KnightsFan

Yes, I really wish it were available on the current generation of bodies. Really awesome, pro-level idea, much like what the Varicams offer with wireless CDL creation.
I think we need to differentiate here between RAW stills color and encoded 8-bit video color, because there is a profound gap in workflow, results, and flexibility between the two. We also need to clarify how we are grading our files, because speed and quality differs wildly between various methods. For example, using the DaVinci color managed workflow gives you a corrected starting point with virtually no work, so all you have to do from there is tweak and do your creative grading. If you're just grading SLOG/SGamut files from scratch with levels and curves, your experience will change drastically. So for the sake of clear communication, let's be very specific when describing how we deal with our footage.
Another angle to think about: ease of results matters. The Alexa is popular not only for its reliability and image quality, but for its dead simple workflow. In many cases, corporate and commercial work can make do with nothing more than Arri's r.709 LUT, with maybe a small tweak or two. THAT IS HUGE! Saving time, minimizing complexity and miscommunications between set and post (many DPs do not get to grade their own footage!), jumping straight into edit with a robust easy-to-cut codec...these are all enormous time and money savers. Compare that to RED and, while the image quality is outstanding, you have to deal with large difficult files requiring in depth knowledge of their various sensors, color spaces, gamma, etc. So when saying "you can always grade to match," keep in mind that while you often can, it takes time. It takes money. Expertise. More communication with whoever's handling your post. That is why out of camera color still matters, despite all the powerful color tools we have now.

One of the biggest annoyances about the NX1 for me is that the HDMI output and USB recharging barely work together. If anyone else has overcome this issue, please let me know.
Essentially, if there is a USB cable attached to the NX1, but the cable is not attached to a powerbank when the camera is powered on, the HDMI output will not work at all.
My ideal setup is to power the camera from a TalentCell powerbank, which also powers my monitor (fantastic solution, btw, it runs all day and can even be tethered to an AC outlet). To that end, I 3D printed a clamp that holds both an HDMI and USB adapter. It's sturdy and great for cable management.

However, if I power on the camera without attaching the USB cable to the power bank first, the HDMI out will not output any signal at all. For example, if I power on the camera as it is seen above, with right angle adapters in place that go nowhere, then there will be no way to get an HDMI signal out of the camera--- I would have to power off, attach the USB cable to my powerbank, and then power the camera back on.
Pretty much any other combination works perfectly: if the camera is powered on without the right angle adapters in place, no issues. I can even disconnect the USB cable after powering on the camera, and HDMI will continue to work. It really just seems to be an issue of whether there is a USB cable -to-nowhere at the moment that the NX1 is switched on.
Has anyone else encountered this, or even better, overcome this?

I agree, it's not good that they still have bugs, but it is excellent that they continue to release updates.
I see Z Cam as the polar opposite of a company like Canon: if you want maintenance-free reliability and instant integration into existing workflows, look to the traditional products like Canon's C line. If you want bleeding edge, not-tried-and-true technology that you can experiment with, and provide meaningful feedback on to guide the development of the next generation of products, that's where Z Cam fits in. It's similar to the difference between Linux and Apple. It's entirely possible to have a great experience, reliably using Linux to do real-world work, but you do have to do your own research, and accept more responsibility as an end-user to debug things on your own.
And the truth of that situation is that Z Cam will likely never have the market sway that Canon et. al. do, and will never have the resources or vast QA teams to match the big players. But the benefit of the small team is you can have a more personal experience--I mean, you can't just hop on Facebook and provide personal input to the Canon CEO on what features they should include.

I agree, it's not good that they still have bugs, but it is excellent that they continue to release updates.
I see Z Cam as the polar opposite of a company like Canon: if you want maintenance-free reliability and instant integration into existing workflows, look to the traditional products like Canon's C line. If you want bleeding edge, not-tried-and-true technology that you can experiment with, and provide meaningful feedback on to guide the development of the next generation of products, that's where Z Cam fits in. It's similar to the difference between Linux and Apple. It's entirely possible to have a great experience, reliably using Linux to do real-world work, but you do have to do your own research, and accept more responsibility as an end-user to debug things on your own.
And the truth of that situation is that Z Cam will likely never have the market sway that Canon et. al. do, and will never have the resources or vast QA teams to match the big players. But the benefit of the small team is you can have a more personal experience--I mean, you can't just hop on Facebook and provide personal input to the Canon CEO on what features they should include.

I agree, it's not good that they still have bugs, but it is excellent that they continue to release updates.
I see Z Cam as the polar opposite of a company like Canon: if you want maintenance-free reliability and instant integration into existing workflows, look to the traditional products like Canon's C line. If you want bleeding edge, not-tried-and-true technology that you can experiment with, and provide meaningful feedback on to guide the development of the next generation of products, that's where Z Cam fits in. It's similar to the difference between Linux and Apple. It's entirely possible to have a great experience, reliably using Linux to do real-world work, but you do have to do your own research, and accept more responsibility as an end-user to debug things on your own.
And the truth of that situation is that Z Cam will likely never have the market sway that Canon et. al. do, and will never have the resources or vast QA teams to match the big players. But the benefit of the small team is you can have a more personal experience--I mean, you can't just hop on Facebook and provide personal input to the Canon CEO on what features they should include.

Both perpectives stand. I also appreciate our Greek fellow's criticism. Constructive criticism should always be welcome : -)

No. Buy yourself a Tascam DR60Dmk2 / DR70D instead if you're going the extreme ultra low budget path instead :-)
 
Which for most people are not really worth it anyway I reckon

According to the comparison between free and pro versions, hevc is not supposed to be supported at all in the free version. So i think the "proper" solution is to get the studio version, unfortunately. You can find it very cheap on ebay if you absolutely need it.

I did a few scenes as the only crew person not too long ago. I had the camera on a tripod, and used a friction arm to position my F4 just under the monitor. One glance to check framing and levels. It worked pretty well overall, and I didn't have any issues with the size. It seems like you're set against the F4, but as a non-pro-audio guy I can tell you the quality difference between the F4 and DR60 II is quite apparent. And you can use the F4 as a USB interface, so you won't need a separate device for that--which, to be fair, applies to the H6 as well I believe.
If price is an issue, can you get by with just two bodypack recorders, and switch them between actors as necessary?

Yeah, even the battery knows it is about to die and its pulling the ejector seat canopy.  After a second the battery will fly out the bottom, then release a parachute before it hits the ground.

A P4K with the ergonomics of an XC15, including a removable grip would be an interesting middle ground. If they could stick a Sony NP battery under the screen that would help. You can hold it like a DSLR, or remove the grip for a minimal, boxy design. Include that nice remote port, and the stripped down version could replace a BMMCC very nicely.

Its the versatility I'm after rather than it being a real "pocket version" to be honest and I wouldn't baulk if it was the same price.
I'm thinking more of stripping it to fit on a small single handed gimbal as an Osmo RAW alternative for one thing.
But there have also been some very nice compact setups made for the BMMCC using inexpensive EVFs etc such as the one in this thread here which would give it an edge for handheld shooting.
The remote port on the BMCCC is really good for making custom controls and its sad really that the Pocket 4K has dispensed with the LANC port as even a simple start stop if its on a gimbal will require using their app or an as yet unreleased 3rd party Bluetooth LE controller from someone ....
With regard to the heat, at least on the BMCCC the battery sits outside the chassis and I've got to say even after just 5 minutes of poking around in the menus of my newly received Pocket 4K earlier it was getting a bit warm inside the grip. 
From my point of view-and its only a personal preference - if a BMCCC form factor version (not necessarily as small but just the same principle of sensor in a box with no screen but with the ports, external battery etc) had been available then I'd have definitely picked that one over what I've got in front of me. 
Maybe I'm just a 5" loupe and a next generation compact gimbal away from loving this one  

They are also working on a global shutter sensor version as well:
 
 

Typically, lower megapixel versions are better for video, because fewer pixels means less processing for a full sensor readout. So it's likely the S1 will have an advantage over the S1R for video.

@wolf33d I'm not saying Sony protects their cine line. I'm just refuting that Sony has been "ahead of the competition past 5 years" in specs (I'm not talking about sales). While Sony clearly dominates with sensors, their processors always seem to be behind. Maybe it's intentional crippling, but I think it's more likely that they simply have not invested in that area as much.
In 2014, the NX1 did a 28MP readout in 30ms. The A7S II, a year later, took the same amount of time to read out 12MP. The a6300 had even worse rolling shutter in 2016 -- almost 40ms! I'm not saying the NX1 is "better," but it's an example of how Sony's processors lag behind their sensors. Perhaps their weak codecs, past overheating issues, and continued lack of 10 bit are all the result of poor processors as well? Sony leads in some areas, but not all.
Panasonic has been outputting 10 bit HDMI for 4 years now. Fuji, Nikon, and even Canon have beaten Sony to 10 bit HDMI, with Fuji getting bonus points for having it internally with a modern codec. I'd say that Panasonic has really been the one leading for specs, with Sony getting a pass because they were the ONLY FF mirrorless.
I also expect the new Sony APS-C to be close to the XT3. 4k60-- probably. 10 bit-- probably externally, but I think it will still be 8 bit internal. H.265 and 20ms rolling shutter-- I highly doubt these.
But we'll see! I certainly hope Sony knock it out of the park. I'd switch to Sony if they deliver.

@wolf33d I'm not saying Sony protects their cine line. I'm just refuting that Sony has been "ahead of the competition past 5 years" in specs (I'm not talking about sales). While Sony clearly dominates with sensors, their processors always seem to be behind. Maybe it's intentional crippling, but I think it's more likely that they simply have not invested in that area as much.
In 2014, the NX1 did a 28MP readout in 30ms. The A7S II, a year later, took the same amount of time to read out 12MP. The a6300 had even worse rolling shutter in 2016 -- almost 40ms! I'm not saying the NX1 is "better," but it's an example of how Sony's processors lag behind their sensors. Perhaps their weak codecs, past overheating issues, and continued lack of 10 bit are all the result of poor processors as well? Sony leads in some areas, but not all.
Panasonic has been outputting 10 bit HDMI for 4 years now. Fuji, Nikon, and even Canon have beaten Sony to 10 bit HDMI, with Fuji getting bonus points for having it internally with a modern codec. I'd say that Panasonic has really been the one leading for specs, with Sony getting a pass because they were the ONLY FF mirrorless.
I also expect the new Sony APS-C to be close to the XT3. 4k60-- probably. 10 bit-- probably externally, but I think it will still be 8 bit internal. H.265 and 20ms rolling shutter-- I highly doubt these.
But we'll see! I certainly hope Sony knock it out of the park. I'd switch to Sony if they deliver.

@wolf33d I'm not saying Sony protects their cine line. I'm just refuting that Sony has been "ahead of the competition past 5 years" in specs (I'm not talking about sales). While Sony clearly dominates with sensors, their processors always seem to be behind. Maybe it's intentional crippling, but I think it's more likely that they simply have not invested in that area as much.
In 2014, the NX1 did a 28MP readout in 30ms. The A7S II, a year later, took the same amount of time to read out 12MP. The a6300 had even worse rolling shutter in 2016 -- almost 40ms! I'm not saying the NX1 is "better," but it's an example of how Sony's processors lag behind their sensors. Perhaps their weak codecs, past overheating issues, and continued lack of 10 bit are all the result of poor processors as well? Sony leads in some areas, but not all.
Panasonic has been outputting 10 bit HDMI for 4 years now. Fuji, Nikon, and even Canon have beaten Sony to 10 bit HDMI, with Fuji getting bonus points for having it internally with a modern codec. I'd say that Panasonic has really been the one leading for specs, with Sony getting a pass because they were the ONLY FF mirrorless.
I also expect the new Sony APS-C to be close to the XT3. 4k60-- probably. 10 bit-- probably externally, but I think it will still be 8 bit internal. H.265 and 20ms rolling shutter-- I highly doubt these.
But we'll see! I certainly hope Sony knock it out of the park. I'd switch to Sony if they deliver.

Blackmagic and AJA thought so, too!

Blackmagic and AJA thought so, too!

Global shutter is the future I want. It's always nice to see progress in that area.

No you do not get 1.8x in 60p either.
You will have to shoot full frame for 60p, and use the digital IS to crop-in to 1.2x and approx. 1.4x.
That latter mode may get your Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 into service in 60p but beware the softness and artefacts from DIS.
EF-S lens users are completely out of luck for 60p. As soon as one is detected, it locks the camera to 1.8x crop mode, 30p max. You cannot disable the 1.8x crop mode with one attached.
IN SUMMARY:
Full frame lens: FF 1080/60/50p and 1.6x crop stills. 1.8x crop 4K and 1080p up to 30p EF APS-C lens (Sigma): As above EF-S lens (Canon): 1.8x crop 1080/30p max and 4K/24/25/30p 1.8x crop In no mode can you actually record 1.6x crop video. The 1.6x crop mode is ONLY for 12MP stills. There is also a "Movie cropping mode" in the menus, but that is 1.8x as well.
It is either:
Full frame 1080p 60p / 1.2x crop DIS / 1.4x crop DIS+ 4K 1.8x crop 30p max 1080p 1.8x crop 30p max

Global shutter is the future I want. It's always nice to see progress in that area.

The question has a different meaning depending on what you already own. Personally, I'm completely satisfied with the 24p quality of my current camera. Do I need (insert any feature from @kye's list here)? Not at all! But if the primary features are covered by my current gear, it'll take an improvement in the secondary features for me to consider an upgrade.
So IBIS or AF are not required for the camera that I use in 2018, but they might be a requirement for the camera that I buy as an upgrade in 2018--if I feel the need to upgrade at all!

I agree with most of the above, but the thinking is wrong.
Is super slow-motion required in 2018?  Not if you're shooting a doco, but yes if you're shooting a hair or shampoo commercial.
Is IBIS required in 2018? Not if you have the time, space and permission to take a stabiliser of some kind and set it up, yes if you're shooting in situations where a tripod/monopod/shoulder-rig/gimbal/etc isn't allowed or isn't practical.
Is 4K required in 2018? Not if you're shooting for a client that doesn't mandate it, yes if they do (eg, Netflix).
Is RAW required in 2018?  Not if the requirements of your scene will be sufficiently captured in a more compressed coded, yes if you need the flexibility or resolution in post (eg, green screening)
Is AF required in 2018? Not if you have the ability to manually focus sufficiently on set to track the subject in your images, yes if you don't.
Is extreme high ISO performance required in 2018?  Not if you are shooting a bright enough subject, or have the ability to light them sufficiently, yes if neither of these is true.
Anyone can ask the question of ANY parameter within photography and find examples of both yes and no, depending on the project.
ANY DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS BEGINS WITH THE CONTENT TO BE CREATED.  CAMERAS ARE TOOLS FOR A JOB.  EACH JOB IS DIFFERENT.
Anyone who thinks they can generalise is too stupid to understand that other people shoot different projects, using different techniques, in different circumstances.