Jonathan422

Those Sigma lenses are absolutely lovely and a steal. My only complaint is they're a little big but I'm guessing that's because it just uses a different mount than their other versions and is essentially the same exact lens. Fine by me if it means they keep releasing M43 lenses! 
Most Laowa reviews I've seen have been positive and the images look very nice. I was in kind of the same position, with the Panasonic 7-14 f4. It's a very nice lens, but I hated the inability to put filters on, and just felt uncomfortable with the front of the lens. Those extra stops will be quite welcome, as will the standard lens form factor!

My understanding was that they were pretty good.  I have been looking at the 7.5mm F2 and read a bunch of reviews and they seemed ok.  I guess do some reading..
Oh, I don't know..  think about those times when you've got the 16mm on and you just want to get in a bit tighter..  but can't take half a step forwards.....  and can't crop in post...... and......  yes, makes sense you've got the range pretty well covered.   I was just watching a video this morning from DSLR Video Shooter and was reminded that he loves the Sigma 16/1.4.
I'm looking at the 7.5mm F2 as a replacement for my 8mm F4 SLR Magic drone lens which works fine but the ergonomics are rubbish as it's a drone lens.  The extra couple of stops of exposure wouldn't go astray either for night-time city-scapes.

Ah gotcha.

I'm not really directing this at you but just to anyone in general who isn't aware or wants to learn more, and I'm probably being a 'stickler for accuracy' here but obviously a sensor/camera has no inherent highlight rolloff as the sensor is linear (as close as practically possible with calibration) so highlight rolloff is mostly down to the dynamic range of the sensor, how the image is exposed and how the colourist chooses to roll off the highlights. All typical CMOS sensors will have "hard clipping" though, being linear capture devices.
I only say this because I see a few people mention 'highlight rolloff' as part of a log curve or colour science or something when in that respect it is just a by-product of the log curve optimising the dynamic range of the sensor in the container its being stored in. It's still assumed the user will create their own highlight rolloff in grading (I'm speaking just of RAW and log captures, not "profiles" or looks applied in camera intended for display on Rec.709 devices).

ARRI for example have a lot of stops above where they recommend middle grey be exposed for - due partly to their very large pixels and the large dynamic range they have - and when a log curve is calculated for mapping that dynamic range from middle grey to 940 (video white in 10bit where they map sensor saturation to in their log curves) you get a very flat curve at the top as it maps that range. When you flatten contrast that much it also appears to desaturate. I've seen some mention they believe ARRI purposely desaturate their highlights, but if they did that in processing before creating RAW files or LogC ProRes clips you wouldn't be able to inverse it correctly into linear for ACES workflows etc because processing like that is non-linear. They possibly do something like that for their LogC to Rec709 LUTs etc but people seem to attribute it to their LogC/RAW files too.

For our cameras we map sensor saturation at our "native ISO" to 940 also, but for ISO curve's above we go into "super whites" to make better use of the bit depth available especially since we deal so much with SDI output (10bit) and ProRes 422HQ is common for our customers (10bit also). ARRI says ProRes 444 (12bit) is the minimum for LogC because they don't use the full range available. We may change that in the future but the caveat would also be you would need to use 12bit for best results.
In theory you could expose a 10 stop camera/sensor so that you place middle grey at the second bottom stop, giving you 8 stops to create a very gentle highlight rolloff. You would just have VERY little range for the shadows. ?

So long story short, the question I would suggest people ask is 'what is the dynamic range like compared to other cameras' as that will really tell you what kind of highlight roll off YOU (the user) can create for your preference with how you like to expose given the amount of shadow information you like to retain, tolerance for noise, etc.

and at the end of the day, you can always take these two images:

and with a few quick adjustments in Resolve, adjust the left one to look like this:

not the same, but you could certainly cut them together in the same edit and not shatter the illusion.

I think I'm on a "screw buying new lenses I'm spending money on filters and light modifiers" phase. Layering diffusion, colored lighting and practicals, haze, actually caring about incidental bounce enough to use negative fill...  aaaand FINALLY got a black pro mist! Should get to use it out for a talking head shoot on Friday, but so far I'm really liking even just boring test shots.

hey guys!! what IF magic lantern could HACK it for... oh snap nevermind smh

Yes - For anything they're actually involved in the production (even if it's just money) the camera list is in effect, but they will purchase anything after the fact if they judge it good content that people will watch, regardless of the camera.
It's pretty smart, really - they're pushing forward 4K HDR to future-proof their own content while also being flexible enough to pick up any kind of good content. 

Incorrect.

And we provide our colour science data to 3rd party apps, post houses, and studios like Netflix on request so they have the data to transform to ACES outside of Resolve if needed.

I think it's personal.  You're talking like I haven't tried it, and I have, and you seem to be convinced even though you haven't said that you've tried compensating with sharpening, so all I can say is to actually try it and let us know what you think after that.
I've tested it when shooting my own footage with the GH5 at 4K, watching it on my 32 inch 4K computer display.  I've tried it by downloading 8K RAW footage from a RED, downscaling it to a range of resolutions from 4K to 1.2K and then putting them all on a 4K timeline and playing with them in Resolve.
It's going to depend on how you see, what you pay attention to, what lenses you shoot with (most lenses are worse than people think), what codecs (RAW vs compressed), what post-production software you have, and how good you are at post-processing.
I'm not going to convince you by just talking at you - what I was hoping to do is to convince you to try it yourself by actually taking lower resolution footage and applying sharpening and seeing if you can match it.