kye

A consistent look that is the look I am looking for…
It’s that combo of simple workflow plus law of diminishing returns, ie, with 50% effort, I get 90% of the result I am looking for so can I be bothered to spend another 50% of my time and effort on something nobody would notice but me?
Nope. Life is too short.
YouTube is full of side by side comparisons of camera looks and audio mics and they all look and sound basically the same to me or close enough it makes no difference.
It’s the same with my seemingly never-ending camera/kit quest… The image quality has been there for years, stills and video. It’s more a case of how the stuff works in reality re. minimising or eliminating lens swaps, do the logistics of set up etc take too long to the detriment of coverage etc…
After another full on season I will still be editing for some time, I made a checklist of what worked, what didn’t, what has to change, what I’d like to change if possible, and I will be working my way through that over my off season.

Oh for sure, but we're in a thread talking about filmmaking to do with a recently released film. Thus I'm writing from the perspective of film sets (or tv sets).
As for going on a side tangent about corporate / weddings / music videos / etc... I think you'd be surprised by just how many of them are being shot with cameras that are at a higher level than a FX3. 
I think you underestimate those numbers.
It's just like with sales of stills cameras, there are likely far more hobbyists who were buying say a Nikon D5 than there are professional sports photographers buying a D5. 

That’s who I am ‘guessing’ is the market for the FX3.
I came very close myself, but went S5ii for various reasons.
It can’t hurt the X1000’s who have bought one or will be buying one just because of the caché that it was used on this movie.
Just as the S1H had the ‘honour’ of being the first full-frame mirrorless camera to be Netflix certified.
I did not buy one for that fact, but kind of low-key proud of it all the same.
Now if only I could get my hands on some 20k+ cine lenses, a crew and 90% of 80 mil and…
Or has that moment passed?
I suspect the next movie shot on a non-pro cam will be shot on the SjCAM twin lens zero marketing Go Pro rival from that thread the other day…

I am now less interested than I was…
I operate very much on the KISS principle as A. You can operate much more simply the less complicated anything is. B. If it ain’t broke and Premiere is not broke for me. C. I know someone who can do me 90% off the entire Adobe suite. D. I is a bit thick when it comes to techy stuff and to be honest, it bores me to tears.
I suspect I’ll manage half a day with Davinci and then chuck it out the window…
I don’t get out much at all to be honest…
And that is why my road car is a 12 year old 200,000 mile Skoda 😉

I started learning Resolve in 2016 and still consider myself an intermediate beginner after hundreds of hours of training and practice. But it's worth it.

Not really, compared to the FX3 is cheaper than almost any camera on productions that I would usually work on. 
For reference, this week I've been working days on a tv series shooting on 2x Panasonic Varicam 35 (yup, the big heavy one! Not the Varicam LT).
The previous production I worked on before this one, the DP was using a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro. And funnily enough, the previous DP before that was also using a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro! (the only two times this year though that I've worked with a Blackmagic camera, no other production has) 
Then the film before those, it was shot on an ARRI 35. 
Can't recall far enough back as to what it was on the production before that, all the various productions I'm on tend to all blur together. 
But I think so far this year the only times I've worked on a production using a camera "below" the URSA Mini Pro would be a little short film I helped out on for one day that was a total sh*t show, big time amateur hour, and they were using a Panasonic GH6. And I think that's it. I am scratching my brain searching for any time with say a mirrorless or a Blackmagic Pocket, but nope. Not this year, perhaps a few rare times last year or the year beforehand. 
That's why I call the FX3 "prosumer", it straddles the worlds of both consumer and pro worlds. Largely purchased by more consumer orientated purchasers, but also is a handy camera for a B / C Cam for pros (or A Cam for aspiring pros). Although, I haven't came across the FX3 being used for even that myself, just not the circles I'm moving in. However, I did do one day (again, it was just one day, because they were ultra micro budget) on an indie feature film shot entirely on a FX3 last year. 
Oh wait, I'm just remembering, there was a student short film I worked on which was shot with a Panasonic GH5! That might have been early this year? Or perhaps it was late last year. 
I think you're missing the point here, at least that I've been making. 
For myself, I very rarely ever work on productions using a "FF" or 6K or 8K camera. 
Also, it's a bit unusual if they're shooting raw. 
And before this year, then the most common camera type I'd shoot with wouldn't even do 4K! 

There has been an EXPLOSION in recent years of super affordable cine lenses. 
However most are prime lenses. But there are a few zoom options out there, DZOFilm perhaps is the most famous low / no budget option. 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1701864-REG/dzofilm_dzo_ff3580e_blk_catta_35_80mm_t2_9_e_mount.html
Some other options:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1684620-REG/chiopt_xtreme_zoom_28_85mm_t3_2_e_xtreme_zoom_28_85mm_t3_2.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1708655-REG/sirui_jupiter_zm_pl_jupiter_28_85mm_t2_full.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1772955-REG/venus_optics_ran2875plef_laowa_ranger_28_75mm_t2_9.html
Otherwise, the next cheapest options is pushing up into the lower end of professional priced lenses:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1292121-REG/angenieux_ez_1_pack_ez_1_30_90mm_cinema_lens.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895001-REG/zeiss_2008_990_28_80mm_t2_9_compact_zoom.html 
  
Yup, something like say a black pro mist quarter filter would be a popular choice for many 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/55639-REG/Tiffen_44BPM14_4x4_Black_Pro_Mist_F_X.html

Looks promising!

Let's hope it's keeping up with the Joneses, and offering Prores!

A few thoughts...
If you are using the IBIS on the camera, an electronic lens that tells the camera the current focal length is hugely useful - this is one of the reasons I'm swapping to electronic lenses from manual zooms.
Cheap zoom lenses tend to have similar optical aberrations to classic vintage lenses, especially if you add some filters as has been suggested above and I definitely agree with.  Cheap often means variable aperture, but if you don't need the speed then stopping down to F4 or F5.6 will make most zooms a constant aperture.  Try the deeper DoF look if you aren't used to shooting with it, most feature films have deeper DoF most of the time but internet people seem to be both blind and in denial about this for some reason which completely eludes me.
Also, remember you can distress the image in post.  This gives the advantage that you can adjust the amount per shot.  If you shoot with anything even hinting at vintage then you'll be amazed at how variable the look can be - one shot looks completely clean and the next moment the sun comes out or you change the composition slightly and the image is a wash of flare.
If you're not sure about what is possible in post, just think of all those action blockbuster films that have a super-heavy anamorphic look to them and then realise that all the VFX work starts out being infinitely sharp and they were able to degrade to perfectly match everything else on a huge cinema screen.  Adding a bit of glow, blurring and vignette in post is super-simple and gets the job done.

The BMCC 2.5K was $3K in 2012 does equate to being about the same as the FX3 now, including inflation, so that seems a good comparison although it quickly went down to $2K within a year.  Of course, they followed it up with the P2K a year or so later, which was one third the cost(!) and apart from being slightly lower in resolution was light-years ahead in basically every other way.
To continue the comparison, the BMCC was 2.5K to oversample for 2K/1080p delivery and apparently they collaborated with Arri to deliver ARRI PL-mount kits of it(!) so that's all very "professional".  The P2K was much more lower-end in comparison (auto-focus, consumer mount, pocketable, consumer batteries, consumer media, etc), so in this comparison the P2K is the prosumer camera and the BMCC is the completely professional one.

This. Old zoom lenses on modern IBIS equipped cameras are a PITA to use if stability is a thing. And it is…was for me.
Yup. Can’t stand variable aperture lenses so first thing l do is go to the first constant and use that.
Another yup. There is something to be said for ‘getting it right in camera’, but this is one of those areas where it’s easy to get it so wrong and it can be difficult as a result to recover from. I’ll take a decent starting point and consistency every time.

I dont disagree with you either here kye, i think we’re both somewhat in a camp of having the most image quality for the money. i’m not entirely sure if i technically paid off my p4k, lenses, etc with freelance work for example.
 
at the same time, 10-15 years ago something like an fx3 seemed pretty crazy to imagine probably. I think the first bmcc came just out for slightly more money (without adjusting for inflation even)? 

24p movies with this one will be very expensive. 🙂

5.3K 60p is the mode that is mostly likely to lead to thermal shutdown, *according to GoPro*. Indeed that mode is where on the Hero 12 they claim to have made the most improvements in battery life and heating.  Anyway, the relative thermal and battery life performance suggest 5.3K 60p is the most taxing on the GoPro.
I agree downsampling is strenuous; I wonder if the 4K modes are line skipped or pixel binned. GoPro has never revealed how they achieve full sensor framing at lower resolutions.
I often downsample 5.3K in post to 4K and that takes more time than just rendering at 5.3K. Similarly, rendering at 8K from 8K RAW takes less resources than rendering at 4K. So I produce 8K and 5.3K videos and let YouTube do the downsampling to 4K if I upload!

Well tone mapping vs logging. All look pretty good and for non-paid work I’d be happy with any of it. So will my wallet 😂 

Cinematic Mode doesn't use Apple log. It has all the deficiencies of previous gen iPhone video  like tone mapping and sharpening. They were skillfully hidden in post. Skin tones in the last third of the video where face was lit with warm side light are a little bit off.

Too me it looks like a too strong skin retouching filter... maybe to "sell" the diffusion filter they did use davinci or similar skin smoothing filters... it is wired as some parts are almost too sharp and others are blotchy and blurred...

From 0:45 onwards is imo unusable.

But as it use Cinematic so it cannot be Log so it is heavy processed already to start with.











Not a fan of this kind of video but here the image from iPhone looks much better than the above one less plastic/fake

 

That's one of the best yet - until the DR was just overwhelmed of course.  Nice find!

@gt3rs - what do you think of the above video from @SRV1981 with the diffusion filter?
I thought the images looked pretty good with fine skin-tones (up until the DR of the camera failed and it went bizarrely saturated and then clipped).  The model has impeccable skin though, so it's hard to tell as there didn't seem to be fine chroma detail in her face.

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).

Ok, two days from this post, I have an X-S20 on the way. Looking forward to trying it out. 

Exactly, any minor slight arguments in favor of the FX3 being their main/only camera is totally irrelevant once you look into how they were actually using the FX3! (for instance, always with an Atomos recorder and two timecode boxes on it, etc etc etc) 
In my opinion, they should have used half a dozen or so FX6 bodies with maybe a couple or so FX3 bodies for the very niche uses of crash cam / drone camera. (although it appears they used GoPros as well??? Again, I'd lean towards choosing a Sony RX0 mk2 instead... you can get s-log with 4K 10bit 422 files out of it, with a S16 sized sensor)
 
Or $8M to spend on the production itself during filming. 
Interesting, the Cam Op isn't even using the Atomos as a monitor! But has added a SmallHD as his monitor for operating with. 
 

I’m pretty happy with my setup. Bought a MagSafe magnet off of amazon for $12, glued it to the T5, and then found a short usb-c 20Gbps for $7. Super secure and inconspicuous.