TomTheDP

Internal audio is never going to match a mixpre. Practically once you mix it and apply noise reduction it’s all fine. The A73 auto focus is amazing with Sony lenses. One of the best in the market still. I’d also recommend the C200. You get 4K up to 60fps in a good 8 bit codec with wonderful canon color. It also has good AF, native EF mount, internal NDs, XLRs, SDI. You can record BRAW externally or prores RAW as well as Canon RAW lite internally.

Lowlight and dynamic range have been improving though. Sony’s full frame and dual iso sensors are doing well on both fronts. The richness in older Blackmagic cameras might have more to do with CDNG than dual gain output. I personally find the dynamic range on Sony’s current full frame sensors adequate. Something I wouldn’t want to give up is high ISO performance. In fact unless I have to I’d not purchase another camera that doesn’t have dual ISO.

I didn't know the C70 used a lot of noise reduction. The FX6 seems more organic.

I owned the F3 briefly and ultimately sold it as I didn't see a very noticeable dynamic range improvement over the GH5 I had. The ND's were great, if it had internal 10 bit it would be much more compelling. I've never loved having to deal with an external recorder. Combined with Sony's crazy menu's make it a not great one man band option, at least for me. If you are content with the 8 bit recording its definitely more run and gun friendly. Its 6400 iso is pretty usable and the battery life is great. Theres definitely a resolution race however dynamic range and high iso performance are paramount in most people's decisions as well as VFR options. Not many are out there getting the URSA 12k over something like the C300 MK2. The C70 and FX6 have done really well despite only having 4k sensors. Alexas that don't even shoot true 4k still dominate higher end projects although the Alexa LF is becoming more of a standard (is it due to its full frame or 6k??). I have to admit I've found myself doing a lot of cropping in post lately as per client request. 6K sensors certainly have a benefit here although the lens resolutions are often a limiting factor when shooting wide open which I do very often.

Yeah I find their dynamic range readings helpful sometimes. I think where it fails is reading the shadows properly. The readings become inaccurate when noise reduction comes into play and of course how much noise is acceptable is also a subjective thing. This is where it gets really confusing as the URSA shadows really fall apart especially due to the fixed noise pattern and the URSA is also weaker in the highlights. So I have no clue why the reading for the P6K is so low compared to the URSA. The P6K does about 2 stops more in the highlights than the S1H or A7S3. The question is, are the Pocket shadows that much worse than the S1 or A7S3 to warrant such a low rating? I'd say the dynamic range on all three cameras are very similar. IMHO the only camera that really punches above the rest in terms of dynamic range is the C70. The S1, A7s3 and P6K are all great but also all in the same league or at least relatively close with the P6K and S1 in the lead by a little. I think the original FP is a compelling camera. CDNG is probably the best form of video recording(highest quality*) 12 bit CDNG Full frame is pretty compelling. The lack of full HDMI is a bummer though. I'd love to test the camera with an under and over test to see how it actually compares to the S1 or A7S3. I'd imagine it should be similar as they all use Sony sensors. But maybe Sigma did something weird to gimp it.

I think the OG FP is a cool camera if you don't mind huge CDNG files. Not sure how accurate that list is. The P6K has more dynamic range than the URSA 4.6k by a good bit. Also the S1H and S5 dynamic range aren't that far apart, maybe 1 stop at most. Same sensor, same codec, same log.

On the OG FP its full frame 4k, binned.

The A7S3 unfortunately has internal NR and Sharpening that can't be dialed down. Its a completely different comparison but comparing my S1's 10 bit codec to REDRAW, in good conditions I don't see much difference. But with harsher conditions the RAW just looks better, everything just rolls off nicer both color and contrast. I assume its the similar with BM CDNG and the A7S3 codec.

Yes, I said 12 bit codec as BRAW isn't actually RAW which is why it doesn't conflict with RED's patent. I am perfectly fine with any type of 12 bit codec even if it doesn't have white balance control. The extra color information is what I am after. As long as the bitrate is high enough to support it.

A 12 bit codec like Blackmagic has would be just as good as RAW for me.

Yeah I am pretty sure they both do MP4 as well. If you want to utilize your EF lenses the Canon C70 seems to be the best option or the C100 MK2. The adapters for Sony seem dicey.

Yeah you'll have to transcode the HEVC to Prores. It a breeze on the new MacBook M1's but on older Macs or PC's its a nightmare. H264 4K 10bit is often pretty tough on editing systems too though much better than HEVC.

Few things I forgot to throw in. The Sony's IBIS is definitely a plus though its not as stable as Panasonics. Better than none at all which is what you have with the C70. The C70 also has of course the 10 stop internal ND's which are a treat. I'd probably go with the C70 as I like the more natural non processed image(I am really picky about that kinda thing most won't even notice). If the FX3 had the option to dial off NR and sharpening completely I'd probably go for it. I prefer Sony's AF and full frame. However the 10 stop ND's on the Canon are really tempting and you could get the full frame look with a speed booster, though its another $500. If you don't need auto focus the Panasonic S1/S5 is a great option. Great low light dual ISO, 4k 10 bit, XLR module, amazing IBIS, amazing dynamic range. No ND's or good AF though but you'd save quite a bit of $$$$

I'd definitely consider used. You can get the MK2 for $2000 depending on where you live. I don't think you'll miss 4k much, but higher bitrate 10 bit codecs are definitely an advantage over the 50mbps codec on the C100 mk2. In terms of C70 vs A7s3/FX3 The A7s3 is going to do much better at high ISO's. You are talking usable 16,000 iso where as the C70 is going to start to show noise at 3200 iso with a max of 6400 iso for a normal amount of noise.. The Sony auto focus is more responsive than the C70's. You can do RAW with an external recorder on the Sony. Its Full frame if you like that look. Its a smaller package overall if you are a fan of the DSLR form factor. The Canon image is better, you can completely dial off noise reduction and sharpening giving you a very organic image. The dynamic range is better though the Sony isn't bad at all. If you shoot stills the A7S3/fX3 is obviously a better choice. I wouldn't say either is necessarily better in general though. Different cameras. An FX3(comes with top handle and XLR module) is $3900, variable ND $100, EF adapter $100 $4100 C70 new is $5500 plus the EF adapter $100 $5600

Everyone is spoiled these days. Magic lantern did do compressed RAW which was a little easier on the hard drives tho.

The C70 is above your price range but its definitely a great option. Depends what you want to spend. I don't love Panasonic color but after using Emotive colors luts its a game changer for me. If you really love Canon though it makes sense to go with Canon.

Was considering getting an EVA1 to compliment my S1 but I am kinda waiting on Panasonic to make its next move before I do.

The variable ND E to EF adapter does not support continuous auto focus in video. There is no camera that has built in ND's and IBIS. The A7S3 comes closest to checking all your boxes. The only thing it lacks is ND's. with an MC-11 adapter you can use your EF lenses with good AF performance though not as good as if you were to use Sony lenses. I am not big on Sony color but slap on Emotive color's Alexa conversions and you'll be good. The Pocket 6k pro is a good option if you can go without AF. OIS is a good replacement for IBIS honestly.

Yeah close but no cigar

C100 mk2 is a great camera. Really good high ISO performance, nice downsampled HD, and very nice Canon color. Plus you get internal ND's and XLR inputs which are quite amazing to have. Also it has great battery life. It makes sense as you won't be able to utilize Sony's amazing auto focus as well using EF lenses. Honestly for me the two most important features on a camera are lowlight performance and color science and XLR inputs. I think you'll be making a great choice.

I am convinced only Canon and Sony are able to have good auto focus systems lol. Could be an interesting camera though.

Yeah and 6k 24p H265 is probably a different beast than 4k 60p

From reviews I've seen the Viltrox lenses actually focus better than Fuji's native ones, though if you are doing a dramatic focus change they are jumpy. I got the Fuji F2 primes for AF but found they just didn't work that well. They'd completely lose focus for no reason. The 18-55 is amazing though great lens. Almost didn't miss IBIS when I had it.

Thats pretty much your option in that price range with the features you want. The image is a far cry from the BMPCC but IBIS, auto focus, better battery life and a smaller crop factor are all nice for practical shooting. The GH5 or G9 will be a closer match IQ wise but you won't get Olympus AF A more off the wall option would be a Canon camera with Magic lantern. You'd get 12 or 14 bit RAW and possibly auto focus and better battery life depending on the model you get.