all their used stuff on their site is also listed in their eBay store with a “Make offer” option so you’re able to buy things under list price. They’re pretty good about actually accepting offers, too. 

I’ve had very good luck buying and selling with MPB in the past, but you need to reallyyyy stress test stuff from them IMO. I’ve returned a couple items that I didn’t feel were listed correctly. Like, things I bought at “Excellent” that I would characterize as “Poor” or “Acceptable”. Still, there are some great deals there.

I'd try a range of things, and I'm sure others will have more to add, but I would:
Check the camera physically to make sure the screen works, buttons, EVF, etc I'd update the firmware straight away to the latest Put on several lenses and test that they're recognised correctly and the AF and OIS are working After putting in a new battery and formatting a memory card in it, I'd pick the best quality normal mode (24/25/30p) and do a long recording on it of something that has a lot of movement in it (a great test is putting three still images on a timeline each at 1 frame and then loop the video)..  if it records without issue for 20+ minutes without anything odd happening that's good, but if you have time I'd test until the card fills up or the battery dies I'd also do the same but on the highest frame rate mode Check the files are playable in the camera and work on the computer If it passes all of the above then it's unlikely that it has some lingering issue that isn't also present on new copies as well.

I'd try a range of things, and I'm sure others will have more to add, but I would:
Check the camera physically to make sure the screen works, buttons, EVF, etc I'd update the firmware straight away to the latest Put on several lenses and test that they're recognised correctly and the AF and OIS are working After putting in a new battery and formatting a memory card in it, I'd pick the best quality normal mode (24/25/30p) and do a long recording on it of something that has a lot of movement in it (a great test is putting three still images on a timeline each at 1 frame and then loop the video)..  if it records without issue for 20+ minutes without anything odd happening that's good, but if you have time I'd test until the card fills up or the battery dies I'd also do the same but on the highest frame rate mode Check the files are playable in the camera and work on the computer If it passes all of the above then it's unlikely that it has some lingering issue that isn't also present on new copies as well.

Aside from launch day preorders like the BMPCC4K, I buy almost all my cameras used from major retailers. You’d be amazed how many cameras get returned just a couple weeks after launch. Like new condition for 10-15% off. I stress test them quickly just to make sure there isn’t some defect. 
Typically, anything rated 9 or higher from B&H is indistinguishable from brand new.

 

About half my cameras were second hand, with a couple of them likely having a lot more than two previous owners, but haven't had any issues with mine.
If you're concerned about overheating, get a camera with a fan.  A fan is the difference between a camera overheating in air-conditioning in under 45 minutes vs a camera recording for 24 hours in a race car at 120F / 48C.

Thanks for this!! I ended up finding one that had the upgrade and it wasn't that much over my budget.
Thanks for the input guys. I ended up going with the S1 only because of ergonomics, the full size HDMI as I use a monitor and having no record limit. I know in the S5 you could just start and stop again but when shooting interviews in a multiple camera shoot the no time limit just makes things a bit easier.
It gets here on Saturday and I got a couple of Canon FD primes ready to go. Really excited about this.
Thanks so much everyone

LX10 is a contender. That lens is pure magic. Ooc color is bland. The cam needs grading. Color is great with the right treatment, which it is in need of though, unless someone finds a way to make the internal profiles shine. In 4K it betters the HD G6 in lowlight, due to its much better codec and is close to a GX85. HD 24p is ok and pretty well resolved. HD 50p has very thin color, so use it only if necessary All in all highly recommended to be checked out by @kye  😊
Here is a clip during a lighting workshop I gave. Simple grading. I don't know what the crazy monologue is from, just in case someone knows German. It's really creepy.😊
 

22 pages on...  and nothing has been learned.

For AF-S, unless you're shooting really fast-moving subjects (sports, race cars, etc), nearly every AF lens made since 1995 will be fine.  Even stinkers like the Canon EF 85/1.2L are workable. 
With DFD, Panasonic made AF-C CDAF about as good as it seems likely ever to be.  If not for the pulsing on still subjects, it would probably be enough for most projects.  My GH5 was always frustratingly close to being usable with AF.
Sure - people make a big deal of super fast apertures and extreme shallow DOF these days, but f/5.6 at 140mm is still relatively shallow, even on M43.  Heck, even the RF 800/11 has relatively shallow DOF on FF.
I'd add "Don't make yourself miserable by hauling around a boat anchor on a strap around your neck all day and night."

(My bold) I agree - I'm often taking video of moving vehicles where I also want the background reasonably in focus to provide context for the image, so shallow DOF just doesn't work for me/isn't the 'look' I want.
(I also often shoot wildlife stills and video - the inevitable shallow DOF due to long lenses is a real pain to deal with when you might only have a few seconds to get the shot and there are tree branches/twigs in the way - which the AF prefers to focus on of course...)
One reason I often prefer the Pana 14-140 F3.5-F5.6 over the 12-60 F3.5-F5.6 (which I also own) is that the aperture drop off with focal length is slower over the wide to mid range - though the 12-60 is a bit smaller and lighter and much cheaper used.

The size and cost of the 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 sure make them compelling lenses to own and carry around with you, that's for sure.  I don't know what the AF is like on the 20mm but all I do is frame up a composition, do a single AF-S via a custom button, then hit record and maintain the focus distance during the clip.  I shoot short clips for the edit, so I don't need or want AF-C.  From that perspective the 20mm might be just fine.  The alternative is manually focusing with peaking, which would likely take longer than most AF.  
Speaking of AF speed, I read something the other day - it said that Panasonics DFD sped up their CDAF, and I realised that I never see a CDAF Panasonic camera doing that thing where the focus racks the whole way to one end and then the whole way to the other end before acquiring focus, it just seems to do a quick jitter and it's done.  I never thought about that being DFD but I guess it is.
I watched a lot of landscape photographer YT (Thomas Heaton etc) and they made a strong case for landscapes being shot with wide lenses and ultra-long lenses.  Some of those shots that show just the jagged peak of the mountain or the lone tree or castle on a distant hilltop can be the most stunning.
Some time ago I realised that DOF depends not only on aperture but also on focal length, so although a variable zoom gets slower as it gets longer (making the DOF deeper), it's also getting longer as it's getting longer (making the DOF shallower) and so I did a bunch of math to calculate DOF of the same composition.  I posted the results in some other thread somewhere here, but the summary is that a lot of variable aperture zooms are almost constant DOF lenses, when taking the same composition (ie, if you double the focal length then you'd be twice as far away for the same composition).
Here's the table of the 14-140mm lens.  The "Mid DoF" column is the DoF of a mid portrait shot (chest and up) and the "Close DoF" is just top of shoulders and up:

It's not constant DoF but it's pretty close.  
I then realised that for my environmental portraits, where I want the subject in focus but the background should at least be recognisable, I didn't want something that just had the subject floating in a sea of mush.  Also, nailing focus is more important to me than shallower DoF, and if the focus isn't going to get it perfect every time, and also pick the right focus subject each time, or if there are two people next to each other but slightly different distances from the camera because I'm not standing exactly 90-degrees to the line between them, then I'd rather the DoF be a few meters rather than the shot be missed.
The other reason to have a fast lens is the low-light capabilities.  FF obviously has the advantage because, all else being equal it gets 4x the amount of light onto the sensor, but this has to be balanced against the DoF which will also be radically shallower for the same T-stop.  So if you don't want to shoot with a razor-thin DoF in low-light then you have to stop down.  I find that in practice this would level the playing field in many compositions.  Not all of them of course, and the seemingly greater investment in sensor technology from Sony in the larger sensors is also a factor, but it makes the topic more complex and far less one-sided than it might first appear.
Yeah, it's definitely a case of "get the shot" first, "make the scene better by not making everyone uncomfortable" second, and "have a rig with a great image quality" third.

Reasonably well thanks - will write it up soon!