kye

That's my point. You get stuck at the back of a cathedral with permission to shoot from there and only there and your only lens is a 28mm...
A word beginning with F and rhyming with duck comes to mind 🤪

Shit I just pissed in my mouth made me LOL

There isn't one reason for the decline in websites like DPR and IR, but clearly the ad money has shifted to TikTok and YouTube social media influencers, and away from written articles so that is a big reason. The jazz media company that bought the magazine company that Dave sold IR to back in 2019, saw no worthwhile profit in IR's books.
Not only are these sites predominantly about written articles, they are about a subject that is fast turning into a niche.
Smartphone cameras are mainstream as we all know, and that means proper cameras are now about as mainstream as cassette tapes.
I think AI will accelerate this retreat even further.
The other general trend is that both DPR and IR were not ideal from a content point of view, it was often like reading advertising copy, as is the case with so much in the camera world in 2023. There is a lack of drama, a lack of true insight, it has all become a bit dry.
The camera companies should be really worried about these two canaries in a coal mine and they won't be the last to die. It points to the fact that the camera industry should probably do something to stop the rot and support the remaining sites.
Sadly they won't.

You've clearly never run a site or a business!
If you've never run a site then you'll have no idea how much effort goes into running it and maintaining it in the background.
Sites require constant maintenance as they are constantly under siege from spammers, hackers, new user requests etc.  Even if you disable comments and logins and all the Web 2.0 functionality you still need to update the software regularly or hackers will pWn your site and turn it into an ad for viagra or to support Putin.
That's the site, but to keep paying for it you need to have an active bank account and need to keep putting money in it.  That bank account was probably under a business name, and to keep that active you need to keep the business name active, which means filing tax returns and dealing with whatever other accounting and government tasks are required.
Did your business have anything else associated with it?  Offices, parking, permits?  You'll need to manage those things too.
The list is truly endless.  There's a good reason that social media sites like Medium or Wordpress or Facebook or YouTube are so popular - because maintaining your own platform is literally a full-time job.

Or so complicated that it's only Gerald that will tell you that when you're in a certain codec and connect a HDMI monitor then the eye-detect AF doesn't work any more.  That's a real example from the S5, and it was mentioned by others too, but I've seen heaps of gotchas like this that matter to people and no reviewers ever dug far enough to find them.

All very true, for me 24mm on the R7 is actually around 35mm so we are on the same page there, but for me I use the 105mm end (around 155mm) FF equiv for background compression for detail shots and also for reach at the long end. I would say that I spend maybe 50% of my time below 70 but the full 50% of the rest of the time I am above 70, that's just how often I need take detail shots which is where I use background compression since F4 isn't particularily fast, and also where I am far enough away from the action to the point that I need the longer focal lengths for a quick shot or I want to punch in and fill the frame with some activity.
At the type of events that I shoot, the clients expect a full compliment of detail shots of the vendor's wares and that's when I use the long end for background compression. To me the 24-105 at 105 looks better when taking detail shots vs the 24-70 at 70. 
I also shoot almost exclusively handheld these days and the Canon 24-70 does not have IS where as the Canon 24-105 does so that's another plus.

You've clearly never run a site or a business!
If you've never run a site then you'll have no idea how much effort goes into running it and maintaining it in the background.
Sites require constant maintenance as they are constantly under siege from spammers, hackers, new user requests etc.  Even if you disable comments and logins and all the Web 2.0 functionality you still need to update the software regularly or hackers will pWn your site and turn it into an ad for viagra or to support Putin.
That's the site, but to keep paying for it you need to have an active bank account and need to keep putting money in it.  That bank account was probably under a business name, and to keep that active you need to keep the business name active, which means filing tax returns and dealing with whatever other accounting and government tasks are required.
Did your business have anything else associated with it?  Offices, parking, permits?  You'll need to manage those things too.
The list is truly endless.  There's a good reason that social media sites like Medium or Wordpress or Facebook or YouTube are so popular - because maintaining your own platform is literally a full-time job.

Or so complicated that it's only Gerald that will tell you that when you're in a certain codec and connect a HDMI monitor then the eye-detect AF doesn't work any more.  That's a real example from the S5, and it was mentioned by others too, but I've seen heaps of gotchas like this that matter to people and no reviewers ever dug far enough to find them.

I also agree with @mercer about building a collection of MF vintage primes, and to get as fast a set as you can, but if you're really budget constrained then just focus on what focal lengths you'd need/use.  You should also consider the 'worse' budget lenses - the more I looked into vintage lenses the more that it's the imperfections that give the image its feel, and the more I ran across people discovering budget lenses.
Take this for example, a recent 'discovery':
 

I don't recommend to organizers anything at all about how to actually use the videos/photos unless they ask. I learned years ago that they are nice enough people but most tend to take offense if you in any way try to tell them how to do any other area of their job. They are typically handling $1M+ worth of vendors, getting venue permits, managing sponsors, obtaining equipment, transportation, food, supplies, etc. etc; basically managing a massive project which is the event; they don't take kindly to advice from their photographer/videographer. if they hired me that's enough for me, how they run their business is their business unless they ask me for advice. Unsolicited advice is a quick way to not get re-hired the following year.
As far as multiple edits, it depends on what was in the proposal. I offer add-ons to every project such as social media orientation, multiple videos/edits, etc. but it all depends on their budget and what they are willing to pay for. A video per sponsor though wouldn't be feasible; that would take way too much time away from the rest of the event with minimal added value. Sponsors that want that typically pay for their own dedicated photographer/videographer or bring their own social media expert to provide 24/7 coverage of their participation in the event. As I mentioned earlier, content is king, there is no way you would get enough content to create a dedicated sponsor video when you are shooting a big event with hundreds of sponsors multiple buildings/tents to cover, speaking engagements, ticket sales coverage, etc. etc. I would rather create nothing, than something mediocre which would alienate the sponsors and would probably result in something they wouldn't even use all the while taking time away from your actual client who hired you to cover the whole event. 
Plenty of times smaller vendors/sponsors have complained if their setup didn't make it into the video and I tell them then hire me to cover your participation in the event and I will be your dedicated photographer/videographer.....to date not a single one has been willing to pay for their dedicated coverage. So at the end of the day they can complain but if they aren't a paying client then my focus will always be on making my paying client happy.
I have seen that, I don't think it would be that difficult to do if you had two people and a fast editing laptop; you would just hand off your media cards to your assistant, have an audio track ready to go in advance, probably just a basic ambient audio track and throw together some key moments from the grand entrance, ceremony, and venue shots. With a slow enough audio track you could easily stretch each clip to 12s or more which makes the edit much easier and since weddings are slow anyway it would all look natural. But the common theme here is always the budget; the budget would have to be healthy enough to pay for that assistant and that editing laptop. I could throw together a 5min edit like that in less than 30min as long as the laptop was fast enough to not have to wait for proxy media/import/export delays.
That is true, I don't do any candid filming so to me the camera size doesn't matter. I only shoot candid videos when I first get a camera to test it out and for those situations I go to public places and use longer lenses to film far away people/crowds/subject matter or there's a few tourist spots nearby where everyone is filming everything so I will go there where it is no big deal.
I only deliver at 30FPS so for me 60FPS just gives me more options without conformance issues. I like to have the extra frames and not need them then need them and not have them but I don't deliver them I just shoot them. There are ways to conform 60fps to a 24p timeline but they are not as elegant as 60fps on a 30fps timeline.
I have actually gone in the opposite direction, with the R7 the stabilization is so good that it does not feel realistic so I deliberately add slight camera movement just to give it more first person realism. I have also noticed how the IBIS actually gets in the way sometimes; I will add deliberate slight camera shake or movement and there will be a delay while the IBIS tries to smooth out the movement then it will suddenly catch up and the movement looks less natural than I intended. But yes, that level of stability is only obtained with a larger body, 3 points of stability and the side handle.

You've clearly never run a site or a business!
If you've never run a site then you'll have no idea how much effort goes into running it and maintaining it in the background.
Sites require constant maintenance as they are constantly under siege from spammers, hackers, new user requests etc.  Even if you disable comments and logins and all the Web 2.0 functionality you still need to update the software regularly or hackers will pWn your site and turn it into an ad for viagra or to support Putin.
That's the site, but to keep paying for it you need to have an active bank account and need to keep putting money in it.  That bank account was probably under a business name, and to keep that active you need to keep the business name active, which means filing tax returns and dealing with whatever other accounting and government tasks are required.
Did your business have anything else associated with it?  Offices, parking, permits?  You'll need to manage those things too.
The list is truly endless.  There's a good reason that social media sites like Medium or Wordpress or Facebook or YouTube are so popular - because maintaining your own platform is literally a full-time job.

Basically, yes.
To get from DWG back to 709, the common approaches to use are:
CST to 709/2.4 CST from DWG to Arri then use the Arri LogC-709 LUT CST from DWG to Arri then use a Film Look LUT (PFE) like 2383 or 2393 etc As far as I understand it, only the new HDR colour wheels are meant to be "colour space aware" but I've found that the normal LGG wheel panel also works great, much better than I remember them working in years past.  This is particularly useful if you have a BM Colour Panel (I have the Micro one) which can be used with either the HDR or normal LGG wheels but is more suited to the normal LGG wheels than the HDR ones.

A very easy trick to stretch that 1s to 2s is to simply shoot at 60FPS. I still use that trick to this day for some events because I won't know when I will need to stretch a clip to the proper audio breakpoint, of course not all footage lends itself to being slowed down but you would be amazed at how much useable footage you can get out of such a simple trick. 
Also another simple trick is I never use a wrist strap and only use a full shoulder strap, this lets me bring the camera up and immediately have 3 points of contact with the camera for added stability (left hand, right hand, camera strap) which when combined with IBIS helps increase useable content as well. There are also a lot of tricks you can do with a camera strap to mimic gimbal movements without a gimbal (crane, truck, etc.) for the few seconds that you need.
Last but not least, I always have a side handle and cage on my hybrid rig. This helps keep the horizon more stable and gives me mounting points for HW without using the camera's hotshoe which also gets me into a stable shooting position faster.

I think a lot of what you see online these days looks the way that it does especially for events due to budget. It is very easy to find events to cover, it is even moderately easy to find events that will pay you to cover them; it is much harder to find event organizers that value the coverage enough to pay what it takes to hire someone who takes pride in their craft.  Many organizers want to pay next to nothing because the money they spend on the photographer/videographer comes directly out of their profits. Another challenge is the impact of the event footage is hard to measure from a marketing standpoint; did the event footage gain you those 800 extra attendees the following year or just word of mouth?
I also frequently refer back to cell phones because they are my number one competitor. Since event organizers typically want to pay next to nothing, it is far cheaper for them to just hire a "social media expert" than a real photographer/videographer. "Social media expert" these days is code words for someone with a cell phone who will post mediocre photos and videos throughout the event for barely more than the current minimal wage.
I still think its not quite there yet.  Of course, we first have to agree on just how dark lowlight really is, but IMO without a panel light no lens works well after the sun goes down unless there's practically enough lights to turn night into day. With my Falcon F7 panel light on full power and with the R5 at its second native ISO of 3200 I might be able to use the 24-70/F2.8 but I have never tried it.  I would rather have a faster lens that I can then stop down a bit with the panel light than to have a setup at the very edge of what it can handle lighting wise.
I agree 100% which is why I brought up the fact that my focus for events is to promote the event for the following year which is what my clients hire me to do for most types of events. Their goal is to make people see what they missed and instill a desire to catch it next time...which is what drives ticket sales and is how they justify the cost of hiring me vs a "social media expert". Sometimes they hire me to make their vendors/sponsors happy and then the focus is more on the sponsors than anything else. With those types of clients I have to balance showcasing the sponsors while also trying to keep the video feeling like an endless array of sponsor logos and employees. So yes, there subtle differences depending on the client's reasons for hiring a videographer/photographer.
 
That is 100% key to a good event video.....or for most videos for that matter, variety is literally everything. Hollywood has mastered this through many subtle tricks that keeps you mentally engaged such as slightly different camera angles every few seconds, switching points of view during conversations, etc. etc. The average clip these days is less than 3-5s even in feature length movies before something has to change (audio, pov, camera angle, etc, etc.).
And yes, editing is really about solving problems more than anything. Picking the right audio track, sequencing the video in a way that you lead the viewer on a logical journey, making sure there are highs as well as lows; hype reels in particular must have lows in order for you to mentally appreciate the highs, there are different types of video "flows" I call them based on how you want to impact the user (building, peaks and valleys, epic, cinematic, etc.) and these have nothing to do with color grading, they are strictly how you tie the audio to the video and sequence the video in a way to lead the viewer on a specific type of journey.  My favorite is when a new client shows me a video that they like and I immediately recognize the flow/style that they are looking for based on how the videographer sequenced the video (audio, speed, transitions, and specifically the flow they used).
 
It is a little funny to me because a lot of what you just stated I have been saying here since the day I joined. I know people love to pixel peep, and focus on the gear, and think they are one camera away from being a better videographer/photographer but the reality is at the end of the day most of that doesn't matter. I frequently bring up the fact that Hardcore Henry was filmed with GoPros and a grainy cell phone video of Kim Kardashian will get millions of views; the takeway here is that the gear really doesn't matter anymore, if you have content people want to watch any camera will be good enough to do that. Variety, content, and simplicity (which frees you up to get more content with less work) is really all that matters for most videos.
Any modern camera even cell phone cameras provide fantastic quality and I could even say that these days the camera is the least important part of the ecosystem. I spend way more time fiddling with audio, lighting, and stabilization than I do camera bodies or settings. These days I literally just glance at the histogram for exposure, keep center cross hairs for CAF, and make sure my WB is somewhat close to what it should be. 
To this day I still do the same thing. I still have problems to solve in the edit, and I still watch other people's videos to see ways I can improve my trade. To me it is an endless cycle of learning, application of what you have learned, then refining your approach to yield the best results with the least amount of work. 
I still reach little points in my edit where I wish that I had kept that composition for a few more seconds to get me to the next jump point, or had held the camera a little steadier to keep from having to post stabilize etc. One of the latest additions to my own personal journey is adding camera movements that will let me more smoothly transition to the next shot which is tough with events because you have no idea until later what the next shot will be or if you will even use that particular clip. But if you shoot a series of clips all with certain camera movements that naturally lead into the next shot then if you use any clip from that series it will make the edit look better.
I have also learned over the years that shooting some of the most random content imaginable during the event/trip/project/etc. can sometimes turn out to be the best part of the video. Totally random things like the stage lighting at a concert, the chandelier at a private VIP event, a palm tree blowing in the wind......etc. In the edit right when you need a break from the endless event footage you thank yourself for being able to cut to that footage before continuing.
 
That was definitely the best decision. Keeping the setup simple will get you the most content; using that particular zoom lens will perfectly cover both your photography and video needs, and while the sun is up at an event there is no other lens I would rather have. It sounds like at the end of the day you are satisfied with how the project turned out and that is all that really matters.
Of course, everyone has their own opinions and for me my focus is on what my clients want and without fail what they want is as much content as possible above all else; lens stylistic choices aside. The only two things that I use different focal lengths for (via the zoom ring) at events is for composition and background compression. 
I guess I just don't understand at all how any focal length will make you feel like you are actually at a certain place. For me personally there is no focal length made that will make me feel like I am somewhere or feel "familiar" to me when looking at a flat two dimensional screen. The exception to that IMO would be a 3D headset or something like that.  To me content is full of everything from closeups to far away wide shots depending on camera to subject distance (just like in real life eyes to subject size and distance), so I guess I just don't see how particular focal lengths will matter but again...that's just my opinion. Having the right focal length for the composition you want and having a lens that is long enough or fast enough to compress the background when needed and is fast enough to accommodate the available light are my only lens considerations when shooting events.
I think I understand a little more of what you mean because you mentioned being in areas accessible to people but I still just don't see how focal length plays into that at all. Maybe after so many years of shooting events my only mindset is helping the organizer sell more tickets or impress their sponsors or maybe because I use the 24-105mm so much at events I am already creating the feeling you describe, but if so then it is definitely purely accidental.

I've found that the more I learn about colour grading the better my cameras become.
I don't know if it's Resolve or just my experience but I've had a bit of a breakthrough in the last couple of years by using CSTs to change the cameras colour space to Davinci's Wide colour space, grading in that colour space, and then doing a CST / CST+LUT to get back to 709.  I use this workflow even if the camera shoots in 709.
This seems to give a process where WB changes and exposure changes work as intended instead of ruining the images, and you end up with great and consistent contrast and saturation, even between cameras of different manufacturers.
I always struggled to get good colour from the GH5, and found the colour from the newer FF models to be much nicer, but Resolve now basically fixes this, it really is incredible.

We shoot a very popular show with 2 GH5 and 12-100mm Olympus 4f lenses. 
I remember years ago for the same project we were carrying video cameras with suitcases full of lenses! It wasn't only tiring and stressful for us, but for the presenters also and the whole production..
We also use the same for recording performances/live events. You do not have the time to change lenses.
When I take pictures and I have to cover everything, I use 2 bodies with a workhorse zoom (and a flash just in case, there is no shame on that!), and a prime that fits the occasion (for more "artistic" and/or personal approach) and usually, a 3rd small body (I have always some kind of backup with me, even when I just use one body) with some oddball lens (ultra wide or even fisheye, just for a couple of "weird" ones.

Your spot on with my philosophy. For me, "feeling like they were there" means using focal lengths familiar to people and being positioned in locations accessible to people. Focal lengths like 24, 35, 50, and 85mm are all very familiar to folks these days whether they know it or not due to the smartphones in their pockets. Restricting oneself to those focal lengths ensures that the camera position feels authentic to the general audience and their experience.

All that said, I chose to use the 24-105mm f/4 exclusively. I stuck close to those focal lengths mentioned above, but in the end switching lenses would have meant missing shots.

Is there also the question of style?
The traditional thinking is to use the tools and techniques that allow you to take whatever shots present themselves in the scenario you're put in.  This is what leads to the hand-wringing that comes with wanting a 16-200mm F1.2 lens that weighs under 1lb and fits in your pocket.
The alternative is to abandon the premise that you need to able to take every possible shot and instead focus on the shots that matter.  World-famous photographers have developed a signature style that people hire them for, which often involves a very limited variety (but very high quality) in their output.  
I understand that the client will have expectations of at least some variety in coverage, but I wonder if there's a middle ground?  ie, what options from the below can be eliminated?
Super-wide (<24mm) - used for taking shots of the whole venue, or of one or two centre-framed subjects in close quarters Shallow-DoF shots Telephoto shots (>70mm) - tight portraits or for compressing the background If you can work out what you can do without, and still keep the client happy, then it will better help you work out what to take.  For example, I can imagine a situation where a 24-70/4 and a 35/1.8 could give enough coverage but also not be prohibitive.  Or even a 16-35/2.8 and a 70/2.  
In terms of variety in the shots, you can shoot wide/mid/tight/macro from high/mid/low/overhead angles which is 16 different 'shots', and by the time you get a variety of those with each subject you'll easily have enough variety.  Plus the variety of shots you get will also be subject to how quickly you can work.  If I can work five-times faster than the next guy then I can get five times as many different types of shots, so even if I was limited to a single prime I'd still have the advantage just through quantity.
There's also the goal that people 'feel like they were there'.  For that, you should really be filming the whole thing with a single 35mm or 50mm prime as that's how the human eye sees.  If you make a nice edit with 16mm and 100mm shots then it's not going to have that same feel.  

Great post with lots of practical / useful info!
A few thoughts..
I would argue that no-one can help imparting their style to anything they shoot, simply because shooting involves so many decisions that it's practically inevitable that everyone will make them differently, at least in subtle ways.
I can tell you, being someone who has never shot for a client, my "style" would likely involve not keeping the client happy, and based on some of the amateurish coverage I've seen online I think lots of working "pros" are also falling hugely short of hitting it out of the park, so if you're really delivering what the client wants then that's a big statement about your style right there 🙂 
How close do you think the low-light performance of modern FF cameras are to letting you use a single lens (maybe a 24-70/2.8) for all (sensible) lighting conditions?
When I combined my GH5 with the 17.5mm f0.95 my testing showed that the combo saw better in low-light than I did, so I was happy with that.  Obviously the lens wasn't the sharpest wide open and this was to my tolerance of noise levels etc, but I have pretty good night vision and I figure if I can film everything I can see then that's success.
There's a critical distinction between "feeling like they were there" and "feeling jealous they weren't there" and I think that the former suggests using a 35mm of 50mm lens and the latter suggests using the full range of focal lengths to make everything seem as awesome as possible.
In terms of a lens giving the "feeling like I was there" feeling it's a subtle thing, but definitely there, and it's something that you can learn to see if you're interested in it.  I know you're a working pro and are getting what you want so there's no need to explore this if you're not curious.
For those that are curious to understand how lens choice can give this kind of feeling, there are some fun exercises I can recommend.  The best one is this:
Get a camera that can shoot in three focal lengths, a phone with three cameras is a great choice.  If you're not using your phone I recommend either 16/35/80mm or 24/50/100+mm combinations. Film a very quick video, maybe of 8 shots, and film those same 8 shots with each lens, making sure to match the composition between the lenses.  This means getting closer with the wide and being much further away with the tele.
I suggest, to make this fun, making a video of an outing to a cafe with a friend who will let you film them.  Either shoot each shot in quick succession on the same outing, or make a shotlist and go for coffee three times! Edit the 3 versions together with the same exact timing and matching the framing (crop in post to fine-tune it). Watch the three back-to-back and see how they make you feel about the person in the video, and about the experience in general.  If you don't feel the difference, watch them on loop for a few cycles each day and see if you gradually start to feel differently about them. I haven't done the above directly, but as I tend to shoot videos using prime lenses, and often shoot little personal projects with a single prime, I've had lots of experience of making videos with one lens (anywhere from 15mm to 80mm FOV) and seeing the differences.
One of the things that made me graduate from the "what new camera should I buy to make my videos better" mindset was really understanding what requirements a good edit had and where I was falling short, and that was in getting sufficient variety of shots.  Not only do the variety of shots allow for keeping the visual interest up by having lots of shots ready to cut up into faster montages, and not only did more shots mean that the ones that made it to the final edit were more visually interesting, but it also gave me more shots to solve problems in editing.  I've heard editors talk about editing as mostly solving problems, and I think that's true.
To this end, I realised that just shooting more shots was a higher priority than the absolute quality of the shots I was getting.  Of course, you can't shoot a million shots that all look like crap, but if you're making videos that are more b-roll driven (like you and I are) rather than dialogue driven, then the shots don't need to all look spectacular, just solid and with good composition and with the technical elements done properly.
There's an episode of Parts Unknown in Tokyo that won or got nominated for a bunch of awards (American Cinema Editors Awards: Best Edited Non-Scripted Series - won, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Cinematography for a Nonfiction Program - nominated, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Picture Editing for a Nonfiction Program - nominated, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Nonfiction or Reality Program (Single or Multi-Camera) - nominated).
It's free to watch on YT, even if you don't watch the whole thing (although I recommend it highly highly highly), just watch the intro to give a taste of the content of the episode...
I pulled it into Resolve and cut it up on the timeline (as I showed in this thread) and the Tokyo episode was spectacular for a few reasons...
Over 40 minutes it contained about 2500 clips, which is a cut per 1.04 seconds on average.  But, that's not the full story, there are shots in there that are 9s and there are shots in there that are 4 frames.  Lots of them!  The edit sort of ebbs and flows, creating and building and releasing tension, etc. The shots aren't special.  I mean, it's professional cinematography, but just skip around randomly in the YT video and see if these are breathtaking shots or if they're just solid normal shots that you and I could take.  It's the latter. This is professional TV but using techniques that are rarely seen outside of trendy puke-inducing YT travel influencers.  It includes speed-ramps, extreme slow-motion, crazy wide angle follow shots, overhead shots, under-shots looking straight up at people, etc.   This is professional TV edited to the music to the extent it's more musically-driven in sections than most music videos are.   It's shot in 1080p, on limited DR cameras (some shots in this or other episodes have the skies clipped or other issues) and often uses slow-mo footage at normal speed, which means it has very short SS video - and it still won an award for cinematography..... In short, it's a film-making masterclass for anyone who wants to edit fast, to music, for shot-on-location unscripted materials.
Here's the timeline of it:

V1 and A1/A2 are the actual show cut up at the edit points, the V1 on top shows the different sections of the show (different topics), the bottom three audio tracks are (top to bottom) voiceover, on-scene audio, and music.
I use this view to understand the macro structure of the edit, which reveals how much of the show is essentially a music video, how much voice-over there is, etc.  
Here's a little bit zoomed right in to show the ebb and flow of the edit:

For scale, the selected clip is 3s16f and the ones after the playhead are 7-9 frames long.  What is clear from this section is that there's an interview section with music in the background and a 'normal' editing pace, then the music comes up and we get very fast editing of the band, then it goes back to the interview again.
I have cut up 10 episodes of Parts Unknown, as well as a few other episodes of food shows like Chefs Table (as these are all heavily shot-on-location unscripted b-roll and music-heavy shows much closer to what I film than narrative or dialogue driven shows) and my overall lesson that I took away was these:
The camera basically doesn't matter except in how fast it is to shoot with and how little it gets in the way The camera settings basically don't matter except if they make the footage literally unusable Get lots of shots and get as much variety and coverage as you can Learn to edit Learn to do sound design Everyone on YT who isn't also a working pro is either a featherweight or an outright joke who is just wasting everyones time  To this end on my last trip I moved from my GH5 to the GX85 and using my phone as a second camera with a wide angle.
Yeah, that's one of the most important aspects.  The biggest critic of how you shoot is the person that needs to edit it together.  I'm still getting to the edit and seeing gaps and all manner of issues in what I shot and trying to make mental notes for next time, but I'm also remembering the edit process when I'm out shooting so I'm learning and improving.
TBH most folks around here talk about cameras like they exist in a little bubble and it's clear that most are trying to compensate for their lack of colour grading skills, editing skills, or sound design skills.

I don't think so.
Most of the photography blog were just endlessly repeating "more resolution cameras, more resolution lenses, more resolution computers" but using different words over and over again.  The odd post of "15 things to do with a fisheye lens" disguised this myopia, but it was the water that the entire camera internet swam in, and still mostly is.
Now cameras have huge resolution and social-media can sustain the endless resolution-navel-gazing that people seem to want.  I think there's room for one or two blogs that discuss non-resolution-based-topics, but that assumes that the writers actually have enough knowledge of non-resolution-based-topics to keep a blog alive.  That's drastically fewer people than there were camera blogs, thus the "market correction" we're currently experiencing.

I don't think so.
Most of the photography blog were just endlessly repeating "more resolution cameras, more resolution lenses, more resolution computers" but using different words over and over again.  The odd post of "15 things to do with a fisheye lens" disguised this myopia, but it was the water that the entire camera internet swam in, and still mostly is.
Now cameras have huge resolution and social-media can sustain the endless resolution-navel-gazing that people seem to want.  I think there's room for one or two blogs that discuss non-resolution-based-topics, but that assumes that the writers actually have enough knowledge of non-resolution-based-topics to keep a blog alive.  That's drastically fewer people than there were camera blogs, thus the "market correction" we're currently experiencing.

I don't think so.
Most of the photography blog were just endlessly repeating "more resolution cameras, more resolution lenses, more resolution computers" but using different words over and over again.  The odd post of "15 things to do with a fisheye lens" disguised this myopia, but it was the water that the entire camera internet swam in, and still mostly is.
Now cameras have huge resolution and social-media can sustain the endless resolution-navel-gazing that people seem to want.  I think there's room for one or two blogs that discuss non-resolution-based-topics, but that assumes that the writers actually have enough knowledge of non-resolution-based-topics to keep a blog alive.  That's drastically fewer people than there were camera blogs, thus the "market correction" we're currently experiencing.

I don't think so.
Most of the photography blog were just endlessly repeating "more resolution cameras, more resolution lenses, more resolution computers" but using different words over and over again.  The odd post of "15 things to do with a fisheye lens" disguised this myopia, but it was the water that the entire camera internet swam in, and still mostly is.
Now cameras have huge resolution and social-media can sustain the endless resolution-navel-gazing that people seem to want.  I think there's room for one or two blogs that discuss non-resolution-based-topics, but that assumes that the writers actually have enough knowledge of non-resolution-based-topics to keep a blog alive.  That's drastically fewer people than there were camera blogs, thus the "market correction" we're currently experiencing.

100% agree with you here. And it’s like my mind has been split. A good chunk has consistently been in the mindset of stop worrying about gear. Just keep progressing and learning as you go. And I see the results; what I make now in all aspects is better than what I made 2 years ago. When I was shooting with the exact same gear.  I really see the impact learning various skills such as lighting and color grading have really amped up my visuals.  But yes I still struggle with the very tendency I know is awful and tell people never to get into. The tendency to obsess over gear, having those “if only” moments. 
 
I spoke to a friend who shoots on a Nikon D850. Told him about how I wanted to upgrade from my Z6. He asked why, I said because I don’t like how long it takes to use the Atomos Ninja V / Ninja Star each time I setup.He asked how long it takes to setup, I said maybe a minute at the longest  
His reply: “Isn’t it funny how just 60 seconds can seem so long?”
 
Anyways, thanks for the therapy session @kye.  I need to not worry about upgrading my camera because I genuinely don’t need to do so. 

I totally understand why people are trying to buy their way to better videos, it's a much easier experience to research cameras and discuss (dream) about what cool new things you could buy, and it's brutal to admit you don't know much about a subject and start studying it (forcing your brain to work hard) and to do that for months and months.
Unfortunately, that's what it takes to actually become a better film-maker.  I posted over in the "Once in a lifetime shoot" thread about the Tokyo episode of Parts Unknown that won a bunch of awards, but long story short, the cinematography didn't include any shots that were amazing in a grandiose kind of way, but it had a huge variety of solid shots from creative angles the editing and sound design were absolutely spectacular - end result..  awards and nominations, and a great viewing experience that is far from the pedestrian nature of most professional content, let alone us mere mortals.
The innovative nature of that episode alone is enough to make you crawl into the foetal position under the blankets, but the news is actually tremendous...  most of the content in the world is so bland by comparison that to create solid professional-level edits you don't have to get to knowing 80% of what the greats know - a solid 20% will do just fine.